Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42406971›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Payment integrity in government programs: Takeaways from incorporating the behavioral sciences in US federal evaluations.

Maya Duru, Hanna Hoover, Heather Barry Kappes, David Schwegman, Brigitte Seim, Mattie Toma, Mary Clair Turner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Turning policy implications into policy impact: Lessons from behavioral science in financial markets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Science in service: Behavioral research applications across federal agencies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maya DuruSchool of Information, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
Hanna HooverSchool of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.ORCID 0000-0002-7919-7867
Heather Barry KappesDepartment of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6335-3888
David SchwegmanDepartment of Public Administration and Policy, American University, Washington, DC 20016.ORCID 0000-0001-8254-7111
Brigitte SeimHumphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Mattie TomaWarwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0408-4040
Mary Clair TurnerBetter Government Lab, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A primary way the US federal government delivers public goods and services is via monetary payments. Ensuring that these payments are calculated accurately, delivered on time, and made to the correct recipients is important for government fiscal health. Inaccurate or delayed payments can weaken public trust in the government and undermine government accountability. In this article, we examine findings from a set of impact evaluations assessing interventions designed to improve payment integrity in US federal programs. The low-cost, evidence-based interventions draw on insights from the social and behavioral sciences and include modification of forms, changes to how and when agencies request information, and altering existing communications. The evaluations were conducted by the US General Services Administration's Office of Evaluation Sciences in collaboration with agency partners. We extract three takeaways across four representative evaluations. First, the real-world evaluations validate a key implication of the behavioral science literature: interventions that reduce burdens for individuals have small effects that meaningfully improve payment integrity at scale. Second, effects attenuate across interventions and over time, suggesting a need for iterative evaluation. Finally, bureaucratic hurdles and administrative complexity are the main barriers to translating academic insights into real-world government programs. Addressing these challenges will require close collaboration between behavioral scientists and practitioners throughout the intervention design and evaluation process.

Indexed as

Behavioral SciencesFederal GovernmentGovernment ProgramsHumansUnited Statesbehavioral sciencepayment integritypublic policyrandomized evaluations

Identifiers

PMID42406971
PMCPMC13367774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.