Phase II Findings: Error Rate Methodology Pilot
Executive Summary, I. Introduction, II. Methodology, III. Measuring Improper Payments in Nine States, IV. Findings and Next Steps, V. Recommendations, Appendices: Appendix A: Arkansas, Appendix B: Colorado, Appendix C: Illinois, Appendix D: Ohio, Appendix E: Record Review Worksheet, Appendix F: Data Entry Form, Appendix G: Telephone Discussion Guide, Appendix H: Arizona, Appendix I: California, Appendix J: Kansas, Appendix K: Nebraska, Appendix L: New Hampshire
Section I: Introduction
During Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, the Child Care Bureau (CCB) developed an Erroneous Payment Assessment plan. The purpose of the plan was to test the feasibility of an approach to preventing, identifying, reporting, reducing, and recovering improper payments in subsidized child care. The CCB also planned to conduct a pilot project to determine the feasibility of whether there is a cost-effective approach or methodology for estimating improper payment amounts or rates in the Child Care Program.
The CCB initiated a pilot project with 11 partner States to determine the feasibility of computing a child care improper payment error rate, recommend methods to identify improper payments, define child care payment error and fraud, and gather best practices information for measuring and managing improper child care payments. These objectives are particularly challenging due to widespread policy, programmatic, and quality assurance variation among each of the States.
The CCB contracted with Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. (WRMA) to measure a child care error rate in four States and conduct telephone discussions with five additional States to gather information on the tools and strategies in place to manage improper payments.
Following a brief overview of the Child Care Program and background on the Improper Payment Information Act, this chapter discusses the objectives of the study and the conceptual framework for conducting the error rate analysis. Succeeding chapters describe the methodology used; provide basic information on nine States, establishing the background for what a national approach might entail; present the error rate findings of the four States that participated in the piloting of the common methodology; and discuss potential next steps for implementing a comprehensive approach to error measurement.
<< Executive Summary | Table of Contents | Background >>