State Survey Analysis Report
Download this document in Word (1,076 KB) or PDF (1.28 MB)
Methods Used to Identify a Total Amount of Improper Payments
6. Which methods, if any, did your State use to identify a total amount of improper payments for the program?
As shown in Exhibit 6, over half of the State agencies report using case record reviews to identify the total amount of improper payments.
Exhibit 6. Methods Used to Identify a Total Amount of Improper Payments |
||||||||
| State | Findings from | Reviews of | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State's Single Audit | Other audits | State or local auditors | State or local fraud units | Service providers and/or contractors |
Sampled cases | Statistically representative sample of payments |
Other | |
| Arizona | X | X | X | X | ||||
| California (DE) | X | X | ||||||
| California (DSS) | X | |||||||
| Connecticut | X | |||||||
| District of Columbia | X | X | ||||||
| Georgia | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Kansas | X | |||||||
| Kentucky | X | |||||||
| Maryland | X | |||||||
| Massachusetts | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Minnesota | X | |||||||
| Mississippi* | ||||||||
| Montana | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Nebraska | X | X | X | |||||
| New Hampshire | X | X | X | |||||
| North Carolina | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Ohio | X | |||||||
| Oklahoma | X | X | X | |||||
| Puerto Rico | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Utah | X | X | ||||||
| Washington | X | X | X | X | ||||
| West Virginia* | ||||||||
| Wisconsin | X | X | X | |||||
| Total: | 5 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 3 | 9 |
| Those that did not provide an answer: | ||||||||
| Alabama | ||||||||
| Missouri | ||||||||
*State did not collect data
In order of frequency, State agencies report using the following methods:
- Twelve State agencies use reviews of sampled cases (AZ, CA(DE), CA(DSS), GA, MA, MT, NH, NC, PR, UT, WA,WI).
- Nine State agencies use reviews of service providers and/or contractors (AZ, DC, MA, MT, NE, NH, NC, PR, WA).
- Nine State agencies describe other methods (AZ, CT, DC, KS, KY, MT, OH, OK, UT). (See Appendix 6 for narrative descriptions.)
- Eight State agencies use findings from State or local fraud units (AZ, GA, MN, NE, NH, NC, OK, WI). (See Appendix 6 for narrative descriptions.)
- Five State agencies use findings from the State’s single audit (GA, MA, NE, PR, WA).
- Four State agencies use findings from other audits (CA(DE), GA, MA, OK).
- Three State agencies use findings from State or local auditors (MD, NC, WA). (See Appendix 6 for narrative descriptions.)
- Three State agencies use a statistically representative sample of payments (MT, PR, WI ).
Elements Maintained by State Agencies to Describe Improper Payments >>