State Survey Analysis Report
Download this document in Word (1,076 KB) or PDF (1.28 MB)
APPENDIX 4. ASSESSMENT OR ANALYSIS OF USES OF PROGRAM FUNDS
4. For which of the following uses of program funds has your State performed an assessment or analysis to determine whether the program is at risk of improper payments?
6 States specified their response for Question 4 (Appendix 4: pp. 48–49) |
|
| State | Other Identification and Assessment |
|---|---|
| Connecticut | Employee Fraud |
| Maryland | This is done on an ongoing basis through case reviews, supervisory reviews and investigations. |
| Minnesota | In 1999, the Minnesota State Legislature appropriated $175,000 per year for the Fraud Prevention Investigation Program (FPI) to conduct investigation on CCAP cases. The Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning (where CCAP was housed from 1997 to 2003) contracted with the Department of Human Services Program Integrity Division to expand FPI to include child care assistance programs and oversee this function in the counties. Legislation also mandated the commissioner of Children, Families & Learning to enforce the requirements for program integrity and fraud prevention investigations under sections 256.046, 256.98, and 256.983. In 2000, the Department of Human Services and Children, Families & Learning issued a joint Instructional Bulletin to county agencies with information and instructions on expanding the fraud prevention program for child care workers. In 2002, the Program Integrity/Fraud Prevention Workgroup was convened to analyze administrative procedures and program policies that would strengthen program integrity/fraud prevention in the Child Care Assistance Program. The workgroup made the following recommendation and legislation was passed to support program integrity and prevention in the Child Care Assistance Program. § Providers – Overpayment and fraud prevention - All providers 1. Statewide provider policies and record keeping requirements, including daily log-in attendance sheets and make them available immediately to the county upon request. 2. Uniform record retention schedule for all providers. 3. Statewide time limit for voucher submission, exceptions for good cause as to why a bill will be submitted later due to a delay in getting a parent signature or a lost bill are avoided. § All providers consequences for overpayment/fraud 1. Require providers to repay amounts overpaid due to provider or county billing errors or provider fraud. 2. Require recovery of overpayments from providers, and establish penalties to provider who are convicted of fraudulent activities. 3. Include providers in the administrative disqualification hearing (ADH) process. 4. Require background checks of legal nonlicensed child care providers and establish policies/criteria as to who cannot be authorized to be a provider and receive child care assistance payments. 5. Develop a Statewide Minnesota Eligibility Child Care system, MEC2 Since 2003, when Child Care Assistance Program was relocated back to DHS, staff have been meeting to align the child care assistance program as much as possible with the MFIP program data collection and sharing to simplify and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the Program integrity division that oversees the Minnesota Family Investment Program, and Child Care Assistance Programs. |
| Mississippi | An official risk analysis has not been performed for the CCDF program. Reviews and/or assessments occur on a case-by-case basis monthly by OCY staff. |
| North Carolina | Funding Level |
| Wisconsin | More than 2 weeks of payment when the child has not attended, subsidy paid for provider’s children to be in day care, subsidy payments made to providers who live in that same home as the child. |
Appendix 5 >>