State Survey Analysis Report
Download this document in Word (1,076 KB) or PDF (1.28 MB)
APPENDIX 6. 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?
17 States specified their response for Question 6 (Appendix 6: pp. 65–66) |
|||
| State | Findings from other State or local auditors | Findings from State or local fraud units | Other Methods |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Department of Economic Security Office of Special Investigations |
Information discovered in the regular course of processing a case and quarterly interfaces with the Unemployment Insurance Administration |
|
| Connecticut | DSS uses audits to identify error rates but has never determined the total amount of error for the program. |
||
| District of Columbia | Attendance/Termination Report |
||
| Georgia | Office of Investigative Services |
||
| Kansas | Pulled overpayment data which had been entered on to the State’s eligibility computer system. We did not pull underpayment data from the computer system as most often these are not considered improper payments, simply proper payments for services that were not initially anticipated by the agency (i.e.- the customer worked extra hours in a month). |
||
| Kentucky | Analysis of actual collections of fraud repayments & actual payment adjustments made to Providers for State Fiscal Years 2004 & 2005. |
||
| Maryland | Office of the Inspector General investigators and Local Department staff |
||
| Minnesota | Minnesota is State supervised and county administered. Child care workers identify the improper payment and the county agencies report the results of their non fraud overpayment and underpayments through their quarterly reports to the State. |
||
| Montana | IPV tracking form |
||
| Nebraska | Our agency investigative unit, called Issuance and Collection Center, does a thorough audit of cases that are referred to them. |
||
| New Hampshire | The Department relies on its Office of Special Investigations |
||
| North Carolina | A local audit is required annually for the LPA |
Improper payments identified through the monitoring conducted by the Program Compliance Unit of the Division are tracked and a total amount is calculated. The amount of an improper payment caused by parent or provider fraud is calculated by the staff in the LPA. |
|
| Ohio | Surveys of the CDJFS |
||
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General |
reports of child care overpayments in the OKDHS overpayment system |
|
| Utah | Case workers review past child care issued to ensure that child care was issued correctly. |
||
| Washington | State auditors, Operations Review and Consultation, and Payment Review Program |
||
| Wisconsin | Local fraud units |
||
Appendix 7 >>

