Office of Family Assistance

 


Improper Payments Information Survey
For The TANF Program

Executive Summary

 

Background

In response to concerns about the level of improper payments in federally funded programs, Congress enacted the Improper Payment Information Act of 2002. This law directed the Federal agencies to initiate actions to identify and reduce the level of improper payments. While there is no specific requirement in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program for States to identify and reduce improper payments and to report these efforts, efficient and effective management of the program would include State oversight in this area. Many States have developed payment accuracy systems and other States have expressed interest in developing these systems. In order to facilitate exchange of information between States, the Office of Family Assistance developed an Improper Payment Survey document to gather information on the design, scope, and operation of State improper payment activities/systems.

Design of the Web Site

The Survey solicited detailed information on State improper payment programs including: State definition of improper payment, methods for detection of improper payments, source and factors contributing to improper payments, methods for prevention, and improper payment recovery efforts. States were also requested to provide copies of pertinent manual sections and State issued guidance and specifications. This web site contains the following information: a brief summary of the responding States’ improper payment program, summary tables on three key questions (factors contributing to improper payments, and methods for detection/prevention of improper payments), a copy of the completed survey for each responding State (includes contact information) and links to State procedures, policy, and guidelines on improper payments to the extent they were provided.

Summary of Results

Twenty-four States responded to this voluntary improper payment survey. Seventeen of these States directly administered the TANF program and in the other seven States the TANF program was locally administered with State oversight. Eight States reported that they calculated improper payment rates. We asked that States provide us information on contributing factors to improper payments in their States and to rank their impact. Fourteen States considered non-reporting/underreporting of income as the most significant contributing factor. The second ranking factor was incorrect reporting of household size. (See question 10 summary table below.) States were asked to provide information on what actions/methods they used to verify eligibility information and to rank their effectiveness. The following three activities were most often used and considered the most effective: documentation required to be supplied by recipients at application and redetermination, online access to data bases, and automated computer file matches. (See question 12 summary table below.) In the survey we identified twenty-six potential data sources with information that could impact the eligibility and payment status of TANF recipients. We requested that the States identify which ones they use and of the ones they use which are the most effective. With few exceptions, at least one third of the responding States reported they used all of these data sources. States indicated that the most effective data sources included IEVS, State Employment Security, and State/ National Directory New Hires. (See question 13 summary table below.)

 

Question 10: Summary Table (in PDF) format, a recommended format for printing)

 
 
Related to clients
Related to providers
State a. Nonreporting/ underreporting of income b. Client receiving payment in more than one jurisdiction c. Incorrect reporting of household size d. Incorrect citizenship or immigration status e. Incorrect information on client’s compliance with program requirements, such as participating in required activity f. Other (Please specify): g. Overstating performance h. Claiming for services not rendered i. Other (Please specify):
Alaska 3 4 3 4 3   4 4 4
California 1 3 3 0 0   0 0 0
Colorado 2 4 3 3 3   0 0  
Georgia 1 3 3 3 2   3 3  
Illinois 1 3 3 3 3        
Kansas 1 4 2 4 3   3 3  
Kentucky 1 3 1 3 4   3 4  
Maryland 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 3  
Michigan 2 4 4 4 1   3 3  
Minnesota 1 3 1 3 3   * * *
Mississippi 1 3 2 4 2   3 4  
Missouri 1 4 1   3        
Montana 1 3 2 4 3 1 4 4  
Nebraska 2 3 3 3 3   3 3  
New Jersey 2 4 3 3 3        
Ohio 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 3  
Pennsylvania 2 3 3 4 2 3      
Rhode Island 2 3 2 3 2   3 3  
Utah 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
West Virginia 1 3 2 3 3   3 3  

1 = Great Extent, 2 = Moderate Extent, 3 = Little Extent, 4 = No Extent, 0 = Don't Know/not available
* Information not available


Note: The above summary table 10 do not reflect all the information reported in response to the questions when the data source are process and utilized

 

Question 12: Summary Table (in PDF) format, a recommended format for printing)

State a.  Require Documentation From Client b.  Fingerprint Clients c.  Access Online Databases  d.  Match Automated Computer Files e.  Conduct Telephone, Fax, or Email Contacts f.  Conduct Home Visits g.  Initiate a Fraud Investigation If Warranted h.  Conduct Program Integrity/ Quality Control Review f.  Other 
Alaska Yes ** No Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes  
Arizona Yes ** Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes **
California Yes ** Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Colorado Yes ** No Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes **  
Delaware Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes No No
Georgia Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Illinois Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes No No
Iowa Yes ** No Yes ** Yes Yes No Yes   Yes **
Kentucky Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes No No
Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Michigan Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes No  
Minnesota Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Mississippi Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** No No Yes Yes  
Missouri Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Montana Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Nebraska Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes No Yes Yes  
New Jersey Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Ohio Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Oklahoma Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Pennsylvania Yes No Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes **
Rhode Island Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes Yes  
Utah Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes **  
West Virginia Yes No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes **  

1 = Great Extent, 2 = Moderate Extent, 3 = Little Extent, 4 = No Extent, 0 = Don't Know/not available

* * Considered by the State to be one of the most effective actions

Note: The above summary table 10 do not reflect all the information reported in response to the questions when the data source are process and utilized

 

Question 13: Summary Table (in PDF) format, a recommended format for printing)

State a. Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) b. Other human services programs in your agency/ State c. State department of labor or employment security d. State directory of new hires e. State department of motor vehicles f. Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) g. State data (from other States) on length of TANF receipt  h. State data (from other States) on potential concurrent TANF receipt  i.  State data (from other States) on client or provider debarment from benefits, for fraud or other infraction j. Lottery agencies k. Prisons and criminal justice agencies at State level l. National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) m. Local jails n. Credit bureaus o. Financial institutions p. State tax intercepts q. Immigration authorities r. K-12 school systems s. Community colleges t. Other providers of services, education, training  u. Child support v. Social Security Administration (SSA) form W-2 (wage statements) w. SSA Social Security number verification x. SSA Supplemental Security Income (SSI) data y. SSI death information z. Other (Please specify :)
Alaska Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
California Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes ** No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Delaware Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Georgia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Illinois Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes ** No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Iowa Yes   ** No Yes No                             **     **    
Kansas Yes No Yes ** No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes ** No Yes ** Yes Yes No
Kentucky Yes ** yes Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Maryland No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes   Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes  
Michigan Yes Yes Yes ** Yes ** Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes  
Minnesota Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No  
Mississippi Yes ** No Yes ** Yes ** No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes  
Missouri No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Montana Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes ** No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes  
Nebraska Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
New Jersey Yes ** Yes No Yes ** Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Ohio Yes ** Yes No Yes ** Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes ** Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  
Oklahoma Yes Yes ** Yes ** Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ** No Yes Yes No  
Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No yes No Yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes ** Yes ** yes Yes Yes Yes
Rhode Island Yes ** Yes Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes ** No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes   Yes No Yes   Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Utah Yes Yes Yes ** Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
West Virginia Yes Yes Yes ** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes ** Yes ** Yes Yes Yes  

1 = Great Extent, 2 = Moderate Extent, 3 = Little Extent, 4 = No Extent, 0 = Don't Know/not available

* * Considered by the State to be one of the most effective actions

Note: The above summary table 10 do not reflect all the information reported in response to the questions when the data source are process and utilized

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary in (Word), (PDF) file format, a recommended format for printing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download FREE Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site.

This document was last modified on Sep-26-2006 .