THEN and NOW

Lessons Learned with Process Change and Management Evaluation in the

State of Pennsylvania

August 2014

Changes in Pennsylvania:

• Increasing cross-county work– Increasing workload– Statewide system access

• How to monitor and report?– Sampling and reporting– Corrective Action Planning

Pennsylvania Overview

6 Regional Areas 88 county assistance offices (CAOs) Total # of SNAP households: 894,383

Pennsylvania Overview

Deputy SecretaryFor OIM

Bureau of Operations Bureau of Program Evaluation

Division of Corrective Action

Division ofQuality Control

AreaManagers

County Assistance Offices

Division ofProgram

Implementation

DPW Overview

Division of Corrective Action (DCA) has 3 office locations: Harrisburg- Headquarters (HQ) Pittsburgh- field office Philadelphia- field office

ME team meets monthly: Discuss review suggestions Review changes Answer questions

Background

HQ Process

1 • Target letter received

2 • Meeting scheduled with all ME staff

3• Prior to meeting, HQ staff:

• Edit worksheets• Edit process and procedures

documents

4• After meeting, HQ staff:

• Adjust documents • Assemble ME packet for internal

approval• Forward ME packet to FNS

Examiner review duties:– Generate entry letter – Conduct entrance conference– Complete case review assessment (including worksheets)– Complete interviews (local staff, Community Advocates, Blind Calls)– Data enter cases into Rushmore Case Review System– Generate report

Examiner Process

Prior to 2011:

– Conducted by 5 examiners– 48 county assistance offices (CAO) – Manually compiled sample list– Traveled monthly to conduct on-site visits over 5 days– Examiner returned to office to reconcile errors, complete worksheets

and logs and generate report– Report contained sentence format explanations of each error cited

ME Review – THEN

ME Review – THEN

FNS mandated targets comprised of:

– Customer Service/Program Access– EBT– Recipient Claims– Intentional Program Violation– LEP– Nutrition Education– Employment and Training– Recipient Integrity– Corrective Action Assessment

Challenges

Staffing Budget

Timing Communication

Challenges

• Statewide case processing • Statewide Customer Service Centers• Work with other divisions Staffing• Adjustment to desk review- training on electronic

case review access• Mandate to electronically image all case record

information. Budget

• Provide a report to county office in less than 60 days. • Implement corrective action• Design new tools and processesTiming

• Information Memo • Presentations• Follow-up

Communication

Since 2011:– Conducted by 2 examiners – 24 county assistance offices (CAO) and districts annually– Sample list extracted from Access database– Desk review since 2010 (review electronic case record)– Telephone entrance and exit conference– Telephone interviews– Examiner completes review in DCA field offices, complete worksheets,

reconcile errors by data entry into Rushmore database and generates report

– Report is Word document format and includes charts outlining errors

ME Review – NOW

ME Review – NOW

E&T

EBT Security

Nutrition Education

Recipient Integrity

Team

ME Review – NOW

In October 1, 2012 PA changed the county assistance office selection process and review 4 offices from each Area per FFY.

Review criteria include:

Review number of SNAP househol

ds

Rank offices

Drop offices

Select offices

Division of Statistical Analysis provides the number of active households

October 1, 2012 – ME re-reviews were established. The re-review still involves the same basic review process steps as an ME review.

Re-Review process: One examiner completes re-reviews Top 4 error elements from previous FFY ME review Sample size is 35% of original sample Re-review will determine effectiveness of corrective action activities Entry/sample letter Comparison report Rebuttal No CAP required if accuracy improved Final report issued, if rebuttal submitted

ME Re-Review – NOW

Reports include:

Comparison chart

Recommendations

ME Re-Reviews

Re-Review Reports:

The ME process started to incorporate more automation:

In 2005, the Rushmore Case Review System was designed to: • Capture all ME case review results• Uniformity of review• Statistical information

Automation- NOW

In 2009, an Access database was created to extract sample cases.

Data display follows target letter mandates.

Automation - NOW

Questionnaires

Exported to an Interview Database.

Automation - NOW

Corrective Action Plan Database:• Access database created 2 years ago • Includes all benefit programs corrective action activities by county

office• Database provides one central location to explain internal changes

implemented as a result of the ME review

Automation - NOW

Goals of future ME reviews include:• Re-evaluate CAP submission request • Incorporate travel to county offices to view signage and client

waiting areas• Develop macros-based reports to further reduce manual processes• Enhance recommendations due to office observations of internal

process/procedures• Incorporate previous Corrective Assessment Action review criteria• Reinstate ME review procedures and areas of concerns in Area

Management meetings• Resume EBT Security and E&T reviews

FUTURE

• Allison Miles– Director of Corrective Action– amiles@pa.gov

• Amira Milikin– ME Coordinator– amilikin@pa.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION