REDUCING ERRORS AND IMPROPER PAYMENT IN THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT ( ccdf ) PROGRAM

1. REDUCING ERRORS AND IMPROPER PAYMENT IN THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT (ccdf) PROGRAM KATIE WATTS – WRMA, INC. NAPIPM – August 2017

2. Today’s agenda • Background and methodology • 2016 report findings • State successes • Training and technical assistance • Joint case review pilot

3. Background and methodology

4. Background and context • 2002 Improper Payments Information Act and 2010 Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act • CCDF Regulations: 45 CFR 98 Subpart K (Revised in 2007; New Rule 2016) • CCDF Lead Agencies from 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (“States”) must: • Measure, calculate, and report improper payments • Identify strategies for reducing future improper payments

5. methodology • Error Rate • 1) Percentage of CCDF payments that were improper payments • 2) Term for describing the review process, in general (e.g., “error rate methodology”) • One-third of States report each year • Data Collection Instructions – Guide States use for implementing methodology and processes • 2010 Renewal, 2012 Revision, 2015 Renewal • 2018 Renewal

6. METHODOLOGY • Three required submissions: • Sampling Decisions, Assurances, and Fieldwork Preparation Plan • Record Review Worksheet • State Improper Payments Report • One submission required only of States with an error rate above ten percent: • Corrective Action Plan

7. methodology • 2016 Reporting Year: • Year Three States submitted State Improper Payments Report by June 30, 2016 • Reported on cases from FY 2015 (October 1, 2014-September 30, 2015) • 2016 National Error Measures • Combined data from all three cohorts in the third reporting cycle

8. State successes

9. 2016 Report findings

10. 2016 agency financial report (Afr) • National Error Rate (percent of payments that are improper payments): 4.34% (5.74% in 2015) • Percent of payments that are overpayments: 4.06% • Percent of payments that are underpayments: 0.28%

11. National error rates, 2008-2016 Third cycle First cycle Second cycle

12. Year three states results

13. Most common mid error causes

14. Most common non-mid error causes

15. State successes

16. Lowering error rates • Twelve of 17 Year Three States decreased their error rate from second to third cycle • Thirty-nine of 52 States overall decreased their error rate from second to third cycle

17. Actions to correct error causes Year Three States took the following actions to correct error causes identified in the second cycle of reviews: • Increasing training and technical assistance available to eligibility agencies • Reviewing and clarifying or revising eligibility policies • Conducting case reviews between cycles • Hiring additional staff to provide increased oversight • Changing or creating new eligibility forms or documentation • Enhancing or upgrading IT systems

18. Lessons learned and improvements made Some practices cited by Year Three States in implementing the error rate methodology include: • Conducting real time reviews or starting reviews early • Changing or updating review materials • Fostering continuous communication between staff • Updating error definitions • Conducting second level reviews • Training and technical assistance

19. Training and technical assistance

20. Ncsia t/ta to support error rate reviews • FY 2016 training webinars: • Two held for Year 1 States • Three held for Year 3 States • Reviews of required submissions (SDAP, RRW, State Improper Payments Report) • Assistance with IP Report data entry in On-Line Data Collection system • Targeted Program Integrity and Subsidy TA

21. Joint case reviews • Part of OCC oversight of error rate review process • Allow for OCC to observe implementation of RRW and application of error definitions • Using GoToMeeting, State staff walk attendees through a number of cases that have already been reviewed • Piloted with nine Year Three States

22. Joint case review protocol • OCC Central and Regional Offices, together with NCSIA TA staff, hold planning call with State staff and schedule joint case review time (3 hour block needed) • State provides OCC/TA team with completed Record Review Worksheets: • 10 with an improper payment error • 5 with a nonpayment error • 3 with no error • Joint case review is held via GoToMeeting • Next steps determined – State usually makes edits to worksheets depending on issues identified in call; a follow-up review may be held

23. 2018 data collection instructions revision • The error rate Data Collection Instructions are currently being revised for renewal in 2018 • New requirements in SDAP • Include planned date for starting reviews • Include plan for gathering the total amount of CCDF payments over the review period • Changes to the Record Review Worksheet • Separate element for case summary • Changes to the State Improper Payments Report • Table to tally causes of ALL errors • More examples throughout

24. Questions?

25. Katie Watts, Program Integrity TA Specialist National Center on Subsidy Innovation and Accountability kwatts@wrma.com ncsia@ecetta.info Thank you!