1 / 22

Pennsylvania Overview

THEN and NOW Lessons Learned with Process Change and Management Evaluation in the State of Pennsylvania August 2014. Pennsylvania Overview. Changes in Pennsylvania: Increasing cross-county work Increasing workload Statewide system access How to monitor and report? Sampling and reporting

renata
Download Presentation

Pennsylvania Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THEN and NOWLessons Learned with Process Change and Management Evaluation in theState of PennsylvaniaAugust 2014

  2. Pennsylvania Overview Changes in Pennsylvania: • Increasing cross-county work • Increasing workload • Statewide system access • How to monitor and report? • Sampling and reporting • Corrective Action Planning

  3. Pennsylvania Overview • 6 Regional Areas • 88 county assistance offices (CAOs) • Total # of SNAP households: 894,383

  4. DeputySecretary For OIM Bureau of Operations Bureau of Program Evaluation Area Managers Division of Corrective Action County Assistance Offices Division of Quality Control DPW Overview Division of Program Implementation

  5. Background 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

  6. HQ Process

  7. Examiner Process 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

  8. ME Review – THEN 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

  9. 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

  10. Challenges

  11. Challenges

  12. ME Review – NOW 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

  13. ME Review – NOW

  14. 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: Division of Statistical Analysis provides the number of active households

  15. ME Re-Review – NOW 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

  16. ME Re-Reviews Re-Review Reports: Reports include: Comparison chart Recommendations

  17. Automation- NOW 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

  18. Automation - NOW In 2009, an Access database was created to extract sample cases. Data display follows target letter mandates.

  19. Automation - NOW Questionnaires Exported to an Interview Database.

  20. 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

  21. FUTURE 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

  22. CONTACT INFORMATION • Amira Milikin • ME Coordinator • amilikin@pa.gov • Allison Miles • Director of Corrective Action • amiles@pa.gov

More Related