Skip to main content

Analysis of Four States' Administration of the AFDC Program: Management Improving but More Needs To Be Done

HRD-82-20 Published: Feb 22, 1982. Publicly Released: Feb 22, 1982.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

GAO was asked to evaluate the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program management in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York in terms of differences in management practices, agency organization, and employee accountability as they related to administrative costs and the level of erroneous payments.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Health and Human Services The Secretary, HHS, should work in the interim, within his current capacity, with Massachusetts to: (1) expand the prescreener concept to all district offices; (2) improve the accuracy and quality of reports generated from the redetermination control system; (3) hold workers accountable for following the priorities established by the system; (4) justify the cost effectiveness of doing home visits in the income maintenance process; (5) continue its efforts to place greater emphasis on the quality of the work produced by its income maintenance staff; and (6) implement a planned system by which it can hold its workers accountable for quality.
Closed – Implemented
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of Health and Human Services The Secretary, HHS, should work in the interim, within his current capacity, with Illinois to: (1) have sufficient staff to cover its entire caseload; and (2) properly implement the controls in its centralized filing system to determine whether the system can be effective as designed. If the centralized system is found to be ineffective, HHS should work with Illinois to pilot test a decentralized filing system to determine a better way of controlling client documentation. HHS should work with Illinois and New York to improve their personnel systems to more fully develop a cadre of qualified personnel.
Closed – Implemented
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Department of Health and Human Services The Secretary, HHS, should require that all State plans contain statewide income maintenance worker goals of administrative efficiency. These goals should be based on appropriate work measurement and operational analysis of specific work processes. HHS should begin working with the States to develop these performance goals and administrative budgets based on them to assist AFDC managers to increase worker productivity and improve cost control.
Closed – Not Implemented
HHS is providing technical assistance to the States to improve administrative efficiency, but does not intend to require State plans to contain income maintenance worker efficiency goals or to require administrative budgets based on such goals. It believes that these activities are State reponsibilities. Because no action will be taken, this recommendation should be dropped.
Department of Health and Human Services The Secretary, HHS, should issue regulations which would require all States participating in the AFDC program to have in their respective plans systems to enable: (1) accurate and timely verification of a client's eligibility; (2) tracking of client status on a continuing basis; (3) proper control of client documentation; (4) workers to be held accountable for the quality of their work; and (5) placement of qualified people in income maintenance positions.
Closed – Not Implemented
HHS does not intend to issue such regulations because it believes that the States themselves are in a better position than SSA to decide what information they need to best manage their own resources. Because no action will be taken, this recommendation should be dropped.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Administrative costsCost controlErroneous paymentsstate relationsPersonnel managementProgram evaluationProgram managementState-administered programsWork measurementData errors