- "
0' '

FilE 
COpy

STANARIZE 
FORHl\TS

P I LOT lEST

RERT

silvrCI.r 
"Ja 
OFFICE OF INSPICTOR a.N8RAL 
ANAL YSIS AND INSPECT/.ONS 
OFFICE  OF 
1987 
APR I L  " , 

Office of Inspector General

The mission of the Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) is to

promote the efficiency, effectiveness and integrity of

programs in the United Stat 
s Department of Health and Human

Services 
(HHS). It does this by developing methods to detect
abuse. 
and prevent fraud, waste and 
Created by statute in
1976, the Ihspector General keeps both the Secretary and the

Congress fully and currently informed about programs or

management problems and recommends corrective action. 

The
OIG performs its mission by conducting 
audits, investigations

alnod icnsapectteionds  around thwi et cho aupnptrroyx. imately 1, 200 staff strategically

Office of Analysis and Inspections

This report is produced by the Office of Analysis and

Inspections 
OIG.  (OAI), one of the three major offices  thin the

The other two are the Office of Audi  wi 
Investigations.  t and the Office of
OAI conducts inspections which are
typically, short-term studies designed to determine program

effectiveness, efficiency and vulnerability to fraud or

abuse. 
This Report

This report is entitled " 
Standardized Formats Pilot Test. 
It is based on a test conducted by seven States and the 
District of Columbia to determine the 
feasibili ty, costs and
benefits of using standardized data extraction formats 
for
computer matching of State 
assistance, compensation or wage

data.  STANDARDIZED FORMTS 
PILOT TEST

REPORT 
APRIL 1987 
CONTROL NUMBER:

P-00-86-00083 
Office of Analysis and Inspections

Office of Inspector General

Department of Health and Human Services
 . . ':--' '-"" " ...:.--.---- . ...--...., ... "'_ "''- ''''''''- '''''-'''..''"""'' '''' ''''' ---''-- - - .-- '---'---"' ' .. - -
t- ...- L"-C_--. 1; _ 
Page 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMRY 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
1ii 
ABBREVIATLONS 
BACKGROUND 
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

PART I  SUMRY FINDINGS 
Matches Performed

Match Process

Conversion 
Data Elements

Match Criteria

Screening /Follow-
State Reports

Costs 
Savings 
State Evaluations

Conclusions 
PART II
 STATE-BY-STATE TEST FINDINGS

California 
District of Columbia

Illinois 
New Hampshire

New Jersey

Oklahoma
Virginia
Wisconsin 
APPENDIX A.	 Standardized Formats 
Data Elements Added 
Data Elements Not Used 
Summary of Match Results 
Summary of Costs 
Test Reporting Forms 
state proj 
ect Leaders  ... 
, \  . .
- _._. ._--  - - ."'-_'_ '''--'' ''- '''''-''-  -'_ ._- ---
_n_ 
, l 
EXECUT IVE SUMRY 
The Pr  sident' s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) 
established the Long Term Computer Matching Project, cochaired 
by the Inspectors General for the Department of Labor (DOL) 
and the Department of Heal th and Human Services (HHS), to
facili tate 
the use of computer matching in Government-assisted 
programs. The proj ect identified the lack of consistent data 
elements and record formats as major impediments to efficient
and effective matching. 
To address this problem, project 
staff developed standardized matching formats for assistance 
programs , wage/earnings and compensation/benefits. 
. Under the guidance of the HHS Inspector General, eight

jurisdictions tested the formats to determine the usefulness

and benefits of standardized formats in computer matching.

Findings 
o States established that it is technically feasible and

useful to use standardized formats to conduct computer

matches. . 
o States concluded that standardized formats are more

efficient when used in both the input and output stages of

the matcuh propcess..
  
o The standardized formats and related data elements provided

workers with a more comprehensive report for review and

fOllow-
o Stteastet sr.e ports identified $1. 1 million in savings from the
The savings are possible because the standardized 
formats will enable States to perform more matches. 
Technical savings will also result from the elimination of 
the need to reprogram for each match performed. 
During the test, The Deficit Reduction Act (DEFRA) of 1984 was 
enacted requiring State Agencies that administer the Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Adult Assistance
Medicaid, Food Stamp and the Unemployment Compensation 
programs to develop income and eligibili ty verification 
provisions. Among the provisions in DEFRA, State agencies are
required to " 
adhere to standardized formats and
procedures. . . to 
exchange information to establish and verify
eligibility. 
The standardized formats, as revised and 
approved by the test jurisdictions, were forwarded to the
interagency' Payment 
Integrity Task Force established to
coordinate the implementation of the income and eligibili 
verification provisions.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The standardized formats pilot tests were the result of 
extensive work by a Federal/State work group. Their 
continuing interest and contributions have made the 
standardized formats an excellent product. Al though many
have been involved in the extensive acti vi ties surrounding
these pilot tests, I would like to commend the following 
State personnel: Clayton Vickland, District of Columbia 
Department of Human Services: Sally Ferguson, Illinois 
Department of Public Aid: W. Richard Burrows and Francis 
Brighton, New Hampshire Division of Human Services: John 
Fedynyshyn and Jerry Powell, New Jersey Department of Human 
Services: William Long, Oklahoma Department of Human 
Services: and Kenneth Shimota, Wisconsin Department of 
Health and Social Services. I would like to give special 
acknowledgment to Karl Hauser of the Virginia Department of 
Social Services who not only provided the leadership to
Virginia I s 
test of the formats, but also assisted with the
ini 
tial development of the draft formats and assisted with 
the technical discussions in many meetings and workshops. 
Among the Federal work group staff, Doug Hunt, Office of 
Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, chaired the work group that developed the 
draft standardized formats and provided tetcehsnitc.a l support to 
my staff and the States during the pilot  Finally,
from my staff I would like to thank Jane Tebbutt and Elsie 
Chaisson who provided the leadership in conducting the pilot 
test, Edward Meyers who provided technical support and Jane 
Karl and Retina Thomas who provided typing support. 
Richard P. Kusserow

Inspector General

Department of Health

and Human Services
 . ,  . -. -. -- -,-:.-.. .""-- ,.-... ,.._..,.._". . _,-- ,-- ,,-,""..' '- - ... ''''''' :'. ,- " ' -'''"_.-,-,. .;"-,, ._--- ;.,--.  - -. , .- .-. _.- -- ._'. -. - . , - -.
_'''n. - -'" 4-. ,  'c._  .- ,-O
ABBREVIATIONS 
state 
Alabama 
California 
District of Columbia

Delaware
Illinois 
Indiana 
Iowa 
Maryl and
Minnesota 
Mississippi 
New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Okl ahoma 
Penn  pennsyl vania
South Carolina 
Texas 
Virginia
Vermont 
Wisconsin 
Other 
AABD  Aid to Aged, Blind and D1sabled 
AFDC  Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
CSE  Child Support Enforcement 
DOB  Date of Birth 
Food Stamp. 
General Assistance (State Funds only) 
GPA  General Public Assistance (State Funds only)
Match Record 
N/A  Information is not Available 
Public Assistance 
President' 
PC IE
 s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 
SESA  State Employment Security Agency 
SSN  Social Security Number 
UCB  Unemployment Compensation Benefits 
iii
 . --- ,.  -'. ---." ---- ..-----..""-- --_. ------ . -'-'- -- .._- ( "  - - .._------- --__  -----_
----""_- -_.
.o . 
N-
BACKGROUN 
In 1981, President Reagan created the President' s Council on

Integri ty and Efficiency (PCIE) to coordinate Government-wide

efforts " , waste and abuse. 
to fight fraud One of the first

proj ects established 
by the PCIE was the Long Term Computer

Matching Project which was created to facilitate the use of 

computer matching in Government-assisted programs. The Project

cochaired by the Inspectors General of the Department of Labor

and the Department of Health and Human Services, identified the

lack of consistent data elements and record formats as major

impediments to efficient and effective matching.

To address this problem, proj ect staff developed standardized 
areas: 
matching formats in four target  assistance programs
wage/earnings 
, compensation/benefits, and medical payments. 
Standardized formats are predetermined computer record layouts 
and data elements to be used when State agencies participate in 
computer matches. The project staff believed that use of the 
formats would benefit matching efforts and accrue savings through
the: 
elimination of costs to reprogram data extraction

software on a request-by-request basis; 
reduction of turnaround time for requested matches; and

improvement of quality and reliability of match 
resul ts, yielding more effective fOllow-up. 
In June 1983, the HHS Inspector General, at the direction of the
PCIE , solicited State proposals for cooperative agreements to 
test the formats. In response, seven States (California
Illinois 
, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Virginia, and 
Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia submitted proposals to 
test the assistance programs, wage/earnings, and compensation 
/benefits formats.  (No proposals were received to test the 
medical payments format; action on it was therefore deferred. 
During the test, Publ1c Law 98-369  The Deficit Reduction Act" 
was enacted, including Income and Eligibil1 ty Verification 
provisions affecting State agencies administering Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children, Medicaid, Food Stamp, Unemployment
Insurance and Adul t Assistance (in the territories) programs. 
Among the provisions, these State agencies are required to
" . . . adhere to standardized formats and procedures... to exchange 
information to establish or verify eligibility.  The formats as
tested
, revised and approved by the test jurisdictions were 
Referred to later in this report as match records (MR) 1, 2

and 3.  ). 
....
--_...-.._~~~ - .._,-- .... , . .__:.;, -- --''' '''-' --' '-'--- .'  ..., . ... .,.-.. . , - _-,. _. -
'_h--U''__'  ''_n'''_- o._- O!, 
forwarded to the interagency Payment Integrity Task Force

established to coordinate implementation of these provisions, for

their use in providing guidelines to States.

This report presents the final results and evaluations of the

eight p!lot test jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

The standardized formats field test was conducted to determine

the following: 
The usefulness of the formats in increasing the

efficiency of 1nter-jurisdictional and intra-

jurisdictional matches.

The usefulness of those data elements considered
cri tical 
or extremely important. 
The. costs associated with implementing and using the
formats. 
up/verification efforts
The savings realized in fOllow-
through use of additional data elements and special
flags. 
The test jurisdictions (hereafter referred to as test states)

agencies. 
were all public assistance  While the test States had
flexibili ty to 
thin 
perform matches with other agencies either wi 
or outside of their own States, they were required to perform and

report on the tests in four stages: 
First 
, States were to create tape files in standardized 
format or develop a computer program to read a tape 
file in standardized format "and report information on 
resources used and costs incurred to create files and 
on data elements added or not used. 
Second , States were to use the standardized format tape 
file in a computer match and report on the methodology, 
resources and costs for this stage. 
Third, States were to perform fOllow-up and

verification of matched records (hereafter referred to

as "hits 
States were allowed to prioritize or 
review a sample of hits to fulf111 the test

requirements. States 
were to report the methodology 
for prioritization, the total number of hits reviewed

costs for fOllow-up and verification, total amount of
 . ' " ,- -- --",_.., _"""-''" ,._ ""- ..,--:.: ..,-"- -","" --,,,,, ..""-..- -''' ''-''--- -'''--- ';' ..--_."_.
_n_  . I 
overpayments detected, amounts recovered and proj ected
savings. 
Finally, states were to report their evaluation of the

effects of the formats on the computer matching

process. 
, II
Attachment F contains the OIG Forms I , and III whiqh were 
used in the reports required for the first three stages. 
During the tests, four workshops were held with test states to 
formats. 
discuss progress, and work out problems with the  These 
workshops included representatives of the Departments of Health 
and Human Services, Agriculture, and Labor program offices. 
afddio tion,r semveral siate vtisists w.ere  made to test States to provide
technical assistance. 
Final1y, a team of Federal and State
representatives 
, including the test States and Federal program 
managers , met to reach agreement on a final set of standardized
PART I - SUMRX OF STATE TEST FINDINGS 
MATCHES PERFORMED

The final set of standardized formats represent the experiences

and recommendations of the test States. To test the formats

States performed a total of 34 matches including 10 intra-

jurisdictional and 24 inter-jurisdictional matches.

(Additionally, the District of Columbia performed 11 matches

under the cooperative agreement in which the standardized formats

were not used. These nonstandardized format matches were

performed because agreements could not be reached on approaches

to use of the formats.  States were particularly interested in

performing inter-jurisdictional matches because the ease with

which applicants and recipients travel between States increases

the potential for payment errors.

The States tested the formats in the following number of matches: 
assistance programs format in 1.6 matches performed, wage/earnings 
format in 5 matches and compensation/benefits format in 13
matches. 
Table I displays the types of matches performed and
participating States.  - . !.__._-----_:....__.---._._- ,---_.._- ------- -"---.- .-..--...- - ..-- -:-.,..
TABLE I 
MATCHES PERFbRMED

TYPE MATCH

Test  Publ1c  Wage  Unemployment other
State  Assistance  Compensation 
Benef1 ts

Medi-Cal 
Birth Index

. Death Index 
. Child Support 
DE *  DE *  DE * 
Penn  Penn *  Penn * 
SC *  SC * 
MD *  MD * 
NC *  NC * 
Penn 
IA ** 
MN **
Internet ** 
Standardized formats were not used for these 11 matches because 
agreements could not be reached on their use. 
** Two matches each were performed with IA
, MN and Internet.
 . \ ..- .:..- '. '__ -'- _.'- ---' "..\.._- _.. _..-'.._- -- - ..._.. '._ ..-._._".-__ .._--.----- -'- .-.: - -_.. -.! - 
''__c.  .J.. 
MATCH PROCESS 
Conversion 
Two procedures were used to perform computer matches using 
standardized formats: (1) both agencies involved in the match 
created Standardized Formats tapes and matched them; ( 2) or the 
agency executing the match developed a program to read a tape file 
format. All test 
in a standardized  States created input tapes in 
the assistance programs format. To accomplish this task, New
Hampshire , Illinois and Oklahoma modif ed existing computer 
programs while Virginia, New Jersey , Wisconsin, California (only 
Santa Clara county records) and the District of Columbia developed 
new programs. The participating State public assistance agencies 
(Pennsylvania, New York, Alabama, Texas, Iowa and Mississippi) 
also created tapes in the assistance programs format. 'Vermont 
New Hampshire and Minnesota EmploYment Services Agencies developed 
matching programs to read input data in the assistance program 
format and generate output in the compensation/benefit format. 
Illinois and Texas Public Assistance Agencies and Pennsylvania 
EmploYment Security Agency developed data extraction and matching 
programs to read input data in standardized formats and generate 
output data in the compensation/benefits and wage/earnings
formats. 
Data Elements

The States used most 1da)t.a  elements prescribed by the assistance 
programs format (MR  For additional information, refer to 
Appendix A. Fifteen data elements were not used because (1) the 
data were not available or (2) the data elements were replaced by 
results. 
data that produced betttoer:  match  Fifty-one data elements 
were added by States  ( 1) provide more personal 
characteristics information about individuals included in the 
match , (2) enable States to use a single tape to perform matches 
of individuals who simultaneously received benefits from multiple 
programs , and (3) assist States to screen hits so that only 
aberrant situations would be referred for fOllow-up. 
tes were specifically asked to assess the usefulness of the

SSN Verification" and "Error Prone" flags. The SSN flag was 
designed to eliminate the need to re-verify SSNs. The error prone 
flag was designed to assist States to identify problem cases and 
set priorities for fOllow-up. Although six States used the " SSN 
that
Verification Flag , only Illinois provided comments,. statiungp  . 
the " Flag " was used to refer SSN discrepancies for fOllow- (In 
workshop discussions test States pointed out that the " SSN 
Verification Flag" would be more useful if the source used to 
verify the SSN were indicated.  Four States used the " Error Prone 
Flag, 
" but only Oklahoma provided comments, stating that this flag 
. fraud indicator. 
was used as a (In workshop discussions test
States requested changing the "Error Prone Flag" to a "Priority  . . q /
 f,. 
FOllow-Up Flag " to be used to set priori 
ties for case reviews.

For more information, refer to Appendices A, B, and C.

Match Criteria

Match criteria are the data elements used in a match to identify

information from separate data bases which refer to the same

person. All states 
used the Social Security Number (SSN) as the
key criterion or identifier: five States used SSN and name; and

three States used the SSN, name and date of birth (DOB). Table 
II displays criteria used to execute matches.

TABLE II

MATCH CRITERIA USED TO EXECUTE MATCHES

Match 
teria 
Cri 
SSN 
. Name 
DOB 
. Address
District 
Attorney
Number

Sex

Benefi
ciary ID

Number 
. Case Number 
Screenin  Follow-u 
Most test States manually sorted match hits to determine if the 
meartrcoh rwsa.s  completed accurately, and if hits identified potential
States prioritized hits based on the validity of the 
match hit either to eliminate nonmatched cases from the review

and fOllow-up process or to alert workers to cases requiring

prompt fOllow-up. Time stapetnets p.r eparing cases for fOl1ow

For example, New Jersey automated 
reviews varied between 

the process and spent only 2 hours batching 580 printouts to send

to workers. Wisconsin, however, spent 8 staff days manually

screening and prioritizing 476 hits.

Only two States reported time spent on follow-up activities. 
New 
Hampshire workers spent 5. 7 staff days resolving 86 hits; 
Illinois workers spent 191. 5 staff days reviewing 373 hits. 
Illinois reported that the absence of data on "monthly payment
 - ---- .-.-- - .-. _._ -_.--_._ ,,. ,--  .._. ' -_"_
-" _'n 
amount" and " 
date of elig1b11i ty" from the California records
resul ted 
in an unusual amount of time to make collateral contacts 
to verify match information. 
STATE REPORTS

States were asked to provide information on the total number of

match hits, referred for fOllow-up and the outcome of reviews

i. e. 
, payments reduced or increased, cases closed or showing 
fraud). 
evidence to support a question of  States were also asked 
to (1) identify and analyze costs associated with implementing 
the formats, conducting matches and resolv1ng match hits and (2)
identify and discuss actual and proj ected savings realized from
use of the formats. Most of the States were unable to provide

all requested information, particularly in the area of fOllow-up

costs and fraud case referrals. 
For addi tional information refer

to Appendices D and 

Costs 
Costs were categorized as technical (conversion and matching) and
fOllow-
up an  are shown as reported by each test State in Part II 
and in Appendix D. California, Virginia and New Jersey did not
itemize proj ect 
costs and consequently could not identify 
conversion costs. The District of Columbia reported cost 
estimates based on previous matching experiences. Illinois

Oklahoma , New Hampshire and Wisconsin reported conversion costs 
which included developing and modifying programs and creating

tapes to execute matches. 
These costs ranged from $1 000 for 
Illinois to $3 727 for New Hampshire. Wisconsin, New Jersey,

District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Wisconsin also

reported conversion costs incurred by the agency providing

information. 
Costs per match were reported by all States and ranged from $46

for Wisconsin to $8, 550 for New Jersey. Both California and the

District of Columbia provided estimated cost figures. Illinois
and Wisconsin absorbed the costs for the matches they performed

for each other.

All States except New Jersey and the District of Columbia 
reported costs to manually review, sort and prioritize hits. New 
Jersey has automated this process. The District of Columbia does
not collect this information. 
Cost varied between States. For
example , New Hampshire spent $34 to review and prioritize 865 
hits while Illinois spent $1 270 to review and prioritize 1 053
hits. New Hampshire and Illinois are the only States that 
reported fOllow-up costs, New Hampshire reported $372 and 
360. All 
Illinois reported costs of $16  other States did not
r.eport costs 
because the data were not collected. 
Savings 
Test States cited two types of savings (1) technical savings due
to elimination of need to develop new software for each match
and (2) savings from the actual matches. 
For technical savings  -=------ - ,- ' 
' - ..  -. 
per match Wis0c0on0s.i n reported $1 500; Illinois, over $2 000; and

Oklahoma $5  The other States reported that they would 
realize savings but did not estimate a dollar figure. 
Savings from matches are monthly erroneous payments identified at 
the point the error is verified, times 12 months. 
All States 
except Cal1forn1a reported savings real1zed from matches.

California did not find any cases with errors. 
All savings

except the District of Columbia s reflect the monthly amount of

the erroneous payment at the time the discrepancy was verified
and do not include a past erroneous payments. 
The District of
Columbia ' s savings are "estimates based on prior matches.  All
savings have been annualized. Table III provides information on
savings realized from each match performed as of February 
1986. 
. TABLE III

Savings 
tate  f\t  sav-; 
Technical - Savings2 -If-:. 
California 
N/A 
District of  $140, 000
 N/A

Columbia 
Illinois 
$134  530  $32  400 
Oklahoma  $10  000  $30, 000 
New Hampshire  $22  608  N/A 
New Jersey  $148, 116  N/A 
Virginia 
. $10  908  N/A 
Wisconsin' 
$615  072  boo
$18 
Total 
$1, 082  180  $80, 400 
1 The f1gure shown is the total amount of savings from

all matches performed by test States using standardized

formats. 
2 Techn1cal savings are realized because States el1minate

the need to reprogram for each match. 
Only three
States provided dollar amounts. 
Savings are based
on the initial conversion costs times the frequency 
of match performed. 
3 California did not have any error 

cases. 
4 The District of Columbia reported savings for only one 
match performed using 
the standardized format. 
5 A 10 percent recidivism rate is factored into the 
savings reported by Illinois.   ,-- . 
;- ,  _-- . __._.._.-_--_-- .
.-_... - ''" ""
STATE EVALUATIONS

States reported that use of the standardized formats gave them 
the capability to perform more matches. All States, except the
District of Columbia, reported that the formats el1minated the
need to "reprogram for each match. They recommended using the 480 
character standardized format for both input and output files 
because the 480 character record is more efficient than the match 
process used prior to the formats (1. e., producing more rel1able 
and better . 
hi ts  output that will require fewer staff hours to 
verify) . California and New Jersey reported that implement1ng
the formats will increase the frequency of matches. Illinois 
reported that the formats, particularly the critical elements 
will make it easier to determine the validity of the match.
Wisconsin
, Illinois, and Virginia reported that the formats gave 
nformation
-thte oeli gbibielit y uwosrkeer da m orteo co mprreehenssiove lrevporet o fe  rrors j.dentified by..atches. 
The District of Columbia however, reported that a 480 character

. standardized format is 
not necessary to conduct productive 
computer matches. They bel1eve that a "160 character format 
should be pro oted rather than the 480 character record. 
In addition, States believe that use of the standardized 
formats will eliminate costs to reprogram and will enable States 
to screen and prioritize cases more quickly. For example, States
reported that workers are able to reduce the number of collateral 
contacts because they receive a more comprehensive report on

hi ts. Most States reported that they plan to use the formats in

all future matches.

CONCLUSIONS 
The series of test performed demonstrated the technical 
feasibili ty and usefulness of the standardized formats for 
conducting data exchanges. 
States made the following 
recommendations for changes which were 1ncluded in the final
formats: 
Increase the number of data elements included on all formats

ore comprehensive report: and

to provide a 

Change the assistance programs format to enable States to 
create one tape to accommodate matches of recipients 
receiving benefits in mul tiple programs simul taneously.  , ' 
. .
All states, except the District of Columbia concluded that 
standardized formats (480 character records) are more efficient 
when used in both the input and output stages of the match
process. 
This method eliminates the need to reprogram for each
match arid perform a 
up. If  second match before hits can be referred for 
fOllow-
standard format is not used for the input record 
the requesting agency needs to run a second match of the 
responding agency s output record against the requesting agency 
files (as of the date of the original input file) to add 
information necessary for fOllow-up and verification purposes. 
This streamlining of the referral for fOllow-up has become
cri 
tical in light of the Income and Eligibility Verification
requirements in P. 
L. 98-369. Under regulations implementing the
statute 
, States are required to complete fOllow-up activities in
30 days. 
The test States (with the exception of the District of Columbia)

agreed that the standardized formats facilitate matches by

eliminating confusion on information requirements
, reducing

reprogramming. costs and enabling matches to be completed more

efficiently.  . .
PART II - STATE TEST FINDINGS

CALIFORNIA 
California (Santa Clara County) participated in four matches of 
its Publ1c Assistance (Aid to Famil1es with Dependent Children
(AFDC) and Food Stamp (FS) 
) records of children 6 years old with
California: 
Medi-Cal paid claims records
Bureau of Vi 
tal Statistics (Birth and Death index 
records), and 
Child Support Payment records. 
Califoarnian devedloped  neCw data. ex traction and matching programs to 
convert and read data in the assistance programs format (MR 1).
Ten standardized formats data elements were not used; five data 
elements were added. For more information, refer to Appendices

, B 
Social Security Number (SSN), name, date of birth (DOB), sex

address 
, case number, beneficiary identification number and 
district attorney number were used as match criteria. 
The 
fOllowing tables display (1) technical costs to develop new or
modify existing software to convert files and perform matches

(2) match results as of February 1986
, of active cases which were
referred for follow-up review, and (3) staff costs for fOllow-up. 
TECHNICAL  COSTS 
Match  Matching 
Conversion 
AFDC  FS/
Medi-Cal 
N/A  795 
AFDC,  FS/  N/A 
CSE  713 
AFDC  FS/
Death  Index 
N/A  932 
AFDC  FS/
Birth  Index 
N/A  615 
1 Cal1fornia ' s conversion 
costs were included in the total 
project costs and could not therefore be identified.

2 Matching costs are estimates reported on OIG Forms II and

III.  , " . , ,
MATCH RESULTS

Error 
Match  Total  FOllow-up FOl10w-up Annual
Hits  Referral  Completed  Cases 1 Savings 
AFDC , FS/

Medi-Cal  573

Death Index 
Birth Index

CSE 
STAFFING COST FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

(Cost information on prioritization and follow-
up is not

available) . 
Eval uation 
California reports that the data elements contained in the 
assistance programs format were more than adequate to perform the 
various intrastate matches they executed. However, the formats
lack specific data to operate the California Integrated Earnings 
Clearance (IEC) Fraud Detection System (FDS). Fil1er 
space was
used to include the additional data elements needed. 
California concluded that the use of the standardized format in 
both the input and output process for interstate or inter-agency 
computer matches has the potential for achieving the fol10wing: 
Less confusion on basic information requirements.

Reduced costs resulting from reduced analysis and coding

time. 
A greater likelihood that a State agency will reuse the

standardized format (even for a one-time application).

A greater potential for interfacing a single program

wi th the data bases in different States.

Accelerated programming activities because the format of

incoming (or created) information will already be 
known.

California stated that their match demonstrated that the 
" Federal
assistance programs format was able to be effectively utilized in 
the exchange and matching of welfare related data. 
1 Error cases include only cases with incorrect

payments.  , "  . ' ,

.. .
DISTRICT OF COLUMIA 
Columia 
The District of  Department of Human Services 
participated in 16 matches of its Public Assistance (Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp (FS) and 
general public assistance (GPA)) records with: 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and Delaware

public assistance records,

Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina, South

Carolina and Pennsylvania wage and unemployment

compensation benefit records.

Columia 
The District of  developed data extraction and matching 
programs to convert and read data in the assistance programs, (MR 
District of Columia 
1) format. The  performed 11 matches under 
the cooperative agreement in which the standardized formats were 
not used because agreements could not be reached on approaches to 
use of the formats. Those data elements not used or added were
not identified. 
Columia 
The District of  Employment Security Agency performed the 
match using Social Security Numers as the key identifier. The 
following tables display: (1) technical costs of the requesting 
and responding agencies, (2) match results, as of February 1986, 
of active cases referred for follow-up, and (3) staff costs for
follow-up. 
TECHNICAL COSTS 
Match  Conversion 1  Ma tChing 
DC PA/DE PA,  Wage, UCB  $150  $2, 
000 
*DC PA/Penn. PA  $150  N/A 
DC PA/Penn. Wage, UCB  $150  N/A 
DC PA/SC Wage, UCB  $150  $5, 148 
*DC PA/SC PA  $150  $2, 500 
DC PA/MD Wage, UCB  $420  $800 
DC PA/NC Wage, UCB  $150  $2, 500 
* DC PAIvA FA, Wage, UCB  N/A  N/A 
1 Cost figures represent costs to create tape to be used in

ma tches . 
2 DC reported that "
qollar amounts are estimates based on

previous matching experiences.

*Matches perf  formats. 
d utilizing standardized  , .,  .-. . , .  . ---- --.._w_.-- '--"--- ----- ----..---....--..
MATCH RESULTS 
Match  Total  FOllow- Cases  Error  Annual 
Hits  Referrals  Completed  Cases  Savings 
DC PA/DE 
Wage 
UCB 
DC PA Penn  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A * 
DC PA/Penn  N/A  N/A  000 
Wage UCB 
DC PAl 
N/A  N/A  $18  207 
SC Wage UCB 
DC PA/SC PA  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A * 
DC PA/MD  000  , 000  N/A  N/A  $250  000 
Wage  UCB 
DC PA/NC  N/A 3  N/A  N/A  $ 5 , 000 
Wage  UCB 
DC PAIVA  N/A  N/A  $140  000 * 
Wage  UCB 
STAFF COST FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

(Information on prioritizing and follow-
up costs is not routinely

reported) . 
Evaluation 
The District of Columbia Department of Human Resources reports
that 
it should not be mandated that States use the standardized 
formats if they agree upon any other format
, and no attempt 
1 Error cases include only cases with incorrect payments.

2 DC reported that dollar amounts are estimates based on 
previous matching experience either wi 
thin the District or 
State. 
wi th the part1cular 
3 DC reported that dat 
from this match was not usable 
because it was too badly scrambled to prepare a report. 
* Standardized formts were used for these matches.
 , .,  " . , .
should be made to standardize output (formats or matching

procedures) . The lack of standardized formats and consistent

data elements between states computer f11es are not significant

impediments to computer matching.

The D1st"rict of Columbia recommends that " a simple standard
format of 160 bytes (not the proposed 480 byte record) w111

facilitate interstate computer matches. The District of Columbia 
did not provide information regarding specific data elements to 
be included in this shorter record, but indicated that the 
supplemental data carried in the standard formats should be 
obtained by the worker during the fOllow-up.  ..  , .. ,.  .' 
ILLINOIS

The Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA) participated in

. three matches of its Public Assistance files (Aid to Families 
Dependent Ch11dren 
wi th  (AFDC); Medicaid; Aid to the Aged, Blind
and Disabled (AAD) and General Assistance (GA)) records with: 
California and Wisconsin public assistance

records, and

Wisconsin unemployment compensation benefits

records. 
Addi tionally, Illino1s executed a match between Wisconsin Welfare 
records and Illinois UCB records. 
The formats tested were th3e )as.s istance programs (MR 1) and the

compensation/benefits (MR  Illinois developed and modified 
data extraction and matching programs to convert and read data in

standardized format. Two data elements prescribed by the

standardized formaats nwere dnot u sedC in th.e m atch with California. 
Nine data elements were omitted from the match with Wisconsin 
public assistance records, and nine data elements were included
in the match with WI UCB. For more information
, refer to
Appendices A, B 
Il1inois and Wisconsin public assistance agencies performed the 
matches using Social Security Number (SSN), name and date of
birth as match criteria. The following tables display (1)
technical costs; (2) match resul ts as of February 1986 of active
cases which were referred for fOllow-up review; and (3) staff

costs for fOllow-up: 
TECHNICAL COSTS

Match  Conversion  Matching 
IL PA/CA PA  610  740 
IL PAl  000  (Paid by Wisconsin)
WI PA, UCB

IL UCB/WI PA  (faid by Wisconsin)  990 
1 Conversion costs are costs to modify and develop programs

and tapes to be used in matches.

2 Matching costs are costs for developing software to

execute matches and computer charges.  , ' 
. , 
MATCH  RESULTS 
Match	 Total  FOllow-up  FOllow-up  Error  Annual
Hits  Referral  Completed  Cases  Savings 
IL PA/CA  053  467  373	 $134  698 
IL PA/WI  134  134	 $168 
IL PAl

WI UCB

IL UCB/WI PA  See Wisconsin Report

STAFFING  COSTS FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP 
MATCH	 SCREENING  FOLLOW-UP 
IL/CA	 270  $16  360 
IL/WI	 614  $375 
IL PA/WI UCB  $462	 N/A 
Evaluation 
Illinois concluded that the amount of savings to be realized over 
time was not dependent on the methods used for 
matching, but
rather on the movement from the developmental (developing or 
modifying software) to the production stage of the match. 
Illinois estimates per welfare assistance match
reduction in the costs of data extraction and r,e faonr m89.at1t ipnegr.c ent
This 
translates to savings of slightly over $2 
000 per match.

Illinois reports that the standardized formats and related data

elements 
, part1cularly the critical elements, made it easier to
determine the strength of matches and to verify information 
produced by the match. Continued use of the standardized
formats 
, particularly in final form, w111 improve the quality and
reliabili ty of 
match results in several ways: 
Turnaround time should be reduced, thus improving the 
ts. 
timeliness of match resul 
1 Error cases include only cases with incorrect payments.
 ..  '' . , .
Follow-up activities will be expedited since standardized

output will be easier for review staff to understand.

Costs for conducting various matches should be reduced

because the production mode will be utilized, rather than

the developmental mode.

Illinois plans to "make  the fullest possible use of the
standardized formats in 
future data exchanges.  The formats will 
be used for al  matches  except for intrastate duplicate 
assistance matches.  , "
NEW HAPSHIRE

The New Hampshire Department of Publ1c Welfare participated in
three matches of its public assistance (Aid to Famil1es with

Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamp (FS) and Medicaid) records
with: 
Vermont UCB records.

New Hampshire wage 1 and UCB records.

New Hampshire tested the assistance program (MR 
1), wage/earning

(MR 2), and compensation/benefits (MR 
3) formats and modified an
existing program to create a file in standardized format. All of 
the data elements prescribed by Format Type 1 were used. Three
data elements prescribed by Format Type 3 were not used. For
more information, refer to Appendices A, B and C. 
New Hampshire and Vermont Employment Security Agencies performed

the matches u ing the Social Security Number 
(SSN), name and date

of birth (DOB) as match criteria. 
The fOllowing tables display:

( 1) 
technical costs of the requesting and responding agencies for 
converting files and performing matches by developing new or 
modifying software; (2) match results
, as of February 1986, of
active cases which were referred for fOllow-
up; and (3) staff
costs for follow-up: 
TECHNICAL  COSTS 
Match 
Conversion  Ma tching 
NH PAl  727  $350 
NH UCB 
NH PAl  193  $620 
VT UCB 
1 Data from the wage match was not used because the wage

data was not in standardized format nor transcribed

into a usable form. 
2 Conversion costs are costs to modify and develop programs

and tapes to be used in matches.

3 Matching costs are for developing programs to execute 
matches 
, and computer charges.  .,  .' . , ;
MATCH RESULTS

Cases 
Match  Total  FOllow-up Annual 
Hits  Referrals  Error  Fraud 
Completed Cases  Savings Referrals 
NH PAl  $14  652 
NH UCB 
NH PAl  $ 7 956 
VT UCB 
STAFFING COSTS FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

Match  Screening  FOllow-up 
NH PAl  $34  $372 
NH UCB

NH PAl 
VT UCB  N/A  N/A 
Eval uation 
New Hampshire reports that implementing the standardized formats

nationwide would save computer time and personnel costs to 
implement a computer match. Once the standardized formats are
implemented 
, the only cost should be computer costs to execute
the match. 
Standardized formats will " encourage more States and
agencies to initiate cross-matches since start-up costs would be
minimal , especially since start-up costs are a deterrent to 
interstate matches. 
1 Error cases 1nclude only cases with incorrect payments.

2 Erroneous payments in fraud cases are not included in

savings figures.  , '
r : +

NEW JERSEY 
The New Jersey Department of Human Services Division of Public

Welfare participated in two matches of its public assistance (Aid

to Famil1es with Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamp (FS) and

Medicaid) records with: 
New York publ1c assistance records, and

Pennsyl vania wage records. 
New Jersey used the assistance programs (MR 1) and the
wage/earnings (MR 2) formats and developed a new extraction 
format. 
program to convert data in standardized  Four of the data 
elements prescribed by the standardized formats were not used and 
added. 
twenty-four new elements were  For more information, refer
to Appendices A, B and C. 
New York Department of Social Services and Pennsylvania State 
Employment Service Agency performed the matches using the Social 
Security Numb r (SSN) and name as match criteria. The following
tables display: 
1) technical costs of the requesting and 
responding agencies, 2) match results, as of February 1986, of
active cases referred for fOl10w-up; and 3) staff costs for
fOllow-up. 
TECHNICAL COSTS-
Match 
Conversion  Matching 
NJ /NY PA  $23  774  312 
NJ PAl  $ 7 789  $935 
Penn Wage 
(System I) 
NJ PAl 
$ 6 497  550 
Penn Wage (System II)

1 Costs figures 1ncluded NJ'
s costs of $21 156 to develop
a new computer matching software system and NY' s costs 
, 618 to develop 
of $2 programs to convert and read data 
in standardized format. NJ standardized format conversion 
cost were not identified. $7 789 and $6, 497 are Penn
costs. 
2 Matching costs are for modifying and developing programs

to execute matches.

3 Penn. SESA executed two matches

, ifdeinltei.f ied as Systems I and

, with the NJ public assistance  System I accessed the
wage master file on-line and generated wage data only for

or System II a tape of wage data was 
cases that matched. 
 file. 
created by the SESA and matched with the NJ PA 
Two processes were performed for cost comparison.  ). 

. . . .. .
, '
MATCH RESULTS

Error 
Match  Total  FOllow-up Cases  Annual Fraud
Hits  Referrals  Completed  Cases 1 Savings 2 Referrals 
NJ/NY  861  358  358  $84  792 
NJ PAl  750  222  205  $63, 324  110
Penn 
Wage 3 
STAFFING COST FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

New Jersey uses the computer to prioritize match hits to

eliminate cases from the review process. ("Fol10w-up is

performed only on cases that will be cost effective to pursue.

Information on prioritizing and fOllow-up cost is not routinely

reported. 
EVALUATION 
New Jersey reports  it is just plain old common sense to have

Standard Matching Formats because of the potential for reducing 
costs in the long run.  Standardized formats wil1 enable 
agencies to know what to expect (data, layout, etc.  Agencies
can , therefore, pIan and implement systems to take advantage of 
the anticipated data. 
New Jersey states that implementation of the formats will 
increase the frequency of matches which will generate data 
requiring fol10w-up at a rate faster than current staffing levels
will be able to handle. 
Nevertheless, the formats contain 
enough information to al10w agencies to eliminate match records

from the labor intensive investigations and verification process

and to prioritize the output that must be fOllowed-up by a

reviewer. New Jersey recommends the  implementation of a 480

character standardized format input record and a 960 character

output record for all matches. Using a condensed record will

1 Error cases include only cases with incorrect payments.

2 Erronous payments identified in fraud cases are not 
figures. 
included in the savings 
3 Match resul ts 
from Systems I and II were identical.
 , .
, . '
require performing a second match upon receipt of the match 
would result in 
output file. This  the adoption of two 
standardized records, not one, and would require add1tional

, etc. 
programming, processing, systems maintenance The deviation
from a single standard wil1 resul 
t in the proliferation of other 
standards and wil1 resul t in chaos.
 OKLAHOMA 
The Oklahoma Department of Human Services participated in three 
matches of its public assistance (Aid to Fam111es with Dependent
Children (AFDC), Food Stamp (FS)  and Aid to Disabled (AD) J 
records wi th Texas: 
Public assistance records.

Wage and UCB records.

The formats tested were the assistance programs (MR 1),

wage/earnings (MR 2) and compensation/benefits (MR 3).

Oklahoma modified an existing data extraction program to convert

format. 
a in standardized  Oklahoma used all but one data 
element prescribed by the standardized formats and added three. 
For more information, refer to Appendices A, B and C. 
Texas Department of Human Resources (DHR) and Texas Employment
Commission (T  C) performed matches using Social Security Number 
(SSN) as the match criteria. Texas (DHR) converted the Oklahoma 
files into the TEC format and forwarded the data to TEC for
matching. After 
completion of the Oklahoma match with TEC, Texas 
DHR converted the match output back into the standardized format 
ahoma. The following tables displ 
and sent it to Okl  ay: (1) 
technical costs of requesting and responding agencies, ( 2) match 
resul ts, as of February 1986, of active cases which were referred 
for fOllow-up; and (3) staff costs for fOl10w-up: 
TECHNICAL COSTS 
tch 
Ma  Conversion  Ma tching 
OK PA/TX  015  $5, 027 
, Wage 
UCB 
1 Conversion costs are costs to modify and develop programs
and tapes to be used in matches. 
These are Oklahoma 
costs. 
2 Matching costs included costs for developing software to

execute matches, processing and computer charges. 

These are Texas ' costs.
 MATCH  RESULTS 
Match  Total  FOllow- Cases  Error  Annual 
Hits  Referrals  Completed  Cases  Savings 
OK PAl  896  463  463  N/A  $10  000 
TX PA 
Wage , UCB 
STAFFING COSTS FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

Match  Screening  FOllow-
OK PAl  , 628  N/A
TX PA, Wage

UCB 
EVALUATION 
Oklahoma reports that the standardized formats are "essential to 
an orderly flow of data between State agencies.  Standardized 
formats eliminate the need to reprogram for each match with a 
different agency as a result Oklahoma will save $5 
000 per match.
Investigative time for screening matches between States will be
reduced. 
Oklahoma plans to use the standardized formats to perform matches 
other bordering States. 
wi th 
1 Error cases are cases wi 

th incorrect payments.
 , , 
.. \..
.. - t 
VIRGINIA 
The Virginia Department of Social Services participated in one

match of its public assistance (Aid to Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp (FS) applicants)) records with:

Virginia wage and unemployment compensation benefits

records. 
Virginia used the assistance program format (MR 1) and developed
data extraction and matching programs to convert and read data in 
standardized format. Three data elements prescribed by the 
standardized formats were not used, and six data elements were
added. 
For more information, refer to Appendices A and B. 
The Virginia Department of Social Services performed the matches 
using the Social Security Number as the match criteria. The 
following tables display: (1) technical costs of the requesting
and responding agencies, ( 
2) match results, as of February 19
1986 , of active cases referred for fOllow-up; and (3) staff costs 
for fOllow-up. 
TECHNICAL COSTS

Match  Conversion  Matching 
VA PA/Wage  $28, 640  720 
MATCH RESULTS 
Match  Total  FOllow- Cases  Error  Annual
Hits  Referrals 
Completed  Cases 
VA/PAl 
$10  908 
Wage , UCB 
Conversion costs of $28, 640 are costs to redesign VA' 
system. 
entire computer matching software  Costs to develop
data extraction and matching programs to convert and read 
data in standardized format were not identified. 
Matching costs are for modifying and developing software to

execute matches and computer charges. Figures are rounded

to the nearest dollar.

Error cases include only cases with incorrect payments.
 , , 
J li .. .. 
STAFFING COSTS FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

Match  Screening  FOllow-up 
VA PA/Wage  $600  N/A
UCB 
EVALUATION 
Virginia reports that the " formats will result in savings if all
agencies and States use them for data exchanges, because this 
will eliminate the need to reprogram for each match performed. 
Use of the formats will not cause more hits to be identified from 
a match. However, when a match is completed, if the requesting
and responding agency use the data elements contained in the 
standardized formats, a decision regarding whether to follow-
the match hit can be quickly made. 
Once the fOllow-up decision
is made, the standardized formats data elements provide the 
eligibility worker with a more comprehensive report. 
Virginia plans to use the formats in all future inter- and intra

state matches.

1 FOllow-up costs were not available. 
Virginia does not 
routinely collect this information.  ,..  '.  ,-, ""--,,. --""--':_ - --_.--""" ----",, ""- "'C_,.""-- -""J'-'  "---_1'_._ ..----- ---..-.- .--
WISCONSIN

The Wisconsin Department of Health and Human Services 
(DHHS)
participated in 13 matches of its public assistance (Aid to
MFameildiesi wcitah Diepdend)en t Crhieldcreno (rAFDdC)s, F oowd iStatmph (F:S) , a
 nd
Minnesota unemployment compensation benefits 
(UCB)
records (two matches). 
Iowa Welfare records (two matches). 
Internet  (two matches). 
Illinois UCB records.

Illinois
, Alabama and Mississippi Public Assistance
records. 
Wisconsin UCB records.

Addi tiona11  two matches were performed with Indiana (AFDC and
records 
) but, only the Wisconsin files were in standard format. 
Format MR 1 and MR 3 were used. Wisconsin developed new and
modified existing data extraction and matching programs to 
format. 
Aconve rt aand renad ddata i n stBanda.rdize d  
 While two of the
data elements prescribed by the standardized .
formats were not
used, ten were added. 
For more information, refer to Appendices
Social Security Number (SSN) and name were the criteria used to
perform matches.  display: 
The fOllowing tables  1) the technical
costs of the requesting and responding agencies, 2) match 
resul ts, as of February 1986, of active cases r ferred for
fOllow-up review; and 3) staff costs for fOllow-up. 
Interstate Telecommunications Network (Internet) - A

telecommunications network system which supports a number

of interstate unemployment insurance program applications

for data exchanges.
 . ,, , , .

TECHNICAL COSTS

tch  Conversion  Matching 
Ma 
WI PAl  $21  585 
MN UCB 1 
PA /  $21  $105 
MN UCB 2 
WI PAl  $21  (Cost  paid by Illinois) 
IL UCB 
WI PA/lnternet 1  $114  $704 
WI PA/lnternet 2  $114  $46 
WI PA/WI UCB  $469  168 
WI PA/IA PA 1  907  091 
WI PA/IA PA 2  $35  $91 
WI PA/IL PA  $21  $3, 820 
WI PA/AL PA  $21  $75 
WI PAlMS PA  $21  $75 
WI ,PA/IN FS  $21  $265 
WI PA/IN AFDC  $21  $265 
1 Wisconsin 
s initial costs to develop an extraction program

to be used to develop tape files for computer matches were

500. 
Costs shown are for tape development unless
otherwise indicated. 
2 Matching cost are for modifying and developing software to 
execute matches and computer charges. Figures are rounded 
to the nearest dollar. 
3 Costs figures include $21 incurred by the WI PA agency 
and $93. incurred by WI SESA. 
4 Costs figures include $426 incurred by WI PA agency 
and $43 incurred by WI SESA. 
5 Costs figures include $21 incurred by WI and $1886 
incurred by IA PA agency. 
6 Costs figures include $21 incurred by WI and $14 incurred 
by IA.  , .  , .

- . . ,- '- - ------ _.--..._._ ------ ..-- -- --
MATCH  RESULTS 
Match  Total  FOllow- FOllow- Error  Annual 
Hits  Referrals 
Completed  Cases  Savings 
WI PAl  482 
MN UCB 1 
WI PAl  734 
MN UCB 2 
WI PAl 
IL UCB 
Inter
135 
, 828 
net 1 
Inter
476  271  122  $83 , 000 
net 2 
WI PAl  5465  1275  1275  1020  $295  000 
WI UCB 
WI PA/IA PA 
872 
WI PA/IA PA 
824 
WI PA/IL  659  659  348  $34  980 
WI PA/AL PA  $16  704 
WI PAlMS PA 
$75  648 
WI PA/IN  292  178  N/A  $90, 000 
WI PA/IN 
AFDC  252  N/A  N/A 
Error cases include on y cases with incorrect payments.
 . ,  . .
STAFFING COSTS FOR SCREENING/FOLLOW-UP

Match  Screening  FOllow-up 
WI PA/MN UCB 1  $400  N/A

WI PA/MN UCB 2  $320

WI PA/IL UCB  $160

Internet 1  $329

Internet 2  068

WI PA/WI UCB  $25

WI PA/IA PA 1  $40

WI PA/IA PA 2  $87

WI PA/IL PA  445

WI PA/AL PA  $143

WI PAlMS PA  $572

WI FS/IN FS  $885

WI AFDC/IN AFDC  162

EVALUATION 
Prior to using standardized formats, Wisconsin performed only two
year. 
to four matches a  Since utilizing the Standardized
Formats, thirteen matches have been performed 
(11 of these were

inter-
jurisdictional matches with six different States). 
Wisconsin reports that the standardized formats are efficient and

cost-effecti ve 
and make inter-jurisdictional matching a simple
process. The data elements are presented so as to facilitate

assessment of the strength of the match, expediting processing
resolution. 
and distribution of match hits for 
Also, field staff
found the additional information useful for conducting case
reviews.  Wisconsin states that Standardized Formats enable an agency to 
develop an initial software program and to use it for all 
subsequent matches involving any agency using the Standardized
Formats. 
Wisconsin reports savings, because reprogramming was 
eliminated for 12 of the 13 matches performed, as $18 000. 
Wisconsin concludes that standardization is vi tally important if

computer matching is to become a nationally viable, practical

tool in the detection of welfare fraud, abuse and errors.
 - n  n I  i 
:: ..." -.""' ."  IA  0.-  m  -0 t 3 
U. 
 
-...- """u"8u..' 'It  : E  Cent"" of Birth
 =1:  ISF 
 
i
l
r
-
-
-   
..--.... .-.... - - - - - - ......" ... =  ..n  f;.  F3LInIU. II .  -1 
-, 1 r
---------............ ."'  I  St.te  l.......

-
t
VP 
m 
  e,..I F'
:
t
tj 
.
 
-
'''...
Pr-
 
I
 
- =
t- I t
-
'!.  1r  i.  i  i  ---
k" : aCl' :sl rr fi _--
-
-
 
I
- -
t I
 
'
1      
11", eI. ii ht.
.  r I S
-
-
I
t
Con. 
h 
c
H.t
 
I
 
" ; -
."  :-.:.-: ..  ..... . ' ...--.,."  ..' "": :"-...:
 ;:;:
APPENIX A (CONTINUED 
MATCH RECORD TYPE 2 (MR 
WACE , EARHIHC FORMT 
;1- Stm 
l.,tf 14t1tiiC\U.a h.'., 
Fil C 'hai 14tatifiC\ti4D . II'tf 
.. i' 
ir., 
: f. i t.ploJ.
: 1' fil..
. EIt1"", Firrt  - SufU. 
lU\'" 
ZIP  ZIP  Ttl..t..!I 
tl1.. IIt L.nU", Strttt U4t  E8l" M8 ;'tQtW Citv 
I1.. 
(1I1.J  IZ  "t If  EIr11O 
: I.l. tl tlr 1., 1tl.,htftt 1.IHr File  u,l8ttl.  84d1e; 
D;tt 
.u. 
. :E 
EIr1"! &4,' 
E81o) 8odre;  l.l,"  Ious 
bpI., *'m ..  EDloftr m, 
Ell., M4ess 
tli E' 
. 11. 
IE S  rer EII. 
IIlenuUc.t  -"$ fir Firrt  "'1$ for Stelhd
 '"u r.r r.ird  htt: hr r 0111: 1: 
t ESE I . E D fer E8. Ste. lit  Cwri.r  W'ttr Prior t.
 ",rtBtrt u'arite "rp to.r ,d  ",rtItmr 'hrit ehr ttl.rttl  k:t &rtete,nrt  ttrcfi'etrt 4t. .

""11  lo hc.t  :.. 
::. .:  .)  ..  .. 
:..:::.- ...' : :  . .-.:..... :.  ' --,  ......   !:,  (..,.
 ..- -:  -:...  ..":.." -    ----. =...-.-...-------.-- ... ....  . -:'.:::.
APPENIX A 
(CONTINUED

MATCH RECORD TYPE 3 (MR 

COMElATIONDaITS 
FORMT 
..tt . i  88f. ",

lI.lld  t1ltll  Staal kwit, lle,

::i. 
C.ia. n'ft 1.1.  Cl.iLaian eA IdI ess 
QUlUt 
Cl.iliit,t Adi7us  Ckt ti  ZIP ZIP  T8l.,1. 
Coe 
L.ane . 
w., 
ClPWlt  ril  -.I 8if."   L.c.l  IWIU  It....rit t   1I,  -: acHru  _ut  ecpensa=le -: leurit  "\I"'t
lelet"'''  trh  a-it  '''I.  W..k EDMan; .t.e =t. ..Dt 
c.- ht.  "tt
..11,  fa,t  lUeh.  --t 
'1
COfper..ioble  I...ht  ",,,dt  .r&litl. ': k..rit  h,.ftt  COIns&bl. -: a-rit  htent  COIenuble -: k..rit 

k DErinht  tr..e   i -t II"t  "tt  .D Eirotdtaret  i -t"..lt
 WHk DE-ni.n.-  5- ,"'llIt WMk Et."Iceu r.. -:: h,l.ftt
tete  tete 
,.t 
..'t,.t.tf tt  Week. D.s.Eb1An. dtin.i  a= 'f m.,..hfttt   _88itI. t  CWeoekDi t6Ebtned  aIen i :: ,l.,t..ifttt   ht.  oEn.d.tt.liee ne  -5 I'.....Uutt   "h'lteI t  CWeeokn EpCndelIrn!,i;s.a tle -:
''7 
t9 
'hU,t.h t Pwoat  Conpsu,le -: ImFit  h,",t  itl.  ,..t  Co..rat 11: :. hr.rlt
818 ftt  ht.  D1EAr1,td.i0n.a   -i- ""I'III t "tt  Week DEAntce ine  ril..  W68k D1Eire1tbtr2lai   ;- hU1'13lt
III 
COns1.
'11o11tttr .t  WMCIl riEItS"nl =oc b!il.'  -i=  'hef 't1el1 Ftitt   "tt  w. DEAnted ir'i  Pltcho .Pteesr
iod  riler

113  .14  FrOl  .. w 
113  114  . -
APPENDIX B

DATA ELEMENTS ADDED

Data  State 
Reason for Adding Data Element

Element 
AFDC  Wisconsin  To facilitate processing

Begin Date
 output. 
AFDC End Date
 Wisconsin  To facilitate processing

output. 
Absent Parent
 Okl ahoma  Future use. 
Code 
Source 
New Jersey
 Identify agency from which

Agency Virginia 
file originates.

File 
Cross 
New Jersey
 Provide applicant/recipient

Reference  public assistance history. 
(2 codes)

*Case Type
 New Jersey
 Identify categories of

or Program Code
 Wisconsin  assistance received. 
*County Oklahoma  To display all hits in

Code 
county sequence.

County Office
 Oklahoma  To display all hits by
Code  Office wi 
thin a specific
county. 
*Client  Virginia 
Relationship to case name 
Number  New Jersey
 or person who appears as 
head of assistance unit 
called "
person code" in 
New Jersey.

Child  California 
Required for special match.

Support 
Case Number

Child  California 
Required for special match.

Support File 
Name , DOB, SSN 
Depravation California 
Required for special match.

Code 
* Data element was added to the standardized format MR 
 . . , . 
APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) 
DATA ELEMENTS ADDED 
Data  State 
Reason for Adding Data Element

Element 
District 
California 
Required for special match.

Attorney
Number 
Date/Time Virginia 
Indicate date and time report

Record  generated. 
Created 
*Earned 
New Jersey
 Gross amount of income earned

Income  by the applicant/recipient. 
*UCB Reported
 Wisconsin  Indicator to show that re

Indicator 
New Jersey
 cipient reported receipt of

UCB. 
FInooddi csattoamr p
 New Jersey
 Case investigation, statistical

Wisconsin use. 
Illinois 
Virginia 
Food Stamp
 New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Application
Date 
Food Stamp
 New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Allotment 
Amount 
*Food Stamp
 New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Certi fica tion  Wisconsin 
Date 
Food Stamp End
 Wisconsin  Case review. 
Eligibili ty Date

*Food Stamp
 New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Household 
Income 
Grant 
New Jersey
 Case investigation.

Reduction 
*Grant  New Hampshire
 Case review. 
Amount (Net)  , . 
. .
APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) 
DATA ELEMENTS ADDED 
Data  State 
Reason for Adding Data Element

Element 
AFDC  New Jersey
 Refers to AFDC program - case

Application investigation. 
Date 
Mari tal
 New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Status 
*Medicaid 
New Jersey
 Distinguish Medicaid recipients

Person  Wisconsin 
in case.

Number 
*Medicaid  Wisconsin  Case review. 
Begin/End 
(2 codes)

Medicaid  California 
Required for special match.

Name , SSN 
DOB 
Name  New Jersey
 Secondary match element-privacy
Control 
purposes. 
Person 
New Jersey
 Develop unduplicated record

Program
counts for reports.

Indicator 
Payee
New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Indicator 
Person
New Jersey
 Identify type of assistance

Indicator 
received. 
Redetermination 
New Jersey
 Case investigation/review.

Date 
Race  Virginia 
Person identification.

*Representative Identification. 
New Jersey

Payee 
Virginia  Identification. 
*UCB  New Jersey
 Screening and investigation.

Amount  Wisconsin  . .
, . 
APPENDIX C

DATA ELEMENTS NOT USED

Data  State 
Reason for not Using Data Element

Element 
Century  California 
Not on Master File of source

agency. 
Illinois 
Not critical (IL/WI

( IL/WI match only).

PA match only) 
New Jersey
 Required special processing 

not critical.

*Date of Illinois  file. 
Not included on California 
Eligibili ty 
( IL/CA
PA match only) 
*Error Prone
 Okl ahoma Used a fraud indicator.

Flag  California Not available. 
Illinois 
Not available. 
Virginia Not available. 
Wisconsin  Not available. 
End of
 California  Available 
, not used. 
Eligibili ty

Illinois 
Only active cases were included

in matches.

New Jersey
 Replaced with FS Certification

date and AFDC and Medicaid

redetermination date. 
*Middle  California  file. 
tial  Not available on source 
Ini 
*Miscellaneous  Illinois 
Not critical.

Address Line 
(IL/WI PA

match only) 
*Monthly California 
Available, not used.

Payment 
Illinois 
Amount 
Not on file.

(IL/CA PA

and WI UCB

match only) 
* Data element was added to the Formats because States felt that

the data element if used would improve the quality of the match

resul ts .  , . 
" "
,. . 
.. '1

APPENDIX C continued

Data  state 
Reason for not Using Data Element

Element. 
Illinois 
Match Record
 Not critical.

Sequence

(IL/WI PA

Number
 match only)
California 
Not used, not critical.

Sequence
 Illinois  Not cri tical. 
Number
 (IL/WI PA

match only) 
Virginia 
Not needed.

*program Type
 New Jersey
 Replaced by State data elements 
case type  Person Program
Indicator Person Indicator. 
" and "
Illinois 
*Person Type
 Not critical.

(IL/WI PA & UCB

match only) 
New Jersey
 Replaced by State data elements

person indicator

California 
Available, not used.

*Reported California  Available 
, not used. 
Income 
Illinois 
Not on file.

(IL/WI , CA PA
matches only) 
Illinois 
Record Type
 Mutual agreement; not needed.

(IL/WI PA

match only) 
*SSN Flag
 Virginia  Could not identify verified SSNs.

Wisconsin 
Could not identify verified SSNs.

Zip + 4
 California 
Not critical.

Name Suffix
 California 
Not needed for these matches.

Local office
 California 
Not needed for this match.

Number  , \

APPENDIX D 
SUMRY OF MATCH RESULTS 
Match	 Total  FOllow- ' Error  Annual  Fraud
Hit  Referrals  CFOlloow-mup pleted  Cases  Savings  Referrals 
(Santa 573 
Clara 
Co. /CA-
Medi -ca1

Birth Index

Death Index 
CSE 
DC PAl 
DE PA

Wage , UCB 
DC/Penn  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
DC PAl	 N/A  N/A  000  N/A
Penn Wage	
per month

UCB 
DC P A/	 N/A  N/A  $18  207  N/A 
Wage  UCB 
DC/SC PA  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
DC P A/	 1 , 000  1 , 000  N/A  N/A  $250  000 3
MD Wage 
UCB 
DC PAl  N/A  N/A  N/A  000 3  N/A
NC Wage 
UCB 
DC PAl 
N/A  N/A  $140  000 3  N/A
VA PA Wage 
UCB 
1 Savings from fraud cases are not included in this figure. 
2 These are combined totals from all 
matches. 
3 Dollar amounts are estimates based on previous matching

experiences.  ' '---- " _._ --- ...__._.-- ,,.__..._ ---_. .."--- .- -,._,- . - . - --..-.-.---. ---"._..u ....-.- ..- -
APPENDIX D (CONTINUED 
SUMARY  OF MATCH RESULTS

Match  Total  FOllow-up  FOllow- Error  Annual  Fraud

Hits  Referrals  Completed  Cases  Savings  Referrals 
IL PA/CA  053  467  373  $134  698  N/A 
IL PA/WI  431  134  168  N/A 
IL PAl 
0 1  N/A
WI UCB. 
NH PAl  $14  652 
NH UCB

NH PAl 
956 
VT UCB

NJ PA/NY  861  358  358  $84  792 
NJ PA/Penn  750  222  205  $63  324  110
Wage 
OK PAl  896  463  463  N/A  $10  000 
TX PA

Wage UCB

VA  PAl  $10  908 
VA Wage

UCB 
WI PAl  482  NIA 
MN UCB 
WI PAl  734  N/A
MN UCB 
WI PAl

IL UCB

WI PAl  135  $3, 828  N/A
Internet 
WI PAl  476  271  122  $83  000  N/A
Internet 2

1 Savings were not reported because cases were closed prior

to the detection of the error.  ..--_
'. '"  , -...,.--.., .'-'- -,,, ',....  -",  "._ ..'._-- . .., . ,- . .-,.. ,,._ ... ,....-_.__._.- _..- -_.;.-- --- - --_... ''_' --''' ""---,," ' " -. ".. -....---- "-
._n  C. --- "- "". 
APPENDIX  (CONTINUED

SUMMARY  MATCH  RESULTS

Match  Total  FOllow- Error  Annual  Fraud 
Hits  Referrals  CFOlloow-mup  pleted  Cases  Savings  Referrals 
PAl  464  275  275  , 020  $295, 000  N/A 
UCB 
IA/ 
872  N/A 
IA/ 
824  N/A 
PA/IL  659  659  310  $34  980  N/A 
PA/AL 
$16  704  N/A 
PAlMS 
$75  648  N/A 
PA/IN  292  178  N/A  $90  000  N/A 
PA/IN  252  N/A  N/A  N/A 
AFDC  ; ,

. . ""---- '-- ----- --'--' '- ._- .._..__
APPENDIX E 
SUMY 
OF COSTS 
Costs 
tch 
Ma  Conversion 1  Ma tching 2  Screening  FOllow
N/A  $4, 795  N/A  N/A 
( Santa 
Clara Co)
AFDC, FS/
Medical 
. AFDC,  N/A  $5, 713  N/A  N/A 
FS/CSE 
AFDC, N/A  $1, 932  N/A  N/A 
FS/Death
Index 
AFFSD/CB,irth N/A  615  N/A  N/A 
Index 
DC PAl  $150  $2, 000 3  N/A  N/A 
DE PA, Wage 
UCB 
DC PAl  $150  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Penn. PA 
DC PAl  $150  N/A  N/A  N/A 
Penn. Wage 
UCB 
DC PA/SC  $150  $5, 148  N/A  N/A 
Wage, UCB 
1 Conversion costs are for mOdifying and developing computer

programs and/or tapes for matching. 
Figures are rounded

to the nearest dollar.

2 Matching costs are for mOdifying and developing software

to execute matches. 
Figures are rounded to the nearest
dollar. 
3 Costs figures are estimates based on previous matching

exper iences . 
n__.. .  , . 
'--  . .-.  ' ,.., u  _L.  ..  .L ,------ -.",__--"......_..,--
CONTINUED 
APPENDIX E 
SUMY 
OF COSTS 
Ma tch  Conversion 1  Ma tching 2  Screening  Follow-up 
DC PAl MD  $420  $800  N/A  N/A 
Wage, UCB 
DC/SC PA  $150  $2, 500 3  N/A  N/A 
DC PAl  $150  $2, 500  N/A  N/A 
NC Wage, 
UCB 
DC PAl  N/A  N/A  N/A  N/A 
VA PA 
Wage, UCB 
IL PAl CA  $3, 610  $2, 740  $1, 270  $16, 360 
IL UCB/  Paid by  $2, 990  $175  N/A
WI PA  Wisconsin 
IL PAl  $1, 000  Paid by  $2, 076  $375 4 
WI PA,  Wisconsin 
UCB 
NH PAl  $3, 727  $350  $34  $372 
NH UCB

NH PAl  $1, 193  . N/A  N/A
$620 
VT UCB

1 Conversion costs are for modifying and developig computer

programs and/or tapes for matching. Figures are rounded

to the nearest dollar.

2 Matching costs are for modifying and developing software 
to execute matches. 
Figures are rounded to the nearest
dollar. 
3 Cost figures are estimates based on previous matching

exper iences . 
4 Follow-
up costs are for verification of PA match.
 ....--_ --"--'----------.
. . ..,-
__.  _._,_ ._" ......,..".._--.- -_...... -,-...  -...-
.A_ 
1& '.. 
APPENDIX E  CONTINUED 
SUMRY OF COSTS 
Match  Conversion  Matching  Screening  FOllow-
NJ PA/NY  $23  774  312  N/A  N/A 
N.: PAl  $7, 7894  $935  N/A  N/A
Penn. Wage

(System I) 
NJ PAl  497  $8, 550  N/A  N/A
Penn. Wage

(System II)

OK PAl  , 015  $5, 027  , 628  N/A
TX PA

Wage , UCB

VA AFDC  $28 , 640  720  $600  NjA
applicants/ 
VA Wage

UCB 
WI PAl  521  585  $40  N/A
MN UCB 1 
WI PAl  $21  $105  $87  N/A
MN UCB 2 
WI PAl  $21  (Paid by  $160  N/A
IL UCB  IL) 
Conversion costs are for modifying and developing computer

programs and/or tapes for matching. Figures are rounded to

the nearest dollar. 
Matching costs are for modifying and developing softward to
execute matches. 
Figures are rounded to the nearest
dollar. 
New York. 

Costs figure include $21 156 for New Jersey and $2 618 for
4 Only Pennsylvania 
s costs are indicated.  . '
. .,
APPENDIX E  CONTINUED 
SUMY 
COSTS 
tch 
Ma  Conversion 1  Ma tching 2  Screening  FOllow-up 
WI PAl  $114  $704  $39  N/A 
Internet 1 
WI PAl  $114  $46  $1, 068  N/A 
Internet 2 
WI PAl  $469 4  $6, 168  N/A  N/A 
WI UCB 
WI PAllA  $1, 907 5  $2, 091  $40 
PA 1 
WI PA/IA  $35 6  $91  $87 
PA 2 
WI PA/IL  $21  $3, 820  $160 
WI PA/AL  $21  $75  $143 
WI PAlMS  $21  $75  $143 
WI FS/IN  $21  $265  $865 
1 Conversion costs are for modifying and developing computer

programs and/or tapes for matching. 
Figures are rounded to

the nearest dollar. 
2 Matching costs are for modifying and developing software to 
execute matches. 
Figures are rounded. 
3 Costs included $21 incurred by WI PA and $93 incurred by 
WI SESA. 
4 Costs include $426 incurred by WI PA and $43 incurred by 
WI SESA. 
5 Costs included $21 incurred by WI and $1,
886 incurred by

IA PA agencies.

6 Costs figures include $21 incurred by WI and $14 incurred 

by IA PA agencies.
 . . . '
APPENDIX E (CONTINUED) 
SUMY 
OF COSTS 
Ma tch  Conversion 1  Ma tching 2  Screening  Follow-up 
WI PAlIN  $21  $265  162 
AFDC 
1 Conversion costs are for modifying and developing computer

programs and/or tapes for matching. Figures are rounded to

the nearest dollar. 

2 Matching costs are for modifying and developing software to 
execute matches. 
Figures are rounded.  . .
, "
APPENIX F 
. REORTING FORM
I '
Office of Inspector General

Department of Health and Human Services

Standardized Formats project

Implementatio  of Formats 
OIG I provides for the collection of data and

Instructions: Form 
information on the resources and costs to conv' ecrotm pdalettae de xotnrcea ctansd  into

This form is to be
the standardized formats. 

submitted to the OIG project Manager with the monthly report for the

month in which all data bases have been converted into the

formts. 
.s tandard i zed 
Provide the following data on resources requiforermd aatnsd.  costs to

convert data extracts into the standardized 

Total
Total Number  Costs 
of Staff Days  Job Titles 
Format Used

Data Extract 
tamp 
AFDC/Food S
Non-PA Food

Stamp 
Medicaid 
Social Services

Unemployment
Insurance 
Wage 
Other: 
OIG I  APPENIX F (continued) 
-2
Provide aggregate data on resources and costs to develop software

to implement the standardized formats.

Total Number

of Staff Days  Job Titles  Total Costs

For each format implemented, list the data elements that were not

used. 
Data Element (s)
Data Extract  Format Used  Not Used 
AFDC/Food Stamp 
Non-PA Food Stamp

Medicaid 
Social Services

Unemployment Insurance

Wage 
Other: 
Attach a narrative discussing the reason (s) for not using the data

elements identified in (3) above.

List data elements that were added to the user defined areas in

each format. 
Data Extract  Format Used  Data Element (s) Added

AFDC/Food Stamp 
OIG I
 . ' . . ,

APPENIX F (continued) 
Office of Inspector General

Department of Health and Human Services

Standardized Formats Project

ties 
Match Activi 
mInstrauctio ns: tForm cOIG hII pr.ovide s for. the 
 collection of daacttai vaintdie
 s. 
information on the conduct, resources, and costs of match 
Submi t the Form to the OIG Project Manager upon completion of each

Identifying information

. Type of Match 
Matching Agencies 
States involved in Match 
To conduct this match:

Yes 
existing matching software was modified.

new matching software was developed.

Attach a narrative description of how the match was conducted and

include the following: 
(a)	 Identify and discuss the logic for using specific edits 
cases. 
or screens in the match program to prioritize 
(b)	 Describe how you used the data elements that are 
formats. 
- predefined in the standardized 
(c)	 Include a flow chart of the match. 
agency.

List the data files included in the match by 
Agency  Data File

OIG II
 , "
APPENIX F (continued) 
. I 

-2
file. 
Give the total number of input records read from each 

. Number of Records Read

Data File

AFDC/Food Stamp 
Non-PA Food stamp

Medicaid 
Social Services

Unemployment Insurance

Wage

Other:

match.  For 
Identify pre-edits used to eliminate records from the 

example, records without SSNs.

ts from each file with the Social
Gi ve the total number of raw hi  set. If 
this field was not used 
Security Number validation flag 

record N/A.

Number of Records with SSN Flag Set

Data File 
AFDC/Food stamp 
Non-PA Food Stamp

Medica id

Social Services

Unemployment Insurance

OIG II  . ,

. ..
APPENIX F (continued) 
-3
Number of Records wi th SSN Flag Set
Data File

wage 
Other: 
Give the total number of raw hits from each file with the error

set. 
prone f lag 
Number of Records with the Error 
Prone Flag Set 
Data File 
AFDC/Food Stamp 
Non-PA' Food Stamp 
Medicaid 
social Services

Unemployment Insurance

Wage 
Other: 
List any cr iter ia or screens used to pr ior i tize raw hits for 
follow-up. 
hi ts 
Give the total number of cases referred for validation of raw 

OIG II  , "
APPENIX F (continued) 
-4

cost, by

10. provide the following data on resources required and 

task, to conduct this match.

Total Number  tle  Cost 
Job Ti 
of Staff Days 
Task 
Wr i ting New
Matching Software 
Modifying Existing
Matching Software 
Developmental Costs 
Computer processing

computer Charges

(Include CPU Charges

Only) 
Other: 
form: 
Individual completing the 

Name: 
State Agency:

Da te :

Send To:  Jane Tebbutt 
BHS/OIG 
Room 5644 
Avenue, S.
330 Independence 
201 
Washington, D.  20 '
OIG II
 , .

- ..  . "
APPENIX F (continued) 
Office of Inspector General

Department of Health and Human Services

Standardized Formats project

Match Results -- Verification, Review and Fo11ow-u

OIG III provides for the collection of data on the

Instructions: Form 
hits, and resources and costs

verification and follow-uP of raw  on each match, to the

associated with the activities. Submitr ae fpormo,
 rt.
OIG project Manager with the final 
Attach a narrative describing the process used to verify, review

and follow-uP on raw hits.

Provide, by task, the ,following data on resourhcietss . required and
costs to verify, review and follow-uP on raw 

Total Number  Total Costs 
Job Title 
Task  of Staff Days 
Indicate the number of cases referred for review and verification

from each file used in the match.

Number of cases referred

Data File

AFDC/Food Stamp 
Non-PA Food stamp

Medicaid 
Social Services

Unemployment Insurance

OIG III
 , .

. -
(continued) 
APPENIX F 
-2
Number of cases referred

Data File

wage 
Other: 
* As a result of the review and follow-up activities how many

cases: 
were reviewed

required grant adjustments

-- benef its reduced

increased

-- benef its 
were terminated 
had evidence to support a question of fraud and were referred

for investigation

If only a sample of the cases referred for follow-up were

reviewed, state rationale and how sample was drawn.

* Indicate the number of cases involved and the total dollar

amount of:

identified:

overpayments 
-- cases

-- dollars

fines and penalties assessed:

-- cases

-- dollars

OIG III
 . .
, .

. ':
APPENDIX F (continued) 
-3

ettlements and judgments rendered:

-- cases

-- dollars

resti tutions 
(money recovered):

-- cases

-- dollars

* Figures provided will reflect totals/amounts as of date of

report. 
Indicate projected savings from the match

Projected Savings

Ma tch 
savings.
Describe the methodology used to arrive at the projected 

Individual completing the form provide the information requested

below. 
Name: 
State Agency:

Date: 
OIG III
 ' .. .
, " . )

APPENIX F (continued) 
-4
Send to:  Jane Tebbutt 
HHS/OIG 
Room 5644 
Avenue, S. 
330 Independence 
Washington, D.  20 201 
o IG I I I  . ,
 .. ,. -,------- - '~~~ ------- --_'_-_"_- --- '- . :._---- '-.'- --- ------_. -
APPENDIX G

state proj ect Leaders 
Francis Brighton

New Hampshire Division of Welfare

Hazen Drive 
Concord , New Hampshire 03301
Phone: 
(603) 271-4262 
John FedynyshYn 
New Jersey Department of Human Services 
Division of Public Welfare 
CN 716 

' Unit
Systems Analysis and Development
Trenton , New Jersey 08625
Phone: 
(609) 588-2314 
Sally Ferguson

Illinois Department of Public Aid

Bureau of Research and Analysis

316 South Se,c oInlldi nStorieset 

Springfield 62762
Phone: 
(217) 782-1128 
Larry Harrison
Department of Social Servic

Fraud and Aud1 ts Branch

744 P Street, MS 19

, California 
Sacramento  95814
Phone: 
(916) 924-2828 
Karl Hauser

Department of Social Services

Bureau of Data Systems

8004 Franklin Farms Road

, Virginia 
Richmond  23288
Phone: 
(804) 281-9358 
Bill Long

Department of Human Services

Office of Inspector General

Audi t and Review Division

. P. O. Box 25352 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125
Phone: 
(405) 424-5880 
Kenneth Shimota

Services

Department of Health and Social 
Bureau of Economic Assistance

P. O. Box 7851

1 West Wilson -- Room 384

Madison , Wisconsin

Phone: 
(608) 266-0606
 'f .. ,

(continued) 
APPENDIX G 
Clayton Vickland 
Department of Human Services

Randall School -- Room 223

First and I street, S . W . 
, D. C. 
Washington  20024
Phone: 
(202) 727-5041