Automated Welfare Systems: Historical Costs and Projections (Fact Sheet,
02/25/94, GAO/AIMD-94-52FS).
The states have developed a number of computer systems, many of them
quite costly, to help run their welfare programs. Federal assistance to
these projects has totaled more than $8.6 billion so far, and the
government may end up paying the lion's share of $10.7 million in
additional automated system costs projected through the end of the
decade. Without effective federal oversight and monitoring of state
development efforts, the government has few guarantees that its
investment will yield systems that achieve their expected benefits and
provide effective service to welfare clients.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: AIMD-94-52FS
TITLE: Automated Welfare Systems: Historical Costs and Projections
DATE: 02/25/94
SUBJECT: Computerized information systems
Welfare services
State-administered programs
Future budget projections
Disadvantaged persons
Public assistance programs
Administrative costs
Management information systems
Systems management
Federal aid to states
IDENTIFIER: Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
AFDC
HHS Child Support Enforcement Program
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program
Medicaid Program
Food Stamp Program
Family Assistance Management Information System
Medicaid Management Information System
Child Welfare Services Program
JOBS Program
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Fact Sheet for the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate
February 1994
AUTOMATED WELFARE SYSTEMS -
HISTORICAL COSTS AND PROJECTIONS
GAO/AIMD-94-52FS
Automated Welfare Systems
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ACF - Administration for Children and Families
AFDC - Aid to Families with Dependent Children
APD - advanced planning document
CSE - Child Support Enforcement
FAMIS - Family Assistance Management Information System
FNS - Food and Nutrition Service
HCFA - Health Care Financing Administration
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
JOBS - Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
MMIS - Medicaid Management Information System
USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-252340
February 25, 1994
The Honorable John Glenn
Chairman, Committee on
Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This report responds to your request that we determine the extent to
which states are developing and implementing automated information
systems for federally supported welfare programs.
As agreed with your office, our objective was to provide information
on the numbers, types, status, and costs of these automated systems.
As part of this objective, we obtained information on states' plans
to continue developing and implementing such systems throughout the
1990s. We gathered this information through interviews with federal
officials responsible for administering the various welfare programs
and through telephone interviews with officials in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
(hereafter referred to as the states). Appendix I provides
additional details of our scope and methodology.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
States, with the assistance of the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA), have developed and implemented
a number of automated information systems, many of which have been
costly, to help administer their welfare programs. With federal
financial participation rates ranging between 50 and 90 percent,
federal agencies contributed over $6.8 billion from 1984 to 1992, and
over $1.8 billion prior to 1984, to help fund development and
operation of these automated systems.\1
In addition, federal costs for the continued development and
operation of automated state welfare systems could be considerable.
Currently, the federal participation rate to support states'
development and operation of automated systems, including the
development of replacement systems is at least 50 percent.
Consequently, the federal government may pay the largest share of an
estimated $10.7 billion in additional automated system costs
projected from fiscal year 1993 through the end of the decade.
Moreover, as our past work has shown, without effective federal
oversight and monitoring of state development efforts, there is
little guarantee that this continuing federal investment will produce
or support systems that achieve expected benefits and provide
effective service to welfare clients. (See appendix VII for a list
of our prior products related to automated welfare information
systems.)
--------------------
\1 All figures in the letter are expressed in 1993 constant dollars.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
HHS and USDA, in cooperation with the states, administer a number of
welfare programs that provide cash benefits and other assistance to
needy individuals and families. Although states are generally
responsible for day-to-day program operations, including eligibility
determinations, agencies within HHS and USDA are responsible for
providing oversight, guidance, and various levels of program funding.
For instance, HHS, through its Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), is responsible for several welfare and
welfare-related programs, including
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
Child Support Enforcement (CSE),
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS),
Child Care, and
Child Welfare Services and Foster Care/Adoption Assistance.
HHS also administers the Medicaid program through the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA). USDA, through its Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS), has responsibility for the Food Stamp
Program. Appendix II provides details about these seven welfare
programs, including fiscal year 1992 program dollars and
participants.
Because of the complexity, costs, and large caseloads associated with
these welfare programs, the Congress has provided funding to
encourage states to develop and operate automated systems to support
their welfare programs. These automated systems are used to
determine participants' eligibility, process claims, and provide
participant and program information, and are intended to help states
more effectively administer and manage their welfare programs by
reducing errors, lowering administrative costs, and providing better
client service. Appendix III discusses the various types of
automated welfare systems, including the authorizing legislation and
the federal financial participation rates.
To obtain federal participation on the cost of automated welfare
system development and implementation, states are required to follow
a specific advanced planning document (APD) process. During this
process, states submit APDs to the specific oversight agency (that
is, ACF, HCFA, or FNS) detailing their plans to develop and implement
automated systems. The federal agencies then make funding decisions
on the basis of these APD submissions. After approving funding to
states, the federal agencies are to monitor development and operation
of the state systems to ensure all federal requirements are met.
We have reviewed federal oversight and monitoring of state system
development efforts for several welfare programs including AFDC,
Medicaid, Food Stamps, and CSE (see appendix VII). These reviews
showed that the agencies responsible for administering these programs
generally do not provide effective oversight or monitoring, resulting
in costly automated system problems. Further, despite the sizable
federal investment, these agencies do little to determine whether the
states' systems are providing expected benefits.
MAGNITUDE OF AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
IS SIGNIFICANT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
As of June 1993, all 54 states and territories we contacted said they
were operating one or more automated welfare systems to support their
various welfare programs. Of these, 52 told us that they were
operating multiple systems--ranging from 2 to 12--to provide welfare
program support. Further, many of the states were in the process of
upgrading or replacing these systems, developing new systems, or
combining separate systems for individual welfare programs into a
single, integrated Family Assistance Management Information System
(FAMIS).\2
The automated welfare systems operated by the states consist of
combinations of separate systems that process data for individual
programs and systems that are capable of supporting information
requirements for several welfare programs. Oregon, for example,
operates one system to process AFDC and Medicaid eligibility;
separate individual systems to support Medicaid management
information, food stamp, and child welfare/foster care activities;
and various separate systems to support the JOBS, CSE, child care,
and other programs. Appendix IV summarizes each state's automated
welfare systems and their status as of June 1993.
From fiscal years 1984 through 1992, ACF, HCFA, and FNS provided over
$6.8 billion to support state activities related to the planning,
design, development, installation, and operation of automated welfare
systems. Further, although data on federal cost participation prior
to 1984 are limited, we identified over $1.8 billion that went to the
states from 1980 to 1983, mostly for states' development and
operation of Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS). Of the
$6.8 billion, $1.2 billion was federal funding provided at an
enhanced rate (greater than 50 percent) to support activities related
to system development. The remaining $5.6 billion was regular
funding provided at a 50 percent rate to support system operations.
Appendix V provides a state-by-state summary of federal automated
systems expenditures (in current dollars) during the 1984-1992
period.
Federal expenditures for the development and operation of state
automated welfare systems have continued to rise since 1984. As
shown in figure 1, these expenditures (expressed in 1993 constant
dollars) have grown by almost 72 percent from $566 million in 1984 to
$972 million in 1992. ACF officials noted that these increases in
expenditures are due, in part, to state requirements for larger, more
sophisticated systems. These state requirements are attributable to
rising welfare program caseloads, increased program complexity, and
the inception of several new programs since 1984.
Figure 1: Federal Automated
Welfare System Expenditures,
1984-1992
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\2 A general system design developed by HHS to improve state
administration of the AFDC program.
FUTURE AUTOMATED SYSTEM COSTS
COULD BE CONSIDERABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Federal costs to support development and operation of state welfare
systems could continue to be considerable. For example, all 54
states plan to either develop at least one new automated system by
the end of this century, or upgrade or replace one or more of their
existing systems to keep up with changing federal regulations,
expanding welfare caseloads, increasing program complexity, and
advancements in computer technology. Further, some HCFA officials
noted that national health care reform could contribute to increasing
automated system costs by creating the need for larger, more complex
systems. ACF officials added that welfare reform, if it occurs,
could also impact future automated system costs.
As shown in figure 2, 12 states anticipate initiating projects in the
next 7 years each costing over $50 million, and 17 states anticipate
starting projects that will cost from $25 million to $50 million
each. Each of the remaining states also expect to incur system
development costs of up to $25 million over this period. Individual
states' plans for automated welfare system development during the
1993-1999 period are discussed in appendix VI.
Figure 2: Projected Automated
Welfare System Development
Costs, 1993-1999
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In total, the 54 states estimate that development costs for automated
welfare systems could be at least $2.2 billion from 1993 through
1999. In addition, based on states' fiscal year 1993 estimates,
annual operating costs for the automated systems could total an
additional $8.5 billion over this same period. Thus, the total
estimated costs for developing and operating state automated welfare
systems over this 7-year period are about $10.7 billion.
Except for the limits imposed by federal financial participation
rates and the availability of program funding, no legislatively
mandated ceilings exist to specifically limit federal assistance for
states' development and operation of automated welfare systems.
Further, federal regulations do not preclude funding of replacement
systems. As a result, the federal government could continue to pay
at least half of all future development and operating costs for
states' automated welfare systems.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
We obtained the information in this report between July 1992 and
October 1993. We discussed the results of our work with ACF, HCFA,
and FNS officials, and have incorporated their comments where
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Finance, and
the House Committee on Ways and Means; the Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request.
Should you have any questions about this report or require additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-6252. Other major
contributors are listed in appendix VIII.
Sincerely yours,
Frank W. Reilly
Director, Information Resources
Management/Health, Education,
and Human Services
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
Our work was performed at various locations including
the Food and Nutrition Service, in Alexandria, Virginia;
the Administration for Children and Families, in Washington, D.C.;
and
the Health Care Financing Administration, in Woodlawn, Maryland.
To accomplish our objective, we interviewed federal officials
responsible for information resources and systems management,
financial management, and other programmatic aspects for the various
welfare and welfare-related programs identified as being supported,
to some extent, by automated information systems. These programs
included Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Child Support
Enforcement, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training, Child Care,
Child Welfare Services and Foster Care/Adoption Assistance, Medicaid,
and Food Stamps. We reviewed federal laws and regulations, agency
guidance, and documentation related to these programs. We also
obtained and analyzed historical data showing federal costs related
to the development, implementation, and operation of states'
automated welfare information systems, and to facilitate comparison,
converted these costs to 1993 constant dollars. Finally, we
conducted telephone interviews with officials of all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
(hereafter referred to as the states) to obtain information
describing numbers, types, status, and costs of their automated
welfare systems.
To determine the future outlook for the development and
implementation of these automated systems, we conducted telephone
interviews with state representatives to discuss their plans for
development of new systems or replacement/enhancement of current
systems and to obtain estimates of the total costs associated with
these future plans. We also obtained their estimates of fiscal year
1993 operating costs for their automated welfare information systems.
Using these state estimates of development and operational costs, we
then projected the total state automated welfare system costs for
fiscal years 1993 through 1999 in 1993 constant dollars.
We did not verify or corroborate historical financial data provided
by the federal agencies. However, we did confirm with the states
that we had accurately recorded data provided during initial
telephone interviews. Only 3 of the 54 did not respond to our
requests for data confirmation: Guam, Montana, and New Mexico.
DESCRIPTION OF WELFARE PROGRAMS
========================================================== Appendix II
AID TO FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN (AFDC)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1
The AFDC program provides direct cash payments to needy families with
dependent children. Established by Title IV-A of the Social Security
Act, AFDC operates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
AFDC is a state-managed program. However, the federal government and
the states share program costs, and the federal government provides
broad standards for eligibility and program requirements. About 13.8
million individuals, or about 5 percent of the U.S. population, were
enrolled in the program in September 1992. The federal government
spent about $11.8 billion on participant benefits in fiscal year
1992.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
(CSE)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act authorizes federal funds to
states to locate noncustodial parents, establish paternity, determine
child support obligations of noncustodial parents, and enforce child
support orders. CSE services are welfare-related in that they are
automatically available for families receiving AFDC assistance.
However, they are also available to non-AFDC families who apply and
meet certain criteria. Support payments collected for AFDC families
are used to offset benefit costs for the AFDC program, while support
payments collected for non-AFDC families are passed on directly to
the family.
In fiscal year 1992, the Title IV-D caseload totaled about 15.2
million AFDC and non-AFDC cases. Support collections were made in
over 2.8 million cases and about 3.7 million noncustodial parents
were located. Additionally, over 500,000 paternities and about
900,000 support orders were established during the year.
JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND BASIC
SKILLS TRAINING (JOBS)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.3
The Family Support Act of 1988 created the JOBS program under Title
IV-F of the Social Security Act. JOBS is a comprehensive
welfare-to-work program intended to improve a family's ability to
become and remain self-sufficient. JOBS provides AFDC recipients
with the opportunity to participate in job skills training, work
activities, and education-related programs to help them develop
skills necessary for finding and retaining employment. JOBS also
provides welfare recipients with necessary support services such as
transportation and child care. At the end of fiscal 1992, all 50
states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands had implemented JOBS programs. In fiscal year 1992, an
average of 510,000 AFDC recipients per month participated in JOBS
programs.
JOBS programs are administered by states' Title IV-A agencies, and
are partially funded by the federal government. Total federal
funding was capped at $1 billion for fiscal years 1991 to 1993. In
fiscal year 1992, about $679 million was reimbursed to the states for
the JOBS program.
CHILD CARE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.4
These child care programs--administered by states--are authorized
under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act. These programs are as
follows:
The Family Support Act of 1988 created a child care program for
AFDC recipients. This program is offered to AFDC families who
need child care to accept employment or remain employed. AFDC
families participating in educational or training activities,
such as a JOBS program, are also eligible. An estimated 164,000
families participated in this child care program during fiscal
year 1992.
Also created by the Family Support Act of 1988, Transitional Child
Care is offered to families who recently lost AFDC eligibility
due to increased income from employment. Transitional child
care benefits are limited to 12 months after losing AFDC
eligibility. An estimated 32,000 families participated in this
program during fiscal year 1992.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 created at-risk child
care for families who would otherwise become eligible for AFDC
without such child care assistance. No caseload figures were
available for this program because states were not required to
report program data until November 1993.
In addition, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 created
child care development block grants. These grants are targeted
toward making quality child care available and affordable for
low-income families. Block grants under this program totaled about
$798 million in fiscal year 1992.
Total federal costs, including block grants, for the four child care
programs were $1.54 billion in fiscal year 1992.
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES AND
FOSTER CARE/ADOPTION
ASSISTANCE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.5
Child Welfare Services is a formula grant program established under
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. This program provides states
with federal support for a wide variety of child welfare services to
strengthen families and avoid placement of children in foster care or
adoption, prevent abuse and neglect, and provide foster care and
adoption services. Federal funds for Title IV-B services were capped
nationwide at $274 million in fiscal year 1992.
One of the primary child welfare services offered is the foster
care/adoption assistance program. Created under Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act, this entitlement program authorizes federal
funds to states to pay for foster care and adoption assistance.
Federal funding for foster care and adoption services can be provided
only for children who otherwise would be living in AFDC-eligible
homes. In fiscal year 1992, 222,000 children were in the foster care
program, and about 66,000 children received adoption assistance
services. Federal costs for foster care services totaled about $2.2
billion in fiscal year 1992, while adoption assistance cost the
government about $220 million.
MEDICAID
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.6
Title XIX of the Social Security Act authorizes the Medicaid program.
Medicaid is an entitlement program in which the federal government
participates with states in the cost of medical provider payments for
needy individuals. Medicaid eligibility has traditionally been
linked to those eligible for either AFDC benefits or the Federal
Supplemental Security Income program for the aged, blind, and
disabled. However, recent legislation has extended Medicaid coverage
to those who have no ties to welfare. Forty-nine states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
operate Medicaid programs. Arizona operates a similar medical
assistance program under a demonstration waiver.
In fiscal year 1992, about 31.2 million recipients received Medicaid
benefits. These benefits, in the form of medical assistance
payments, cost the federal government over $66.1 billion.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.7
Originally authorized in 1964 to improve the nutrition of low-income
households, the Food Stamp Program operates in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico
operates a related nutrition assistance program. The Food Stamp
Program provides participants with coupons that can be exchanged for
food or food-preparation items at participating retailers. Food
stamp benefits, which are 100 percent federally funded, are intended
to make up the difference between participants' expected
contributions to food expenses and the amount needed to purchase a
nutritionally sound, low-cost diet.
Eligibility for this food assistance is generally based on income
levels, liquid asset holdings, and various employment-related
requirements. AFDC recipients must meet certain eligibility
requirements to qualify for food stamps. In September 1992, about
26.4 million individuals, approximately 10 percent of the United
States population, were receiving food stamp benefits. The cost to
the federal government for food stamp benefits in fiscal year 1992
totalled over $20.9 billion.
DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZING
LEGISLATION, FEDERAL FINANCIAL
PARTICIPATION RATES, AND AUTOMATED
SYSTEMS BY WELFARE PROGRAM
========================================================= Appendix III
Below are descriptions of the authorizing legislation, the federal
financial participation rates, and the overall status for automated
information systems for each of the welfare and welfare-related
programs covered by this fact sheet. Specific information on each
state's automated information systems for these programs is presented
in appendix IV.
AFDC
State AFDC programs are, in many cases, supported by systems referred
to as Family Assistance Management Information Systems (FAMIS).
FAMIS is a general system design developed by HHS to improve the
capability of states to administer the AFDC program. FAMIS enables
states to better control and account for all factors in the
eligibility determination process, as well as the costs, quality, and
delivery of benefits and services to program participants.
The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 authorized enhanced
funding to states for 90 percent of total costs of planning,
designing, developing, and installing automated AFDC management
information systems that comply with specific federal system
requirements. Prior to 1993, states could also be reimbursed for
between 50 and 90 percent of the costs of operating automated AFDC
systems. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 reduced the
federal participation rate to 50 percent for all automated system
costs, effective April 1, 1994, but will be delayed for states whose
legislatures meet biennially.\1
As of June 1993 52 states were operating some type of statewide
automated AFDC system. As illustrated in figure III.1, as of April
1993, 32 states were certified by ACF as meeting FAMIS functional
requirements, 20 states were in various stages of developing their
FAMIS system, and 2 states had no FAMIS activity.
Figure III.1: FAMIS Status as
of April 1993
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\1 Public Law 103-66, 103 Stat. 312, 663 (1993).
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1
The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 authorized the
federal government to pay up to 90 percent of states' total costs for
planning, designing, developing, installing, or enhancing statewide
automated CSE systems. States can also receive from 66 to 90 percent
of their costs for operating these systems. To qualify for the 90
percent enhanced funding, the Family Support Act of 1988 mandated
that states implement statewide automated data processing and
information retrieval systems for the CSE program that meet all
program functional requirements, including interfacing with FAMIS and
other state welfare systems. States not complying with this mandate
by October 1, 1995, will receive no further enhanced funding for
development.
In June 1993, 33 states were operating separate automated CSE systems
of some type, and 6 states were operating automated CSE systems that
also supported other welfare programs. The 15 states not operating
statewide automated CSE systems were either developing or planning to
develop a system to comply with the 1988 mandate.
JOBS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.2
The Family Support Act of 1988, which created the JOBS program, also
authorized federal funding to states for planning, development, and
implementation of an automated client-based JOBS information system.
The federal financial participation rate is 50 percent for the costs
of developing and operating such systems. However, to encourage JOBS
system interfaces with FAMIS (sharing common data elements) and/or
integration with an automated AFDC system (sharing common databases
or utilizing the same mainframe computer), the states can receive 90
percent reimbursement for the cost of developing these interfaces or
integration. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 reduced
this enhanced funding rate for FAMIS-related automated system costs
to 50 percent effective April 1, 1994.
In June 1993, 24 states were operating separate automated JOBS
systems and 22 states had integrated their JOBS systems with systems
for other welfare programs. Eight states were not operating
automated JOBS systems on a statewide basis.
CHILD CARE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.3
Legislation creating the four child care programs (see appendix II)
also authorized federal funding to states for automating their child
care programs. For the child care for AFDC recipients and
transitional child care programs, ACF provides funding ranging from
50 percent of the automation costs related to planning, developing,
installing, and operating state child care systems to 90 percent
enhanced funding for planning and development of AFDC child care
systems that meet certain conditions, such as integrating with FAMIS.
However, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 reduced this
enhanced funding rate for FAMIS-related automated system costs to 50
percent effective April 1, 1994. ACF also provides funding for the
costs of automating and operating the at-risk and child care
development block grant programs; however, federal funding is limited
by the ceiling for each state's program grant.
In June 1993, 14 states were operating separate automated systems for
their child care programs and 13 states were operating automated
systems that included child care as one of their components.
Twenty-seven states were not operating a statewide automated child
care system at that time.
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES AND
FOSTER CARE/ADOPTION
ASSISTANCE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.4
Automated systems for state child welfare services are authorized
under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. These tracking and case
management systems monitor child protective activities and perform
associated risk assessment and case development and review functions
for children and services covered under individual state plans. ACF
can reimburse states for 75 percent of the administrative costs of
operating Title IV-B programs, including development and operating
costs for automated systems. Total funds are capped by individual
state program allotments.
Automated systems for foster care/adoption assistance are authorized
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Essentially, these
systems support maintenance payments for adoptions and foster care.
However, they may support many other activities and functions as
well, including program eligibility determination, referral services,
case development and management, and interfaces with other welfare
programs. Under Title IV-E, 50 percent federal assistance has been
available for developing and operating automated systems. However,
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 increased the federal
matching percentage for the planning, design, development, or
installation of automated statewide data collection and information
retrieval systems to 75 percent as of October 1, 1993. This matching
rate will decrease to 50 percent on October 1, 1996, as will the
current 75 percent rate for Title IV-B automated systems.
In June 1993, 31 states were operating separate automated systems to
support their Title IV-B and IV-E activities, and 10 states had
combined these activities into systems that also supported other
welfare programs. Thirteen states were not operating automated
systems on a statewide basis.
MEDICAID
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.5
The Social Security Act and related amendments authorize the states
to operate two types of automated systems to help manage their
Medicaid programs--Medicaid eligibility systems and Medicaid
management information systems (MMIS).
Automated Medicaid eligibility systems are used to facilitate the
eligibility determination process used by states to enroll
participants in Medicaid programs. Many of these automated
eligibility systems are integrated into systems that are used to
determine eligibility for several welfare programs. For
example, in June 1993, 41 states were operating some type of
integrated eligibility system, including 30 state systems that
complied with FAMIS requirements; 7 states were operating
separate Medicaid eligibility systems; and 6 states had not yet
automated their Medicaid eligibility determination functions on
a statewide basis. Because Medicaid eligibility systems are, in
many cases, integrated with other welfare systems, HCFA, by
virtue of a cost allocation agreement between HHS and USDA, is
responsible for only a portion of the costs of developing
integrated systems. One HCFA official estimated that HCFA has
contributed, on the average, about 20 percent of the costs for
designing and developing integrated eligibility systems. HCFA
reimburses states for 50 percent of the costs of developing and
operating separate systems. Prior to November 1989, however,
the HCFA reimbursement rate for developing these systems was 90
percent of state costs.
MMIS, as required by HCFA, are basically claims processing and
information retrieval systems, and are not intended to perform
eligibility determination functions. Most states operate
separate MMIS although one state--Maine--operates its MMIS as an
integrated system with most of its other welfare programs. In
June 1993, 48 states operated a separate MMIS, including 31
states that used contractors to operate their systems, 11 states
that operated their systems in-house, and 6 states that operated
systems using both in-house and vendor support. The remaining 5
states had not automated MMIS functions statewide. HCFA can
reimburse states for 90 percent of the costs of designing,
developing, and installing these systems, and 75 percent of the
costs of system operation.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.6
Legislation authorizing funds for the automation of the Food Stamp
Program is included in both the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and subsequent
amendments, and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1990. As with
Medicaid eligibility systems, food stamp information retrieval and
eligibility systems are generally integrated with other state welfare
systems. As a result, FNS only pays a proportionate
amount--estimated by FNS officials to average about 30 to 35
percent--of the costs to develop these systems. In June 1993, 37
states were operating integrated food stamp systems, including 30
states complying with FAMIS requirements. Fifteen states were
operating separate automated food stamp systems, and two states were
including food stamp automation as part of developing FAMIS.
FNS is authorized to reimburse states for 63 percent of the costs of
planning, designing, developing, and installing automated systems for
the Food Stamp Program, and 50 percent of the costs of operating
these systems. Prior to October 1991, the federal reimbursement rate
for development and related costs was 75 percent. On April 1, 1994,
the federal reimbursement rate for automated food stamp systems will
drop to 50 percent for both development and operations.
STATUS OF AUTOMATED WELFARE
SYSTEMS BY STATE - JUNE 1993
========================================================== Appendix IV
Medicaid Child Support Child Welfare/
State AFDC eligibility Medicaid MIS Food Stamps JOBS Enforcement Child Care Foster Care
--------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
Alabama FAMIS (replacing Separate system Private vendor Two separate Separate system Separate system No statewide Two separate systems
with new FAMIS) (replacing with systems (replacing (enhancements (enhancements automated system (replacing with new
new FAMIS) with new FAMIS) planned) planned) FAMIS)
Alaska Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system No statewide Separate system
(planning to (planning to (planning to (planning to (enhancing) automated system
replace) replace) replace) replace)
Arizona Part of FAMIS No statewide Separate state- Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system Separate system No statewide automated
(enhancements automated system operated system (enhancements (enhancements (enhancements (enhancements system (planning
planned) (developing planned) planned) planned) planned) separate system)
separate system)
Arkansas Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system
(planning to (planning to (enhancing) (planning to (still developing) (enhancements automated system (enhancements planned)
replace with new replace with new replace with new planned) (developing separate
FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) system)
Californi No statewide No statewide Private vendor No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
a automated system automated system automated system automated system automated system automated system system (developing
(developing FAMIS) (developing FAMIS) (developing FAMIS) (developing separate separate child welfare
system) system; foster care
component for FAMIS
being developed)
Colorado Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system
(enhancing but (enhancing but (planning to (enhancing) automated system
planning to planning to replace with (developing separate
replace) replace) FAMIS) system)
Connectic Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system No statewide Separate system
ut (enhancements (enhancements (enhancements (enhancements (enhancements (enhancing) automated system (planning to replace
planned) planned) planned) planned) planned) with system for all
Delaware Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system Part of FAMIS Separate system
(enhancing)
District Operating a system Operating a system Private vendor Operating a system Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system
of with Medicaid with AFDC and Food with AFDC and (replacing) automated system (enhancements planned)
Columbia eligibility and Stamps (replacing Medicaid (developing separate
Food Stamps with FAMIS) eligibility system)
(replacing with (replacing with
FAMIS) FAMIS)
Florida Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS (still Part of FAMIS (still Operating a system Four separate systems
(still developing) (still developing) (still developing) developing) developing) with child welfare (planning to replace
(planning to replace with single system)
with single child
welfare system)
Georgia Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system Part of FAMIS
(replacing) (replacing) (replacing) (replacing) (replacing) (replacing) Also, two
separate systems
Guam Operating a system Separate system No statewide Separate system Operating a system Separate system No statewide No statewide automated
with JOBS (planning to automated system (planning to with AFDC (planning (replacing) automated system system
(planning to replace with replace with to replace with
replace with FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS)
FAMIS)
Hawaii Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
(enhancements (enhancements (enhancements automated system automated system automated system system (developing
planned) planned) planned) (developing separate (developing separate (developing separate separate
system) system) system) system)
Idaho Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system
(enhancements (enhancements (enhancements (enhancing) (enhancing)
planned) planned) planned)
Illinois Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate state- Part of FAMIS Separate system No statewide No statewide Three separate systems
(enhancements (enhancements operated system (enhancements (enhancements automated system automated system (enhancements planned)
planned) planned) (enhancements planned) planned) (developing separate
planned) system)
Indiana No statewide No statewide Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system
automated system automated system (replacing) (replacing with (replacing) automated system (enhancements planned)
(developing FAMIS) (developing FAMIS) FAMIS)
Iowa Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system No statewide Part of FAMIS
(enhancing) (enhancing) (enhancing) (enhancing) automated system (replacing with
separate system)
Kansas Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Combined with Child Part of FAMIS Combined with JOBS No statewide automated
Care as part of (developing separate as part of FAMIS system (developing
FAMIS component as separate component as
enhancement to enhancement to FAMIS)
FAMIS)
Kentucky Operating a system Operating a system Private vendor Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system No statewide automated
with Medicaid with AFDC (replacing with (planning automated system (replacing) system (developing
eligibility (replacing with FAMIS) integration with (developing separate separate system)
(replacing with FAMIS) FAMIS) system)
FAMIS)
Louisiana Operating a system Operating a system Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system No statewide automated
with Medicaid with AFDC (replacing with (replacing) system
eligibility (replacing with FAMIS)
(replacing with FAMIS)
FAMIS)
Maine Operating a system Operating a system Operating a system Operating a system Operating a system Separate system Operating a system Operating a system
with Food Stamps, with AFDC, MMIS, with AFDC, with AFDC, all with AFDC, all (enhancements with AFDC, all with AFDC, all
all Medicaid, Food Stamps, JOBS, Medicaid Medicaid, JOBS, Medicaid, Food planned) Medicaid, Food Medicaid, Food
JOBS, child child welfare, and eligibility, Food child welfare, and Stamps, child Stamps, JOBS, and Stamps, JOBS, and
welfare, and child child care Stamps, JOBS, child care welfare, and child child welfare child care
care (replacing (replacing with child welfare, and (replacing with care (replacing with (replacing with
with FAMIS) FAMIS) child care FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS)
Maryland Operating a system Operating a system Separate state- Separate system No statewide Six separate systems No statewide Three separate systems
with Food Stamps with AFDC and Food operated system (replacing with automated system (replacing with automated system (planning to replace
and Medicaid Stamps (replacing (planning to FAMIS) (developing as part single system) (developing separate with single system)
eligibility with FAMIS) replace) of FAMIS) system)
(replacing with
FAMIS)
Massachus Separate system Separate system Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system
etts (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with (replacing) (replacing with
FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS)
Michigan Operating a system Operating a system Separate state- Operating a system Operating a system Operating a system Operating a system Operating a system with
with all programs with all programs operated system with all programs with all programs with all programs with all programs all programs except
except MMIS except MMIS (enhancements except MMIS except MMIS except MMIS except MMIS MMIS (planning to
(replacing with (replacing with planned) (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with replace with separate
FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) separate system) FAMIS) system)
Minnesota Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate state- Part of FAMIS No statewide Separate system No statewide Separate system
operated system automated system (enhancing) automated system (planning to replace)
(replacing) (planning a system (planning a system
with child care) with JOBS)
Mississip Part of FAMIS No statewide Private vendor Part of FAMIS No statewide No statewide No statewide Separate system
pi (enhancements automated system (enhancements automated system automated system automated system
planned) planned) (developing a system (developing separate (developing a system
with child care) system) with JOBS)
Missouri Operating a system Operating a system Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system Five separate systems
with Medicaid with AFDC (enhancements (replacing with (replacing with (planning to (replacing with
eligibility (replacing with planned) FAMIS) FAMIS) replace) FAMIS)
(replacing with FAMIS)
FAMIS)
Montana Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Separate system No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
(enhancements (enhancements automated system automated system system (planning
planned) planned) (developing separate separate system)
system)
Nebraska Separate system Separate system Separate state- Separate system Separate system No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
(replacing with (replacing with operated system (replacing with (replacing with automated system automated system system (developing as
FAMIS) FAMIS) (planning to FAMIS) FAMIS) (developing separate (developing as part part of FAMIS)
replace) system) of FAMIS)
Nevada Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system Two separate systems
(replacing with (replacing with automated system (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with (planning to replace
FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) FAMIS) with single system)
New Operating a system Operating a system Private vendor Operating a system No statewide Separate system No statewide Operating a system with
Hampshire with Medicaid with AFDC, Food (replacing) with Medicaid automated system (enhancing) automated system Medicaid eligibility,
eligibility, Food Stamps, and child eligibility, AFDC, (developing as part (developing as part AFDC, and Food Stamps
Stamps, and child welfare (replacing and child welfare of FAMIS) of FAMIS) (replacing with FAMIS)
welfare (replacing with FAMIS) (replacing with
with FAMIS) FAMIS)
New Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Combination of Part of FAMIS Operating a system Separate system No statewide Four separate systems
Jersey private vendor/ with some child care (enhancing) automated system (enhancements planned)
state-operated, (enhancements (developing separate
including separate planned) system)
database that
interfaces with
Medicaid
eligibility
component of
FAMIS)
(enhancing)
New Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system Separate system Separate system
Mexico (integration with (planning to
FAMIS planned) replace)
New York Operating a system Operating a system Combination of Operating a system Operating a system Separate system Operating a system Separate system for
with Medicaid with AFDC, Food private vendor/ with AFDC, with AFDC, Medicaid (enhancing) with AFDC, Food child welfare services
eligibility, Food Stamps, JOBS, state-operated Medicaid eligibility, Food Stamps, Medicaid except foster care.
Stamps, JOBS, child care, and (enhancements eligibility, JOBS, Stamps, child care, eligibility, JOBS, Foster care system part
child care, and foster care planned) child care, and and foster care and foster care of core welfare
foster care (enhancements foster care (enhancements (enhancements management system
(enhancements planned) (enhancements planned) planned)
planned) planned)
North Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Separate system Separate system Separate system Two separate systems Four separate systems
Carolina (enhancements (planning to (planning to (replacing) (planning to develop
planned) replace and replace) single integrated
integrate with system)
FAMIS)
North Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate state- Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
Dakota (enhancements (enhancements operated system (enhancements (enhancements automated system automated system system (developing
planned) planned) (enhancements planned) planned) (developing separate (planning separate separate system)
planned) system) system)
Ohio Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate state- Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS No statewide No statewide Separate system
operated system automated system automated system (enhancements planned)
(enhancements (developing separate (planning separate
planned) system) system)
Oklahoma Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system Part of FAMIS Separate system
(enhancements (enhancements (planning to (enhancements (enhancements (enhancing) (enhancements (enhancements planned)
planned) planned) replace) planned) planned) planned)
Oregon Operating a system Operating a system Separate state- Separate system Two separate systems Three separate Two separate systems Separate system
with Medicaid with AFDC operated system (enhancements (Some interface with systems (replacing
eligibility (enhancements (enhancements planned) child care and AFDC) with single system)
(enhancements planned) planned; system
planned) replacement
planned)
Pennsylva Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Combination of Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS No statewide Separate system No statewide automated
nia (enhancements (enhancements private vendor/ (enhancements (enhancements automated system system (planning
planned) planned) state-operated planned) planned) (developing separate separate system)
(enhancing) system)
Puerto Separate system No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
Rico (replacing with automated system automated system automated system automated system automated system automated system system
FAMIS) (developing as (developing as (planning separate (planning separate
part of FAMIS) part of FAMIS) system) system)
Rhode Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS No statewide Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system
Island (enhancing) automated system (enhancing) (enhancing) (enhancing)
(developing
separate system)
South Part of FAMIS Separate system Combination of Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system
Carolina private vendor/ (replacing) automated system
state-operated
South Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate state- Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system
Dakota operated system (enhancing)
Tennessee Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Combination of Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS No statewide No statewide Separate system
(enhancements (enhancements private vendor/ (enhancements (enhancements automated system automated system
planned) planned) state-operated planned) planned); also (developing separate (developing separate
operating separate system) system)
component
Texas Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Two systems; one Part of FAMIS Separate system No statewide Separate system Two separate systems
(enhancements (enhancements private vendor- (enhancements (enhancements automated system (enhancements (planning to replace
planned) planned) operated; one planned) planned) (developing separate planned) with single system)
state-operated system)
(enhancements
planned)
Utah Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate state- Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Separate system Operating a system Operating a system with
(enhancements (enhancements operated system (enhancements (enhancements (replacing) with child welfare child care (enhancing)
planned) planned) (enhancements planned) planned) (enhancing)
planned)
Vermont Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Operating a system Operating a system with
(enhancements (enhancements with child welfare child care
planned) planned)
Virgin Separate system No statewide No statewide Separate system No statewide No statewide No statewide No statewide automated
Islands (planning to automated system automated system (planning to automated system automated system automated system system
replace with replace with (planning to develop
FAMIS) FAMIS) system and integrate
with FAMIS)
Virginia Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS No statewide No statewide Part of FAMIS
(enhancing) (enhancing) (planning to (enhancing) (enhancing) automated system automated system (enhancing)
replace) (developing separate
system)
Washingto Operating a system Operating a system Private vendor Operating a system Separate system Separate system Operating system Operating system with
n with Food Stamps with Food Stamps with Medicaid (replacing with (enhancements with child welfare child care
and Medicaid and AFDC eligibility and FAMIS) planned) (enhancements (enhancements planned)
eligibility (replacing with AFDC (replacing planned)
(replacing with FAMIS) with FAMIS)
FAMIS)
West Separate system Separate system Private vendor Separate system No statewide Separate system Operating system Operating system with
Virginia (replacing with (replacing with (enhancements (replacing with automated system (replacing) with child welfare child care (planning to
FAMIS) FAMIS) planned) FAMIS) (developing separate (planning to replace replace with similar
system) with similar system) system)
Wisconsin Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Separate system Separate system No statewide Separate system
(replacing with (replacing with (replacing with (replacing with new (replacing) automated system (enhancements planned)
new FAMIS) new FAMIS) new FAMIS) FAMIS) (planning to develop
system component as
part of new FAMIS)
Wyoming Part of FAMIS Part of FAMIS Private vendor Part of FAMIS Operating system Separate system Operating system Separate system
(planning with child care (planning to replace with JOBS
to replace)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL AUTOMATED WELFARE SYSTEM
EXPENDITURES: FISCAL YEARS
1984-1992
=========================================================== Appendix V
(Dollars in millions (current dollars))
State Enhanced Regular Enhanced Regular Enhanced Regular Enhanced Regular Enhanced Regular Total
-------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ==========
Alabama $2.04 $0.99 $12.87 $5.26 $2.28 $59.29 $0.55 $6.02 $17.74 $71.56 $89.30
Alaska 4.30 1.88 0.04 6.50 2.57 14.18 0.40 8.41 7.31 30.97 38.28
Arizona 8.22 2.61 12.78 6.10 28.99 21.06 12.24 10.45 62.23 40.22 102.45
Arkansas 1.92 0.45 3.53 2.60 2.42 32.42 0.44 4.64 8.31 40.11 48.42
California 0.17 9.68 11.55 94.65 5.96 483.69 7.87 34.62 25.55 622.64 648.19
Colorado 12.81 3.66 10.99 1.67 3.59 42.82 1.13 5.15 28.52 53.30 81.82
Connecticut 7.87 5.05 5.80 3.31 6.10 69.89 3.37 5.92 23.14 84.17 107.31
Delaware 4.19 0.85 1.13 2.75 2.10 7.92 0.42 1.24 7.84 12.76 20.60
District of 6.51 0.02 0.53 2.16 3.22 19.81 0.77 4.27 11.03 26.26 37.29
Columbia
Florida 24.54 1.25 17.62 16.31 13.70 82.18 15.73 13.54 71.59 113.28 184.87
Georgia 8.33 6.90 3.99 8.71 7.57 105.93 1.58 28.82 21.47 150.36 171.83
Guam 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.23
Hawaii 10.74 1.25 1.10 0.44 2.73 14.96 0.84 3.82 15.41 20.47 35.88
Idaho 6.84 1.81 2.34 4.43 2.27 18.01 2.41 4.62 13.86 28.87 42.73
Illinois 15.22 6.20 4.50 22.11 1.42 140.91 0.43 0.69 21.57 169.91 191.48
Indiana 4.03 0.76 1.47 2.00 0.43 32.11 2.91 4.52 8.84 39.39 48.23
Iowa 1.61 0.47 6.40 4.84 2.62 34.90 1.02 1.89 11.65 42.10 53.75
Kansas 7.73 1.19 0.21 5.03 8.55 31.70 4.47 2.58 20.96 40.50 61.46
Kentucky 4.62 0.69 7.71 4.77 4.37 49.27 0.00 14.93 16.70 69.66 86.36
Louisiana 2.61 0.00 0.70 0.90 1.47 50.93 0.73 2.56 5.51 54.39 59.90
Maine 0.00 0.00 5.14 1.61 0.00 31.11 0.00 1.66 5.14 34.38 39.52
Maryland 6.50 1.42 9.61 3.98 3.10 47.26 5.72 4.84 24.93 57.50 82.43
Massachusetts 4.19 1.26 2.15 4.54 6.89 81.65 0.13 2.47 13.36 89.92 103.28
Michigan 2.47 5.59 27.05 6.56 4.53 172.49 2.34 11.21 36.39 195.85 232.24
Minnesota 13.30 11.31 11.26 13.86 10.78 49.04 6.67 3.26 42.01 77.47 119.48
Mississippi 6.47 2.04 1.44 1.64 3.82 33.15 3.35 5.84 15.08 42.67 57.75
Missouri 0.78 2.25 0.78 8.37 1.96 32.45 1.10 7.19 4.62 50.26 54.88
Montana 3.71 0.75 2.60 1.23 8.78 9.44 2.67 1.02 17.76 12.44 30.20
Nebraska 0.00 0.45 5.04 7.87 3.35 26.20 1.97 4.32 10.36 38.84 49.20
Nevada 0.23 0.59 0.27 2.26 0.00 2.41 0.18 1.10 0.68 6.36 7.04
New Hampshire 0.00 0.00 5.17 2.36 2.77 20.56 0.00 1.96 7.94 24.88 32.82
New Jersey 27.16 25.55 19.88 35.58 10.55 120.13 1.00 41.97 58.59 223.23 281.82
New Mexico 5.55 2.43 3.73 4.31 2.20 21.92 2.87 9.18 14.35 37.84 52.19
New York 0.00 19.16 31.91 40.09 30.25 489.40 5.24 68.91 67.40 617.56 684.96
North Carolina 6.10 2.28 1.89 7.45 2.62 44.76 0.83 10.86 11.44 65.35 76.79
North Dakota 5.29 0.21 0.62 1.00 2.33 7.98 1.06 3.30 9.30 12.49 21.79
Ohio 22.88 7.51 2.69 4.49 6.81 90.54 10.78 5.66 43.16 108.20 151.36
Oklahoma 4.42 6.66 5.68 10.03 1.84 50.76 1.12 11.52 13.06 78.97 92.03
Oregon 3.70 1.52 0.46 3.84 3.51 57.93 1.85 6.14 9.52 69.43 78.95
Pennsylvania 27.54 17.02 2.33 33.78 3.80 197.14 9.37 28.20 43.04 276.14 319.18
Puerto Rico 0.00 8.83 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 8.83 10.30
Rhode Island 6.27 0.42 7.19 2.27 0.03 2.67 2.48 2.05 15.97 7.41 23.38
South Carolina 17.76 3.13 3.27 15.90 1.35 35.95 3.27 6.61 25.65 61.59 87.24
South Dakota 2.21 0.53 0.99 0.83 0.00 5.15 1.22 2.05 4.42 8.56 12.98
Tennessee 8.39 1.53 0.23 6.94 9.05 66.29 11.64 18.05 29.31 92.81 122.12
Texas 13.24 8.35 3.81 40.60 0.10 234.60 7.55 46.49 24.70 330.04 354.74
Utah 9.01 0.84 1.99 8.54 4.04 37.95 2.41 1.32 17.45 48.65 66.10
Vermont 2.53 0.56 0.70 0.79 1.32 17.91 0.29 1.70 4.84 20.96 25.80
Virgin Islands 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.45 0.17 0.52 0.69
Virginia 0.80 0.36 10.67 31.34 1.37 51.70 3.19 7.81 16.03 91.21 107.24
Washington 2.24 4.41 0.31 31.40 2.51 63.16 3.85 5.07 8.91 104.04 112.95
West Virginia 0.28 0.00 0.40 0.97 0.12 20.26 0.05 0.76 0.85 21.99 22.84
Wisconsin 12.54 3.09 15.19 9.68 0.69 86.75 1.39 7.96 29.81 107.48 137.29
Wyoming 6.30 0.57 0.24 0.13 1.68 2.83 1.73 3.65 9.95 7.18 17.13
=====================================================================================================================================================
Totals $356.16 $186.39 $291.50 $538.79 $234.51 $3,523.52 $154.80 $493.42 $1,036.97 $4,742.12 $5,779.09
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Summary totals for fiscal years 1984-1992 federal automated
welfare system expenditures in the letter are converted to 1993
constant dollars.
\a JOBS and child care automated welfare systems costs are included
in the AFDC-related column.
\b Includes federal expenditures for both MMIS and Medicaid
eligibility system development and operation.
\c Child welfare/foster care costs were not separately identified by
ACF.
STATE-BY-STATE PLANS FOR AUTOMATED
WELFARE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
(1993-1999)
========================================================== Appendix VI
State Development Plans
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Plans to replace separate systems, which serve AFDC, food
stamps, Medicaid eligibility, and child welfare/foster care,
with a single integrated client database system that will be
the central repository for all welfare client information.
Estimated development costs for this system and subsequent
systems to service the individual welfare programs are about
$21.7 million. Alabama also plans to enhance its current
JOBS and CSE systems to meet new federal reporting
requirements. These enhancements could cost as much as
$750,000.
Alaska Studying the feasibility of replacing its current FAMIS,
which is about 8 years old, with a system that would also
service multiple welfare programs. State representatives
estimate that a new system could cost between $28 and $32
million. Additionally, Alaska received HHS approval to
upgrade its current CSE system to comply with requirements
imposed by the Family Support Act of 1988. State
representatives estimate that planned enhancements will cost
about $500,000.
Arizona Has a FAMIS that serves AFDC and food stamp clients.
Although operational for a number of years, Arizona expects
to spend about $5.4 million for additional system
enhancements. The state also plans enhancements and upgrades
to improve its current CSE system to comply with federal
requirements. These enhancements are estimated to cost about
$22.8 million. By 1995 Arizona plans to develop a new
system, expected to cost about $8.2 million, to support
medical assistance eligibility determinations. The state
also intends to begin developing a system to support child
welfare/foster care services at an estimated cost of about
$8 million over the next several years. Finally, major
upgrades to separate JOBS and child care systems are
expected to cost Arizona about $3.3 million.
Arkansas Expects to replace its two primary eligibility systems--a
FAMIS serving AFDC/Medicaid clients and a separate system
serving food stamps--with a FAMIS costing about $6 million.
Also, to comply with federal requirements, Arkansas plans to
enhance its CSE system at an estimated cost of $18.7
million, and is developing a JOBS system at an estimated
remaining cost of about $2.5 million. The state is also
developing a child care system at an estimated remaining
cost of about $750,000. Finally, Arkansas plans to upgrade
its automated foster care system and its vendor-operated
MMIS at a combined estimated cost of about $1.7 million.
California Intends to replace 58 county-based eligibility systems with
a FAMIS. This project, which will support AFDC, Medicaid
eligibility, food stamps, and foster care, is estimated to
cost at least $322 million. No estimate was provided for
future FAMIS development costs related to Los Angeles
County. Also under development is a CSE system, with
projected costs of $57.2 million. Finally, the state plans
to develop a child welfare system at an estimated cost of
about $14.7 million.
Colorado Hopes to replace its FAMIS with a new system that would
support AFDC, Medicaid eligibility, and food stamps. The new
system's projected cost is $22 million. Minor enhancements
to the state's current FAMIS are scheduled to cost about
$100,000. Enhancements to meet recent federal CSE system
requirements are expected to cost $3 million. A child care
system is being developed at a projected cost of $300,000.
Connecticut Plans to implement an on-line interface between its FAMIS
and MMIS. An initial planning cost of about $1 million is
anticipated, but no estimates were provided for development
costs. Various enhancements to the state's CSE system are
expected to cost $2.2 million. In addition, a replacement
child welfare/foster care system is planned, with estimated
costs of $28 million.
Delaware Completing a requirements analysis to determine if FAMIS
enhancements are needed. In addition, enhancements are being
made to the state's CSE system to meet federal guidelines.
This project is estimated to cost $1.7 million.
District of Completing development of a FAMIS at an estimated remaining
Columbia cost of $9 million. This system will replace the current
system for AFDC, Medicaid eligibility, and food stamps. Also
under development is a CSE system. Estimated costs to
complete development are $5.2 million. The District plans to
enhance its child welfare/foster care system at a projected
cost of $1.3 million, and implement a child care system that
should cost less than $250,000.
Florida FAMIS is operational, but development activities will
continue through fiscal year 1994, at an estimated remaining
cost of $13.5 million, and the system's mainframe will be
upgraded within the next 2-3 years at a projected cost of
$5.6 million. In addition, Florida is in the initial stage
of a feasibility study to assess potential alternative
architectures to support future FAMIS growth. Although no
estimates were provided, additional FAMIS development costs
could be significant in the 1995/1996 period. A prototype of
a new child welfare system is also scheduled to be built
over the next 2 years at an estimated cost of $480,000;
however, no long-term development cost estimates are
available beyond the prototype. Upgrades to the state's
existing child welfare systems are expected to cost
approximately $35,000 in the next year.
Georgia Has initiated plans to replace its current FAMIS with a
system transfer from another state. This project has
estimated costs of $12 million. A replacement CSE system is
also expected to cost $12 million.
Guam Planning a FAMIS, with a 1995 operational date, that will
support the AFDC, JOBS, Medicaid eligibility, and food
stamps programs. Estimated costs for this project are $2.6
million. A replacement system is also being developed for
child support enforcement, with estimated costs of $1.8
million.
Hawaii In the process of developing four different automated
welfare systems. First, a JOBS system is under development
with an estimated cost of $1.5 million to complete. Hawaii
plans to have this system interface with both a child care
system with projected development costs of $300,000, and a
combined food stamps/JOBS demonstration project system
expected to cost $200,000 to develop. A CSE system being
developed should cost approximately $17 million. The child
welfare/foster care system is being enhanced at an estimated
cost of $1.5 million. Finally, various enhancements to the
state's FAMIS are planned but no costs were available.
Idaho Planning to improve its FAMIS on-line capabilities at an
estimated cost of $4.1 million. In addition, the CSE system
will be enhanced, to meet federal guidelines, at an expected
cost of $4 million. Enhancements to the state's personal
computer based child welfare/foster care system should cost
approximately $1.8 million.
Illinois Plans significant enhancements to its FAMIS, MMIS, and JOBS
systems, with estimated costs of $1 million, $5.9 million,
and $800,000, respectively. In addition, the state is
developing a new CSE system estimated to cost $18.2 million.
A 10-year-old child welfare/foster care system is also being
upgraded at an estimated cost of $2.4 million.
Indiana Developing a FAMIS to support AFDC, Medicaid eligibility,
and food stamps. This new system should be completed by
September 1993, with estimated remaining costs of $14.9
million. Additionally, replacements for both Indiana's MMIS
and its CSE system are being developed, with costs estimated
at $9.4 million and $23 million, respectively. Finally, a
major upgrade, projected to cost $800,000, is planned for
the state's child welfare/foster care system.
Iowa Upgrading its FAMIS at an estimated cost of $3.4 million. In
addition, the CSE system will receive approximately $7.2
million in upgrades to satisfy federal requirements.
Finally, a new child welfare system is being developed with
projected costs of $1.9 million. This system will eliminate
the need for Iowa's FAMIS to support child welfare, as is
now the case.
Kansas Implementing three major enhancements to its FAMIS--a CSE
component to comply with the 1988 requirements, a JOBS/
child care component, and a child welfare component.
Estimated costs for these projects are $4.4 million for CSE,
$3.3 million for JOBS/child care, and $22 million for child
welfare. The FAMIS system, as it operates currently,
supports AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid eligibility, and child
support enforcement.
Kentucky In the process of replacing its existing AFDC/Medicaid
eligibility and food stamp systems with a FAMIS. Estimated
costs for this project are $17.7 million. The state also
hopes to integrate its existing JOBS system with FAMIS in
the near future. However, no estimated integration costs
were available. Also in the implementation phase is a CSE
system. This system is projected to cost $7.6 million to
complete. A statewide, on-line system is being developed for
the state's family-focused social services programs,
including child welfare/foster care. Projected costs of
about $12 million remain to complete development by 1995.
Finally, a personal computer based child care system is
being implemented with costs estimated at about $250,000.
Louisiana Planning a FAMIS to replace its existing AFDC, food stamps,
and Medicaid eligibility systems. This FAMIS is estimated to
cost $10.2 million. In addition, a new CSE system is being
transferred in from another state. It will replace the
existing system at an estimated cost of $9.1 million.
Maine Developing a FAMIS to replace its existing system, which is
over 20 years old. The new system will support AFDC, food
stamps, Medicaid eligibility, JOBS, and some child care
functions, and will cost an estimated $22 million.
Additionally, the state's CSE system is being enhanced to
meet federal requirements, at a projected cost of $500,000.
Maryland FAMIS, now in development, will support AFDC, food stamps,
Medicaid eligibility, and JOBS. This project is estimated to
cost $39.5 million to complete, and will replace an
automated income maintenance and eligibility verification
system. Replacement systems are also planned for the state's
MMIS, CSE system, and child welfare/foster care systems,
with estimated remaining development costs of $13 million,
$10.8 million, and $11.9 million, respectively. Also, a
child care system, with projected remaining development
costs of $770,000, is scheduled for October 1993
implementation.
Massachusetts Replacing its existing AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid
eligibility, JOBS, and child care systems with a FAMIS.
Expected costs for this project are $35 million. A
replacement system is also being developed for the CSE
program, with projected remaining development costs of $25
million.
Michigan Estimates it will spend about $84 million to complete
development of a FAMIS to support AFDC, food stamps,
Medicaid eligibility, JOBS, and child care. Michigan is also
developing a CSE system, at a remaining projected cost of
$38 million. In addition, the state plans to develop a new
child welfare system at an estimated cost of $21 million. It
also plans to enhance its MMIS although no cost estimates
were provided.
Minnesota Replacing its batch processing MMIS with a system that has
improved on-line capabilities. This new system has a
remaining estimated development cost of $14.5 million.
Contract negotiations have stalled development of a new
JOBS/child care system. In addition, enhancements to meet
federal requirements are underway for the state's CSE
system, with projected costs of $8.3 million. The state also
intends to develop a statewide child welfare/foster care
database management and processing system at an estimated
cost of $3 million.
Mississippi Planning to upgrade its FAMIS at an approximate cost of $10
million. Two systems are currently in development. A
combined JOBS/child care system, scheduled to be operational
in July 1994, should cost an additional $13.5 million. A new
CSE system is estimated to cost about $17.8 million.
Missouri Developing new FAMIS that will support AFDC, food stamps,
Medicaid eligibility, JOBS, and child care. Estimated
remaining development costs are $54.2 million. A major
upgrade to the state's MMIS, scheduled to start in 1994, is
expected to cost $4.7 million. In addition, a replacement
CSE system is being developed, with projected remaining
development costs of $37.3 million.
Montana Planning two new automated systems. The CSE system should be
operational within the next year and is estimated to cost
$3.5 million more to complete. A child welfare/foster care
case management system is also planned. Cost estimates to
develop this system range from $3 to $5 million. In
addition, various enhancements to the state's MMIS and JOBS
systems are expected to cost $1.2 million.
Nebraska Replacing existing eligibility systems for AFDC, food
stamps, and Medicaid with a FAMIS that will support six
welfare programs. This project is estimated to cost $43.7
million. The state also plans to replace its 15-year-old
MMIS over the next 3 to 5 years although no cost estimates
are available. Also, a CSE system is under development, with
costs projected at $9.1 million through 1995.
Nevada Developing a FAMIS that will replace existing separate
systems for AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid eligibility, JOBS,
CSE, and child care, at an estimated cost of $22 million.
Further, as one of the few states that does not operate an
MMIS, Nevada plans to enter into a contract with a private
vendor for MMIS services in the near future. Potential
development costs, if any, were not provided. In addition, a
replacement for the current child welfare/foster care system
may cost $1.2 million over the next 3 years.
New Hampshire Will replace a system that supports AFDC, food stamps,
Medicaid eligibility, and child welfare/foster care with a
FAMIS. The replacement system will also support JOBS and
child care. The estimated cost for this project is $15
million. A replacement MMIS is also in development, with
projected costs of $5.2 million. Enhancements to comply with
federal CSE system requirements are expected to cost
$600,000.
New Jersey Presently performing a requirements analysis to determine
future FAMIS needs. Enhancements to both the state's MMIS
and JOBS program will total about $2.1 million, and the CSE
system will be upgraded to meet federal requirements, at an
estimated cost of $1.8 million. The state also plans to
enhance its four separate child welfare/foster care systems
at an estimated cost of $7 million, and a personal computer
based child care system is being developed for approximately
$750,000.
New Mexico Intends to integrate its JOBS system with its FAMIS at an
estimated cost of $500,000 over the next
2 years. In addition, a replacement CSE system is projected
to cost $11.1 million. A user requirement survey is
currently underway to determine if upgrades are needed to
improve the state's child welfare system.
New York One of two states with no FAMIS activity. The state has a
core welfare management system that operates out of major
computer centers in Albany and New York City. These computer
centers support most of the state's welfare programs and are
scheduled for about $9 million in upgrades through 1999.
Planned enhancements to its MMIS are estimated to cost $3
million. Major upgrades to the CSE system are also planned
at an estimated cost of about $1.3 million.
North Carolina Intends to develop a replacement system to integrate its
FAMIS, which serves AFDC and Medicaid eligibility, with its
food stamp system. This project is estimated to cost at
least $22 million by 1999. In addition, either a replacement
for or enhancements to the current JOBS program could cost
between $10 and $15 million by 1997. A replacement system is
being developed for the CSE system. Remaining development
costs for this system are estimated at $55.8 million. Also,
MMIS enhancements are planned, and a new payment system for
child care services is being developed. These should cost
between $1.4 and $1.9 million.
North Dakota Developing a CSE system that will cost an estimated $1
million to complete. A new child welfare/foster care system
is also in development, with costs projected at $1.8 million
to complete development and upgrade hardware. Various
enhancements to the state's FAMIS and MMIS are expected to
cost about $1.4 million. Finally, a child care system is
planned for development by late 1994. However, no
development cost estimates were available.
Ohio Plans major enhancements to its MMIS over the next 5 years,
at an estimated cost of $5.7 million. Development of a CSE
system is projected to cost $54.6 million over the next 3
years. Enhancements to the child welfare/foster care system
should cost $1.7 million through 1995. Further, the state is
completing a feasibility study to assist in the planning of
a child care system. No cost estimates were available for
this project.
Oklahoma Intends to replace the mainframe on which its FAMIS
operates, at an estimated cost of $2.2 million. The state
also plans to replace its MMIS with a system that can
support a managed health care program. Estimated costs for
this project are $4.2 million. Finally, enhancements to the
CSE system should cost approximately $10.4 million. A major
child welfare system upgrade is planned but no federal
funding requests are contemplated.
Oregon One of the two states with no FAMIS activity, intends to
improve the data entry capability of its primary eligibility
system at a projected cost of $12.3 million. Also planned
are enhancements to the current MMIS, with estimated costs
of $2.7 million. However, this MMIS will be replaced within
5 years, at an estimated cost of $8.5 million. Finally, a
replacement CSE system is expected to cost $16.6 million by
completion in 1995.
Pennsylvania Enhancing its FAMIS to improve the system's communication
and information sharing capabilities. This project is
estimated to cost $10 million over 5 years. A major $10
million enhancement is in process for the state's MMIS. A
CSE system is currently being developed, with projected
remaining development costs of $49.5 million. A statewide
reporting system for child welfare services is also planned
at an estimated cost of $4 million.
Puerto Rico Developing a FAMIS that will support AFDC and food stamps
and provide an information exchange with Medicaid. Total
costs for this project are estimated at $5.5 million. Both a
JOBS system and a CSE system are being planned for
development; however, no cost estimates were available.
Rhode Island Completing development on some components of its FAMIS. The
JOBS and child care component integration will cost $1.5
million. Enhancements to the CSE component of FAMIS should
cost about $2.2 million. An enhancement to the Medicaid
eligibility component is projected to cost $2 million. Rhode
Island, which does not operate an MMIS at present, plans to
spend approximately $8.5 million to develop an MMIS
component of FAMIS by the end of 1993.
South Carolina Plans to replace its existing CSE system by 1999, with
initial cost estimates ranging from $33 million to $40
million.
South Dakota Intends to enhance its CSE system, which is a component of
its FAMIS, to meet requirements of the Family Support Act of
1988. Estimated costs for this system are $1.3 million.
Tennessee Developing both a CSE system and a child care system. The
new CSE system is projected to cost $29 million to complete
development by 1995. Estimated costs to complete child care
system development are $1.4 million. Enhancements to the
state's FAMIS are expected to cost $700,000.
Texas Has budgeted $91.4 million for automated system replacements
and upgrades for its AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, JOBS, and
child care programs. This does not include plans for a
single system to replace two existing child welfare/foster
care systems over the next several years. No cost estimates
were available for this new system. In addition, a new CSE
system should be operational by 1994 at an estimated cost of
$15.6 million.
Utah Has planned a major enhancement to its FAMIS beginning in
1997. Projected costs are $15 million. Further, three major
enhancements planned for its MMIS are expected to cost
$980,000. Also, a replacement CSE system is being developed,
with an estimated cost of $9.6 million by 1994. Finally,
enhancements to the state's combined child care and child
welfare/foster care system should cost about $300,000.
Vermont Intends to spend approximately $4 million, in 1993 and 1994,
on enhancements to its MMIS. In addition, enhancements to
meet federal CSE system requirements are projected to cost
$330,000. The state may also upgrade its FAMIS hardware in
the future although no cost estimates were provided.
Virgin Islands Plan to implement a FAMIS to support AFDC and food stamps.
This system will cost $2.5 million. A new CSE system is also
planned at a cost of $3 million. This system will probably
integrate with the FAMIS in the future although no
additional development costs were provided.
Virginia Plans several enhancements to its FAMIS, including the
improvement of its on-line capabilities. These enhancements
are expected to cost $19 million by 1995. The state also
plans to develop a replacement MMIS, through a new vendor,
at a projected cost of $9 million by 1996. Finally, a new
CSE system should be operational by the end of 1993, with
estimated remaining development costs of $11.3 million.
Washington Planning a FAMIS, estimated to cost $41.9 million, to
support AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid eligibility, and JOBS.
This system will replace two existing automated systems for
these programs. Additionally, the state plans to spend about
$4.2 million on enhancements to its CSE system. These
improvements will provide new workstations as well as
satisfy the most recent federal requirements for CSE
systems. Also, the state is planning to complete
enhancements for a combined child care and child welfare/
foster care system, with projected costs of $840,000.
West Virginia Replacing its current AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid
eligibility systems with a FAMIS at a projected cost of
$28.2 million through 1996. Enhancement costs to transition
the state's MMIS to a new contractor should cost about $1.3
million. Additionally, a JOBS system is under development,
with costs estimated to be $2.4 million through 1996.
Finally, replacement systems are being developed for both
child support enforcement, at an estimated cost of $11.3
million, and a combined child care and child welfare/foster
care system, with cost projections ranging from $8 million
to $12 million.
Wisconsin One of the first states to develop a FAMIS, is now in the
process of replacing its 13-year-old system. The new system
is expected to support AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid
eligibility, JOBS, and child care with estimated development
costs of about $42.2 million. A replacement system is also
being developed for the current CSE system. Estimated costs
for this project are $33.5 million through 1995. Finally,
the state intends to spend about $100,000 to upgrade its
foster care/adoption assistance system.
Wyoming Planning to implement a replacement MMIS at an estimated
cost of $2.5 million by 1994. In addition, a replacement CSE
system is in the design stage. This project is estimated to
cost $11.3 million when completed in 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAST GAO PRODUCTS RELATED TO
AUTOMATED WELFARE INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
========================================================= Appendix VII
Medicaid: Data Improvements Needed to Help Manage Health Care
Program (GAO/IMTEC-93-18, May 13, 1993).
Welfare to Work: JOBS Participation Rate Data Unreliable for
Assessing States' Performance (GAO/HRD-93-73, May 5, 1993).
Health and Human Services Issues (GAO/OCG-93-20TR, December 1992).
Child Support Enforcement: Timely Action Needed to Correct System
Development Problems (GAO/IMTEC-92-46, Aug. 13, 1992).
Welfare Programs: Ineffective Federal Oversight Permits Costly
Automated Systems Problems (GAO/IMTEC-92-29, May 27, 1992).
Interstate Child Support Enforcement: Computer Network Not Ready to
Be Awarded (GAO/IMTEC-92-8, Oct. 23, 1991).
Welfare to Work: States Begin JOBS, But Fiscal and Other Problems
May Impede Their Progress (GAO/HRD-91-106, Sep. 27, 1991).
Child Support: State Progress in Developing Automated Enforcement
Systems (GAO/HRD-89-10FS, Feb. 10, 1989).
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
======================================================== Appendix VIII
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
William B. Ritt, Assistant Director
Joel C. Willemssen, Assistant Director
Robert F. Gerkin, Technical Adviser
PHILADELPHIA REGIONAL OFFICE
Harry E. Benchoff, Evaluator-in-Charge
Amy Ganulin, Staff Evaluator
Christopher B. McLaughlin, Staff Evaluator