The Effectiveness of Home Visitation in Reducing AFDC Case Payment Errors

This article reports the results of a three-year study of payment errors in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The analysis explored the role that home visitation by the caseworker may play in retarding payment errors related to inaccurate or incomplete information about the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Social service review (Chicago) 1986-12, Vol.60 (4), p.603-618
Main Authors: Cox, George H., Brogan, Donna R., Dandridge, Millicent Ann
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Caseloads
Cheating
Child Welfare Services
Client Relations
Cost Containment
Entitlement programs
Error rates
Financial Support
Fraud
Human resources
Overpayment
Payments
Public assistance programs
Quality assurance
Sample size
Social services
Social Work Cases
Welfare Recipients
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article reports the results of a three-year study of payment errors in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The analysis explored the role that home visitation by the caseworker may play in retarding payment errors related to inaccurate or incomplete information about the AFDC program and its eligibility requirements. An experimental design was used in which 961 subjects were randomly assigned to three groups. One group was never visited by the case-worker. Another group was visited only during the application process. The third group was visited at both intake and in the fourth month of program participation. Special efforts were made at this four-month visit to clarify any misunderstood or miscommunicated information. After six months on the caseload, redetermination results were used to calculate payment error rates and dollar figures for amounts paid in error. The study found no significant differences in error rates or amounts among the groups. A randomly selected subsample of 181 subjects was drawn from those who completed the six-month study period. This subsample received a full, federal Quality Control-styled field review of eligibility. Each check paid to the family over the six-month period was examined. This effort to find the causes of payment errors suggests that intentional client error and staff misapplication of procedures for checking client income contribute significantly to the problem of checks paid in error. Better communication techniques to clients are therefore not a promising avenue for reducing payment errors.
ISSN:0037-7961
1537-5404
DOI:10.1086/644402