Research to spec SAR-7 MVP in 1+ counties

[daguar]

Links:

• SAR-7 form: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entres/forms/English/SAR7.pdf
• San Diego (!!) instructions for filling it out! :smiley: : http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/hhsa/programs/ssp/documents/CalFresh_How_to_Complete_the_SAR_7_Desk_Aid.pdf

[daguar]

Initial note — there is a big opportunity here in that the majority of questions are conditional on some change. With conditional logic we could show a client almost none of the confusing stuff.

[lippytak]

Diana report on QR7 and RRR via MBCW http://www.sfhsa.org/asset/ReportsDataResources/CalFreshBCWReporting011013.pdf

[lippytak]

Let's think about if/how to do SAR-7 via MBCW or C4...I'll reach out to AmeriCorps folks now

[daguar]

@lippytak I might push back on that as a strategy (though yes worth exploring.) The reasons are:

1. Requires SAWS account access
2. Probably an even more uncommon channel than mail, fax, email based on anecdata

(2) implies to me that counties have processes in place for other channels, since those other channels are what are functionally used.

[lippytak]

@daguar agreed it definitely shouldn't be v1 strategy, I more just want to document how it works to show counties how hard it is and how much better we can do.

[daguar]

Got it.

Also @lippytak's points of uncertainty:

1. Reliable submission channels
2. What info does a county need to link it to the case
3. What info do EWs need to process it efficiently
4. Can we do a typed sig on the paper form? How will EWs react?

[lippytak]

@daguar another issue is if we do it via paper/PDF, how should we do the signature? How will EWs react to a typed sig?

[lippytak]

Just spoke to Andrea who's doing contract UX research in Contra Costa. Asked her about this:

• Sometimes people submit a good SAR-7 but don't sign it == disc'd (UGH!!!)
• Recert is harder because requires an interview
• If nothing has changed it's quite easy
• People get SO MUCH MAIL and it's hard to figure out what is important. Sometimes people just ignore the SAR-7 like everything else.
• You have to initiate SAR-7 (mail it in), while county initiates recert by calling you. This trips people up.
• 1/3 of incoming CalFresh applications are from people who churned in the prior month, but we don't have overall data on % who completed SAR-7/RRR

[daguar]

@lippytak A bit got cut off, I assume "Recert is harder because requires" ends with "an interview"?

[lippytak]

Correct, fixed

[lippytak]

Consider changing this issue to 'propose v1 scope for SAR-7 feature' - there's so much to know it may help to research towards a concrete goal. For example we consider starting with ONLY "no change" cases and otherwise link to PDF version?

[daguar]

Agree re name — changed.

With your example, I'm not sure that's a great example — my guess is most people have SOME sort of change, though it may not be material to their benefit amount.

[daguar]

One big note — will need to attach verifications.

[daguar]

Question — what happens with SAR-7s if they specify changes but DO NOT include "proof" (verifications)?

[daguar]

From Derek at the food bank:

"I would say that about 75% [of SAR-7s he's helped with] are no change, 20% are some changes (started or stopped a job are usually the changes), and 5% are a lot of changes (very rare, but clients that move, change jobs, and have people move in and out of the household, i.e. transitioning homeless)."

[daguar]

Two eligibility workers in a county provided the following distributions:

70% no changes 10% change 15% a few changes 5% lots of changes.

60% no changes 10% 1 change 25% a few changes 5% lots of changes.

Maps pretty well to Derek's impression.

[daguar]

From a review of the MBCW app on the Google Play store:

[daguar]

Darn — hit a big increase in the level of effort: sounds like for even a no-change SAR-7, you have to submit proof of income (essentially a verification) for the report month. That really ups the effort on what the minimal version of this looks like.

[lippytak]

Were you able to confirm if no changes require verifications?

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015, Dave Guarino notifications@github.com wrote:

Closed #378 https://github.com/codeforamerica/health/issues/378.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/codeforamerica/health/issues/378#event-435281210.

Via thumbs

[daguar]

Yes

[lippytak]

THATS SO LAME!

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015, Dave Guarino notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/codeforamerica/health/issues/378#issuecomment-148072050 .

Via thumbs

[daguar]

It's slightly trickier, but it seems like substantively yes. From EWs:

1. I’m unsure of the percentage of clients report “no change” but you are correct that if they are working then they should attach proof of income. There are some exceptions of course to submitting proof but its best that all clients do, just in case and not to hold up benefits.

2. You are correct. They pretty much need to report their income for the DATA month on the SAR 7. Many of our customers say nothing’s changed, but even if it’s a minimal change, we still need to know. Based on information received recently from the state, they said “an income change of as little as $1 (or less) would mean that the income needs to be re-verified”.

[daguar]

One more EW response:

"1)10% 2)40% 3)30% 4)20%

Usually on SAR7’s the most things needed are job changes. Due to six months between, more people start and stop jobs, and I feel like I’m most often requesting proof previously reported income has changed or stopped. The runner up would be just requesting the correct proof, often customer send in the incorrect income verification date wise. (Example: customer sends 1 check in September and 1 in October and we needed both checks from September, very simple things that require sending back and asking for a specific check date)"

[lippytak]

Reopening since Leo and Kim opened up hope on the 'SAR-7 doesn't require verification'...

Leo asked his staff:

• Policy person says "If a SAR 7 reports no change in income, the household does not need to attach the income verification."
• QC person says : "QC must obtain the verification for most of the eligibility elements, especially the income. Whether there is a change in the earned income or not, QC must obtain the verification. The eligibility determination only lasts for 6 months under SAR system. Same thing applied to WINS samples, the ACF allows up to six months for projection of countable unsubsidized hours."

[lippytak]

Emailed Kim

[lippytak]

Will ask Stephanie/Liliana today

[lippytak]

Will ask Stephanie/Liliana today

[lippytak]

From Steph

I dug into the SAR ACL (ACL 12-25). On p. 12 it says that SAR didn’t change the verification requirements and points to ACIN I-45-11. Page 9 of the ACIN contains this paragraph:

Verification for Information that Hasn’t Changed at Recertification or Since the Last Report All changes reported on the application for recertification must be subject to the same verification requirements that apply at initial certification (MPP §.63-300.5(a)(2)). Any information that has changed in source or amount must be verified, if it is a required item or if it is questionable. Information which is inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or inconsistent must be re-verified during the recertification process. Otherwise, if information has not changed at recertification or since the last report and was previously verified, re-verification must not be imposed upon the household.

MPP 63-504.341 references what to do with monthly reporters, which is obviously out of date. Even so, it only requires changes to be verified. With the MPP being so out of date, we have to use the ACLs/ACINs.

One question might be how EWs determine whether information is outdated.

ACL 12-25 (SAR-7 http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersnotices/entres/getinfo/acl/2012/12-25.pdf)

ACIN I-45-11 (Verification requirements http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersnotices/entres/getinfo/acin/2011/I-45_11.pdf)

MPP 63-504.341 (http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/foodstamps/entres/getinfo/pdf/fsman7.pdf)

[lippytak]

Fun fact: Mailed SAR-7s from CalWIN include barcodes that identify the specific case, so clerical staff don't need to look them up manually. Hard to compete on that!

[alanjosephwilliams]

What information do those barcodes include? Do clerical staff have scanners? Would love to see one.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Jake Solomon notifications@github.com wrote:

Fun fact: Mailed SAR-7s from CalWIN include barcodes that identify the specific case, so clerical staff don't need to look them up manually. Hard to compete on that!

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/codeforamerica/health/issues/378#issuecomment-151317403 .

t: @alanjosephwilli p: 817 713 6264

[lippytak]

SF supervisors basically say "no need to verify if no change"!

If a customer doesn't report any changes on their SAR-7, do we still ask them to provide verifications?

• No need to verify if answer is no to all questions. However, if the answer is no and they have a previous income in CalWin or information on Held changes(for NHR or PVS discrepancy) that is not reported then we need to verify if they are still receiving this income or if anything has changed.
• A report of “no changes” would usually be considered complete. However, if the EW does the appropriate research and finds that the customer reported changes that occurred before the SAR7 (employment, new income) that were not yet applied to the customer’s case then we would ask for verification and consider the SAR7 as incomplete.

What if they have no income?

• No need to verify
• SAR7 would be considered complete.

What if they have a fixed income, like SSA?

• No need to verify, we can check IEVS/MEDS.
• SAR7 would be considered complete, we would continue budgeting what was previously reported at intake/rrr, or budget what IEVS /MEDS was reporting.

[daguar]

Here are my rough notes from talking with SD:

1. For SAR-7s, what are the circumstances in which a customer must submit a verification document (proof)? Specifically, for SAR-7s reporting no change from 6 months prior, is a verification document for the report month's income required?

Yes, documentation required

1. Do you have a sense for roughly what percentage of SAR-7s have:

a. No change reported b. 1 change c. A few changes d. A lot of changes

(Or feel free to just generally give your general impression if that is easier.)

No sense

1. Do you have any general sense of the main reasons customers have their benefits discontinued at the point of SAR-7? (Do they miss the mail? Do they submit incomplete or unsigned ones?)

No change folks will be disproportionately no-income, so homeless clients or household She would say a large number of discontinue because (1) don't submit, and (2) it's incomplete and they never follow up

[daguar]

One gut-check I'd love to make here — how much of a perceived problem for counties is SAR-7? (This coming from the higher-order goal that we want to improve county experience.

SD seemed to suggest missed SAR-7s was a small # (<10%) of terminations based on CalWIN data (though we know those can be funky.)

[lippytak]

Quick chat with Alexandra from SFMFB:

• Very common for people to report not getting it
• Usually by the time it gets to Alex they have to reapply anyway
• She doesn't think you can do SARs via C4Yourself
• In her experience no change = no verifications required
• Forgot to ask her what % of SAR-7 she sees are 'no change'...will email now and report back!
• Unrelated: Lots of problems with call center right now...
• Unrelated: Marin Co always calls from a blocked number

[lippytak]

From Jaime A interim calfresh policy director at CDSS:

The information is correct, if there is no change to information previously verified, there would not be a need for re-verification.

[lippytak]

Jaime confirming that fixed income doesn't need re-verifications:

Yes, if the income has not changed there is no requirement to re-verify for CalFresh at recertification or SAR-7. The question on the SAR-7 may only apply to those combined households (CalWORKs).