State of Arizona Project S.L.I.M. report on the Department of Economic Security

              I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE OF ARIZONA
PROJECT S. L. I. M. REPORT ON THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
July 2, 1992
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMC SEaJRITY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXEaIT1VE SlI. 1MY 1
SectIon 1 - A{ 1fIIlw; y 0rganilaII0rB SIrucbn
Agency Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . 46
SectIon 2 - FAA EIigIbIIy AsslBlBnce
EJlglbUlty Application Processing 67
Medical AssIstance EllglbUlty Determinations 90
Agency EJiglbllty Error Reductions 104
Food Stamps Monthly Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
FAA Policy Unit Reorganization ; 114
FAA Local OffIce Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123
FAA District OffIce Organization .........•......•......................... 131
RevieIN of Quality Assurance Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 138
SectIon 3 - FAA T"**' II
Establishment of FAA Training Site In Tucson 141,
FAA Employees Who Fal Base I Training ............•...................... 144
FAA District Training Coordinators ..............•......................... 147
Enhancement of FAA Base I Training ...•.................................. 153
SectIon 4 - 0awI0prrB1IaI " Imb't'ss
Closure of ArIzona Training Program at Coolidge . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . • • . . • . • . . . 156
Closure of ArIzona Training Program at Tucson' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .. 165
ServIce Plans and Individual Program Plans . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171
ServIce Review CommIttee ...•.•....•.............•..........•......... 178
Vocational RehablltatIon ServIces .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 184
DEPARllENT OF ECONOMC SEQJFVTY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 5 - QuIay RlNflM/ AJd/ Im BstgBdan
Quality Review Organization. . • . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . • . • . . • . . . • . • . . . • . • . .. 190
FAA. Quality Assurance 194
Contract Provider Audits .......•.•..••.•.......................•......... 205
Internal Audit Reviews .....•....••..•...•.•••.•..•.....•..•...•.••.••.... 208
Internal Audit Reorganization 210
Venture T. m 218
Reorganization of OSI ..................•...........•...•................ 221
Internal Affairs Investigation Supervisor 234
Section 6 - FIrwIce and Budget FWICIIoI.
Organizational Structure - Finance Functions ..............•.....•.........•... 236
Financial Systems 265
Fiscal Control 270
Management of Automated Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 274
ClaIms fling .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 280
Travel Advances 282
Travel Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 294
Telecommunications B81 Processing 307
Warrant Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 310
Encumbered ClaIms Processing 313
DOD BII Payment .......................•.............................. 320
Public Assistance Administration Revolving Fund 332
alent Trust Fund Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .. 336
Organization of Accounts Payable Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 341
Collection of Overpayments . . • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .. 349
Organization of Accounts Receivable and Collections Functions 394
Payroll Process '•..........................••..••........... , 403
Organization of Payroll and Time Accounting Functions ........••....••.......... 415
Budget Process ........................•................•.......•..... , 421
Allocation of Expense Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 437
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
t
I
I
I
I",
'~'<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SEQRTY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATlONS ~
SectIon 7 - 0Iher Sl4lPQI1 Ftn: IIoI.
Unemployment BenefIt Appeals ......•..................................... 441
Office of Client AlJvocacy . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . . • • • . . . • . . . . . . .. 451
DES PUrchasing ApprovaJ Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 457
Shredding Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 467
Faclltles Janltortal ServIces 469
Consumable Supplies, Forms, Fixed Assets ...•...•........................... 473
Vehicles .........•..................•................................ 485
Voice Telephone Services 493
Purchasing Functions 506
EXtIBITS
1. Department of Economic Security, Present Organization Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
2. Department of Economic security, Present StaffIng and Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
3. Project SUM Interview Ust 29
4. Recommendation and Savings Summary ..............•....................... 41
5. Implementation Schedule ( preliminary) . . . . . . . .. 42
6. Program DMsIons - Organizational Unit DescrIptions 50
7. Support DMslons - Organizational Unit DescriptIons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
8. Effect of Recommendations on Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
9. Department of Economic Security, Proposed OrganlzationaJ Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
10. Department of Economic Security, Proposed Organizational Structure
Features and BenefIts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
11. FAA. Current Application Process ........................•........•.......... 76
12. EllglbDlty Application Process Savings 85
13. Proposed 81glbllty Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86
14. ExIstIng 81glbUity Detennlnatlon Process:
Medical AssIstance and Food Stamps .......................••.......... 95
15. Medical AssIstance Detennlnatlon, Annual Cost Savings 102
III
DEPAImENT OF ECONCMC SEQJRI1Y
PRO. ECr SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
16. The Medical Ellglbllty Determination and Information
Control System ( MEDICS) .•.......•...............•.••............ 103
17. AFDC/ AHCCCS Agency Ineligible Error Rate Reduction
SavIngs Calculation ..•...............•..........••............... 107
18. Food Stamps Monthly Report Elimination Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
19. Policy and Related Units, Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 119
20. Policy and Related Units - Management Staff Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120
21. Policy and Related Units, Proposed Organization Structure .•................•... 121
22. Policy and Related Units . • . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 122
23. District 1 Local OffIce Support Units 127
24. District 2 Local OffIce Support Units 128
25. Survey of Local OffIce Operations Assistant Duties 129
26. Districts 1, 2 and 5 - OffIce Support Unit Supervision 130
27. FAA District OffIces, Present Organizational Structure 135
28. AssIstant District Manager Duties 136
29. FAA District OffIces, Proposed Organizational Structure 137
30. FAA Training - Establishment of Tucson Training Site. CalcWlt10n of Savings 143
31. Classroom Hours Trained In 1991 .....................•.......•........... 152
32. ATPC Versus Community Placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161
33. Buldlng Renewal and Capital Renewal Projects · ATPC 164
34. ATPT Versus Community Placement 169
35. DOD - ServIce Plans and Individual Program Plans, Calculation of Savings ....•••... 177
36. ServIce Review Committees ..............•.............................. 183
37. Vocational Rehabilitation ServIces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 189
38. ExIstIng Evaluation Units . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . ., 193
39. FAA · Current QA Process • Monthly ......•.........•.....••.............. 200
40. Proposed S. E. E. S. Reads ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . .. 203
41. Proposed QA Process • Monthly ...•......................•.............. 204
42. OffIce of Intemal Audit, Present Organizational Structure ..•....•..•..•.•........ 215
43. OffIce of IntemaJ Audit, Proposed Organizational Structure 216
Iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOIIC SEQJRfTY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHBITS
44. StaffIng Requirements Based on Recommendations ...........................•. 217
45. Office of Special Investigations, Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 230
46. Calculation of Cost to Manage Administrative Unit ..•..•..•..........•.•..•...... 231
47. StaffIng Requirements Based on Recommendations 232
48. Office of Special Investigations, Proposed Organizational Structure 233
49. Office of Internal AffaIrs, Present Organization 235
50. Division of Business and Finance, Present Organizational Structure , 253
51. Financial Management, Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 254
52. Office of Contracts, Equipment and PUrchasing, Present
Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 255
53. Financial Management, Proposed Organizational Structure 256
54. OffIce of Accounting, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. 257
55. OffIce of Accounts Payable, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 258
56. OffIce of Collections, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259
57. Payroll Office, Proposed Organizational Structure 260
58. Office of Contracts, Equipment and Purchasing, Proposed
Organizational Structure .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 261
59. OffIce of Business Systems, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 262
60. Finance Recommendation and Savings Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 263
61. Finance Staff Disposition 264
62. FIscal Control, Present Organizational Structure 269
63. Financial Management Control System Office, Present
0rganIzatI0naJ Structure .....•. . • • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • . . . • . • . . .. 278
64. OffIce of Integrated Systems, Present Organizational Structure 279
65. Accounts Payable Travel Advance Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 287
86. AS 810 Travel Voucher ..........•••.•.•..•..•.....•.........•...•..•.•... 291
fffT. Notice • Outstanding Travel Advance Due . • . . . • . . . • . • . • . . • . . . . • . • • . • . . . • • . . • .. 292
68. AS- 811 · Expenditure CorrectIon Form ..........................•............ 293
v
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMC SEQJRITY "
PRO. ECrSUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
69. In- State Travel Process Flow ..•..•................••...................... 300
70. Out- of~ Travel ClaIm Process 302
71. Out- of.. state Travel Order . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 305
72. TC- 50D - Employee Travel ClaIm ..•...•.................................... 306
73. Encumbered Claims Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 317
74. DOD Provider BUI Process Flow 326
75. Attendance Report . . • . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . • . . . • . • . • • . • . • • • • .. 328
76. Da1a/ DB& F Coversheet ........................•....................... .. 329
n. Weekly Payroll Exceptions by District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 330
78. Proposed DOD Provider BII Process Flow 331
79. Accounts Payable Unit, Present Organizational Structure , 348
SO. Public Assistance Overpayments 365
81. Overpayment Collection Process Flow 366
82. Form FA- 529 - Report of Cash A881stance/ Food Stamps
Overpayment . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 384
83. Form FA- 759 - Notice for Repayment of a Food Stamps
Overpayment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 387
84. Form FA- 755 - Notice for Repayment c: I a Food Stamps
Overpaytnent, Household Error . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 389
85. Proposed Overpayment Collection Process Flow ...•........................... 391
86. Offlce c: I Accounts Receivable and Collections,
Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 402
87. Current Payroll Process Flow .......•....................•.........•....... 410
88. Payroll Staff ActtvItIes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . .. 411
89. Form J- 333 - Time Distribution and Payroll Attendance
Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 412
vi
I
" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SEaRTY
PRO. ECTSUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXtIBrTS
90. Staff Equivalents - Current Payroll Process ActIvItIes ......•................••.... 413
91. Payroll Unit, Revised Payroll Process Flow •......•.•..••.......•..•........... 414
92. Payroll and TIme Accounting Unit, Present Organizati0nai
Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 420
93. Offlce of the Budget; Present Organizati0nai Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 434
94. Annual Budget Process 435
95. OffIce of the Budget. Proposed Organizational Structure .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 436
96. OffIce of Appeals. Present Organizati0nai Structure 447
97. Appeals ActIvIty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 448
98. Appeals Board. Present Organizational Structure .•..•........................... 449
99. Appeals Function StaffIng Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 450
100. ExIsting DES Purchasing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .. 460
101. Proposed DES Purchasing Process 466
102. DES 1991 Janitorial Expenses 472
103. Fixed Assets Warehouse. Prese: lt Organizational Structure 481
104. Supply Warehouse. Present Organizational Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 482
105. Consumable Demand History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 483
106. Proposed Structure. DES Supply Section 484
107. Summary of Vehicle Fleet Composition. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 492
108. ITN Rate Element Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 503
109. ThIrteen Highest Cost Telephone ServIce locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 505
vii
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JtJy 2,1992
Mr. DavId A Lowenberg
Acting Director
ArIzona Department of Economic SecL:~
1717 West Jefferson Avenue
Phoenix, ArIzona 85007
Dear Mr. Lowenberg:
We have completed the Governor's State Long- term Improvement Management ( SUM) review of
your Agency and are pleased to present this summary of findings and recommendations. Our analysis was
conducted from November 1991 through AprU 1992.
This summary describes the objectives and goals of the study, the approach used throughout our
analysis, and a summary of major changes we recommend. We quantified the potential benefits these
recommendations wli provide your Agency and the clients you serve. In addition, key Implementation
actions needed to convert potential benefits to actual benefits are delineated. Our detailed findings and
recommendations are contained within the body of this report.
In total, the recommendations identify approximately $ 31 mlilan In savings and benefits for your
Agency. The $ 31 mllion Includes approximately $ 20 mliion In State funds. Remaining savings Include
Federal funds and funds from other sources.
QBJECIJYES AND GOALS
The overall objective of this study was to evaluate key processes and organizati0nai stnJetures
throughout the Agency. Due to the size and complexity of the Agency, the following criteria were used to
select areas for review:
• Large numbers of employees or clients
Mr. David A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director '
ArIzona Department of Economic Security
Page 2
• High proportion of State funding
• Potential for process Improvements and savings
• SIgnificant effects on Agency operations
We approached this study by taking an Integrated view of the organization. We began by reviewing
Information regarding the mission, size, structure, and responsIblltles of Agency dMslons and
administrations ( see exhibit 1, Department of Economic security, Present Organlzatlonal Structure, and
exhibit 2, Department of Economic Security, Present StaffIng and Budget). We then Interviewed managers
and selected technical and line personnel to focus on areas that could be Improved.
For each area reviewed, we studied the mission and strategic focus, service delivery process,
current technology, methods for using and managing Information, performance measurements, quality and
service Issues, organlzatlonal structure, logistics and physical assets used by the organization to deliver
services. Where appropriate, we used Interviews to develop detaled process flows to identify non- value
added elements that could be eliminated. We finalized the process flows and reviewed them with line and
supervisory staff to ensure accuracy. We Interviewed over 450 Individuals during the process ( see exhibit 3,
Project SUM Interview Ust).
In addition, we employed the following analyses:
• Quantification of cost to provide a quality service where cost appeared to be excessive
• Identification of preventive activities to reduce the occurrence of more cosdy falures later In the
process
• Assessment of organizational structures, Including consideration of the following Issues:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. David A. l. aNenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department ~ Economic Securtty
Page 3
- Span ~ control
- Managerial layering
- Alignment ~ missions
- Distribution ~ responsIbilties
- Fragmentation of duties
- Overtapping or duplicative funetlons
- Centralization versus decentralization.
Our first step In Improving the functions of the organizati0nai units was to streamline cumbersome
processes. We then reviewed other related units to assess organizational placement and structure, and to
eliminate duplicative and fragmented duties. Finally, we aligned missions, constructed appropriate spans
~ control and reduced layering to achieve organizational ftexlbllty and empowerment at lower layers of the
organization.
To quantify the effects of making changes, we obtained time estimates for each task from
Interviewees. In some Instances, we observed and measured work aetlvitles. In addition, we used Agency
statistics to assess the numbers and types ~ transactions processed by an area.
Our recommendations were reviewed with appropriate managerial levels to assess the feaslbBIty of
implementation. We also met with the Director every two weeks to discuss our ftndlngs and
recommendations.
SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDADONS
The ArIzona Department of Economic Security can realize substantial benefits by Implementing the
recommendations developed dUring the course of this review { see exhibit 4, Recommendation and Savings
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Page 4
Summary). When Implemented, these recommendations wli Improve the delivery of eervIces to clients,
enable employees to work more efftcIentIy, streamline work processes, enhance the management of Agency
resources, focus attention on error prevention Instead of detection, and eliminate unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy at significant cost savings to the State.
The paragraphs that follow provide a summary of recommendations for all areas reviewed by the
project team. Detaled recommendations, accompanied by supporting documentation, follow within the
body of this report.
A. SEIMCE DElJYERY IMPRQYEMENTS
One of the primary missions of the Agency Is to administer State and Federal economic assistance
programs to serve the economically disadvantaged. The effectiveness of service delivery Is measured by
two criteria: timeliness and accuracy. The Agency Is under Intense pressure, preclpItated by the threat of
Federal monetary sanctions, to maintain acceptable levels of timeliness and accuracy.
The largest volume of work and greatest number of employees are associated with e1lglbUlty
determination aetMtles. The project team examined the e1lglbDIty process In detaD and recommends
Improvements In the areas of application processing, quality assurance and error prevention.
a. Application Prpcesslng
Over 70% of applicants do not bring necessary documentation to initiai e1lglbllty interviews. This
resUts In repeated handling of information and case fles by e1lglbllty workers, which Is In8ffIcient and
consumes valuable time. We recommend that prior to the Inltlallntervlevi, applicants be provided clear and
comprehensive instructions regarding specific information necessary to process their case. This wli
UtImate1y expedite the determination process by reducing the need for e1lglbllty workers to repeatedly
handle case information. Additi0naily, the InstaJlation of a FAX machine In each FAA office wli expedite
receipt of employment vertflcatlons and resource documentation necessary to process client applications.
I
I
, I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A Lowenberg
ActIng Director
Arizona Department of Economic Securtty
Page 5
One of the most time consuming steps In the application process is the search for case information
among mWttple computer data bases. ThIs requires repeated logging on and off the systems to locate
recorda for each famIy member. Agency employees have developed a plot program which automates this
record search. Initial indicators demonstrate that this program wli reduce the number of transactions by
70%. with a potential savings of $ 1.6 milion. We recommend further development and implementation of
this plot program.
b. Month/ y Reoortlng
Clients who receive Food Stamps and AId to Famllea WIth Dependent Chldren ( AFDC) benefits are
required by the Agency to report changes In assets and Income every month, even though other
mechanisms are In place to obtain this information. These monthly reports have little Impact on the
accuracy of benefit payments. States that have discontinued monthly reports In Food Stamps programs
have experienced an overall decline In Agency error rates. Additionally, Federal regLMtlons do not require
States to administer monthly reports. We recommend monthly reporting be discontinued for the Food
Stamps program. This wli avoid the annual expenditure of $ 1.5 milion required for 55 positions to process
monthly reports, and an addltlonaJ $ 430.000 In postage and printing expenses.
c. Medica! Assistance E!! glbUIty Determinations
The computer systems used to determine medical e1lglbBIty are not compatible with other public
assistance eIlgibilty systems. ThIs resldts In redundant data entry. repetitive data inquiry and retrieval,
IncreBsed processing times and Incre8sed errors In e1lglbllty determinations. We recommend the MEDICS
computer program that Integrates public 8SSl& tance e11g1b11ty determinations be Implemented after approval
by the Federal Government. Utlization of MEDICS wli yield an annual recurring cost savings of $ 3.5 milIon.
a. ArIzona Training Programs at Coolidge and Tucson
The DOD operates large residential care facBltIes In Coolidge ( ATPC) and Tucson ( ATPT) that
provide twenty- four hour residential care to 8 total of 221 clients. No developmentally disabled client has
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng DIrector
ArIzona Department d Economic SecurIty
Page 6
been placed In either ATPC or ATPT since 1986 and 1984. respectively. It Is the consensus d physicians.
nurses, psychologists, case managers and other professionals In the field d developmental dlsablltles that
there Is no medical or psychological need for any of the 221 residents to remain In the lnstltut1onai settings
d ATPC or ATPT. These professionals maintain all current residents ccUd be successUy transItJoned to
communlty- based group homes and adult developmental homes. It Is further maintained such a move
would foster personal growth and enhance the overall quality d lie for these individuals.
Over the last two years, a total of 22 ATPC and 38 ATPT residents have been successfully
transltloned to residential placements. We recommend all 181 ATPC and 40 ATPT residents be transItIoned
to communlty- based placements over the next three years. at a cost savings of $ 8.1 millon. Upon
completion of the transition. we further recommend both faclltles be considered for alternative LI68. By
closing ATPC and ATPT. the Agency wli be able to serve an additional 243 developmentally disabled clients
who are presently on waiting lists.
b. 8erv! ce Review Committees
In the DOD, any client services recommended by a case manager must first be authorized by a
ServIce Review Committee. ServIce Review Committees meet weekly for anywhere from one to eight hours,
and are comprised of two to six persons, depending upon the District. In over ,85% of cases, Review
Committees agree with the service recommendations made by case managers. We found the Committees
to be costly and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy that consume valuable staff resources and Impede the
timely delivery of services to developmentally disabled clients. We therefore recommend ServIce Review
Committees be disbanded and case managers be given direct authority to approve and disapprove services
for clients assigned to their caseload. Case managers sholKt also be given the corresponding responsIbUIty
to manage allocated financial resources. We estimate this change wli yield an annual savings of 14,000
hours of employee time, which translates to a savings of $ 263.000 per year.
c. SeryIce Plans
All DOD clients receive a ServIce Plan that detals specific types d services the client presently
receives or needs to receive In the future. On average, case managers spend six to eight hours preparing
a ServIce Plan. Service Plans for Federally funded TItle XIX clients who receive home and communlty- based
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. laNenberg
ActIng Director,
ArIzona Department c: A Economic Security
Page 7
services are required by regUatIon to be updated wary ninety days, where88 ServIce Plans for clients
funded entirely by State dollars are updated annually. ExperIence has shcMn service levels for rNer 85%
c: A clients do not require changes within a ninety day time period. this, In large part, Is due to the Inherent
8tatIc nature c: A developmentally disabling conditions.
We recommend ServIce Plans be updated annually for all clients who receive home and communlty­based
services, unless there has been a significant change In a client's medical or behavioral condition. The
recommendation wli not have an adverse Impact on the quality c: A client care, but wli save approximately
113,000 hours In case managers' time, which Is the equivalent c: A 54 fUl- tlme positions. The additional time
case managers gain can be productively spent In direct contact with clients assigned to their caseloads.
At present, case managers spend only 16% of their time In direct contact with clients.
d. Individual program Plans
Individual Program Plans QPP) set measurable goals and objectives for clients. The Plans are
updated on a seml- annual basis and take two to four hours to complete. Much of the Information contained
In the IPP duplicates Information contained In the ServIce Plan. We recommend eliminating the seml- annual
IPP. We also recommend integrating the Information presently contained In the IPP with Information
contained In the ServIce Plan. ThIs wli create one all encompassing source document for an Individualized
annual assessment of client programs and services. These changes wli save approximately 51,000 hours
of case managers' time, which Is the equivalent c: A 24 fUl- tlme case manager positions. Case managers can
utlize the additional time to spend with clients to better observe, monitor and assess the adequacy and cost­effectiveness
c: A services.
e. ' iocationaI RehablltatIon Seryices
The DOD and the Rehablitatlon ServIces Administration ( RSA), within the Division of Employment
and Rehablltatlon Servlces, both provide job training and job placement and development services to
severely handicapped clients. The major difference distinguishing the two entities Is that DOD provides these
services with 100% State monies, whle RSA can provide the same services udlzlng 80% Federal monies
Mr. DavId A. LaNenberg
Acting DIrector
ArIzona Department of Economic SecurIty
Page 8
and 20% State monies. The average cost per client for job training, and job placement and d8V8lopment
programs administered to d8V8loprneritaJly disabled clients by the DOD was $ 6,356 per year. The average
cost for RSA to administer the same qLBIIty of services to the same clientele was $ 3,990 per year.
We recommend RSA be given exclusive authority to administer all employment related programs
for DOD clients. DOD clients wli receive the same qLBIIty services and the State wllsave $ 4,417,800 the
first year the program transfer becomes operationaJ and approximately $ 1,402,500 each subsequent year.
B. ENABYNG EMPLO'ffS TO WORK MORE EFFIQEND. Y
1. FamIy A lance Adrr* iIbIllun - T",
Upon hire, all FAA e1lglbllty workers are sent to Phoenix for three weeks of BASE I training to learn
how to correctly determine eligibility for the Food Stamps Program. Training consists of instruction from
selected chapters of the FAA policy manLBI and rNfJr 30 related computer screens. Upon completion of
BASE I training, all trainees. regardless of whether they pass or fall, are sent to FAA field offices to determine
Food Stamps e1lglbllty.
a Enhancement of Base Training
Over 50% of the error rate In the Food Stamps Program Is directly attributable to eligibility workers
who misapply policy. To correct this problem, we recommend BASE I training be expanded to four weeks
to Incorporate all chapters of the FAA policy manLBI, 88 well 88 other additional relevant material. The cost
associated with the one week expansion Is $ 269,000. We also recommend only those Individuals who pass
BASE I training be assigned to field offices to determine Food Stamps eligibility.
b. Establishment of Tucson Training Site
The Central training unit for FAA Is located In Phoenix. Because there Is only one FAA training site
In the State, the Agency expends a substantial amount of money In travel, meals and lodging for FAA
employees to traVel to Phoenix to attend requisite core training courses. We recommend the establishment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. David A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department ~ Economic SecurIty
PageS
~ an additional training site In the Tucson rnstropoIltan area. A Tucson training site wli save the FAA
approximately $ 74,000 the first year It becomes 0peratlonai and $ 204,000 . ch year, there& fter.
c. [) IstrIct Training Coordinators
Each of the six FAA DIstrtcts employs training coordinators to deliver In- servIce training that consists
~ subjects beyond the requisite core training delivered by the FAA CentraJ training unit. Our review revealed
the amount of training delivered by training coordinators was minimal, varied In type and content, and was
duplicative of training provided by supervisors and quality assurance staff. We recommend all training
coordinator positions be abolished and field office quality assurance staff assume In- service training
responsIbiities. ThIs change wli reBUt In a more efficlent delivery ~ In- service training that Is standard
throughout all six Districts and eliminate existing dUplication. The change wli yield an annual savings of
$ 283,000. As our review revealed a lack ~ available quality training for FAA supervisory personnel, we
recommend reinvesting 25% of these savings In training programs for FAA supervisors.
C. SI'RfAMUNNG WORK PROCESSES
1. DMsIon gf ' t& 3 and FIrwnce fDBF) - FIrwnce 0pendI0I-Agency
programs are supported by more than 100 different Federal, State and other funding
sources. Each funding source Involves unique expenditure, accounting and reporting requirements. The
control and tracking ~ revenues and expenditures presents a major challenge, due to the varied nature of
these funding sources. We focused on several fInance- r8Iated processes. These Involve payroll, DOD bli
payment, collection ~ overpayments, financial systems and several other areas.
Overall savings related to finance recommendations total $ 2,015,000 annually, which Includes
approximately $ 711,000 In State funds. Several ~ these recommendations Involve automation
enhancements, and range from simple program modifications to development ~ new systems. Initial
Implementation costs cannot be preclseIy estimated untI system features and programming specifications
are assessed. During the Implementation phase, a plan wli be developed to direct early savings toward
recommendations with nUtI-~ r time frames.
Mr. DavId A Lowenberg
ActIng DIrector
Arizona Department d Economic Securtty
Page 10
a.
Centralized processing d payroll for the Agency's 8.700 employees leeds to IneIfIcIent handling of
time sheets. substantial rework and insufficient auditing. Each employee prepares a time sheet and forwards
the sheet to the Payroll Unit for data entry. To meet deadlines for submitting time sheets, employees must
estimate hours to be worked and time accounting information for up to three days per pay period. In
addition, the Unit must Input a substantial amount d information Into both the FInancial Management Control
System ( FMCS) and the Department d Administration ( DCA) payroll system.
We recommend decentralization of payroll data entry to expedite the process and eliminate
redundancy. this wUllnvolve the entry d Information by remote offices and auditing of a small percentage
of time sheets In the Payroll Unit. We also recommend eliminating dUplicate data entry through system
modifications or by eliminating one of the systems.
b. POP 811 Processing
Payment of invoices associated with DOD Is complicated by redundant processing, fragmented work
allocation, automated system Inadequacies, and lack of quality assurance at several levels. The blls are
processed and reviewed by both DOD and D8F staff. Processing Inefficiencies have led to delayed
payments and multiple payments on the same Invoice.
We recommend decentralization d the DOD bli payment process to the DOD to eliminate redundant
processing and to expedite bII payment. In addition. we recommend replacement d the primary DOD client
computer tracking system ( ASSISTS) with a more efficient alternative.
c. Collection of Overpayments
The Office d Accounts Receivable and Collections attempts to collect overpayments made to
financial assistance recipients. The complexity d the process. together with the fact that public assistance
debtors generally have no Income or assets, resldts In collection d less than 30% d the amounts overpaid.
The process Is complex due to elaborate Intemal processing procedures, fragmented and Inadequate
tracking systems ( both manual and automated), misalignment of functions and cumbersome Federal
regulations and gUidelines.
I
" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
Acting Director
Arizona Department d Economic Security
Page 11
We recommend re- engIneer1ng the process to Improve collection d CMrpByments by acquiring an
Integrated automated coIledions system, redistributing aetJvltles between offices, and by using private
collectors for dlfficUt cases. In addition to staffIng- reIated savings, the recommendations wli resUt In an
estimated 10% Improvement In collections ( approximately $ 300,000 per year). We al80 recommend the
Agency work with other States In seeking simplification d Federal guidelines.
d. financial Systems
The Agency currenUy uses several main frame and Pe- based computer systems to track finance
and budget Information. The primary system Is refen'ed to as the Financial Management Control System
( FMCS). The system, which was developed to meet Agency accounting needs, Is extremely complex and
requires substantial maintenance, staff training and Interfacing with other systems. Inefficiencies involving
duplicate data entry. Inadequate data reports and Insufficient system edits exist In processes related to
FMCS and other systems.
We recommend several FMCSmodlflcations Including streamlining of Interfaces. enhanced system
edits. and the development of a long- term financial system master plan.
e. Other Finance- Related Process Improvements
Several additi0nai finance and budget- related process Improvements are recommended. These
Include:
• Automation d the " three way match" process, and transfer d the function to the Purchasing Unit
to faclltate elimination d processing steps
• Reduction d manual form review processes through enhancement d orHlne system edits
• Improved automation d fund accounting processes. and consolidation d fund management
functions within the OffIce of Accounting
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
Arizona Department ~ Economic Securtty
Page 12
• Streamlining ~ travel claims and travel advance processing
• Simplification ~ claim fling and warrant handling practices.
2. IlI+ inn of%& 3 3 and Firwg - PIId ha pm;,
EffIcIency ~ the Agencys purchasing process Is reduced due to the multiple levels of approval
required. The current process resUts In delays In the delivery ~ Agency services.
We recommend eliminating excessive approval levels, and adjusting the automated requisition
approval matrix, consistent with our recommendation regarding delegation ~ expenditure authority
( discussed below). We also recommend elimination of duplicative data entry steps In the Purchasing Unit.
3. 0IIice of Bwtget PolIcy PIanniJg and PRied C' 4JIrgI
a. Budget
The Agency budget Is developed and monitored by the Office of the Budget. These processes are
controlled at a detaRed level by the Budget Office, aIthougll the program administrations also undertake
budget development and monitoring aetMtles.
We recommend decentralization ~ these functions within the Agency, and Improvement of
automated systems to faclltate the streamlining ~ budget development and monitoring processes. We
also recommend downsizing and restructuring the OffIce to reftect decentralization. Annual savings of
$ 157,000 ($ 47,000 In State funds) wli resUt from these budget process Improvements. In addition, the
recommendations wli faclltate dcwmward delegation ~ expense authority by locating budget specialists
closer to managers.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. laNenberg
ActIng Director
Arizona Department d Economic Security
Page 13
We also recommend the State consider more effective means d coordinating the budget process
across all agencies. This may Include development d a common on- lIne system, more timely guidelines,
and COIlY8I'Iion to the Federal fiscal year. These Improvements wII usist In streamlining budget processes
throughout all agencies.
b. Expenditure Authority
Expenditure budgets within the Agency are controlled at high administrative levels. The process
by which expense budgets are handled resutts In Inefficient fund management practices.
We recommend downward delegation of expenditure authority to the lowest feasible levels within
the Agency through allocation of expense budgets. Managers wli then be held accountable for operating
within assigned budgets. This change wli Improve the efficiency and accuracy of fund management and
budget processes, and wli facUltate Improvement of client services.
D. BJMNAnON OF UNNECESSARY BUREAlJCRAnC LAYERS
The Agency Is presently divided Into nine major operating units. These units Include the OffIce of
the Director and eight divisions. Four of the divisions administer client service programs and four provide
support services for the Agency.
Concu.....- rt with the Project SUM review, the Agency developed an overall reorganization plan. We
recommend Implementation of this new structure, with the exceptions noted In our formal proposal. The
Intent of the proposed structure Is to group sImIar functions to Improve communication. staff direction and
program coordination at a lower administrative cost.
Mr. DavId A Lowenberg
ActIng Director '
ArIzona Department of Economic SecurIty
Page 14
2. QMeim of "* W1d FJrwICl- Aw'''' ,......
The finance 0rganlzatlonai structure has 8YOIved aver the years to meet specific Agency needs.
As a resUt, the current structure Incorporates excessive layers of supervision, which has led to reduced
accountabIlty.
Our recommendations realign finance functions to faclltate the streamlining of processes. The
recommendations group similar functions and remove excessive organizational levels.. Recommendations
also Include establishment of pr0fesslonai accountant positions to support accounting research and the
development of timely financial statements. Lack of proper accounting expertise has led to Improper fund
management and Federal corrective action mandates.
Our recommendations Include the removaJ of three staffing layers In the Accounts Payable Unit, two
levels In the Payroll Unit, and two levels In the OffIce of Accounts Receivable and Collections.
Recommendations Invotve property aligning associated functions by transferring certain duties to more
appropriate units or divisions.
3. 0IIIce q IJudo& PgIIcy. PIamiJIn Prqect rmrq
0IIIce q Qin Adygcacy
The OffIce of Client Advocacy Is responsible for responding to a variety of Inquiries from clients,
legislators, government oIfIcIaIs and members of the public. The functions and services provided by staff
are duplicative of those provided by staff In the OffIce of Client 8ervIces, which Is located In the FarnBy
AssIstance Administration.
To eliminate this duplication, we recommend the staff positions In the OffIce of Client Advocacy be
abolished. The annual cost savings of $ 216,000 should be utlized to fund positions In the Chid Support
Enforcement Administration to assist In reducing the enormous backlog of parent inquiries.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
Acting Director
ArIzona Department d Economic Security
Page 15
a PJstrict OffIce Reorganization
Districts I and II employ Assistant District Managers, who supervise Quality Assurance Supervisors
and Training Coordinators. Due to elimination d District Training Coordinator positions and the reporting
re- alignmem of quality assurance positions, we recommend AssIstant District Manager positions In Districts
I and II be abolished. As quality assurance responslbllty wli be shifted to local office personnel, we
recommend eliminating Quality Assurance Supervisor positions In Districts I and II and Public AssIstance
Program Specialist positions In Districts III, IV, Vand VI. These changes wli net savings d $ 522,000, and
wli redirect resources to local offices for Improved customer service.
b. Local OffIce Reorganization
In local offices, AssIstant Local OffIce Managers are assigned to supervise support staff. For offices
with five or fewer e1lglbDIty units, we recommend AssIstant Local OffIce Manager positions be abolished and
their supervisory duties be rEHflrected to Administrative Support Supervisor positions. The changes wli yield
a net savings of $ 433,000.
c. Policy Unit R80rganilatlon
Policy support for FAA Is provided by two separate units, the Program Support SectIon and the
Medical Services SectIon. Program Support addresses policy Issues relating to Food Stamps, AFDC, and
GeneraJ and Emergency AssIstance programs. Medical ServIces addresses policy Issues relating to Medical
Assistance e1lglbllty. The existence of two policy units resUts In the Issuance of redundant and Inconsistent
policy to fteId staff, publication of parallel directives and review and correction d the other unit's work
products. We recommend the Program Support and Medical ServIces SectIons be consolidated Into one
central unit, at a cost savings d $ 298,000.
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department ~ Economic SecurIty
Page 16
omee or Internal Audits
The cost of managing the Office has been high. Audit teams are specialized by program and there
are few resources allocated to monitoring or auditing providers. We recommend the elimination of one layer
of management and reorganizatlon of the Office to reduce the cost to manage from 41% to 25%. We also
recommend the reclassification of existing positions to free additional resources for auditing and monltortng
providers.
E. FOCUS ON ERROR PREVENDON INSTEAD OF DETECDON
One of our guiding principles during the review of the Agency has been to shift the focus from error
detection to error prevention. We have compled a number ~ recommendations toward this end.
Implementation of the following recommendations adheres to this principle.
a. Quality AssYrance
The current quality assurance review process In the FamDy AssIstance Administration Is designed
to detect errors. Because of the placement ~ this step In the application process, errors are not discovered
untD long after they have occurred. Our recommendations In this area direct resources to the front end of
the process. We recommend a quality assurance review ~ cases be conducted within 48 hours of receipt
of an application. this change Is designed to give Ellgiblity Interviewers more timely feedback, which wli
Improve case accuracy. Errors wli be discovered before benefit payments have been made, reducing the
need for costly overpayment collection efforts. TIme savings can be utlized by quality assurance staff to
conduct In- house training, formerly conducted by district training coordinators.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department ~ Economic Securtty
Page 17
b. Quality Assurance Error Rates
In addition to the Quality Assurance performed at the local office level, Food Stamps and AFDC
cases are scientifically sampled and 8Xt~ scrutinized by a central unit to detennlne the offIcJaJ Agency
error rate. Federal program guidelines have established monetary sanctions when the error rates are 1"
above the national average. If the Food Stamps error rate Is below 5.9%, the State Is eligible for enhanced
funding. We recommend establishment of a position to challenge error rate determinations. Other States
which have done so have reduced their error rate by 2%.
c. UnemPloyment Benefit Appeals
Adverse unemployment benefit determinations are subject to Independent review at the option of
the applicant or employer. Under the current system these tonnaJ reviews are conducted through the OffIce
of Appeals and the Appeals Board. We recommend the establishment of a Fair Hearing unit to review
disputes and resolve cases Informally where possible. Experience In other States Indicates cases can be
resolved at this stage, without diminishing the rights of the parties. this earty intervention wli educate
Individuals and facilitate corrective action by the Agency when necessary. It wli also avoid many costly
formaJ appeals and reduce existing case backlogs.
d. Contract Provider Audits
The Agency utlizes rNer 1,300 contract providers to deliver client services. In the most recent year,
only 17 audits ~ these service providers were conducted. QuestIoned costs arising from these audits occur
primarly because ~ Incorrect accounting and blllng procedures. We recommend the audit process be
shortened, more audits be conducted, and the process focus on correcting the detrimental practices of
providers before they can recur. EstImates indicate approximately $ 750,000 In savings wli be J' 88I! zed by
the State.
Mr. David A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
Arizona Department of Economic SecurIty
Page 18
e. YWltUr8 JMm
The Venture Team was established to Improve processes and reduce costs. To date. this team has
been underutllzed. We recommend Venture Team activities be re- dlrected to areas of greater opportunity
for cost savings and Improvements to client service processes.
f. OffIce of SoecIaIlnvesllgations lOSI)
This office has access to enhanced Federal funding ( 75% Federal, 25% State) to prevent, prosecute
and deter frauds against Agency programs. Every State dollar spent on prosecuting fraud has the potential
to enhance revenues to the State General Fund by five to six dollars. In addition, OSl's Early Fraud
Detection Program identifies many cases of potential fraud before the client has been approved to receive
benefits, thus saving the State from paying benefits to Ineligible clients.
We recommend ArIzona take advantage of the deterrent effect of OSI prosecutions by publicizing
fraud convictions, Including names and sentences Imposed. In local FAA offices. We also recommend
reorganizing the OffIce to address backlogs In the Forgery Unit.
F. MANAGEMENT OF MATERIAL RESOURCES
The project team has addressed the management of a number of the Agency's material resources,
making recommendations regarding the distribution of consumable supplies and fixed assets, determining
the Agency's transportation needs and the associated costs. providing janitorial service at competitive prices.
and assessing voice telephone service requirements. Recommended changes In the management of
supplies, forms and fixed assets wli rest* In estimated annual savings of over $ 400.000. Improvements In
the management of telephone services can save $ 1 mliion. Savings associated with other material resource
recommendations are described below:
1. PM* m gf Pmt333 and Aw1ce
a. SuDD!! es
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director ,
ArIzona DepartmentmEconomic Security
Page 19
By Implementing team recommendatJons, the Agercj can 18I< e advantage mthe delivery provisions
mexisting State purchase contracts and realize significant savings In the dlstrtbutlonmconsumable supplies
and fixed assets. Instead of AJ; Jency personnel warehousing, handling and delivering consumable supplies,
It wli be done by vendor personnel. Our scrutiny m Agercj forms also resUted In recommendations to
reduce the size mleased warehouse space. Together. these recommendations. when Implemented, wli
reduce the number m personnel needed to carry out the supply function by nearty 66%.
b. Fixed Assets
The Fixed Assets warehouse receives approximately 180 delJvertes of office furniture and data
processing equipment each month. ConsIstent with our recommendations, the AQency has begun limited
direct delivery of these fixed assets to their ultimate use locations In metropolitan areas. Direct delivery Is
designed to reduce handling costs and avoid damage to equipment. In addition. this recommendation
results In elimination of the need for approximately 12,000 square feet of warehouse space. at a cost of
$ 95.000.
c. Transportation
Our assessment of Agency transportation needs and evaluation of costs was hampered by a lack
of accurate Information. As with other resources we examined. there Is no central management or clear
accountabUIty. Parochial Interests and narrow program focus prevent this asset from being managed as an
Agency resource. Authority and responsIbilty are diffused and accountabllty Is lacking.
Recommendations regarding transportation focus on establishing accountabllty and gathering
information, which wli faclltate Informed decision making and management mthis resource. Broad
indicators were used to compensate for the lackmInformation essential to assess current operating costs
and transportation needs. Because of the age and condition of the fleet, we conclude a significant portion
of the vehicles are no longer ec0n0micai to operate or repair. Summary data Indicate the Agency Is
spending three times as much on mUeage reimbursement as It Is to operate the fleet The use of
Department of Administration pool vehicles Is not adequately monitored or controlled.
Mr. David A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Page 20
d. JanItorilJ Serylces
Janitorial 88I'VIceI are obtained on a month- tCHnOllth basis In many AQency faclltJes throughout the
State, Instead of through the competitive bidding process. As a reNt, the cost for this service Is W8II above
Industry averages In the metropolitan Phoenix area. We recommend obtaining competitive bids for this
service In the metropolitan areas and ather locations where nUtIpIe vendors are avaIabIe. Lowering the
cost to Industry average levels wli reslIt In an annual savings of approximately $ 100,000.
2. 0IIIce of PIlla Mmlnllb. tan
a. \' oIce Teleohone Sery! ce
Providing voice telephone services to the Agency's more than 8,000 employees costs aiM $ 4.5
mllian annually. Several organizational units share the responsIbllty for determining service requirements,
selecting the most cost4ectlve means of obtaining service, and ensuring the Agency receives that for
which It pays. We recommend the authority, responsIbilty and accountability for managing this resource
be consolidated. Both Industry and Agency experts have reviewed telephone expenditures and estimate
a savings ranging from 20% to 50% Is likely.
G. SAYINGS AND STAFFING ' fYf' §
In total. Project SUM Review Team recommendations yield aooual savings of approximately $ 31
mliion. $ 20 mllian of which are State funds. SavIngs 8880CIated with several of our recommendations are
not Immediately achievable since they are dependent on statutory, rUe or automation changes. Automation
enhancement costs cannot be precisely determined lI' 1tI system features and programming requirements
are established.
In recognition oflncr8aslng client case loads experienced bythe Agency, several recommendations
have categorized savings as - cost avoidance- as opposed to - direct reduction.- During the Implementation
phase. Initial savings may need to be redirected toward Implementing recommendations which are more
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department d Economic Security
Page 21
resource intensive. In appropriate Instances where substantial long- term benefits can be derived and
resources are not Immediately avaIabIe from savings, short- term appropriations shoUd be considered.
Our recommendations Involve the elimination of work associated with 922 fUI- tlme equivalent
positions. ThIs number Is based on information made avaIabIe to the SUM Team during the diagnostic
phase. During the implementation phase, detaled job descriptions and performance criteria wtl be
established for all affected positions. These detennlnations wtl 88t'V8 as a basis for modifications to the
proposed staffing or grade levels.
Many of our recommendations provide guidance on which specific positions should be eliminated.
transferred and retained. However, the lMImate decision on which staff person wli fli each position In the
new organizational structure Is the responsibility of Agency management
The effectiveness of our recommendations wli depend on proper accountability among Agency
employees. Managers and supervisors must be held responsible for ensuring staff accountability and for
assuring employees are properly trained.
H. CONCUJSION
Our recommendations wli assist the Agency In delivering Improved services at a reduced cost to
both State and Federal taxpayers. In addition, the recommendations align missions, reduce fragmentation
of duties, eliminate duplication of effort, and provide more appropriate spans d control and managerial
layering.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation Is the crItIcaJ step In the process of achieving savings and Improved customer
eervIce. Potential savings are often identified but not achieved when the implementation process Is
distracted by day to day activities and managers resist necessary reductions In staff. Successful
implementation Is marlced by: 1) a strong commitment from senior management to achieve as much of the
savings and service Improvement as possible; and 2) designation of Implementation team leaders with
requisite rnentaI fortitude to see the task through to completion.
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department d Economic Securtty
Page 22
It Is best to commence the implementation process on the heels d the diagnoetlc phase. this
maintains momentum whle the Issues are fresh In everyone's mind. Several recommendations contained
In this report can be Implemented within a period d twelve months. HcMever, other recommendations may
require up to four years to Implement. Many of the recommendations are contingent upon legislative, rule
and automation changes. .
Our Implementation Plan, set forth In Exhibit 5, contains a suggested implementation sequence and
time duration for each recommendation. A more detaled plan must be established at the beginning of the
implementation process.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The Team's recommendations and accompanying exhibits are based on the situation as It existed
at the time Interviews and analyses were conducted. It may be necessary to alter some d the
recommendations, due to changes that have occurred subsequent to the initial analysis. During the
Implementation phase, a commitment from managerial leadership wli greatly assist In achieving maximum
benefits and savings detailed In this report.
Our effort In the diagnostic phase of this project was greatly assisted by the cooperation of Agency
employees and management. TheIr wlilngness to be interviewed, share documentation and provide Input
was Immensely beneficial.
BIT\ JRE OPPORTlNIlES FOR SAVINGS
During the course d the Project SUM review, Issues have come to the Team's attention that could
yield potential process Improvements. Areas for future review Include the following:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department d Economic SecurIty
Page 23
A. Adniiltn, h" l fq atdrw1 Vgth & Frn
This Administration Is responsible for ChId Protective ServIces functions, adoption services and
foster care oversight. The organization currently operates with 950 staff and a budget d $ 95 milion. Three­quarters
d the budget Is ~ on State funds. The Administration Is facing a dramatic growth In referrals
involving chid abuse and neglect.
A review d this Administration woUd assist In improving ArIzona's success In enforcing chUd
support rUlngs. Successful collections translate to a reduced dependency on public assistance programs
such as AFDC and Food Stamps. The administration currently operates with approximately 440 staff and
a budget of $ 28 millon. Review efforts should be coordinated with the State Auditor General's current
performance review of the Administration.
The CMDP traditi0naily has operated as an lndemnlty- typ8 Insurance plan, with payments to over
7,000 health care providers. SavIngs are likely If CMDP develops additional positive features d a managed
care health plan.
D. ErrIJIcJynwt IDd Trai* Jg Aclrr* M. hM1
lJnBrrmkMJw111Wl11OC1 AdmiM.....
These two Administrations are responsible for related functions. Consolidation d these organizations
could resLdt In process Improvements and better client access to services.
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department d Economic Security
Page 24
Further review efforts shOOd Involve an evaluation ~ alternative benefit distribution processes, such
• electronic benefit transfers.
The OffIce of Data Administration provides centralized oversight for the Agency's computer systems.
During our review, we identified several potential areas for Improvement In computer management. These
Include:
• A more effective equipment acquisition plan to ensure consistency In hardware and software
purchases
• Aprogramming, planning and prIorttIzatIon process which Is clearly based on cost savings and
Improved servtces to clients ( short- term and long- term)
• Balance of centralized and decentralized data administration activities.
We understand the Agency has experienced dlfflcUty In securing adequate appropriations to support
automation requirements. This becomes crttJcaI given the need for timely Implementation of automation
enhancements specified In our recommendations.
G. OItwArw
Additional Issues may be pursued with the cooperation of other State agencies such as the ArIzona
Health Care Cost ContaInment System ( AHCCCS) Administration, and the Departments of Administration,
Health ServIces and Revenue. These Issues Include:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. DavId A. Lowenberg
ActIng Director
ArIzona Department of Economic Security
Page 25
• Case management ( where clients qualify for rrUtIpIe benefits)
• Facllties leulng
• LIcensing and certIfIcatJon of providers
• Rate- setting, fee schedules and claims processing Integration
• Unemployment Insurance payroll tax collections
• Personnel Management
• Data Systems.
* * * * *
Mr. DavId A. I. ower) berg
ActIng DIr8ctor
ArIzona Department of EconomIc SecurIty
Page 26
We thank you and your entire staff for the cooperation and support extended to our team during
the course of this nMew.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of aervIce to the Governor and the SUM SteerIng Committee
In this endeavor. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact
any member of your Project SUM Team:
• Karen Holloway, Department of Transportation
• Doug Kluender, Department of Public S8f8ty
• Fred Meister, AHCCCS Administration
• George O'Neal, Department of Revenue
• Gal Parin, Department of Corr8ctions
• Steve Rossi, Department of Water Resources
• Oesson HII, Coopers & Lybrand
The Agency Director's comments follow this signature page.
&\ 8 DavId St John
ExecutIve Director
Project SUM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
_______ ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
1717 W. Jefferson - P. O. Box 6123 - Phoenix, AZ 85005
Fife Symington
Governor
June 8, 1992
David St. John
Project Executive
Project SLIM
1700 W. Washington, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. St. John:
The goals of SLIM and the Department to improve agency efficiency and service
responsiveness are compatible. The DES management and the SLIM team have worked
together in a constructive and collaborative manner to advance these goals.
We agree with most of the SLIM recomme~ dations. However, there are two primary
areas of concern that we believe will require further refining and reconsideration: ( 1) the
amount of SLIM projected cost savings, and ( 2) the SLIM projected timetable for
implementation of recommendations. We have also provided a few critical SLIM
recommendations.
SLIM PROJECTED COST SAVINGS
We are concerned that the SLIM Report includes cost avoidance as cost savings. Of the
$ 19.7 million SLIM reports as state savings, $ 6.8 million is actually cost avoidance. It is
important that this distinction be carefully made, since cost avoidance cannot be
assumed to be available for budget reductions. Cost avoidance can either be saved from
future funds, reinvested in programs or reassigned to other critical areas to improve
performance.
It is also important that the potential savings associated with workload changes for all of
the 922 FTEs not be interpreted as positions which can be eliminated. The SLIM Team
has acknowledged that some of the efficiencies identified by the workload changes
should be reinvested into the agency to improve service delivery and accountability. In
addition, some of the positions will be needed to implement SLIM recommendations,
because staff is fully dedicated to day- to- day operations.
One additional concern with SLIM projected cost savings is the area of automation costs.
While we agree with most of the 23 recommendations for new automation, the cost­benefit
schedule must be updated to include start- up costs for automation and staff
resources to develop the new systems. We believe that an updated cost- benefit analysis
would show that the savings from these efforts will be more long range.
SLIM PROJECTED TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
We also have concerns about the SLIM projected implementation timetable. Of the 55
SLIM recommendations, 43 are projected for implementation within the next year. From
a management perspective, it is not possible to maintain current operations and complete
all of these projects within 12 months.
DES 26A
DAL: lf
DES_
h)~ ti./(~.~ P._.
DavidA. Lo~
Acting Director
The Department has many ongoing operational priorities for its programs. Some high
priority projects currently underway include the statewide child support case tracking
system and the unemployment insurance tax enhancement system. DES has also taken
the initiative to improve service responsiveness and reduce costs in other areas.
Currently a major review of the management of adoption placement and a major
customer service training initiative of staff are underway. Regarding cost containment,
we are changing our reimbursement payment schedule for medical services which will
reduce costs.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
David St. John - 2-
These and other important projects need to be considered along with the SLIM
recommendations for priority of implementation. We believe that the SLIM
implementation projections must consider these other demands in terms of scheduling.
OTHER COMMENTS
Because it represents a very sensitive issue, we would also like to briefly comment on
the SLIM recommendations to close the Arizona Training Program ( ATP) sites in Coolidge
and Tucson. We agree with the SLIM team that developmentally disabled individuals
should live in the least restrictive community setting. However, this will require
significant planning and discussion with families and our clients on the discharge and
transitioning actions. Plans involving the community must be developed which consider
the economic impact, future use of the facility, and the job market. Another key group
we must work closely with is the Arizona Legislature, because legislative changes are
necessary.
Two SLIM recommendations that the Department strongly agrees with involve the
MEDICS automation and the recommendation for reorganization. The MEDICS
automation development will significantly improve the eligibility determination process for
persons applying for medical assistance, but will require an appropriation from the
Legislature in SFY 1993 and approval from the federal government for the Advanced
Planning Document ( APD). The Department has submitted the MEDICS APD for
approval.
DES plans to implement the departmental reorganization in August 1992. Although there
are some variations from the details presented in the SLIM report, DES believes it has still
achieved the spirit of SLIM's intent.
The SLIM project is an evolving process to save money so agencies like DES can stretch
funds in a relatively stagnant budget for the delivery of services to more people. We
certainly look forward to continue furthering the SLIM Project goals of quality service and
accountability.
Additionally, I know you realize that our state employees must be recognized by being
justly compensated for their skills, dedication, and efforts. It is critical that we recruit
and retain dedicated and skilled public servants.
Sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY EXHIBIT 1
PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
OFFICE OF THE
I I DIRECTOR
ADVISORY PUBLIC INTERGOV
COUNCILS INFORIiATlON RELATIONS
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR
I I I I I I I I
DIVISION OF DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPMENTAL DIVISION OF DIVISION OF OFFICE OF BUDGET. DATA
FAIIILY SUPPORT SOCIAL REHABILITATION DISABILITIES MANAGEMENT BUSINESS AND POLICY. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES SERVICES REVIEW FINANCE AND PROJ. CONTROL
I I I I I I
FAMILY CHILDREN EMPLOYliNT SPECIAL FINANCE BUDGET SYSTEMS AND
ASSISTANCE YOUTH AND AND INVESTIG PROGRAMIIING
FAMILIES TRAINING
CHILD AGING REHABILITATN APPEALSI ACCOUNTG FACILIT EVALUATN PROGRAIAIG TECHNICAL
SUPPORT AND SERVICES APPEALS I16MT SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT ADULT BOARD
COWUNITY CHILD UNEMPLOYIIENT EQUAL FINANCE CONTRACTS HUIlAN INTEGRATD COMPUTER
SERVICES CARE INSURANCE EIIPLOY EQUIP AND RESOURCES SYSTEMS &. OPERATION
OPPORT. PURCHASNG SUPPORT
PROGRAM COMPREHENSIVE JOB TRAINING INTERNAL ACCTS REC PERSONNEL POLICY. DATA
EVALUATION MEDICAL AND PARTNRSHP AFFAIRS AND PLANNING. DASE
DENTAL PROG ACT COLLECTNS PROJ CONT I16MT
DISABILTY INTERNAL FED CORR OFFICE VENTURE ADMIN.
DETERMINATION AUDIT ACTION SERVICES TUM SERVICES
SERVICES PLANNING
RESEARCH DATA FlieS INTEGRATD LEGIS SVC
SECURITY SYSTEMS SYSTEMS &. CLIENT
ADVOCACY
LEGAL
SERVICES
C:\ FLOW3\ DES. FCD
o m
( J)
~
DIVISION State Federall I Total
. ' .. Other .
DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES I S99.398.000 I S80.097.000 S179,495,000
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION SERVICES S8.389, OOO S301.795.000 I S31 0.184,000
DIVISION OF FAMILY SUPPORT I S1 19.280.000 S235.507.000 I S354,787.000
DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES S103,637, OOO S78.348, OOO I S1 81 .985.000
DIVISION OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE $ 13,258.000 S19.905.000 S33.163.000
DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW S3,279.000 $ 7.393.000 S10.672.000
OFFICE OF DATA ADMINISTRATION S6.920.000 $ 14,429.000 $ 21,349,000
OFFICE OF BUDGET. POLICY. PLANNING & PROJECT CONTROL I S1,638.000 I $ 3,954,000 $ 5.592.000
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR $ 1.023,000 $ 2,752.000 S3. n5.000
TOTAL $ 356.822.000 $ 744,179,000 1$ 1,101,001,000
.... ..... / ........ · :. i:. · i: · . · . · ....,. .."",..,. ,..,. ......,. · · · :.: i.!\ .. · \: · .• :.•. · ....•.. r?;.\ · :~ t" t .. · •. · ..: · .• federal/ · T~ t~ 1
....... " 0",.'..,;: .......,. .•.."., .. " i . ' · :'::::;: · < Other I>
DIVISION OF DEVelOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 552 906 1,458
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION SERVICES 111 1,465 1,576
DIVISION OF FAMILY SUPPORT 891 1,996 2,887
DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES 596 667 1,263
DIVISION OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE 132 239 371
DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW 85 210 295
OFFICE OF DATA ADMINISTRATION 76 240 316
OFFICE OF BUDGET, POLICY, PLANNING & PROJECT CONTROL I 33 87 120
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 11 29 40
TOTAL 2,487 5.838 I 8.325 ·
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
PRESENT STAFFING AND BUDGET
I. STAFF BY DIVISION
II. FISCAL YEAR 1992 BUDGET BY DIVISION
DES 28
EXHIBIT 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ~ - I
All Executive Staff Nov 12, 1991
Mary Gill Ass't Director · OfTh: e of Budget, Policy, Plamaing,& Project Control Nov 13, 1991
Lee Finkel Acting Assistant Director · Division of Mauagcmeut Review ( OMR) Nov 13, 1991
Brian Lcnsc: h Acting Assistant Director - Division of Developmental Disabilities ( ODD) Nov 14,1991
Tim Schmaltz Assistant Director - Division of Social Services ( OSS) Nov 14, 1991
Andy Migala Assistant Director - Division of BusiDea IDd FiDaDce ( OBF) Nov 18,1991
Mike Slattery Assistant Director • Division of Family Support ( OFS) Nov 18, 1991
Robert Harmon DES Deputy Director Nov 19,1991
Manny Mejia Ass't Director - Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services ( OERS Nov 19, 1991
Mark Steinberg Interagency Coordinating Council- Infants and Toddlers Nov 19,1991
Anne Lindeman Council on Aging Nov 20, 1991
Diane Slcay Developmental Disabilities Council Nov 20, 1991
Bill Pierce Office of Data Administration Nov 21,1991
Andy Genualdi Manager, Office of the Budget Nov 21,1991
Dawn Holmes DDD Administrative Support Manager Nov 22, 1991
Barbara McCluskey Arizona Employment and Training Council Nov 25,1991
John Smithson Administrator - Office Services ( OBF) Nov 27,1991
Regis Tremblay Administrator - Office of Human Resources ( OBPPPC) Nov 27. 1991
Pat Kelly Manager - LibrarylRceords ( OBF) Nov 27, 1991
John Ward Manager - Print Shop ( DBF) Nov 29,1991
Lisa Hall Manager - Internal Audit ( OMR) Dec 2,1991
Kathy Waite Administrator · Planning and Project Control ( OBPPPC) Dec 2,1991
Linda Moore- Cannon Executive Council Updatc Dec 2,1991
Josephine Duran Human Resources ( OBPPPC) Dec 2,1991
Ellen Konrad Manager - Office of Evaluation ( OBPPPC) Dec 2, 1991
Joan Crowley Admin Asst - Office SVC5 ( DBF) Dec 2,1991
Jim Whorl Personnel Mauager ( OBF) Dec 2,1991
Ben Goodman Administrator · Contracts, Equipmeut and Purchasing ( OBF) Dec 2,1991
Richard Szawara OCEP Contracts Mauager ( OBF) Dec 2,1991
Ann Jones OCEP Equipmeut and Materials Manager ( OBF) Dec 2, 1991
Richard Arnold Budget Supervisor ( OBPPPC) Dec 2,1991
Chester Lee Budget Supervisor ( OBPPPC) Dec 2,1991
Richard Porterfield EDP Sys Proj Mgr ( OBF) Dec 2,1991
Sandy Starkins CommlHuman Resources ( OBPPPC) Dec 3,1991
Neal Young Finance Director ( DBF) Dec 3,1991
Sandy Dran Admin/ Human Resources ( OBPPPC) Dec 3, 1991
Julie Kroupa Accounting ( OBF) Dec 3,1991
David Longo Budget ( OBPPPC) Dec 4, 1991
Sam Haggard CEP Purch Mgr ( DBF) Dec 4, 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
OES 29
Exhibit 3
Page 1 of 12
.- - - - Bubara Lodder Proj Catrl Mgr ( OBPPPC) Dec: 4, 1991
Pat Curtis Mgr Facilitiea Mgmt ( DBF) Dec: 4, 1991
Karen McLaugblio Budget Supervisor ( OBPPPC) Dec: 4, 1991
Ralph Dunbar Proj Catrl FMCS leader ( OBPPPC) Dec 5,1991
BamyTarber OfflCe of Acc: ouotiog • Cost Alloc Supv ( DBF) Dec 5,1991
Dale Peace Adm Forms &: Procedure ( DBF) Dec: 5, 1991
Mary Aoo Kirldio Vol CoordlHumao Resrcs ( OBPPPC) Dec 5,1991
Rex Critchfield Budget ( OBPPPC) Dec 5,1991
Barry W'mters Tmg Dev &: Deliv Supv ( OBPPPC) Dec 6,1991
Toay Mellelccr Office of Accouating. Accouats Payable Mgr.( DBF) Dec 6, i991
Martha Maio Leasing Mgr ( DBF) Dec 6, 1991
Weadell Hamilton Manager - Office of Finance ( DBF) Dec 9, 1991
MaryWeme Administrator - Office of Accounts Receivable and Collections ( DBF) Dec 9,1991
Richard Maio Facility Phy. Plant Supv ( DBF) Dec 9, 1991
Leonia Swiss Rapid Copy Supv ( DBF) Dec 10, 1991
Marion Norman Finance • Funds Control Manager ( DBF) Dec 10, 1991
Joan Young Facilities Planning Unit ( DBF) Dec 10, 1991
Danny Byrnes Finance - Payroll Manager ( DBF) Dec 10, 1991
Chance Whiteman Deputy Internal Audit Mgr ( DMR) Dec 13, 1991
Shirley Lower Finance · Fiscal ControllRoconciliation Manager ( DBF) Dec 13, 1991
Marvin Paulin Finance - Fiscal CoatrollReconciliation Manager ( DBF) Dec 13, 1991
Dan Anderson Research Admin ( DERS) Dec 13, 1991
Sylvester Mabry . EEO Mgr ( DMR) Dec 13,1991
Jay Jett Facilities, Plng Coord ( DBF) Dec 13, 1991
Van Braswell Appeals Adm ( DMR) Dec 16, 1991
Linda Aagcscn Leasing Ofer, Facilities ( DBF) Dec: 16, 1991
Mark Mason Ofc of Budget, Supv ( OBPPPC) Dec 16, 1991
Vince Gemmitti Matce Ops, Facilitiel ( DBF) Dec 17, 1991
Dick Arnold FMCSlBudget ( DBF) Dec 17, 1991
Kirk Burtch Chief Counsel ( DMR) Dec: 17, 1991
Diane Wagemaon ATP Diit V Mgr ( DOD) Dec 18,1991
David Daines Dist V Admin Supv ( DDD) Dec 18,1991
Dr. Schibarum ATP Coolidge. Physician ( DDD) Dec: 18, 1991
Ametta DeCamp Dist V Quality Assur Mgr ( DDD) Dec 18, 1991
Joe Pensis ATP- Cldge- Hab Srvc: a Mgr ( DDD) Dec: 18, 1991
Alison White ATP- Cldge- Hlth SVCl Mgr ( DDD) Dec 18,1991
Juleae Hollenbach ATP- Cldge- Hab SrveS Mgr ( DDD) Dec 18, 1991
Mary Enriques FAA EliglPymts Supv ( DFS) Dec 18, 1991
Kay Ledezma FAA Elig Interviewer ( DFS) Dec 18, 1991
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 30
Exhibit 3
Page 2 of 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- Sue Ammon Voc Rehab CoUD8elor ( DERS) Dec IB, 1991
JohnRou Case Manager ( DDD) Dec IB, 1991
Harry Me: Fate Chief, Ofrte: e of AppcII1s ( DMR) Dec 19, 1991
ViDc: cWood FAA Admin ( DFS) Dec 19, 1991
Ed Truman AG- Aut Chic! CoUDJe1 ( DMR) Dec 23,1991
Betty Braue: her FAA Tmg Ac: ting Mgr( DFS) Dec: 24, 1991
Charles Gentry FAA Tmg Act. Dist Mgr ( DFS) Dec 24,1991
Judith Fritsc: h Tmg Coordinator Dist 1 ( DFS) Dec 26, 1991
Mel Roberts CSEA Training Unit ( DFS) Dec 30,1991
Diane Reynolds CSEA Training Unit ( DFS) Dec: 30, 1991
Chris Sabonis CSEA Training Unit ( DFS) Dec 30, 1991
David Bray CSEA Evaluation Unit ( DFS) Dec: 31, 1991
Delores Young Local Ofe: Mgr- FAA ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Phil Crowley Local Ofe: Oprs- FAA ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Pat Krauss Admin Support Supv- FAA ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Judy Redfield Elig Unit Supv- FAA ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Brenda Jordan Elig Intvr n- FAA ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Penny Booher Local Ofe: Mgr- FAA Mesa ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Colleen Geary Local Ofe: Mgr- FAA Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Socorro Ross Local Ofe: Mgr- FAA Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 2,1991
Dolores Taylor Cleric: al Supv- FAA Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Linda Hale Unit Tec: h- FAA Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 2,1991
Ariel Santos Elig Intvr- FAA Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Charlcsctta Johnson Elig Intvr Sup- FAA Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 2, 1991
Bob Chapko DES Budgeu- OSPB Jan 2, 1991
Bob Chiffclle DES Budgets- OSPB Jan 2, 1991
J. C. Woods SupcrviIor - Ac: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Robert Boic: c Ac: c: ountiDg Tec: h - Ac: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Mic: hecl. Me: Donald Ac: c: ountiDg Tec: h - Ac: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3, 1992
Kevin Langley Supcrvilor - Ac: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Miryom Snyder Ae: c: ounting Tec: h - Ac: counts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Poggy Shelbcrg SupcrviIor - Ac: counts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Arlene DaCorte Supervisor - Ac: counts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Nancy Crawford Ae: c: ountiDg Tec: h - Ae: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Susan Delcon Ac: c: ountiDg Tec: h - Ac: counts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Darlene Chisc: hilly Clerk Typist - Ac: c: ounts J> ayable ( DBF) Jan 3,1992
Lora Tadlock Ae: c: ounting Tec: h - Ae: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 3, 1992
Henry Wang Ae: c: ountiDg Tec: h - Ae: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 6,1992
Herbert Kaplan Supcrvilor - Ac: c: ounts Payable ( DBF) Jan 6,1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICSECURITY
OES31
Exhibit 3
Page 3 of 12
-- R. uaty Sheila Wallace Accounting Tech - Accounta Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
Billie Jo Fulmer Accounting Tech - Accounts Payable ( OBF) . JIUI 6, 1992
Elizabeth Weiss Supervisor - Accounts Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
Lee Anne Millhouse Supervisor - Accounts Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
Richard Steele Accounting Tech - Accounta Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
WDliam $ omdahl Accounting Tech - Accounta Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
Gloria Blais - Accounting Tech - Accounts Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
James Harrison Accounting Tech - Accounts Payable ( OBF) JIUI 6, 1992
SUSlUlDe WDliams Executive Assistant ( DFS) JIUI 6, 1992
Aldona Vaitkus FAA Administrative Services Manager ( DFS) JIUI 6, 1992
Elizabet Steele FAA Program" Policy Development ( DFS) JIUI 7, 1992
Juanita Soto Ayers Executive Assistant ( DSS) JIUI 7, 1992
Mary Jordon Supervisor - Accounts Receivable IUId Collections ( DBF) JIUI 7, 1992
Mary Rioux Supervisor - Accounts Receivable IUId Collections ( DBF) JIUI 7, 1992
Carlos Verdugo Supervisor - Accounts Receivable IUId Collections ( DBF) JIUI 7, 1992
Valerie Allen FAA - Local Office Manager ( DFS) Jan 8,1992
Mary Anne Martas Manager - Accounts Payable DDD ( OBF) JIUI 8, 1992
SlUIdi McDonald Supervisor - Accounts Payable DDD ( OBF) JIUI 8, 1992
Joan Doran Fiscal SVC5 Spec. Accounts Payable DDD ( DBF) Jan 8,1992
Steve Colbert FAA- PA Elig Supv ( OFS) JIUI 8, 1992
Ed Brown FAA- PA Elig Intvwr ( DFS) JIUI 8, 1992
Mike Hart FAA- PA Elig Intvwr ( DFS) JIUI 8, 1992
Nacha GlUlado FAA- PA Elig Intvwr ( DFS) JIUI 8, 1992
Darla Comshaw FAA- PA Elig Intvwr ( DFS) Jan 8,1992
Rick Durham Venture Team Mgr ( OBPPPC) JIUI 9, 1992
David Cutty Tempe Center - Group Home ( DDD) JIUI 9, 1992
Mary Ann Castell Collector - OARC ( OBF) JIUI 10, 1992
Linda Abril Supervisor - OARC Collections ( OBF) Jan 10, 1992
Kathy Kemmerer Accounting Clerk - OARC ( DBF) JIUI 10, 1992
Art Cuestas Collector - OARC ( OBF) JIUI 10, 1992
Marion Spradling Filcal SVC5 Spec. Accounts Payable DDD ( DBF) JIUI 10, 1992
Anna R. ollins DDD AP Acct Tech ( OBF) JIUI 10, 1992
Bob Baker DDD AP Acct Tech ( DBF) JIUI 10, 1992
James Dailey DDD AP Acct Tech ( OBF) JIUI 10, 1992
Susan Widomslci FAA Quality AuurlUlce - Maryvale ( DFS) JIUI 13, 1992
Lori Rivera FAA Quality AssUrlUlce - Maryvale ( DFS) JIUI 13, 1992
Nancy Plummer Ac: et Tech - OARC ( OBF) Jan 13, 1992
Bette Richards Appeals Board Hrng Ofcr ( OMR) JIUI 14, 1992
Randy Gray Director, Marc Center - Mesa ( ODD provider) Jan 14, 1992
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 32
Exhibit 3
Page 4 of 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- - Rochcl1e Miller Accounting Tech - OARC ( DBF) Jan 14, 1992
Judy O'Meara Accounting Toch - OARC ( DBF) Jan 14, 1992
Elaine Phleger FAA LOM- Deer Valley ( DFS) Jan IS, 1992
Nancy Rossano FAA Asst LOM- Deer Valley ( DFS) Jan IS, 1992
Walt Apfel FAA · QA Supv Dist 1 ( DFS) Jan 15, 1992
Joyce Dow FAA- QA Wrker Dist 1 ( DFS) Jan 15, 1992
Margie Cook CSEA Training Coord ( DFS) Jan 15, 1992
Treva Chapman FAA- Dist 1 Mgr ( DFS) Jan 15, 1992
Steve Vandre Overpayment Reviewer - OARC ( DBF) Jan IS, 1992
Dayne Coffey APD Project Dir ( OBPPPC) Jan 17, 1992
Sharon Wood FAA Dist 3 Tmg Coord ( DFS) Jan 20,1992
Blaine Sevy FAA Elig Intrvew- Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 21, 1992
Terry Chavez FAA Elig Intrvew- Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 21,1992
Gloria Benjamin FAA Elig Intrvew- Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 21, 1992
Mitch Irwin FAA Supv- Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 21, 1992
Ester Herrera FAA Supv- Mryvle ( DFS) Jan 21,1992
Laura Mims FAA Dist 5 Tmg Coord ( DFS) Jan 21, 1992
Rod Caramella Supervisor - OARC ( DBF) Jan 21,1992
Judy Wilson Admin Support Supervisor - OARC ( DBF) Jan 21,1992
Margaret Cardenas Info Proc. Spoc - OARC ( DBF) Jan 21,1992
Julie Francis Info Proc. Spoc - OARC ( DBF) Jan 21, 1992
Evie Smith ACYF Training Mgr ( DSS) Jan 22, 1992
Bill Lindley ACYF Trainer ( DSS) Jan 22,1992
Nancy Perry ACYF Trainer ( DSS) Jan 22,1992
Susan Olson Accounting - Federal Reports Manager ( DBF) Jan 22,1992
Steve Muratore Accounting - Financial Systems ( DBF) Jan 22,1992
Willie Jaramillo DOL Accounting ( DBF) Jan 22, 1992
Larry Gustafson Deloitte Touche- SEES Report Jan 22,1992
Bud Boyer Mgr Telecommunications ( ODA) Jan 23,1992
Alan Price DES Venture Team ( OBPPPC) Jan 23,1992
Jose Mercado AAA Supervisor ( DSS) Jan 23,1992
Jeri Pirtle FAA District Train Coord ( DFS) Jan 23,1992
Carla Van Cleve FAA District Train Coord ( DFS) Jan 23,1992
Jackie Ranby FAA Quality Aasur ( DFS) Jan 23,1992
Steve Sapmieski FAA District Train Coord ( DFS) Jan 23, 1992
Tammy Wright FAA District Train Coord ( DFS) Jan 23,1992
Mike Scomavacco Clerk Typist - OARC ( DBF) Jan 23,1992
Lynn Hagerman Clerk Typist - OARC ( DBF) Jan 23,1992
Anne Hoogestraat Facilities Operations ( DBF) Jan 24,1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 33
Exhibit 3
Page 5 of 12
• Tim Acuff FAA DiRt 4 Prgrm Mil' ( DFS) Jan 24, 1992
Sue Angclon FAA DiRt Tmg Coord ( DFS) Jan 24,1992
Jim Shimabuku Administrator - FMCS Systems ( DBF) Jan 27, 1992
Bill Merrick Administrator - Federal Corrective Act Plan ( DBF) Jan 27,1992
GregWctz FU Proj Control Mil' ( OBPPPC) Jan 28,1992
Mary Morcno Position Control Supv - Payroll ( DBF) Jan 29,1992
Teresa Delgado Position Ctrl Clerk - Payroll ( DBF) Jan 29, 1992
Laura Eyeman ARMS Clerk - Payroll ( DBF) Jan 29,1992
Bob James Supervisor - Payroll and Time Acctg ( DBF) Jan 29,1992
Darlene Cochrane Accounting Tech - Payroll ( DBF) Jan 29, 1992
Fran Simpson Payroll Supervisor ( DBF) . Jan 29,1992
Sherry Gates Payroll Supervisor ( DBF) Jan 29,1992
Esther Wolevish Accounting Tech · Payroll ( DBF) Jan 29,1992
Gretchen Evans JOBS Program ( DERS) Jan 30,1992
Rick Burr Manager, OPE ( DFS) Jan 30,1992
John Haas Supervisor - AP ( DDD) Jan 31, 1992
Lola Kerman Account Tech - AP ( DDD) Jan 31,1992
Paul Baker Supervisor - AP ( DDD) Jan 31, 1992
AlSharp Prog Eval Mgr ( DFS) Feb 03,1992
Victor Paap Prog Eval Supv ( DFS) Feb 04,1992
Ed Poorman Prog Eval Supv ( DFS) Feb OS, 1992
John Lyons FAA Dist l- Central ( DFS) Feb OS, 1992
Ray Saiz FAA Glendale ( DFS) Feb OS, 1992
Debbie Cobbs FAA Glendale ( DFS) Feb OS, 1992
Darin Carfi FAA Glendale ( DFS) Feb OS, 1992
Gloria Kecms FAA Glendale ( DFS) Feb OS, 1992
Lydia Gonzales FAA- Southern Ofc ( DFS) Feb 06,1992
Vicki Pratt FAA Dist lC QA ( DFS) Feb 07, 1992
Chuck Blake FAA Dist lC QA ( DFS) Feb 07,1992
Nancy West FAA Dist lC QA ( DFS) Feb 07,1992
Betty May Fiscal Scrvic: ca Spec:. · OARC ( DBF) Feb 10, 1992
Kirsten Justcson Info Proc. Spec: - OARC ( DBF) Feb 10, 1992
V. J. Kumar Supervisor · OARC ( DBF) Feb 10, 1992
Ray Sedillo State of New Mexico ( overpayments) Feb 10, 1992
Steele Campbell Private CoUec: tor Feb 10, 1992
Hal Snecden Private Collector Feb 10, 1992
Conrad DeCastro Calif DSS • Overpayments Feb 10, 1992
Judith Garcia New Mexico DHS • overpayments Feb 10, 1992
Monte Headley JLBC budget analyst Feb 11, 1992
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 34
Exhibit 3
Page 6 of 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- _.>:..>. Margaret George FAA Prog Support Mgr ( DFS) Feb 13, 1992
Marge McNaughton DFS QC reviewer ( DFS) Feb 13, 1992
Alan Ramsdell Facilities Mgmt DAO ( OBPPPC) Feb 13, 1992
Nezhat Edalation- McCai Ofc of Evaluation ( OBPPPC) Feb 13, 1992
Carolyn Sinclair Training Coordinator ( DDD) Feb 13, 1992
Ida Luasso ACYF Trainer ( DSS) Feb 13, 1992
Tom Vaughan Administrator UI ( DERS) Feb 13, 1992
Bob Lewis Collections Mgr UI Tax ( DERS) Feb 13, 1992
Rose Marie Martinez Collecotr UI tax ( DERS) Feb 13, 1992
Dave Berggren Chief UI benefits ( DERS) Feb 13, 1992
Louise Doyle ChiefUl tax ( DERS) Feb 13, 1992
Connie Sheets Case Mgmt Consultant ( DDD) Feb 14, 1992
Del Swann Managed Care Admin ( DDD) Feb 19, 1992
Sam Thurmond Acting Assistant Director - DDD Feb 19, 1992
Fred Fitzhugh Ofc of Appeals ( DMR) Feb 20,1992
Iris Silverman Fiscal Services Spec: - Reconciliation ( DBF) Feb 20,1992
David Scheffrin Fiscal Services Spec: - Reconciliation ( DBF) Feb 20,1992
Ramon Marquez FAA Field Opr ( DFS) Feb 20,1992
David Lara District 1 Mgr ( DDD) Feb 21, 1992
Rick Potter FMCS Systems ( DBF) Feb 21,1992
Wendell Hamilton Manager - Office of Finance ( DBF) Feb 21,1992
Diane Renee Child Services ( DDD) Feb 24,1992
Brenda Holmeyer FAA Hearing Spec:. ( DFS) Feb 24,1992
Pete Francis, others Auditor General- DES Review Team Feb 25,1992
Jay Johnson Manager - Funds Control ( DBF) Feb 25,1992
Bob Guidice FMCS Consultant - American Management Systems Feb 25, 1992
Ron Barber Dist 2 Prog Mgr ( DDD) Feb 26,1992
Frank Roach Dist 3 Prog Mgr ( DDD) Feb 26,1992
Beverly Uoyd Funds Control ( DBF) Feb 26,1992
Gwen Howe UI Admin ( DERS) Feb 26,1992
John Reagan FAA Medical Svc: s ( DBF) Feb 27,1992
Nina Sutton Manager - CSA Administrative Services ( DFS) Feb 27,1992
Ken Gariepy CSA Administrative Services ( DFS) Feb 27, 1992
Vivian Mandell CSA Administrative Services ( DFS) Feb 27,1992
Cathy Johnston Area Prgrm Mgr ( DDD) Mar 02,1992
Donna Behling Hab Svc: s Proj Coord. ( DDD) Mar 02,1992
Susie Charbc1 Hab Svc: s Proj Coord. ( DDD) Mar 02, 1992
Janine Saunders Hab Svc: s Proj Coord. ( DDD) Mar 02, 1992
Shigemi Irwin Hab Svc: s Proj Coord. ( DDD) Mar 02, 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 35
Exhibit 3
Page 7 of 12
- RodRoea1er Venture Team ADalylt ( OBPPPC) Mar 02, 1992
David Koasner FAA Hrg Spec ( DFS) Mar 03,1992
Dale Downey AHCCCS Quality Control Mar 03,1992
Wayne Wallace Contract Manager' ACYF ( DSS) Mar 03, 1992
Preston Pratt Budget Manager - ACYF ( DSS) Mar 03, 1992
Suan Altman CMDP Administrator ( DSS) Mar 03, 1992
Joyce Bcrsano CMDP Claims ( DSS) Mar 03,1992
Beth Rosenberg Operations Manager - ACYF ( DSS) Mar 03, 1992
Maria Harris FAA Hrg Spec ( DFS) Mar 04, 1992
Diana Angullo AHCCCS Grievance & Appeals Mar 04, 1992
Pete LaSota Intcmalaudit ( DMR) Mar 04, 1992
Pat Harrington Admin Svcs - CSEA ( DFS) Mar 04, 1992
Arthur Sacks Office of Appeals Mgr ( DMR) Mar 05,1992
Rudy Jones FAA Hrg Spec ( DFS) Mar 05,1992
Linda Lacy Leg Svcs/ Client Advoc ( OBPPPC) Mar OS, 1992
Sylvia Tiltges Leg Svcs/ C1ient Advoc ( OBPPPC) Mar 05,1992
Pete Godfrey ACYF Claims ( DSS) Mar 05,1992
Bruce Liggett Administrator - Child Care Admin ( DSS) Mar 05,1992
Jose Loyola JTPA Administrator ( DERS) Mar 05,1992
Jiin Amarillas ETA Adminltrator ( DERS) Mar OS, 1992
Peggy Russell CSEA Budget ( DFS) Mar OS, 1992
Kathy Kuykcndal Dist I Adm ( DDD) Mar 06,1992
Patty Alvarado DistmProglProj Spec ( DDD) Mar 06, 1992
Randy Auer Dist I Admin ( DDD) Mar 06, 1992
Ny1a Waltz Budget DDSA ( DERS) Mar 06,1992
Tammie Homberg Budget ( DMR) Mar 06,1992
David A. Lowenberg Acting Director, DES Mar 06,1992
Dict Frederick AU- Tucson ( DMR) Mar 09,1992
H. M. Walthall General Couuel ( AHCCCS) Mar 09,1992
Mart Comet Kentucky AFDCIFS Mar 09,1992
Mark Tanberg Colorado AFDCIFS Mar 09, 1992
Jeff Brenn Nevada AFDCIFS Mar 09, 1992
Jackie Backman Oregon AFDCIFS Mar 09,1992
David Gonzales Dist I Cont Spec ( DDD) Mar 09, 1992
Edith Williams ETAlJobs Budget ( DEkS) Mar 09,1992
Phyllis James Alabams Food Stamps Mar 10,1992
Cookie Whitehouse Kentucky AFDC Mar 10,1992
Mary Beauchamp Kingman FAA ofc ( DFS) Mar 10,1992
Manuel Grijalva Douglas FAA ofc Mar 10,1992
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 36
Exhibit 3
Page 8 of 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• .- - 22_
Hony Bohling Creative Networb- Provider Mar 10, 1992
Al Nieto Dist I Prog Mgr ( DDD) Mar 10,1992
Bill Hixon Dist I Administrator ( DDD) Mar 10,1992
Karl Matzinger ODA Admin Mgr ( ODA) Mar 10,1992
Gilbert Rapp DOL State of New York Mar 11,1992
David Delehanty DOL State of New York . Mar 11, 1992
Dan Riordan U. S. Dept of Labor Mar 11, 1992
Harry Akamine Hawaii FS Coordinator Mar 11,1992
Panfllo Contreras Dist n Prog Manager Mar 11, 1992
Donna Redden Corrective Action- Alabama Mar 11,1992
Nancy Whittington DLM Teaching Resources Mar 11, 1992
Moises Gallegos FAA Field Ops Mgr ( DFS) Mar 11, 1992
Ron Watson Supv- Special Invest ( DMR) Mar 11,1992
Dave Moran UI Tax Section ( DERS) Mar 12, 1992
Lynn Martindale Exec Staff Asst ( DBF) Mar 12, 1992
Doris Weiland FAA Supv Prescott ( DFS) Mar 12, 1992
Ron Turk OSI Field Ops Mgr ( DMR) Mar 12,1992
Tim Grace Food Stamps Mgr- Winois Mar 13, 1992
Cathy Walsh FS Policy Mgr - New York Mar 13, 1992
Sue Hall Michigan Food Stamps Mar 13,1992
Ed Sanders Policy Mgr- Massachusetts Mar 13,1992
Barbara Warden Colorado FSIAFDC Mar 13,1992
Linda Gonzales ATP Tuc · Hab Svcs Prgrm Mgr ( DDD) Mar 13,1992
Ed Rappaport ATP Tuc- Adm Svcs Ofcr ( DOD) Mar 13, 1992
John Ferreira ATP Tuc- Pysch Assoc ( DOD) Mar 13,1992
Cindy Rivera ATP Tuc- Case Mgr Supv ( DOD) Mar 13, 1992
Helen Harris ATP Tue- Case Mgr Supv ( DDD) Mar 13, 1992
Janet Nardecchia ATP Tue- Personnel Mgr ( DOD) Mar 13, 1992
Karla Garris ATP Tue- Training Ofcr ( DDD) Mar 13, 1992
Patsy Coaklin ATP Tue- Hab Svc Supt Supv( DDD) Mar 13,1992
IriJ Allen Area Prgrm Mgr Child HIth ( DDD) Mar 13,1992
Andy Orte ATP Tue- Building Mtnce ( DOD) Mar 13,1992
Helen Holt ATP Tue- Food SVC8 Supv( DDD) Mar 13,1992
Frances Sanchez ATP Tuc- Adaptation Program ( DDD) Mar 13, 1992
SteveWemer UI Appeal Ofcr ( DERS) Mar 16, 1992
Lee Austin Fraud Supervisor, OSI ( DMR) Mar 16,1992
Kathy Bezon FAA Aut Dist Mgr ( DFS) Mar 17,1992
Lorna Hermanek Ofc of Spec Invest. ( DMR) Mar 17, 1992
A. Rittenreiser Internal Affairs, Acting Chief ( DMR) Mar 17, 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 37
Exhibit 3
Page 9 of 12
~ - - Doris Lewis Data Security Mgr ( DMR) Mar 17,1992
VanBruaell Appeals Admin ( DMR) Mar 18, 1992
Rick Anderson FAA System. ( DFS) Mar 18,1992
Barbara Peterson RSA Adm Svc Ofcr ( DERS) Mar 18, 1992
MercedeaRuiz . FAA Local Ofe Mgr ( DFS) Mar 19,1992
Rudy Ramos Deputy Dir ( DERS) Mar 19,1992
Karen Novacek Admin CSA ( DFS) Mar 19,1992
Peter Noonan Internal Audit ( DMR) Mar 19, 1992
Sylvia Argel FAA AZ Impact Coord ( DFS) Mar 20,1992
Mary White FAA Data Security ( DFS) Mar 20,1992
Gerry Steele FAA Dial 5 Prgm Mgr ( DFS) Mar 20, 1992
Chris Hamilton ABT Assoc. Mar 20,1992
Vince Ornelas FAA Dial 1 East Prgrm Mgr ( DFS) Mar 23,1992
Bob Brown Internal Audit Supv ( DMR) Mar 25,1992
Ralph Large Internal Audit Supv ( DMR) Mar 25,1992
Lori Henderson FAA Aut Mgr( DFS) Mar 26,1992
Robert Geddings Natl Assoc of St Mental Retardation Program Admin. Mar 27,1992
Lynne Dutton AHCCCS Mar 27,1992
James Madison OSI - Tucson ( DMR) Mar 27,1992
Diane Hahnloscr FII ( OBPPPC) Mar 30,1992
Stella Galaviz Personnel ( DDD) Mar 30,1992
Larry McDonald Internal Audit Supv ( DMR) Mar 30,1992
Mary Ann Fiedler FAA Admin Supt Supv ( DFS) Mar 31, 1992
John Goad ACYF QA ( DSS) Mar 31, 1992
Dans Faris DDSA mgmt eval ( DERS) Mar 31,1992
Craig Warren RSA mgmt eval ( DERS) Mar 31, 1992
Joan Hanna Monthly Reporting - Alabama Mar 31, 1992
Elizsbeth Mullins Monthly Reporting - Alabama Mar 31,1992
Cliff Andrew. Monthly Reporting - Alabama Mar 31, 1992
Janet Wood Monthly Reporting - Colorado Mar 31,1992
Jack Middleton Dev. Disabled - Nevllda Mar 31,1992
John Webb Dev. Diaabled - Kentucky Mar 31,1992
Ed Gulli DOA - General ACCOUDting OfflCC Mar 31,1992
Anita Sandoval FAA Medical Policy Mgr ( DFS) Apr 01,1992
Gladys Westburg Compl &. Review mgr ( DDD) Apr 01, 1992
Dr. Tammy Bassford Contract Physician ( DDD) Apr 01,1992
Margo Durazo FAA Client Services ( DFS) Apr 01,1992
Borut Pran MacroSolutions Mgr Apr 02,1992
Arnie Fein Acting Dir Tulare Co. Welfare Apr 02,1992
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 38
Exhibit 3
Page 10 of 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- 21i_ - John Sheller mM- Clean II)' stem Apr 02, 1992
Michael Nixon ASOill ( DDD) Apr 02, 1992
Anela Vallejos Dia 3 Acets pay ( DOD) Apr 02, 1992
Judy Lange FAA LOM ( DFS) Apr 02, 1992
Angie Rivera FAA Aast LOM ( DFS) Apr 02,1992
Tim Sikcma Dia ill Program mgr ( DOD) Apr 03, 1992
Jerry Murphy Dist ill Area Program mgr ( DOD) Apr 03,1992
Chris Libbey · Auer Dia IV Program mgr ( DOD) Apr 03,1992
Thomas Tang Admin. Asst ill, Mod Serv Apr 06,1992
Chuck Munie FAA Tucson ( DFS) Apr 06, 1992
Josie Meciado FAA, Yuma ( DFS) Apr 06,1992
Darlene Rowlands FAA District V ( DFS) Apr 06,1992
Deb Shrader Dia V Hab Svs. Program mgr ( DOD) Apr 06, 1992
Wayne Polenz Hab SVI. Supp. Sup. Dist V ( DOD) Apr 06,1992
Christina Tarango Dir. Office Info" Referral Apr 06,1992
Margaret Montoya FAA Client Services Apr 06,1992
Thomas Vaughn UI Administrator ( DERS) Apr 07, 1992
Charlotte Duncan DO Oregon Apr 07, 1992
Marti White FAA Dist VI ( DFS) Apr 07,1992
Pam Estrella FAA Dist ill ( DFS) Apr 07,1992
Gloria Lomayestewa FAA Dist ill - R ( DFS) Apr 07,1992
Ellen Damron FAA Medical SVCI. ( DERS) Apr 08,1992
Roger Hodges Dop. Admin. Voc. Rehab ( DERS) Apr 08,1992
Geri Tebo Super. Comm. Ed. Voc. Rehab ( DERS) Apr 08,1992
Jeff Bowman Data Administration ( ODA) Apr 08, 1992
PJ Gallagher Data Administration ( ODA) Apr 08, 1992
Thereaa Nichols Data Administration ( ODA) Apr 08, 1992
Jesse Ary Cue Manager Supervisor ( DOD) Apr 09, 1992
Peter Schelbenreif Case Manager SupervPor ( DOD) Apr 09,1992
John Kulik Day Sua Coordinator ( DOD) Apr 09,1992
Michael Jacobs Cue Manager Super. ( DOD) Apr 09, 1992
LynnLanon Budget Supervisor OBPPPC ( DDD) Apr 09, 1992
Marlene Farmer Cue manager Super. ( DOD) Apr 09, 1992
Jerry Kersten Blare Co. CA Apr 09, 1992
Gerald Kelly Cue Manager Supervisor ( DOD) Apr 10,1992
Mark Loudens1agel Admin. SVI. OffICer ( DOD) Apr 10, 1992
Michelle Auer Area Prog. Manager ( DOD) Apr 10, 1992
Debbie Bonanno Area Program Manager ( DOD) Apr 10, 1992
Ralph Reichert OSI - Supervisor ( DMR) Apr 10,1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 39
Exhibit 3
Page 11 of 12
Howell Lindsay Audit Coordinator Apr 13,1992
Charlotte Gregory FAA SylltclDS ( DFS) Apr 13, 1992
BobBuse ODA Apr IS, 1992
Patricia Morales Unit TSCU, Bisbee Apr IS, 1992
Lupe Montoya AlIt. LOM FAA ( DFS) Apr 16,1992
Robert Maldonado AlIt. LOM FAA ( DFS) Apr 16,1992
J08DJIll Welbaum AlIt. LOM FAA ( DFS) Apr 16,1992
Gary Stern FAA SylltclDS ( DFS) Apr 16,1992
Lorraine Valenzue1a LOM Bisbee ( DFS) Apr 16,1992
Jacki Pruzzo ProglProj. Spec. ( OBPPPC) Apr 16,1992
Denise Leonard Corres. Cont. Dir. Office Apr 16, 1992
Janet Willcinson OOA Telecommunications Apr 16, 1992
Susan Brauch OOA Telecommunications Apr 16,1992
Marco Liu Asst. Dist. Mgr. Dist. n( DFS) Apr 17, 1992
Pat McBrayer QA Dist IV ( DFS) Apr 17, 1992
John Orlando FAA Supervisor ( DFS) Apr 17, 1992
Colleen Clifton FAA Supervisor ( DFS) Apr 17,1992
Patty Kolb QA Specialist ( DFS) Apr 17,1992
Pat Tiegs QA Specialist ( DFS) Apr 17,1992
Art Ledon Client Advoc: acy Off. ( OBPPPC) Apr 17, 1992
Monica Obezo Payroll Clerk ( DBF) Apr 17,1992
Joyce Lenox Asst LOM ( DFS) Apr 20, 1992
Peter Knittel Asst Dist Mgr, Ceo Dist 1 ( DFS) Apr 20,1992
Phil Austin Child Wel. Med. A. G. ' s Office Apr 21, 1992
Joe DeGroot Rehab. Services Admin. ( DERS) Apr 21, 1992
Katherine Pulec OSI. Supervisor( DMR) Apr 24, 1992
Alice Moore OSI • Fraud Supervisor ( DMR) Apr 24, 1992
Pama Tucker CSEA ( DFS) Apr 27,1992
Jim Griffith RSA Admin. ( DERS) Apr 28,1992
Tony Celaya DOC Apr 28,1992
Faye Gibson Alabama FS Apr 30,1992
Dan Gorman Colorado FS Apr 30,1992
Nancy Nato AHCCCS Apr 30,1992
PROJECT SLIM INTERVIEW LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
DES 40
Exhibit 3
Page 12 of 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I PROJECT SLIM RECOMMENDATION AND SAVINGS SUMMARY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
EXHIBIT 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:~:'~:.:::::=:':'::::' ~ iIii':~ .......................:.-;....;...:..;;...:;.;.;,.':. .;.::.:...:..;..;.:. ::?::}}::::::""' JI<~' t?::: ....-.:..;.'.:......::.-.:..;;..:..:::.-:..;...:..: ,.~::}::::::: .:::::~::::::: ~~}::::::::: :;=:: j6iiWit
1.. Ql Agency Orpnlzatlanal Structure ALl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
2.. Ql Eligibility Application Pr_ lng DFS ff1 0 1, lI28,4OO 0 0 814,200 0 II
2.. 02 Medical MaIet8nce Eligibility Oetarmlnallone DFS 4 0 2.. 1,000 820,000 0 1,346,/ iOO 410,000 30
2- 03 Agency EligibIlIty Error Reduction DFS 0 0 0 674,000 0 0 201,000 3
2.. 04 Food Stamp Monlhly Reporting DFS 66 0 1,623,000 432.000 0 781,/ iOO 2111,000 7
2- 06 FAA Polley Unit Reorganlzallon DFS 10 0 132.000 1118,400 0 88,000 83,200 • 2..() 8 FAA Loc* 0IIlce Orpnlzallon DFS II 0 0 432,800 0 0 21', 400 • 2.. Q7 FAA D1etricl 0IIlce Orpnlzallon DFS 13 0 0 522, 100 0 0 251,100 II
2- 08 Rrtiew of QC Error Rat.. DBF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
3.. 01 & tabllehment of FAA Training SIte In Tuceon DFS 0 0 0 103, IlOO 0 0 61,800 • 3.. 02 FAA Ernplaofen who Fail ... I Training DFS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 3- 03 FAA D1etrict Training Coordinatore DFS 7 0 73,200 · 208,400 0 3e, llOO 104,700 3
3..() 4 Enhancement of FAA... I Training DFS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4..() 1 CIoeure 01 ArIzona Training Program at Coolidge DOD 4e7 1,000,000 1,700,000 4,800,000 1,000,000 1,700,000 4,000,000 38
4..() 2 CIoeure 01 ArIzona Training Program at Tuceon DOD • 0 0 1,400,000 0 0 IlOO, 000 30
4..() 3 Service Plan and Individual Program Plans 000 78 0 2.448,000 0 0 1,/ iOO, OOO 0 12
4..() 4 Service Review Committ... DOD 0 0 283,000 0 0 1113,000 0 12
4- C5 Vocational Rehabilitation Services 000 0 0 0 4,417,800 . 0 0 4,4' 7,800 . ' 2
&.. 0, Quality Review Organization AU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
&.. 02 FAA Quality Aaeurance OFS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 3
6..() 3 Contrect Provider Audits OMR 0 0 784,000 0 0 258,700 0 7
6.. 04 In. emal Audit Reviews DMR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,
&.. 05 Internal Audit Reorganization DMR 0 0 0 ' 0,800 0 0 3,800 • &.. oe Venture Team 08PPPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2
&.. 07 Reorganlzallon 01 0$ 1 DMR ' 3 83,000 48,400 34,800 83,000 ' 6,800 ' 0,400 • &.. 08 Internal Affaire Inv.. tlgation Supervisor OMR I 0 0 39,700 0 0 ' 9,900 ,
e.. o, OrganiZational Structure - Finance Functions OBF 3 0 0 70,700 0 0 2', 000 ' 2
e.. o2 Financial Syetems OBF 3 0 0 86,400 0 0 26,000 ' 2
e.. o3 FIScal Control OBF , 0 0 43,700 0 0 ' 5,000 8
e.. o4 Management 01 Automated Syetems OBF 3 0 0 " 4.000 0 0 34,000 4
e.. o5 Claims Filing DBF 3 0 0 53,700 0 0 ", 000 2
e.. oe Travel Advances OBF 2 0 0 5', 000 0 0 ' 5,000 ' 5
e.. o7 Trave' Claims OBF 3 0 0 89.800 0 0 2', 000 ' 5
e.. o8 Telecommunications Bill Processing OBF 2 0 0 44,400 0 0 ' 3,000 8
e.. o9 Warrant Handling OBF , 0 0 22,200 0 0 7,000 " 8- 10 Encumbered Claims Processing OBF 2 0 0 44,400 0 0 ' 3,000 ' 2
8-" ODD Bill Payment DBF ' 3 0 0 359,800 0 0 ' 92.000 38
8-' 2 Public "' siet8nce Administration Revolving Fund OBF , 0 0 22.200 0 0 7,000 • 8-' 3 Client TrUll Fund Accounting OBF 4 0 0 88,800 0 0 48,000 • 8-' 4 Organization 01 Accounll Payable Functions OBF 4 0 0 70,400 0 0 2', 000 ' 8
8-' 5 Collection of Overpaymenll DBF 20 300.000 0 545.800 87,500 0 ''', 000 38
8-,. OrganiZation 01 Aeeounll Receivable/ Collections Functions DBF 3 0 0 137,100 0 0 4', 000 38
8- 17 Payroll Process DBF 7 0 0 ' 90,000 0 0 57,000 ' 2
8-' 8 Organization 01 Payroll and Time Accounting Functions DBF 0 0 0 ( 4,500) 0 0 ( 1,000) ' 2
8-' 8 Budget Process OBPPPC • 0 92.900 ' 58.700 0 28,000 47,000 38
8- 20 A11oeat1on 01 Expon.. Budgell 08PPPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2
7.. Q, Unemployment Benefit Appeals DMR 8 0 0 392,900 0 0 0 20
7.. 02 OHIce 01 Client Advocacy OBPPPC 7 0 2' 6,000 0 0 ", 800 0 2
7.. 03 DES Purehaeing Aulhority DBF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 7.. 04 Shredding Policy DBF 0 0 0 5,800 0 0 ', 800 ,
7.. 05 Fecilltlee Janitorial Services DBF 0 0 0 ' 00,800 0 0 28,900 4
7.. oe eoneumable Suppllee, Forme, Fixed ",.. II DBF ' 4 25,000 25,' 00 390,500 7,/ iOO 7,500 " 7,' 00 4
7.. Q7 Vehicles DBF 0 0 0 ' 2,000 0 0 3,800 6
7- 08 Voice Telephone Servloee ODA 0 0 0 800,000 0 0 270,000 • 7..() l1 PurehMing Functions DBF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •
TOTALS 122 1,41', 000 11,127,000 1', 038,700 1,188,000 8,782, IlOO 11,786,300
I
I
TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
State
FederaYOther
• Firat year eavings only
$ 31,081,700
$ 19,695,900
$ 11,385,800
I
I
Total eavings includes Federal, Statelllld other funding eources
Staff- related savings are baeed on the midpoint of the salary range, plus an additional 25.5 IMI for employee- related expenses
DES 41
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY EXHIBIT 5
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PAGE 1 OF ..
( PRELIMINARY)
I IIONTHS
TITLE I I / 2 / 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 / 8 I 9 1,. III In In /, 4 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 /" I 2. 121- 35/ 36
AGENCY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
AGENCY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE I
FAA ELIGIBILITY ASSISTANCE
ELIGIBILITY ArrLICATION rROCESSING I
0 ~ DICAL ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS / / ----..---. m~
t " AGENCY ELIGIBILITY ERROR REDUCTIONS I I I FOOD STANrS MONTHLY REroRTING
/ /
I
/ I I FAA rOLlCY UNIT REOIt8AIIIIATION I
FAA LOCAL OFFICE OIt8AIIIIATION I I I I I SMALLER OFFICE STAFFING I
LARGER OFFICE STAFFING I I I I I
FAA DISTRICT OFFICE OIt8AIIIIATION I I I
/ / I /
REVIEW OF OC ERROR RATES I
FAA TRAINING
ESTABLISHMENT OF FAA TRAINING SITE IN TUCSON I I I I I I FAA ENrLOYEES WHO FAIL lASE I TRAINING I I I FAA DISTRICT TRAINING COORDINATORS I I I ENHANCENENT OF FAA lASE I TRAINING I ... - - - - - l -.. - - •.. •• •• - - •• •
-------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY EXHIBIT 5
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PAGE 2 OF ..
( PRELIMINARY)
I MONTHS
TITLE I I 12 13 I 4 1 S 16 I 7 1II I 9 I,. I" 112 113 1,4 l, S I" 1,7 1,11 119 I Ie 121- 3sl 36
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
CLOSURE OF ARIZONA TRAINING PROGRAM AT COOLIDGE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CLOSURE OF ARIZONA TRAINING PlIOCJIlAN AT TUCSON I I I I I I I I I I I I ( 3. IlONTHS)
SERVICES PLANS AND INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM PLANS I
I I I I I I I I I I I SERVICE REVIEW CONNITTEE I I I I I I I I I I I I VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES I
QUALITY REVIEW/ AUDIT/ INVESTIGATION
QUALITY REVIEW ORGANIZATION I I I I I FAA QUALITY ASSURANCE I I I I I I I CONTRACT PROVIDER AUDITING I
INTERNAL AUDIT REVIEWS ....., I I I I INTERNAL AUDIT REORGANtZATtON I
I I I I I VENTURE TEAN I
I I I I I REORGANIZATION OF ost I
INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION SUPERVISOR .....
o m
( J)
t;
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY EXHIBIT 5
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PAGE 3 OF ..
( PRELIMINARY)
I MONTHS
TIll! I 1 I 2 I J I .. I S I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 / 11 / 11 112 / 13 11.. lIS / 16 117 118 119 I Ie 121- 35/ J6
f INANC! AIIO IlUD8! T fUNCTIONS
OA8ANIZATIONAL STRUCTURf - flNANC! fUNCTIONS I
fINANCIAL SYSTrMS
/ / I / I / I I 1 / I I
/ I I I 1 / I fISCAL CONTROL •
NAIIAG! M! NT 0# AUTONAT! D SUTDS I I CUIIIS fUING I
C TRAWL AOVANC! S
1
I
m I 1 / I / I I I 1 · 1 / I / / en TRAWL CLAIIIS I
t I I I I I 1 I I T! L! COIlIlUNICATIONS IILL PllOC! SSINO I I I I 1 I I I I WAIUWlT HAIIOLlNO I
/ I 1 I I I I / I I ! NCUIlI! R! D CLAIIIS PllOC! SSINO I I I I / I I I / / I I I DDD IUL PAYIl! NT I I I I I /
PUILIC ASSISTANC! ADIlIIIISTRATION R! VOLVING fUND I
CLI! NT TRUST fUND ACCOUNTING I I I I I I ORGANIZATION Of ACCOUNTS PAYAlL! fUNCTIONS I I I I I I I I I I I / I I / I I I COLL! CTION Of OV! RPAYM! NTS I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I / I I / I I I ORGAlnZATlON 0# ACCOUNTS R! C! lVAIL! AND I I I
COLLECTIONS fUNCTIONS I I I I I I I I I PAYROLL PllOC! SS I
I I I I I I I I I I I ORGANIZATION Of PAYROLL AND TIll! ACCOUNTING fUNCTIONS I
I I I I I I I I I I I
IUDGET PROCESS I I
I I I I I I I I I I i l . i ULi ALLOCATION Of EXPENSE BUDGETS
... - - - - - ~ I. J. I. J. I. J U ~ I -
-------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
( PRELIMINARY)
I ~~
EXHIBIT 5
PAGE 4 OF 4
TITLE
OTHEII SUI'I'OltT fUNCTIONS
UNEllPLOYllENT IENEflT Al'I'EALS
TUCSON I'ILOT fA11I IlEA1UII8S UNIT
DISTIIICT 1 fA11I HEAIIINGS UNITS
llOIIll Off Al'I'EALS IlACIlLOOS
ADMIN. LAW JUDGE IIEDUCTIONS
OFfICE Of CLIENT ADVOCACY
tJ I'UllCHASINO AUTHORITY
m
~ SItIIEDDINO I'OLICY
fACILITIES JANITOIIIAL SEIIVICES
CONSUMABLE SUI'I'LIES, fORMS, fiXED ASSETS
VEHICLES
VOICE TELEI'HONE SEIIVICES
I'UIICHASINO fUNCTIONS
I 1 I 2 I J I 4 I S I • I 7 I 8 I 9 11. 111 112 113 114 lis 11. 117 118 119 I Ie 121- 351 J6
I I I • Ii
I I I
....
I _
The Department r: A Economic Security Is presently divided Into 9 major operating units. These units
Include the OffIce r: A the Director, and eight divisions ( 888 ExhIbIt 1, Department r: A EconomIc Security.
Present OrganlzatJonal Structure). Four r: A the divisions administer client service programs, and four provide
support services for the Agency. The effectiveness r: A the current organlzatJonal structure Is reduced due
to excessive management layers and fragmented functions.
The following descriptions outline the basic overall structure of the Agency. The summary level
findings and recommendations are based on a number r: A detaled organizational recommendations. In this
connection, organizational structure Improvements have been identified to Improve communication, reduce
layers of management and the cost to manage, and eliminate functional redundancies.
1. Program DivIIIioI.
The four program divisions and 14 associated administrations are described In ExhIbit 6. Program
Divisions - Organizational Unit Descriptions. The divisions and their 1992 staffing levels Include:
• Division of Famly Support ( four administrations. 2,887 staff)
• Division of Social Services ( four administrations, 1,263 staff)
• Division of Employment and RehabDltation ServIces ( six administrations, 1,576 staff)
• Division of Developmental DIsabUItIes ( no administrations. 1,458 staff).
Administrations are managed through a central office staff. Services are delivered through a
network of district offices, area offices and local offices statewide.
2. Support DIvIIIoI.
The four support divisions and 29 associated offices are described In exhibit 7, Support DMslons ­-
Organizational Unit DescrIptions. These Include:
DES 46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• DIvIsIonmBusiness and Anance ( ten oIIIces, 371 8IBff)
• DMslon mManagement Review ( seven offices, 295 8IBff)
• OffIcemData Administration ( six offices, 316 8IBff)
• Offtce m Budget Policy Planning and Project Control ( six offices, 120 8IBff)
Many offices within the suppOrt divisions are further divided Into units and sub- unlts based on
specific functions. Mostmthe functions are centralized In Phoenix.
The Offtce of the Director, including 40 staff, performs OV8I' 8Ight functions rNer several committees
and higtHevei Agency offices. The OffIce also staffs four Governor's AdvIsory CouncUs.
The present organizational structure of the Agency resldts In the following Inefficiencies:
• Difficulties In communication between executive staff ( the Director, Deputy Director and
assistant directors) and working levels. This Is attributable to excessive organizational
layers between executive staff and working levels ( as many as ten l8Yels between the
Director and the lowest level). It Is also due to a lack of c1_ r reporting relationships
• Inadequate coordination between programs, which results In excessive administrative
efforts, wasteful expenditures and Inefficient delivery of client services
• Misalignment of functions among various divisions, offices and units, which I_ s to
excessive paper handling and processing steps
• Fragmentationmwork among the offices and units, resUtlng In unclear missions and
lack maccountabllty
• A high ratio of supervisors to staff positions. ThIs resuIta from an ineffective position
classification system which requires supervision as part of the job description for most
mld- l8Yel and hlgtHevei positions
DES 47
• Reduced accountabllty over work products.
Ae' « nnw"""
We recommend restructuring the AQency to eliminate unnecessary management levels and to
streamline reporting relationships. Several other Project SUM recommendations addressing the structure
~ Individual units and offices are to be Integrated within this overall structure ( see Exhibit 8, Effect of
Recommendations on Present OrganJzatJonaJ Structure).
The structural recommendation encompasses the entire agency, though emphasis Is placed In the
support dMslons. Exhibit 9, Department of Economic Security, Proposed OrganlzatJonal Structure, and
Exhibit 10, Department of Economic Security, Proposed Organizational Structure - Features and BenefIts,
describe the proposed structure.
The proposed structure Incorporates the following concepts:
• The grouping and alignment ~ similar functions to Improve efficiency and coordination
• Removal of excessive organizational levels, and JncreasJng the span of control of
managers
We also recommend the review of all position classifications entailing supervision. For positions
requiring specific skUls and no staff supervision, competitive grade levels sholJd be assigned and the
position descriptions changed accordingly.
The proposed structure Is Intended to faclltate Improved communication, staff direction and
program coordination. This wli resUt In the more efficient delivery of client services at a kMer cost. Costs
wli be reduced through elimination ~ unnecessary management positions and excessive coordination
efforts.
The recommendation regarding position classifications wli allow the Agency to attract and retain
DES 48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
highly quallfted Individuals. thus providing savings In reduction of training efforts associated with staff
turnover.
• Develop mission statements and specific goals for all divisions, administrations. offices
and units
• Review and reclassify positions as appropriate.
Concurrent with the Project SUM review. the Agency developed a proposed reorganization plan.
This plan generally agrees with our recommendation. but detals regarding administrations In several
program divisions were not resolved. We recommend the new structure maintain a minimum of three
administrations In each dMslon to provide an appropriate span of control for each assistant director. For
dMslons with no administrations such as Developmental DIsablItIes and Chid Support Enforcement, the
span of control guideline applies to operational units Instead of administrations..
Our original recommendation Involved the direct reporting of the program divisions, Budget OffIce
and legislative Services OffIce to the Agency Director. Support functions were to report to the Deputy
Director. The Intent was to provide Improved accountabllty and emphasis on the most Important Agency
functions. These recommendations were modified to accommodate the Agency's need to maintain flexibility
In the oversight and coordination of Agency functions.
DES 49
DEPNmENT OF ECONCMC SEQRTY
PROGRAM DIVISIONS AM) AlUNSTRA110NS
ORGANIZATIONAL lNT DESQlPTlONS
• Division of Famly Support
• DMslon of Social Services
• DMslon of Employment and RehabUltation ServIces
• DMslon of Developmental Dlsablltles
Source: Department Of Economic Security
DES 50
EXHIBIT 6
PAGE 1 OF 5
I
I
il
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
II
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DES 51
Fmni ly Assistance kini nistration { FAA}
To assist individJals and fanilies in beo: ming more ecoranically stable, better
able to cop! with the stress of everyeJay life, and more self- reliable when faced
with crisis situations.
Office of Proar2llD EyaluGion ( OPEl
': the goals of OPE is 1) to a:: mplete all p: lssible Aid to Families with t: ep! ndent
Olildren ( AFtc), Food Stame, Arizona Health care Cost Containnent System
( AHa:: cs) and General Assistance Quality COntrol Reviews t= er regulations and _
to meet all criteria for quality, timeliness and efficiency: 2) to identify the
causers) of rep! titive · errors and to eliminate the causes of error through
corrective action.
EXHIBIT 6
DMSIOl CP nMILY SOPrott UPS) PAGE20F5
The Division of Family Supp:> rt ( DFS) provides coordinated services whid1 ensure
eligible p! Ople are able to meet basic needs for fOod, clothing, shelter and
health care. The goal of the division is to assist individJals and fanilies
to bea: me more ecorx: mically stable, better able to cot= e with the stress of
eNeryday life, and more able to participate in the life of the amnunity.
Prograns within the Division are:
Olild Sua: crt Worcepent AQministration ( CSEl.)
To serve the p! Ople by helping parents be<:: ane or ranain self- sufficie. rn: in
stJR: Orting their dlildren through an efficient and aggressive progran for the
collection of child support.
Cgrmmity Services Adninistration ( CSA)
1be goal of the <: sA is to design, develop, implanent and ot= erate program and
project activities that assist e<: oranically disadvantaged individlals and
fanilies to move through and out of crisis situations, with the ultimate
objective to achieve stability and self- sufficiency. ' Ibis is accomplished
through the use of amnunity awareness and involvanent techniques, block and
discretionary grant resource developnent and management of a contracted provider
system. ': the adninistration provides, via a contracted provider system, an
integrated array of services through food and nutritiona! assistance to t= ersons
and fanilies in hunger- related crises: emergency shelter for haneless t= ersons
and fanilies: emergency services networking: refugee resettlement ( including
medical assistance): cXmestic violence victim assistance: and energy and
teleccmuunications assistance.
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 6
01V! SI~ a sa::!. AL sERVIQS ( 0.5.5.) PAGE 3 OF 5
Pt! fl. 1: ICSE: The Division provides services to dlildren and adJlts who are abusec,
neql~ ed, aband:: lned or exploited an~. tJ.' 1e elderly. Services . include t.." 1e
provlslon of health care to foster c' 1llaren. rrbe program ana services are
offered ~ rimarily through the O1ild ProteC'tive Service Training Program and t.." 1e
division s three acinini. strations and Olild Care Project.
Hint; AND M! TT! t' ADqNIS1' PJ\ TICN ( A& AAl
Proactively carries aut a wiee range of functions desi9l1ed to · assist older
p! r~~, and frail aa. uts in ~ eading inde~ ndent! mecu: unaful and dignified lives
1n t. 1eJ. r own hanes and ~ uruty as. long as p: lsslble lnc! uding protective
servlceS, advocacy, plaruung, CX) Ordinab. on, lnteragency linkages, information
sharing, brokeri~, ncnitoring and evaluation designed to lead to the
developnent or ernanc: ement of a c: cmprehensive and coordinated o: mnunitv based
svstens in serving c: amnunities throughout the state. '!' his is aca: mpliShed
tflrough a network of designated Area Agencies on Aging, and their
subcontractors, and Ad1lt Protective Service staff statewide. rrbese activities
are funded throu; h a variety of Federal proarans, including Title III of the
Oleer ~ ericans Act, Social Services Block Grant, Title V Senior camnunity
Employment Program, Job Training Partnership Act (~) - 3\, Foster Grandparents
Program and state dollars. .
<: crmrehensive Medit"' 2] and Dental PIOO! 21ll ( QIDP)
Resmnsible for full c: cverage of medical and dental care for Arizorals foster
d'lilciren based utxm a determir~ tion of medical necessity and approcriateness of
care. ~ rates as an approved, aC'. 2te care healt..' 1 plan Urteer tne aUspices of t.." 1e ·
Arizona Health Care Cost Contairment Systen ( AHCC:: CS) and t.' 1e Arizona Long Te!:! t\
care Systsn ( ALTCS) for those foster dlildren who are eliClible for medical
services. '!' he goal is to ~ ovide hiah quality, timely ana at: 9ropriate care to
eligible children in the moSt: c: cst etfective and least restrictive manner
}; Ossible.
}. ministration for Olildren, Youth and Families (}' CYP)
Provides a Cllturally relE'laM c: cncinut. m1 of prerlern: ion and interve." Ition services
to al: usive or ne<: lectful families and ccm'Crehensive remedial services to
c: hildren and fanilies at risk. All serviCes are dlild centered and fanilv
fOClsed to pranote family preservation, inde~ nc3enc: e and self sufficie.' 1C'j:
~ en d'lildren carmt t: e returned to tJ., eir Oom fanilies, services are provleed to
eS'tabliS'l al'X) t.' er peananent plan for d'lildren.
Proc: rans include c: hild protective services includina investigation/ assessnent
of remrts of alleged abJse and nealect, i~ hane ana out- of- hane services:
aeo~ lon plac: ment: aeottion subsiOy: and licensing/ certification for foster
hanes, group care and aeoption agencies. }' CiE contracts with a wide variety of
c:: mnunitv providers statewide to readl'its progran goals. AC'iF also aanirjsters
the Clila Al::: use Prerlencion and Treatment Program and the Q1ild Protec: ive
Services Training Progran.
Local office staff are re5p:) nsible for direct services to d'lildren and their
families, licensing foster hanes, studying adoptive hanes for certification and
aCministering most service c: cntracts.
AC'iF central Office is respJnsible for bla; et developnent and ar. alysis:
licensing agencies: contract }; Olicies and c: cordination: ado~ ion subsidy:
Interstate Conpact on the Placement of O1ildren ( IO? C): J: X) llCY and progran
detlelopnent: systans developnent and su;::: p:> rt: monitoring and evaluation
activities: ana training for all ACiF staff.
~ ild CVf Ptoies S;: CnslO e ror lntegrated J: X) licy, pr~ ran and bldget developnent for State. ~ d
Federal dlild daY care pcograms. S~ fic prograns include: ~ Care 5ubslC'ji
Transi tional O1i1d Care: JOb Ot:: pJrtunities and Basic Sl< il~ s ( J~): .
JCBS- L"' nenolcved Parent andTriDal JCBS O'J. ld care; and Ollld Care for employee
ArOC re¢. P1ents.
DES 52
' I
.1
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 6
PAGE .. OF 5
DIVISION OF ~ LOYMENT , REHABILITATION SERVICES
PURPOSE: To provide rehabilitation services, partial reclacement
of . ncome, and employment and training opportunities tha: will
enable Arizonans with economic, social, physical and/ or mencal
disabilities to maintain and/ or move toward independence.
DISABILITY DETERMINATION SERVICE ADMINISTRATION ( DDSA):
Adjudicates Social Security Disability Insurance ( SS~!) and
Supplemental Security Income ( SSI) benefit claims