Human Services urges pilot to let counties use verification tech after state QA and policy conflict

Arapahoe County Human Services staff told the board that a key driver of the county's payment error-rate exposure is a mismatch between state policy (which allows county staff to accept client self-attestation on many items) and state quality-assurance (QA) practice (which demands verification). Staff said state QA routinely reclassifies cases after independently verifying income or shelter amounts, and that those findings are counted as county errors.

The presenter gave concrete examples: a client reporting a $700 monthly shelter payment that QA later identified as a $1,922 mortgage, producing an error attributed to the county; and a case where a client said they clicked a wrong citizenship option in the interview, later identified by QA as deliberate fraud. Staff said counties have contractual access to a commercial verification tool (referred to in the meeting as "the work number") but are currently restricted from routine use. "If we can get those two things, yeah, we can virtually eliminate most of our errors," a presenter said, urging a county pilot and an attorney-general opinion to clarify permissible use.

Commissioners pressed on randomness in sampling and the risk to clients; staff said they are pursuing more meetings with state QA and program staff and will notify the board if a pilot is approved.