Food stamp food fight

Low staffing, flawed computer system at center of benefit delays

The Rocky

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

We imagine one of the last things Gov. Bill Ritter wants to hear about is more trouble with the Colorado Benefits Management System - the much-maligned $223 million computer system that was supposed to streamline public benefit programs when it was introduced by the Owens administration in 2004.

Unfortunately, the bad news keeps coming. CBMS remains a headache for county welfare officials who say that its complicated data-entry requirements needlessly delay benefits to qualified recipients.

As the Rocky's Myung Oak Kim reported Saturday, some food-stamp applicants have been denied services altogether because their applications weren't processed quickly enough.

On any given week, from 1,200 to 2,400 applicants for food stamps in the state's 10 largest counties had waited more than 30 days to get their applications filed. Applicants at the back of the line can wait weeks longer to collect benefits they're entitled to receive.

Moreover, the state computer system has erroneously sent letters to scores of food-stamp applicants saying they had been rejected even though their applications were still active.

State human services officials say that delays are improving but that counties need to staff up so they can process applications more rapidly.

Unfortunately for low-income Coloradans, it's easy for government officials to point fingers at one another and overlook those in need.

Yes, accountability for the food-stamp program can be muddled. Counties handle food-stamp applications and administer case loads, but they're required to use a computer system that's operated by the state.

And yet, whenever a problem arises, CBMS always seems to play a role. As recently as two months ago, Ritter said that CBMS could be salvaged when all the state's computer operations are eventually consolidated in a single Office of Information Technology.

Given the incessant problems the system has caused government officials, program recipients and taxpayers, we're no longer confident that CBMS is worth resuscitating.

And as delays mount, taxpayer costs could rise. Federal guidelines state that it shouldn't take more than 30 days to process a food-stamp application. Because Colorado isn't meeting that standard, Washington could sanction the state.

In addition, legal-aid groups claim that the state has wrongfully denied or cut benefits to hundreds of residents. Some 549 appeals protesting benefit cutoffs or reductions were filed in state court between Dec. 1, 2006 and Dec. 1 this year; that's 134 more appeals than were filed during the same period a year ago.

When the state loses those appeals, the costs to the public rise further.

One way counties can ease delays is by interviewing more applicants - especially those renewing their benefits - by phone rather than in person. Officials in El Paso and Jefferson counties also deserve credit for bringing in temp workers and using nonprofit social service agencies to help screen applicants.

As for CBMS, well, poker players warn against "throwing good money after bad." CBMS may be beyond redemption, and further attempts to rehabilitate it could simply divert resources and energy from the low-income Coloradans that public welfare programs are designed to serve.

• December 18, 2007

  9:57 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ozzy_osbourne_1979 writes:

  It is not only the food stamp programs that is going slow, the same thing is happening to people on Temporary Assistance for Needy Familes (TANF). I think the state needs to look at the system before it costs tax payers any more money!!!

• December 18, 2007

  10:50 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  JohnQLiberal writes:

  Myung Oak Kim's fluff piece and today's op-ed is an insult to our readers. Neither article suggest practical direction or fixes and simply complain about issues that have been ongoing for many, many years. Apparently, the poor and their plight wasn't news worthy before CBMS. You guys give liberals a bad name - no wonder Bush and Cheney are in the White House.

• December 18, 2007

  6:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  wethepeople writes:

  Implementing CBMS couldn't have come any sooner. One of the great things about technology is that it automates ineffective business practices as well as effective business practices. If there is a problem in a workflow process, count on a database, network system, or the implementation of any other piece of software to bring it to light. Before CBMS, no one was paying attention to how hard it is to make ends meet in Colorado. Even with food stamps our neighbors struggle with the basic necessities that some of us may take for granted. The use of CBMS, and the subsequent denials of a basic necessity--food, only magnifies what has been true for years--we need to rethink what it takes to support our lowest paid workers and their families. This system is reflective of our "confused" and "contradictory" attitudes towards the "other" and we have to start there.

• December 19, 2007

  10:38 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  NoMoCoroprateWelfare writes:

  The Rocky's editorial board and reporter Myung Oak Kim are right saying, "the bad news keeps coming," with respect to the Colorado Benefitis Management System (CBMS), the computer system Owens' administration bought with our tax dollars for administering public welfare benefits. Computer systems for the unemployment insurance office, CDOT's payroll, DMV's title & registration records, and the voter-records system also were all a waste of resources, i.e., initially when they didn't work, secondly when additional staff had to be hired and paid over-time to sort it out, and thirdly on an ongoing basis as public services continue to decline. Unfortunately, our new governor's attention was overseas on a junket when the Rocky reported the state still suffers from the prior administration's, let's say, "computer ineptness" (which is a nice way to say what looks more like corrupt state contracts with computer system vendors).

  I realize Governor Ritter didn't create these computer system problems, but I'm beginning to detect an inability on his part to fix the messes his predecessor left. The prior administration made no secret it disliked public services, public servants, and government in general (except for asphalt and his one time political expedience in supporting Ref. C); but Owens' dismantling of state government, and raids on the public treasury, continue to set the agenda for Ritter's administration; and will tarnish the reputations of both state executives if the economy tanks and public services are unable to respond to an increased demand for them.

  Whatever happened to the good old days when a seemingly bloated and repetitive government bureacracy at least got the job done, before the private sector claimed they could do it better and for less (the latter based on the business model of over-promise & charge, but under-deliver, if at all)? Furthermore, and here is where I disagree with the Rocky, it's a TERRIBLE idea to use tmporary workers and non-profit groups to augment the civil service. It's bad enough that some state services were out-sourced and off-shored, but to use a bungled computer system as an excuse to privitize state government is absurd. It was over reliance on contracting-out state government that got us into this mess in this first place. Too bad the Secretary of State didn't do his job or we could vote the elected officials, who are selling-out the state, out of office before they do more damage.