The situation
A change to documentation requirements for a waiver service is scheduled for leadership approval in four weeks. The change was designed to reduce fraud risk. No one has yet asked which families will find the new requirement hardest to meet.
Fictional documentation example
Follow the request from the family's side
To examine the scenario, imagine the new requirement asks for another document copy. Follow where the work falls, then compare an option that first checks information already held. Both still need review against the actual verification purpose.
Showing the proposed additional-copy journey.
Receive the notice
Find the new request, its purpose, the reply date and a way to ask for help.
Person or familyWhich languages and formats will make the request usable?
Find and return a copy
Locate a document and send another copy, even if the agency may already hold relevant information.
Person or familyWhat happens when a copy, printer or return channel is unavailable?
Review the information
Check the evidence and explain what remains missing or what happens next.
Responsible staffDoes the additional copy address a demonstrated verification gap?
| Option | Burden to examine | What remains to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Ask everyone for another copy | Finding, producing and returning a document; delays when a channel or support is missing. | Whether the additional request addresses the identified fraud risk, and who would struggle to meet it. |
| Reuse existing evidence where permitted | Staff effort to locate and check current information; less duplicate collection only if it is usable. | Permission, evidence quality, staff capacity and how unresolved gaps would be handled. |
| Rework the proposal before approval | Time needed to compare options and involve people affected while the decision is still open. | Who can adjust the decision timetable, which analysis is required and what evidence leadership needs. |
No option here establishes fraud prevention, eligibility, a policy exception or a change to a real requirement. The policy owner determines the required analysis and keeps the official record.
Carry one question into the analysis: Which step could be removed, combined or handled by the agency while still meeting the verified purpose? Name the role that can examine it before the four-week decision point.
What to notice first
- The decision has a real deadline and is still changeable.
- The design goal is legitimate; the burden analysis has not been done.
- This may require an equity scan or a full analysis under the DHS equity policy.
Questions to ask before acting
- Does the equity policy require a scan or a full analysis here, and who confirms that?
- Who benefits, who carries the new burden, and who is missing from the design conversation?
- What alternatives reduce fraud risk without adding steps for the families with the least margin?
- How will people learn about the change, in which languages and formats?
Practical next moves
Who to involve
The policy owner determines whether an analysis is required and keeps the official record. Your Equity Director helps shape it. DSD staff can request a consultation for a difficult decision.