DCHS Insights CX Human-Centered Design @ DCHS PROTOTYPE no real data

Start with the person, establish what applies, and then test whether the system protects continuity and closes the loop on other help.

1. 01

   Begin with the original person

   Keep the person's goals, strengths, relationships, and core circumstances in view. The added HR1 context should sharpen the question without replacing the person with a benefits case.

2. 02

   Establish what applies

   Identify the affected benefit, household facts, renewal date, possible exemption, and proof request. Record unresolved determinations instead of filling them with assumptions.

3. 03

   Walk the proof-and-transition journey

   Trace notice receipt, understanding, proof gathering, submission, decision, continuity, appeal or restoration, and any alternative-service connection.

4. 04

   Test what DCHS can improve

   Look for earlier identification, accessible explanation, coordinated deadlines, acceptable documentation, pre-closure outreach, and confirmation that another service was actually received.

Each profile names the added context, what remains central from the original persona, what still has to be determined, and a six-stage HR1 journey.

Composite persona. Not a real client.

Janice Brown (post-HR1)

A benefits compliance deadline turns the instability around safe housing, treatment, and reunification into one interdependent risk.

Within federal eligibility rules, integration can reduce avoidable loss by making requirements visible, reusing consented evidence, coordinating deadlines, and tracking alternatives through actual receipt of service.

Composite persona. Not a real client.

Aboul & Hossina (post-HR1)

One lawful-permanent-resident household must make earnings, renewals, and language access line up across records that still see two partial pictures.

Integration can make household-income matching, six-month renewal, interpretation, and proof ownership function as one accessible household process within the applicable eligibility rules.

The same policy change can create a crisis cascade for one person and a recurring verification burden for another.

• Janice: urgency and cascading consequences

  SNAP proof burdens arrive while she is in a safe house, attending behavioral-health care, and working toward reunification. SNAP's work requirement is also the only reason the Medicaid one does not apply to her, so a single closure can end her food assistance and start a second work requirement at the same time.

• Aboul & Hossina: accessible household verification

  Their case tests whether employment and household income can be matched correctly, whether twice-yearly renewals preserve a household view, and whether each step works in a language they can use.