Current state
Business as usual
Doors 10
Retellings 12
Forms 10
days notice to outcome 150
Needs met 3/10
8 indignities experienced Detailed by stage in the journey below.
DCHS Insights CX Human-Centered Design @ DCHS PROTOTYPE no real data DCHS Insights CX Janice Brown (post-HR1)
Future state
With service integration
Doors 4
Retellings 2
Forms 4
days notice to outcome 45
Needs met 8/10
3 indignities remain Structural constraints are still visible.
Profile
Janice Brown (post-HR1)
A benefits compliance deadline turns the instability around safe housing, treatment, and reunification into one interdependent risk.
Persona type Individual, age 38
Engagement path Prospective HR1 impact: SNAP and Medicaid renewal
Persona narrative
Who they are
Janice Brown, 38, remains in a safe house after leaving a violent home while a CPS matter places her four children — ages 15, 12, 9, and 4 — with kinship caregivers. This profile specifies that she receives SNAP and Virginia Medicaid Expansion. She is part of the narrower cohort facing new proof and renewal burdens after the SNAP homelessness exception ended November 1, 2025. Because none of her children lives with her, no child exemption reaches her in either program. Because SNAP's work requirement already applies to her, federal rule excludes her from the Medicaid work requirement — but only while her SNAP case is open. DCHS can help Janice understand what applies, assemble acceptable proof, protect continuity of care, and reach a completed alternative connection if a benefit ends.
Voice
In their words
I already told somebody this.
I can do the appointments. I cannot do them all at once.
If housing is the thing everything depends on, why is it the last thing moving?
What they are good at
- Protective parent who acted under pressure
- Persists through lengthy applications and repeated appointments
- Clear about what she can and cannot manage
What they are carrying
- Safety after leaving a violent home
- Housing that affects reunification
- Food, benefits, and behavioral health needs arriving at the same time
- A CPS matter that cannot move without stability
- Four children, ages 15 to 4, living with kinship caregivers during the CPS matter
- SNAP's 80-hour monthly requirement, because no child under 14 lives in her household
- A Medicaid Expansion renewal every six months beginning in 2027
- Safe-house mail, program notices, appointments, and proof deadlines on different clocks
- A ten-day window to appeal and keep benefits running, counted from a notice that reaches a shelter
What they hope for
- A safe place that does not expire before the next step is ready
- To stop narrating the worst night to new strangers
- Reunification that is not blocked by invisible dependencies
- Clear notice of what applies before a benefit is at risk
- An alternative that is real and usable, not just another phone number
What they would never volunteer
- Details of domestic violence in a lobby or to someone who cannot explain why they need it
- Overlapping appointments and program deadlines can make attendance impossible even when she is actively trying to comply
- How close she is to giving up on separate plans
- How much another request to document trauma feels like another forced retelling
Open as a poster, without the site chrome →
HR1 impact map · prospective · policy checked September 17, 2026
What HR1 asks of Janice — and what a missed step could cost her.
Janice receives SNAP and Virginia Medicaid Expansion. Her four children, the youngest four years old, live with kinship caregivers during the CPS matter — which is why neither program's child exemption reaches her. Each rule below is in law. Which of them applies to her depends on one determination nobody has made yet. The map shows where the rules touch her week, what they put at risk, and where DCHS can change how the rule is applied.
- The rule
- Why it reaches Janice Brown
- What it does
- Determination pending
-
Virginia's SNAP homelessness exception ends
01 -
Her three countable SNAP months run
01 -
Community-engagement requirement applies; retroactive coverage shrinks to one month
0204 -
Six-month Medicaid renewals begin
03 -
Federal SNAP administrative match falls to 25%; error-rate cost sharing follows
04
01 In effect
SNAP's work requirement now reaches adults up to 64, the exemption for people without stable housing is repealed, and the child exemption covers only a child under 14 living in the household.
P.L. 119-21 · Virginia exception ended Nov 1, 2025 Unfit-for-work determination open
She is 38 and living in a safe house. She has a four-year-old — but he lives with a kinship caregiver, so no child exemption reaches her. One exemption is still open: whether her behavioral-health treatment leaves her unfit for work.
Eighty hours a month to document, or SNAP ends after three countable months in a rolling 36 — in the same weeks she is reconstructing activities from safe-house mail around colliding appointments.
- Food
02 Jan 2027
Medicaid expansion adults must show 80 hours a month of work, school, or service — or about $580 in earnings at the federal minimum wage — unless they are excluded. Adults who receive SNAP and are subject to its work requirement are excluded.
42 CFR 435.554(c)(7) · Virginia applies it January 2027 Excluded only while SNAP is open
This rule does not reach her today. Line 01 is the reason: SNAP's work requirement already applies to her, so the Medicaid one does not. That holds only while her SNAP case is open. If SNAP closes, this rule starts.
Someone has to record the exclusion and carry it into every renewal. If nobody does, or if SNAP closes, she has to prove 80 hours or medical frailty to a second program — on a different clock, through a different door. At Virginia's 2027 minimum wage the dollar test takes about 42 hours of work, not 80.
- Treatment continuity
- CPS service plan
- Reunification
03 Jan 2027 →
Expansion Medicaid eligibility is redetermined every six months instead of every twelve.
Federal floor Dec 31, 2026 · Virginia renewals from Jan 1, 2027Each renewal is a new deadline on its own clock, separate from the safe house, the clinic, and the CPS service plan. Each one asks again whether she still has SNAP, and so whether this program's work requirement applies to her.
Twice the notices, twice the proof, and twice the chances for a missed or unmatched step to become a coverage lapse.
- Treatment continuity
- CPS service plan
04 2027
A lapse costs more and the counter has less: retroactive coverage drops from three months to one for expansion adults, while federal SNAP administrative funding falls from 50% to 25%.
Jan 1, 2027 · FY2027; error-rate cost sharing from FY2028If proof does not match or a step is missed, coverage can end — and re-enrolling no longer erases the gap. Virginia's FY2025 SNAP error rate was 12.32%: the top cost-share tier, and just under the mark that would have delayed it.
Expect longer queues and stricter matching, and more duplicate submissions without confirmation. A coverage gap can interrupt treatment, and interrupted treatment can read as CPS-plan noncompliance. That cascade is not inevitable — but it is now possible by rule.
- Treatment continuity
- CPS service plan
- Reunification
Food
SNAP while she is in the safe house
Treatment continuity
Behavioral-health care that a coverage gap interrupts
CPS service plan
Progress that an interrupted plan can read as noncompliance
Reunification
The goal every other goal serves
If housing is the thing everything depends on, why is it the last thing moving?
Where DCHS can change the experience
DCHS is the local agency that makes these determinations, under federal and state rules it did not write and cannot change. Every lever above changes how a determination is made, sequenced, and explained — not the rule it applies.
- Settle the SNAP question first
One status governs both programs. Whether SNAP's work requirement applies to her decides whether the SNAP time limit runs, and whether the Medicaid requirement applies at all. Determine it once, record it, and carry it into each renewal instead of working it out again.
Acts on 010203 - Reach her where she chose
Write to the contact Janice picked, and name both programs and both dates in one message. SNAP's location-disclosure rules and Virginia's Address Confidentiality Program already require us to use that address, so this is a rule we are following, not a favor.
Acts on 010203 - Record the records check
We already have to look at the data we hold before asking her for documents, and until 2028 a signed statement is enough for medical frailty. What is missing is the note: who checked, what came back, and what is still needed.
Acts on 0203 - One clock, and the ten-day one
One deadline view holds what was sent, where, when, and whether the program accepted it. It also holds the two dates that decide the outcome: the pre-closure review, and the ten days in which an appeal keeps benefits running. Mail reaches a safe house late, so say that second date out loud.
Acts on 010304 - Receipt, not referral
If a benefit ends, track each alternative from offered to contacted, enrolled, and service received — and keep unresolved gaps visible to an owner.
Acts on 0104
Business as usual
Business as usual
The current experience across six stages, including its human cost and the indignities created along the way.
Stage
1. Notice Received
September 2026 outreach
September 2026 outreach
2. Applicability Understood
rules separated from assumptions
rules separated from assumptions
3. Proof Gathered
another form, another retelling
another form, another retelling
4. Proof Submitted
one packet, several systems
one packet, several systems
5. Decision or Lapse
a missed step becomes a coverage risk
a missed step becomes a coverage risk
6. Appeal, Restoration, or Alternative
receipt, not referral
receipt, not referral
What happens
Two program notices reach the safe house on different days. Janice cannot immediately tell which deadline, household definition, or requirement applies.
SNAP treats her as an adult with no child under 14 in her household. Nobody asks whether her treatment makes her unfit for work, and nobody tells her that her SNAP status is the only reason the Medicaid work requirement does not apply to her.
Janice calls her behavioral-health provider and asks for a letter about her treatment. She searches safe-house mail for household records and tries to reconstruct what she did on which days, around appointments that collided. Nobody checks the records the agency already holds, and nobody offers her the signed statement that would have been enough.
Portal uploads, telephone attempts, and an in-person handoff create no single view of what arrived or which deadline was satisfied.
SNAP closes for unverified information, not for the time limit. Her exclusion depended on that SNAP case, so the Medicaid work requirement now applies to her for the first time. A coverage gap may interrupt treatment and complicate CPS service-plan progress, though that cascade is not inevitable.
The ten-day window to appeal and keep benefits running passes before anyone mentions it. Janice pursues restoration while separately calling food, medical-navigation, workforce, or behavioral-health resources. An offered referral can disappear after the handoff.
Where
Safe-house mail and phone
Benefits calls and separate program explanations
Safe house, clinic, and phone
Portal, call queue, and benefits counter
Eligibility decision, clinic, and CPS plan
Appeal channels and referral network
Feeling
Alarmed
Afraid of choosing wrong
Exposed and exhausted
Uncertain
Precarious
Still carrying the case
Cost
A deadline starts before the notices make sense together
The one determination that governs both programs goes unasked
She describes the violence and her treatment again, first to her provider and then to a form
Duplicate submissions without confirmation
One unresolved proof item ends food and opens a second work rule
A preventable gap, then unconfirmed alternatives
Indignities
Experience
Business as usual vs Integrated
Business as usual Integrated
How coordinated service delivery changes the same six-stage experience while keeping unresolved constraints visible.
Stage
1. Notice Received
September 2026 outreach
September 2026 outreach
2. Applicability Understood
rules separated from assumptions
rules separated from assumptions
3. Proof Gathered
another form, another retelling
another form, another retelling
4. Proof Submitted
one packet, several systems
one packet, several systems
5. Decision or Lapse
a missed step becomes a coverage risk
a missed step becomes a coverage risk
6. Appeal, Restoration, or Alternative
receipt, not referral
receipt, not referral
Business as usual
Alarmed
Two program notices reach the safe house on different days. Janice cannot immediately tell which deadline, household definition, or requirement applies.
Afraid of choosing wrong
SNAP treats her as an adult with no child under 14 in her household. Nobody asks whether her treatment makes her unfit for work, and nobody tells her that her SNAP status is the only reason the Medicaid work requirement does not apply to her.
Exposed and exhausted
Janice calls her behavioral-health provider and asks for a letter about her treatment. She searches safe-house mail for household records and tries to reconstruct what she did on which days, around appointments that collided. Nobody checks the records the agency already holds, and nobody offers her the signed statement that would have been enough.
Uncertain
Portal uploads, telephone attempts, and an in-person handoff create no single view of what arrived or which deadline was satisfied.
Precarious
SNAP closes for unverified information, not for the time limit. Her exclusion depended on that SNAP case, so the Medicaid work requirement now applies to her for the first time. A coverage gap may interrupt treatment and complicate CPS service-plan progress, though that cascade is not inevitable.
Still carrying the case
The ten-day window to appeal and keep benefits running passes before anyone mentions it. Janice pursues restoration while separately calling food, medical-navigation, workforce, or behavioral-health resources. An offered referral can disappear after the handoff.
Integrated
Alert, not blindsided
A consented cross-program flag prompts accessible outreach that names both programs, the known dates, and what remains to be determined.
Oriented
A reusable HR1 screen settles her SNAP work-requirement status first, because it decides both programs, then names each remaining exception question without promising an outcome.
Supported
Staff check the records the agency already holds and write down what came back. Where a signed statement is accepted, they take one. They ask Janice only for what is still missing, and put it in one consented packet with a named owner.
Able to check
A shared deadline view records what was sent, where, when, by whom, and whether the receiving program accepted it.
Not abandoned
Pre-closure outreach identifies unmatched proof before the closure date, warns that closing SNAP would start the Medicaid work requirement, and plans treatment continuity while the determination is made.
A next step is real
Staff name the ten-day appeal window while it is still open, support the review or restoration path, and track each alternative from offered to contacted, enrolled, and service received.
Indignities
Removed 2
Remaining 1
Removed 1
Remaining 2
Removed 3
Remaining 0
noneRemoved 1
Remaining 2
Removed 0
noneRemaining 3
Removed 1
Remaining 2
Change
Shift
A deadline starts before the notices make sense together -> One coordinated explanation
Shift
The one determination that governs both programs goes unasked -> One written list of decisions and evidence needed
Shift
She describes the violence and her treatment again, first to her provider and then to a form -> Evidence is requested once and reused where permitted
Shift
Duplicate submissions without confirmation -> Receipt and exception ownership are visible
Shift
One unresolved proof item ends food and opens a second work rule -> Avoidable churn is challenged before the deadline
Shift
A preventable gap, then unconfirmed alternatives -> Unresolved gaps remain visible to an owner
Experience
Current system
Fragmented touchpoints
Each service can do its own work while the person is left to carry the thread between them.
Touchpoint sequence
01 SNAP notice
02 Medicaid notice
03 Safe-house mail
04 Benefits portal
05 Behavioral-health provider
06 CPS service plan
07 Appeal channels
08 Alternative-service referrals
Continuity breaks
Where the thread drops
01
Each program asks the household question differently
02
One SNAP determination silently governs both work rules
03
Exemption evidence has no clear owner
04
Proof receipt does not equal acceptance
05
Losing SNAP starts the Medicaid work requirement
06
The ten-day appeal window closes before anyone names it
07
Referral offered does not equal service received
Integrated system
Coordinated service path
Shared context and explicit handoffs reduce the work required of the person without hiding constraints the system cannot remove.
Touchpoint sequence
01 Reusable HR1 screen
02 SNAP work-requirement status of record
03 Consented proof packet
04 Shared deadline view
05 Pre-closure outreach
06 Treatment-continuity plan
07 Closed-loop alternative tracking
Continuity improves
What changes
01
SNAP work-requirement status is settled first, because it governs both programs
02
The required ex-parte check runs first, and what it returned is recorded
03
Requirements and unresolved determinations are distinguished
04
Submission and acceptance are tracked separately
05
The ten-day appeal window is named while it is still open
06
Offered, contacted, enrolled, and received are separate outcomes