Once it is determined that there is state action and that a life, property, or liberty interest is being affected, then due process must be afforded. Generally, due process requires that the affected person or entity be pro-vided with notice of a possible deprivation and a hearing. The form of the notice and hearing varies, depending on the facts of each case. Due process is a flexible concept, adapting to the facts of each case.

Courts employ a cost-benefit analysis when deciding what procedure must be afforded. In all instances, due process requires no-tice and an opportunity to respond. What must be determined is whether a person is entitled to no-tice before or after some governmental action is taken and the type of response that must be permitted. Will a simple informal presentation to an agency official satisfy due process, or must a full evidentiary-type hearing be conducted? These are not easy questions to answer in all instances.

The interests of the individual in receiving extended procedural protections are weighed against the interests of the government in minimizing the process. The “risk of an erroneous de-privation of interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,” is considered. Said another way, the harm and cost to the government of providing additional process must be weighed against the harm the individual will suffer if not afforded additional process. From this balancing, the determination of what procedures are justified is made.