State Regulations

Compare

The County Food Assistance Office must consider as "known to the agency" only that information that is or has been reported to the Food Assistance Office and/or the Family Assistance Office. Information known to a service worker, child support worker or adult services worker is not considered known to the Food Stamp Office for the purpose of establishing a claim.

Administrative Errors that may result in a claim include, but are not limited to:

* The county department failed to take prompt action on a change reported by the household.

* The county department incorrectly computed the household's income or deductions, or otherwise assigned an incorrect allotment.

* The county department continued to provide the household food assistance benefits after its certification period ended without a redetermination of eligibility.

* The county department failed to provide a household a reduced level of benefits when the Family Assistance (FA) grant was approved or changed.

* Data was incorrectly entered in the computer, resulting in an incorrect allotment being issued to the household.

* The county department either failed to take timely action on information provided through the Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) which was considered verified upon receipt, or failed to follow up on IEVS information which was not considered verified upon receipt.

Situations that may result in an IHE claim include but are not limited to the following:

. The household unintentionally failed to provide the county department with correct or complete information.

. The household unintentionally failed to report to the county department changes in its household circumstances.

. The household unintentionally received benefits that it was not entitled to receive pending a fair hearing decision because the household requested a continuation of benefits based on the mistaken belief that it was entitled to such benefits.

A claim is considered a Suspected Intentional Program Violation (SIPV) claim until a determination is made that an Intentional Program Violation occurred through either the Administrative Disqualification Hearing process or court proceedings.

Benefits that are trafficked are considered Suspected Intentional Program Violations (SIPV).

State Regulations

Compare

Inadvertent overpayment may be the results of agency or household error. In all cases a claim must be established and collection action must be initiated. Repayment may be accepted in a lump sum or in negotiated payments. These may be in the form of cash, food stamps, offsets from underpayment, use of small claims court, income tax intercepts, or, in the case of participating households, voluntary withholding of part of the allotment.

Author: Jeremy Barnes

Statutory Authority: 7 C.F.R. 273.16 , 273.18 ; Code of Ala. 1975 , § 38-2-6 .

State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.

State Regulations

Compare

* For a period of twelve months for the first IPV.

* For a period of twenty-four months for the second IPV.

* Permanently for the third occasion of any IPV.

* Individuals found by a federal, state or local court to have used or received benefits in a transaction involving the sale of a controlled substance shall be ineligible to participate in the program for a period of twenty-four months upon the first occasion of such violation and permanently upon the second occasion of such violation.

* Individuals found by a federal, state or local court to have used or received benefits in a transaction involving the sale of firearms, ammunition or explosives shall be permanently ineligible to participate in the program upon the first occasion of such violation.

* Individuals convicted by a federal, state or local court having trafficked benefits for an aggregate amount of $500 or more shall be permanently ineligible to participate in the food stamp program upon the first occasion of such violation.

* Individuals found to have made a fraudulent statement or representation with respect to their identify and/or place of residence in order to receive multiple benefits simultaneously shall be ineligible to participate in the Food Stamp Program for a period of 10 years.

There are situations where a client is suspected of multiple Intentional Program Violations over a period of time. Multiple violations may be the subject of a single hearing. The client may be found guilty of each violation separately, but only one disqualification penalty shall be imposed.

* When there are two or more separate program violations causing

* overissuances at different times, but discovered at the same time, one claim shall be established and one penalty imposed when fraud is confirmed.

* When there have been two program violations occurring at essentially the same time, but the second violation is not discovered until the client is already serving a disqualification period, a second disqualification shall not be imposed. This is due to the fact that a disqualification for that period of time is already being served.

* The second violation must have occurred after the client was interviewed about the first violation and advised of penalties for subsequent violations before a second disqualification can be imposed. However, there must be a hearing to determine what classification should be given to this second violation.

* Should a second program violation occur after the claim for the first program violation has been established, a new claim shall be established. The next level of disqualification will be imposed if the household is found guilty of IPV.

* If a second disqualification, for whatever reason, is imposed while a client is currently serving a disqualification, the second disqualification shall run concurrently with the first disqualification.

If a court fails to impose a disqualification or a disqualification period for any IPV case, the agency shall impose the appropriate disqualification penalty specified in this section.

One or more IPVs that occurred prior to April 1, 1983 shall be considered as only one previous disqualification when determining the appropriate penalty to impose in a case under consideration.

Only the individual found to have committed the IPV, or who signed the waiver or the consent agreement shall be disqualified and not the entire household.

Although the individual is disqualified, the household, as defined in Section 100, is responsible for making restitution for the amount of any overpayment. All IPV claims must be established and collected in accordance with established procedures.

The Disqualified Recipient Subsystem (DRS), found on the Comprehensive Claims System's fraud menu, allows states to share disqualification records. This system should be accessed to determine if the individual to be disqualified has any prior Intentional Program Violations in order to determine the appropriate period of disqualification for the current offense.

Once an individual has been found guilty of an IPV, the appropriate disqualification penalty should be registered on the Comprehensive Claims System Disqualification Add screen for tracking of the disqualification imposed and to allow adding the disqualification to the DRS.

State Regulations

Compare

Author: Jeremy Barnes

Statutory Authority: 7 C.F.R. 273.16 , 273.18 ; Code of Ala. 1975 , §§ 38-2-6 , 41-22-1 through -27.

State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.