Page 2

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICES CERTIFICATION HEARINGS FNS 705 ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING

2 Section 705 Change #03-2022 July 01, 2022 Treat suspected IPV cases as Inadvertent Household Error (IHE) claims when the local agency does not initiate criminal prosecution or an ADH. See Section 815, Inadvertent Household Error Claims. 705.02 LIMITATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISQUALIFICATION HEARINGS A. The burden of proof that an individual has committed an Intentional Program Violation (IPV) rests with the local agency. The proof must be clear and convincing. Clear and convincing proof is more than the greater weight of the evidence, but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing is defined as the measure or degree of proof which will produce in a reasonable person a firm belief or conviction that the individual committed the alleged act(s). B. Do not conduct an Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH) on a case that was referred to the court system for prosecution if the charges were dismissed or the individual was found not guilty by the court. C. It is allowable to conduct an ADH if prosecution is declined by the appropriate legal authority, or when no action is taken within a reasonable period of time and the referral is formally withdrawn by the local agency. EXAMPLE: A person suspected of committing an IPV is referred for prosecution, but because the individual has moved to another state, a warrant cannot be served. The local agency may formally withdraw the warrant and notify the client of an ADH via Certified Mail, return receipt requested. D. An ADH may be held in order to pursue disqualification even if a claim will not be established. This is possible when a front-end investigation demonstrates clear and convincing evidence that an IPV occurred, but no benefits were issued. Also, a regular investigation reveals an over issuance is less than $125 for a non-participating household, and no claim will be established because the over issuance is not due to trafficking or discovered by quality control. E. Do not schedule an ADH or offer the client a Waiver of ADH if the case is being considered for criminal prosecution. Decide which action is appropriate using locally established procedures with your District Attorney. Consider factors such as: the amount of the claim, and the number of acts of IPV. Do not consider a person’s ability to pay on a claim when deciding between an ADH or referral for criminal prosecution. Do not offer a client a Waiver of ADH as a means of avoiding criminal prosecution. F. A second party review is required to ensure there is clear and convincing evidence of an IPV before scheduling an ADH or mailing a notice and waiver.