Page 375

Page 142 of 202 § 10:90-12.5. Evaluating county/municipal agency performance

ii. WFNJ/GA cases identified as having sufficient evidence to support fraudulent activity shall be investigated for fraud, including referral for findings of intentional program violations (see N.J.A.C. 10:90-11); and iii. Appropriate activity shall be initiated, as a result of local fraud investigative findings; and 5. Other evaluations, such as: i. Status of county or municipal agency performance as determined by DFD from results of other evaluation findings; and ii. A special performance evaluation shall constitute the undertaking of a statistically valid eligibility review in a specific county or municipal agency, when the DFD determines that a county or municipality cannot reasonably provide a legitimate reason for the following occurrences: (1) At the end of each calendar quarter (March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31), a county's or municipality's expenditures exceed its estimate to an extent proportionally in excess of other counties or municipalities of equal size; or (2) A pattern of non-payment of WFNJ/GA exists in a specific county or municipality. (b) County or municipal agency performance, as appropriate, shall be evaluated as follows: 1. When a routine performance evaluation is conducted, overall county or municipal performance shall be measured using no less than an 85 percent tolerance level for each of the evaluation categories identified at (a)1 through 5 above (that is, administration of WFNJ/GA program, emergency assistance, fiscal, fraud, and other evaluations). i. Satisfactory performance shall mean that a county or municipality has achieved a rating of at least 85 percent in all of the evaluation categories. (1) A satisfactory performance rating shall not be subject to county or municipal appeal. ii. Below satisfactory performance shall mean a rating of below 85 percent in one or more of the evaluation categories. 2. When a special performance evaluation is conducted, county or municipal performance shall be measured in accordance with the DFD's established Quality Assurance review procedures. Review results indicating agency error shall be handled as follows: i. If excessive county or municipal expenditures are identified and the review results in a finding of overpayments or payments made to ineligible individuals, audit exception shall be initiated against the agency based on individual cases found incorrect due to agency error.