Proposed Rule2023-20023
Provisions To Improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Quality Control System
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 19, 2023
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentFood and Nutrition Service
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (the Department) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking to improve the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) quality control (QC) system as required in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill). The proposed changes are intended to strengthen and improve the integrity and accuracy of the SNAP QC system and to better align SNAP with requirements in the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA). These changes include a significant adjustment to the SNAP QC system that involves changes to Federal and State agency sampling processes, as well as changes to the active case review process. Quality Control case sampling and review processes are key aspects of the system used to annually assess SNAP payment error rates. The Department requests comment on this rule's proposed provisions.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64756-64789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20023]
[[Page 64755]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 180
September 19, 2023
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Nutrition Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR Parts 271 and 275
Provisions To Improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's
Quality Control System; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64756]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 271 and 275
[FNS-2020-0016]
RIN 0584-AE79
Provisions To Improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program's Quality Control System
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (the Department) is issuing
this notice of proposed rulemaking to improve the Food and Nutrition
Service's (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
quality control (QC) system as required in the Agriculture Improvement
Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill). The proposed changes are intended to
strengthen and improve the integrity and accuracy of the SNAP QC system
and to better align SNAP with requirements in the Payment Integrity
Information Act of 2019 (PIIA). These changes include a significant
adjustment to the SNAP QC system that involves changes to Federal and
State agency sampling processes, as well as changes to the active case
review process. Quality Control case sampling and review processes are
key aspects of the system used to annually assess SNAP payment error
rates. The Department requests comment on this rule's proposed
provisions.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 20,
2023 to ensure their consideration.
ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested
persons to submit written comments on this proposed rule. Comments may
be submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
--Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
--Mail: Send comments to John M., Branch Chief, Quality Control Branch,
Program Accountability and Administration Division; Food and Nutrition
Service; 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor; Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
--Email: Send comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84d7cac5d4d5c7d6e1e2ebf6e9c4f1f7e0e5aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e7d606f7e7f6d7c4b48415c436e5b5d4a4f00494158">[email protected]</span></a>. Include Docket ID
Number FNS-2020-0016, ``Provisions to Improve the SNAP QC System'' in
the subject line of the message.
--All written comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will
be included in the record and will be made available to the public.
Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity
of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject
to public disclosure. FNS will make the written comments publicly
available on the internet via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John M., 703-457-7747, Food and
Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th Floor, Alexandria, Virginia
22314, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6a5b8b7a6a7b5a4939099849bb683859297d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a39242b3a3b29380f0c0518072a1f190e0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Contents
a. Acronyms or Abbreviations
b. Severability Clause
II. Background/History
a. SNAP QC--In General
b. Farm Bill Provisions
c. Improper Payment Determinations
d. Historical Information Supporting Congress' Request for
Improvement and QC Reform
i. State QC Integrity Reviews (QCIRs)
ii. FNS Response
e. SNAP QC--Current Processes
f. New Proposed QC Approach
III. General (This section begins discussion of the proposed
provisions)
a. Terminology Clean Up
b. Subpart A--Administration
i. Staffing Standards
ii. FNS Access to State Systems
iii. Federal Monitoring--Federal Subsampling
iv. Sampling--Federal Sub Sample
v. Federal Monitoring--Arbitration
c. Subpart C--Quality Control (QC) Reviews
i. Sampling--General
ii. Sampling Plan--Content
iii. Sampling Plan--Design
iv. Sample Size--Active and Negative Cases
v. Sample Size--Alternative Designs
vi. Sample Selection--Corrections
vii. Sample Frame--Active Cases
viii. Sample Universe--Active Cases
ix. Active Sample Allocation and Weighting
x. Review of Active Cases--General
xi. Review of Active Cases--Household Case Record Review
xii. Review of Active Cases--Field Investigation
xiii. Review of Active Cases--Personal Interviews
xiv. Review of Active Cases--Collateral Contacts
xv. Review of Active Cases--Variance Identification
xvi. Review of Active Cases--Variances Excluded From the Error
Analysis
xvii. Review of Active Cases--Other Findings
xviii. Review of Active Cases--Reporting of Review Findings
xix. Review of Active Cases--Disposition of Case Reviews
d. Subpart E--Corrective Action
i. Corrective Action Planning--Negative Cases
ii. Corrective Action Planning--Incomplete Cases
e. Subpart F--Responsibilities for Reporting on Program
Performance
i. Quality Control Review Reports--Mandating the Use of SNAP QC
System
f. Subpart G--Program Performance
i. Determination of State Agency Program Performance--
Determination of Payment Error Rates
ii. State Agency Error Rates--Completion Rate Penalty
iii. High Performance Bonuses
iv. Performance Measures--Program Access Index
g. Proposed Timeframe for Implementation of QC Sampling and
Active Review Changes
IV. Procedural Matters
V. Amendatory Text
Acronyms or Abbreviations
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334), the 2018 Farm
Bill
Case and Procedural Error Rate, CAPER
Code of Federal Regulations, CFR
Corrective Action Plan, CAP
Department of Justice, DOJ
Federal Quality Control Reviewer, FQCR
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, FNA
Food and Nutrition Service, FNS
Office of Management and Budget, OMB
Payment Error Rate, PER
Quality Control, QC
Quality Control Reviewer, QCR
Regional Office, RO
Request for Information, RFI
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Automated Quality
Control System, SNAP-QCS
State Quality Control Reviewer, SQCR
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department or USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, USDA OIG
Severability: The Department proposes that certain individual
components of this proposed rule are severable and seeks comment on
that proposal. Specifically, the Department considers changes proposed
in the following sections to be severable: Staffing Standards; FNS
Access to State Systems; Federal Monitoring--Arbitration; Review of
Active Cases--Other Findings; Review of Active Cases--Disposition of
Case Reviews (with the exception of changes proposed to 7 CFR
275.12(g)(2)); Corrective Action Planning--Negative Cases; Corrective
Action Planning--Incomplete Cases; State Agency Error Rates--Completion
Rate Penalty; and Performance Measures. If a court were to find
unlawful any or some combination of this rule as finalized, the
Department still would intend any individual or combination of the
above sections of
[[Page 64757]]
this proposed rule to stand. The Department seeks comment regarding
considerations about whether stakeholders consider those and any other
provisions in this proposed rule severable or not.
Background
SNAP QC--In General
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the
nation's largest domestic food assistance program for Americans,
reaching about 40 million people (approximately 12 percent of the
nation's population) per month during fiscal year 2020.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-assistance-data-collaborative-research-programs/snap-and-wic-administrative-data/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-assistance-data-collaborative-research-programs/snap-and-wic-administrative-data/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Federal government funds SNAP benefits, under 7 U.S.C.
2020(a)(1), State agencies are responsible for general program
administration of SNAP within their States, including determining the
eligibility of individuals and households to receive SNAP benefits and
issuing monthly allotments of benefits.
However, given the large volume of SNAP cases, complexities of
eligibility policies, and availability of State options, State agencies
may issue overpayments or underpayments of SNAP allotments to
participant households.
Pursuant to Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as
amended (FNA), each State agency is responsible for monitoring and
improving its administration of SNAP. A Quality Control (QC) system is
necessary to help ensure State agencies measure improper payments and
improve their administration of SNAP. SNAP QC reviews have four goals,
identified at 7 CFR 275.10(b), which are to provide: (1) a systematic
method of measuring the validity of the SNAP eligibility caseload; (2)
a basis for determining all SNAP error rates; (3) a timely, continuous
flow of information on which to base corrective action at all levels of
administration; and (4) a basis for establishing State agency liability
for payment errors that exceed the National performance measure
pursuant to Section 16(c)(1)(C) of the FNA.
To comply with Section 16 of the FNA, State agencies conduct
monthly reviews of a statistically representative sample of both
participating SNAP households (active cases) and households for whom
participation was denied, terminated, or suspended (negative cases).
These reviews measure the accuracy of SNAP eligibility and ongoing
allotment determinations and ultimately serve as the basis for the SNAP
payment error rate (PER) and case and procedural error rate (CAPER).\2\
The results of these reviews provide feedback on State-by-State and
national administration of the Program, including how State agencies'
chosen policy options, waivers, and business processes affect the
accuracy of their eligibility determinations. In short, the QC system
allows FNS and the States to assess the integrity of SNAP by
determining the extent to which the program is operating as required by
statute and regulations. The system directly measures the accuracy of
State actions to certify households as eligible for SNAP allotments and
to determine the amount of those allotments, which are the actions that
States should prioritize to ensure effective stewardship of taxpayer
dollars and effective service to households in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In fiscal year 2012, the procedures for reviewing cases in
the negative frame changed to include the State's procedural
processes in determining a negative case's validity. FNS has
referred to the negative error rate since then as the case and
procedural error rate, or CAPER, to reflect this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Bill Provisions
On December 20, 2018, the President signed Public Law 115-334, the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill). Section 4013(b)
of the 2018 Farm Bill required the Department to issue an interim final
rule to: (1) ensure the SNAP QC system produces valid statistical
results; (2) provide for the oversight of contracts entered into by a
State agency to improve payment accuracy; (3) ensure the accuracy of
data collected in the QC system; and (4) provide for the evaluation of
the integrity of the QC system for a minimum of two State agencies per
fiscal year. Section 4013(e) of the 2018 Farm Bill also required that
cost sharing for State computerization costs be, in part, contingent on
State agencies granting FNS access to all State computer systems
containing documentation and evidence related to SNAP eligibility. The
Department determined that the most effective way to meet the statutory
requirements was to issue two rules: (1) an IFR for the non-
discretionary provisions, which FNS believed were necessary to comply
with the 2018 Farm Bill and would be effective immediately, and (2) a
proposed rule for the additional, discretionary provisions to improve
the integrity and data quality of SNAP QC. By doing so, the Department
ensures that major discretionary changes to SNAP QC go through the full
notice and comment process, which allows stakeholders an opportunity to
be part of the rulemaking process.
The Department codified all the non-discretionary requirements in
Section 4013(b) in SNAP regulations by publishing the interim final
rule (IFR) titled, ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Non-
Discretionary Quality Control Provisions of the Agricultural
Improvement Act of 2018'' on August 13, 2021 (86 FR 44575.\3\) A
correction to that interim final rule was published on September 2,
2021 (86 FR 49229 \4\) and the final rule was published on April 18,
2023 (88 FR 23559 \5\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-18/pdf/2023-08122.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-18/pdf/2023-08122.pdf</a>.
\4\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-09-02/pdf/2021-18743.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-09-02/pdf/2021-18743.pdf</a>.
\5\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-18/pdf/2023-08005.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-04-18/pdf/2023-08005.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improper Payment Determinations
The SNAP QC review process precedes Federal improper payment laws,
including the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (PIIA) (Pub. L.
116-117.\6\) These PIIA requirements include: identifying any case that
a reviewer is unable to determine the accuracy of (known as an
incomplete case) as an improper payment (31 U.S.C. 3352(c)(2)); and
measuring technically improper payments, or payments in which a
recipient was entitled to a payment but the payment failed to follow
statutory or regulatory requirements (31 U.S.C. 3351(4)). With
Congress' requirement to improve the SNAP QC system, the Department is
including proposed changes in this rule that will better align SNAP
with requirements in PIIA. In addition, the proposed shift in review
focus for active cases (discussed later) will align the SNAP QC review
process for determining SNAP payment errors more closely with the
processes used to determine improper payments in other Federal programs
that provide benefits to similar populations (e.g., Medicaid and the
Earned Income Tax Credit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ S.375--116th Congress (2019-2020): Payment Integrity
Information Act of 2019 [bond] <a href="http://Congress.gov">Congress.gov</a> [bond]Library of
Congress: <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/375">https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/375</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Information Supporting Congress' Request for Improvement and
QC Reform
The section that follow discusses challenges FNS faced and overcame
that impacted the integrity of the QC system in the recent past;
specifically, the challenges that occurred when State agencies
introduced bias into the QC system's data. While FNS addressed the
[[Page 64758]]
issues and has since regained confidence in the integrity of the data
collected by State agencies, additional improvements and changes to the
QC system will help ensure SNAP's QC system will be less susceptible to
bias. The historical information below offers context and support for
Congress' request for improvement and the reform proposals in this
rule.
In 2015, an audit of SNAP QC's error rate determination process by
the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG)),\7\ and FNS's study
on Enhancing Completion Rates for SNAP QC Reviews,\8\ both identified
issues with the reliability of State-reported QC data. The OIG
recommendations included that FNS amend and enforce its policies to
ensure payment error rates are accurate and in compliance with
regulations, and that FNS eliminate the two-comparison allotment test
process, which is used to determine payment errors. FNS's Completion
Rate study identified QC system issues including: the performance bonus
system's creation of financial incentives for State agencies to
underreport payment errors (which was subsequently eliminated by the
2018 Farm Bill), and State agencies' improper coding of QC cases as
incomplete in order to reduce their payment errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ <a href="https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0002-41.pdf</a>.
\8\ <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/enhancing-completion-rates-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-quality-control-reviews">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/enhancing-completion-rates-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-quality-control-reviews</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State QC Integrity Reviews (QCIRs)
To identify the full extent of the QC data reliability issues, FNS
began QCIRs in April 2015 and completed reviews of all 53 State
agencies by September 2016. The purpose of the QCIRs was to validate
that State agency QC systems did not include bias, as bias impacts the
integrity of the data. During these reviews, FNS was able to validate
only 11 State agencies' QC systems for FY 2015 and found data integrity
issues in the remaining 42 States. As a result, FNS was unable to use
the States' QC data to establish State or national SNAP payment error
rates for FY 2015 and FY 2016.
The findings from the reviews fell into four categories related to
integrity in the QC system and aligned with ways to mitigate errors.
The first category centered on inadequate documentation. FNS found more
than half of the State agencies were not properly documenting
information in the QC case file, as required in the SNAP QC Review
Handbook (the FNS-310).\9\ Inadequate documentation prevents FNS from
having the information needed to do a thorough and independent
validation of the cases completed by State agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ <a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/FNS_310_Handbook.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/FNS_310_Handbook.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second category concerned improper use of error review
committees. State agencies may use error review committees after State
quality control reviewers (SQCRs) transmit completed QC cases to FNS,
to identify corrective actions that may be needed to improve the
accuracy of eligibility and allotment determinations. However, State
agencies are strictly prohibited from using error review committees
prior to the SQCR transmission of completed QC cases to FNS. On August
1, 2005, after identifying concerns regarding the improper use of error
review committees, FNS issued a policy memorandum \10\ on the proper
use of an error review committee to develop corrective action to
prevent future errors. The memo reiterated that FNS prohibited the use
of such committees to mitigate errors in cases actively under review.
Despite this longstanding guidance, in the FY 2015 QCIRs, FNS
discovered more than half of the State agencies continued to use error
review committees inappropriately to discuss and mitigate the errors
found in cases actively under review before submitting review results
to FNS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ <a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/QCPolicyMemo05-01.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/snap/QCPolicyMemo05-01.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third category of findings from the QCIRs related to the
failure of more than half the State agencies to disclose complete case
information to FNS, as required by 7 CFR 275.23(b). This finding
included some State agencies refusing to give FNS access to their
systems for auditing purposes, as required by Section 16(c)(4) of the
FNA. Section 4013(a)(2) of the 2018 Farm Bill addressed this and
required State agencies to give FNS access to their State systems for
QC and oversight purposes. Section 4013(e)(2) of the 2018 Farm Bill
required cost-sharing for computerization to be conditioned on State
agencies being able to provide FNS access to their systems for audit
and inspection purposes. The 2018 IFR codified the requirement to give
FNS access, and this proposed rule includes the cost-sharing condition
from Section 4013(e)(2) of the 2018 Farm Bill for State agencies to
give FNS access.
The fourth category of findings from the QCIRs found that more than
half of the State agencies were incorrectly interpreting and applying
certification policy, sometimes intentionally, to mitigate QC errors.
For example, during QC reviews, some State agencies were using an
inappropriate number of weeks or months to determine a household's
earned income. This approach led to the QC reviewer artificially
increasing or decreasing the earned income amount of the household,
with the goal of obtaining a result that more closely matched the
amount used at the eligibility and allotment determination, thus
mitigating the likelihood and potential impact of a payment error.
As a result of FNS's initial integrity findings in 2015, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating State agencies for
violations of Federal law in connection with the underreporting of SNAP
QC payment errors. Between 2017 and 2021, DOJ settled with eight States
for False Claims Act allegations of introducing bias into their QC
processes. In addition, DOJ settled with a contracting company that
provided QC support to all eight State agencies.
FNS Response
In January 2016, in response to early findings from the QCIRs, FNS
issued a policy memorandum \11\ to address concerns with the integrity
of State agency QC systems. The memorandum reiterated and clarified FNS
policies that are necessary to prevent bias from entering the QC
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/integrity-snap-quality-control-system">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/integrity-snap-quality-control-system</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2016, after completing all QCIRs, FNS issued revisions
to its primary QC case review policy manual, the FNS Handbook 310,\12\
to help address FNS' and OIG's concerns regarding the integrity of the
QC system. These revisions reinforced the January 2016 policy
memorandum and addressed other issues affecting QC system integrity,
including documentation and verification in QC reviews. By November
2016, FNS had trained all Federal quality control reviewers (FQCR) and
SQCRs on the new manual and integrity-related provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fns-handbook-310">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fns-handbook-310</a> <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fns-handbook-310">https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fns-handbook-310</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the QCIRs, and while working with State agencies to address
findings and resolve corrective action plans, FNS found the complex
structure of QC reviews contributed to not only unintentional mistakes,
but also to an environment that allowed for both the manipulation and
mitigation of SNAP QC payment error findings. For instance, the QC
review begins with an examination of the sample month circumstances for
a household, which could be any month of the household's certification
period. However, because of the complexity of Federal SNAP
[[Page 64759]]
certification policy, as well as State SNAP policy options and waivers,
reviews regularly involve a reviewer assessing household circumstances
across multiple months. FNS determined this complexity creates an
opportunity for both purposeful errors and unintentional review
mistakes and, in some cases, can blur the connection between payment
errors found during the QC review process and the relevant
certification actions, which is where errors are occurring.
Often it is not possible for SQCRs to complete cases due to
difficulties associated with obtaining verifications for past months
and securing household cooperation. For instance, to simplify
administrative procedures, some State agencies have chosen to implement
a policy that allows them to forego verification of shelter expenses at
certification if the expenses are not questionable. In the QC system,
there are no comparable options, and these expenses must always be
verified. While certification rules allow for a waiver of the
requirement to verify expenses that are not questionable,\13\ these
rules do not waive the requirement that correct expenses be used to
determine program eligibility and allotments. SNAP households may then
be skeptical of the SQCR's request for verifications of their shelter
costs since it was not required for the certification worker to
determine an allotment amount, increasing the odds that the household
will not comply with the QC review. Additionally, the household may not
be able to supply verification because they do not have a copy of the
required record or did not retain it, not having needed it previously.
In this circumstance, the SQCR would determine the case incomplete
since the required verifications were unavailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As determined by guidelines promulgated pursuant to 7 CFR
273.2(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conclusion that the complexity of SNAP eligibility policy and
the QC system's complexity played a major role in many of the integrity
issues led FNS to explore ways to simplify and improve the QC review
process. On June 1, 2018, the Department published a Request for
Information (RFI) in the Federal Register (83 FR 25425 \14\) to solicit
input on how best to simplify and improve the QC system. FNS received
26 unique comments in response to the publication. This preamble
references substantive comments from the 2018 RFI in the relevant
sections that follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/01/2018-11849/request-for-information-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-quality-control-integrity-and">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/01/2018-11849/request-for-information-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-quality-control-integrity-and</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS also conducted focus groups with stakeholders who work in State
SNAP QC and certification policy, social science research partners with
government programs, and hunger advocates on conceptual ideas for the
proposed provisions in this rule. These focus groups assisted FNS in
identifying areas of concern, particularly with changing the review
focus to a narrower eligibility scope.
Additionally, during national and regional conferences, State and
Federal staff verbally expressed to FNS an interest in narrowing the QC
review to focus solely on the eligibility action to simplify the QC
review and increase compliance with QC review requirements while still
maintaining a focus on measuring the validity of critical State agency
decisions. This narrowed focus is consistent with how other social
safety net programs (e.g., Medicaid, earned income tax credit) measure
improper payments. These other programs do not measure ongoing
administration of benefits, as is done in SNAP's current QC review
process. Creating such an alignment would allow Congress and others to
compare improper payments more effectively across social safety net
programs.
SNAP QC--Current Processes
To assist the reader in understanding the review process changes
being proposed, this section discusses how the QC review process is
currently structured. The SNAP QC system \15\ consists of two tiers, a
State tier and a Federal tier. At the State agency level, a
statistician develops a sampling plan consistent with Federal
regulations at 7 CFR 275.11 that the State agency then submits to FNS
for approval. Each month, according to that sampling plan, State
agencies select a sample of active cases (7 CFR 275.12) and negative
cases (7 CFR 275.13) from the universe of their SNAP caseload and
conduct reviews of the cases to determine the accuracy of the
determination and allotment amount. Active cases are comprised of those
households who are participating in SNAP and negative cases are
comprised of cases in which the State agency acted to deny, terminate,
or suspend a household or applicant (7 CFR 275.10(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Discussed throughout 7 CFR 275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SQCRs must schedule and conduct face-to-face interviews with
households selected for review in the active sample frame (7 CFR
275.12(c)(1)).\16\ There are few exceptions to a face-to-face interview
for QC. For instance, State agencies may conduct telephonic interviews
for hard-to-reach Alaskan households (7 CFR 275.12(c)) or in situations
of a declared disaster using the SNAP waiver process (7 CFR 272.3(c)).
SQCRs use the information gathered during interviews along with
information in the case files, various databases, and documentation
from collateral contacts, such as neighbors, banks, and employers,
during the review (7 CFR 275.12(c)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FNS temporarily provided State agencies the flexibility to
conduct QC interviews by telephone to assist State agencies in case
completion during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The
flexibilities have been extended through September 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The review itself consists of an examination of a random month
during a case's certification period, called the sample month (7 CFR
275.12(a). SQCRs verify all factors of eligibility and allotment
issuance for that sample month and calculate an allotment amount based
off that information, which is referred to as the household budget
calculation (7 CFR 275.12(e)). They then compare that calculated amount
to the amount that was issued to the household for that month This is
called Comparison I. If Comparison I results in the household budget
calculation producing an allotment amount for the sample month that is
either over or under the household's authorized issuance amount for
that month, in an amount that exceeds the current fiscal year's
threshold for excluding small errors,\17\ the SQCR will conduct a
second comparison, called Comparison II. With Comparison II, the SQCR
would then examine the month in which the most recent certification
action occurred. The SQCR would correct any mistakes made at the time
of this certification action, compute another budget, calculate an
allotment amount based on those findings, and compare the SQCR budget
for the certification action to the amount that was authorized at the
certification action. If there is also a difference in the SQCR's
budget and the authorized budget for Comparison II, the SQCR uses the
lesser of the two determined error amounts as the case's payment
error.\18\ After States transmit cases to FNS, any QC finding of an
overissuance must be reported to the State office responsible for
claims, and underissuance cases must be reported to the State offices
responsible for
[[Page 64760]]
supplements, to evaluate and address whether an action must be taken on
the reviewed cases (7 CFR 275.12(f)). This requirement is not impacted
by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Under Section 16(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the FNA, the tolerance
level for excluding small errors is $37 for fiscal year 2014,
adjusted by the percentage adjustment of thrifty food plan for each
subsequent fiscal year. The most recently announced threshold, for
FY 2023, is $54.
\18\ As previously noted, the OIG's 2015 report recommended that
this two-comparison allotment test be eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all active frame cases,\19\ SQCRs enter their data into either
a paper or automated version of the form FNS-380, Worksheet for QC
Reviews (OMB Control Number: 0584-0074; Expiration Date: 07/31/2025),
to document the information needed to make a determination about the
accuracy of the case (7 CFR 275.21(b)). State agencies also code the
results of the reviews for all active cases onto the FNS-380-1, the QC
Review Schedule (OMB Control Number: 0584-0299; Expiration Date: 07/31/
2023; currently under review with OMB) (7 CFR 275.21(b)). State
agencies then submit the completed forms through SNAP's Federally
funded automated computer system, SNAP Quality Control System (SNAP-
QCS), for transmission to FNS (7 CFR 275.21(b)(1)). For negative frame
cases, State agencies complete form FNS-245, Negative Case Review
Schedule (OMB Control Number: 0584-0034; Expiration Date: 1212/31/2024)
(7 CFR 275.21(b)). and submit completed forms through SNAP-QCS (7 CFR
275.21(b)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ QC cases in the active frame are comprised of households
certified prior to or during the sample month and issued a SNAP
allotment for the sample month. QC review years follow the Federal
fiscal year from October through September the following year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS then works to validate the State agency findings. FQCRs, who
are in FNS regional offices, review a subsample of the active cases
reviewed by State agencies (7 CFR 275.3(d)(1)(i)). The subsample is
comprised not only of cases State agencies complete, but also of all
active cases the State agencies selected but were unable to complete,
and all cases that were determined by the State agency to be ``not
subject to review.'' \20\ After FQCRs identify the cases for the
subsample, they then request the relevant QC case file documents from
the State agencies and conduct a comprehensive, independent review of
each case (7 CFR 275.3(d)(1)(ii)).\21\ After case reviews are complete
and final determinations made, FNS calculates two error rates: (1) the
payment error rate (PER) for the active sampling frame (7 CFR
275.3(d)(1)); and (2) the case and procedural error rate (CAPER) for
the negative sampling frame (7 CFR 275.3(d)(3)). FNS also calculates an
annual application timeliness rate for State agencies with data from
the active sampling frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Not Subject to Review'' is a term that refers to cases
that are not subject to quality control review. This means they do
not meet the requirements to be reviewed by a QC reviewer. Examples
include cases under active investigation by the State's fraud unit
and cases where the household did not receive an allotment for the
sample month under review.
\21\ The FQCR review may result in agreement or disagreement
with the State's findings. When there is a disagreement, the State
can dispute the Federal finding. If the State office and RO cannot
agree on the outcome of a case, the State may appeal to the national
arbitrator, a neutral third party whose decisions are final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PER is based on the difference between the amount of allotments
issued to households and the amount those households should have
received had their cases been processed correctly (7 CFR 275.23(b)).
The overall PER is the sum of two breakdowns: underpayment and
overpayment error rates. For CAPER, the review of negative actions
considers procedural aspects of case processing in addition to whether
the action to deny, suspend, or terminate a household was accurate.
Procedural components of this review include timeliness of the action
and accuracy of the household notification, among other things. The
negative review results in a determination of whether the negative
actions were valid or invalid (7 CFR 275.13(c)(1)). The CAPER is based
on what percentage of the negative actions reviewed were invalid
compared to the total number of negative actions processed by the State
agency.
New Proposed QC Approach
The rest of this preamble will share the Department's proposals for
this rulemaking. The Department proposes to improve the SNAP QC active
review process using lessons learned from the QCIRs, the OIG audit, the
completion rate study on QC, the 2018 RFI \22\ on QC, and other
activities, such as technical assistance, that FNS has completed since
FY 2015. As such, the Department is proposing a different active case
review that: (1) would be less complicated, thus making it easier for
State agencies and households to comply with, FNS to oversee, and less
susceptible to bias; and (2) would still be capable of collecting
detailed program information regarding State agency administration and
the over and under issuance of SNAP allotments. In addition, the
proposed active review would resolve an ongoing concern from OIG about
how SNAP QC's use of Comparison I and Comparison II resulted in a
measurement from two different points in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNAP regulations require all SNAP State agencies to operate a QC
system (7 CFR 275.10(a)). Although the 2018 IFR increased various
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for State agencies to comply
with the 2018 Farm Bill, the active review process for the SNAP QC
system has remained relatively unchanged since February 1984 (49 FR
6292) \23\ and can be improved upon. Since SNAP's QC system existed at
least 25 years prior to the first Federal improper payment laws, such
as the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA). SNAP's active
QC review methodology and processes require adjustment to come into
alignment with other Federal programs where the improper payment
determination procedures were created after the first Federal improper
payment laws and associated regulations and guidance came into
existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ <a href="https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1984/2/17/6278-6313.pdf#page=33">https://archives.federalregister.gov/issue_slice/1984/2/17/6278-6313.pdf#page=33</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed process would change the active case review to focus
on eligibility actions instead of a random, point-in-time review for
each case. This proposed change would eliminate the two-comparison
allotment tests (Comparison I and Comparison II) from the QC review and
instead focus on eligibility determinations, consider cases that a
State agency cannot validate as total dollar errors, and alter the
sampling and sampling plan requirements to correspond to the changed
review focus.
To help the reader understand the flow of the proposed provisions
that follow, the provisions are organized in the same order as existing
regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 7 CFR part 275.
It is important to note, this is a proposed rule that requires public
comment before a final rule may implement any changes to SNAP's QC
system. The Department proposes the following provisions for comment.
General
Prior to discussing the provisions, the Department would like to
convey that this rule is very technical in nature. The provisions
discussed include specific detail about QC review processes and
detailed statistical formulas necessary to carry out the QC process.
The Department will continue to explain technical information
throughout this proposed rule when able; however, in areas where
precision and specific vocabulary are necessary to accurately convey
the proposal, such as with statistical formulae, an explanation in more
colloquial terms could result in an inaccurate portrayal of the
proposed concepts. Thus, the technical language will remain.
[[Page 64761]]
Terminology Updates
In 7 CFR parts 271 and 275, the Department proposes to update or
remove outdated and duplicative terminology and update currently
applicable terminology to reflect the proposed review process. The
following terms are no longer current: ``negative case error rate'' (or
``negative error rate'') and ``Immigration and Naturalization Services
(INS).'' Therefore, the Department proposes to change these to ``case
and procedural error rate (CAPER)'' \24\ and ``United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS),'' respectively. The
Department proposes to update the definition of ``overissuance'' to
remove reference to paper food stamp coupons. The Department proposes
to revise the definitions for ``active case,'' ``error,'' ``review
date,'' and ``sample month'' in 7 CFR 271.2 to reflect changes made by
this proposed rule. Additionally, the term ``active case error rate''
is currently used interchangeably with the term ``payment error rate''
throughout 7 CFR 275. To avoid confusion, the Department proposes to
use ``payment error rate'' consistently throughout 7 CFR 275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In fiscal year 2012, the procedures for reviewing cases in
the negative frame, changed to include the State's procedural
processes in determining a negative case's validity. FNS has
referred to the negative error rate since then as the case and
procedural error rate, or CAPER, to reflect this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A--Administration
7 CFR 275.2(b)--Staffing Standards
The Department proposes to add a provision in the Staffing
Standards section under 7 CFR 275.2(b) to specify the expectation that
State agencies ensure the independence and objectivity of the merit
staff performing QC case reviews. The QC integrity reviews found
instances where State agency managers were putting undue influence on
SQCRs to find that the eligibility worker's initial determination was
correct, as opposed to independently focusing on the accuracy of the
case, which is the purpose of the QC review. A separate audit completed
by USDA OIG further supported these findings, as well as action by DOJ
to settle allegations of violations of Federal law with eight State
agencies. These findings provide substantial evidence that SQCRs
reporting in the organizational structure to the same individuals
responsible for overseeing eligibility determinations has an adverse
effect on their ability to objectively review cases and determine
errors. To address these issues and ensure the accuracy of the PER and
CAPER estimates, the Department proposes to require a new provision in
7 CFR 275.2(b) that State agencies take proactive measures to ensure
SQCRs work independently and are free from undue influence by ensuring
the staff used to conduct QC reviews operate independently from those
responsible for overseeing the eligibility determination process to
ensure objective and accurate assessments of the Performance Reporting
System. For example, QC staff would not have the same immediate
supervisor or director as the eligibility staff.
In addition, the Department proposes to clarify the components that
constitute prior knowledge for purposes of staff disqualification under
7 CFR 275.2(b). The focus on integrity and bias in SNAP's QC system
generated concerns in State agencies about SQCRs unintentionally
biasing the QC process. FNS has heard from State agencies, anecdotally,
that QC workers were concerned that a staff person might know
information about a household one of their colleagues was reviewing but
felt that disclosing that information would be considered a prohibited
practice. The Department proposes to address this issue by removing the
current language at 7 CFR 275.2(b) and adding a modified provision to
QC's Staffing Standards at 7 CFR 275.2(b)(2) clarifying that even
though State agency staff must disqualify themselves from directly
working on a QC review if they have prior knowledge of a household,
they are allowed to participate in a QC review as a collateral contact
\25\ of the household. In such situations, the staff must follow the
governing rules regarding collateral contacts at 7 CFR 273.2(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For a definition of collateral contact, see 7 CFR
273.2(f)(4)(ii)--<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-273#p-273.2">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-273#p-273.2</a>(f)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 275.2(d)--FNS Access to State Systems
Section 4013(e)(2) of the 2018 Farm Bill--which amends Section
16(g)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (codified as 7 U.S.C.
2025(g)(1)(A))--specifies that cost sharing for computerization for
systems is an allowable SNAP administrative expense only when, among
other criteria, the Secretary determines the systems to be accessible
to the Department for review and audit purposes. Therefore, to
implement this statutory provision, in the paragraph at 7 CFR 275.2(d),
the Department is requiring cost sharing for State agency system costs
to be conditioned on, in part, FNS having access to all State agency
records and systems in which those records are contained.\26\ The
Department believes this will incentivize State agencies to make the
necessary changes to come into compliance with the requirement of
allowing remote access to State agency computer systems so that Federal
QC staff have access to the full case record for all QC sampled cases
to ensure the accuracy of the collected data. FNS will continue to work
with State agencies collaboratively to establish data sharing and
system integrity agreements to facilitate the required systems access.
This new sentence in 7 CFR 275.2(d) will reference existing regulations
and procedures for the suspension or disallowance of administrative
funds found at 7 CFR 277.16 if State agencies do not comply with the
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ State systems contain information on participants in a
multitude of different programs, each of which can have (as some
currently do) statutory and regulatory language prohibiting the
disclosure of such information outside of said program. As such, the
State systems must be able to limit user access to SNAP information
only before sharing the system with FNS for SNAP QC purposes to
ensure compliance with Federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 275.3(d)--Sampling--Federal Sub Sample
To be consistent with the changes proposed for State agency
sampling in 7 CFR 275.11, discussed later in this rule, the Department
proposes at 7 CFR 275.3(d)(1)(i)(A) to only have one minimum Federal
subsampling calculation table to determine the Federal subsampling pull
for the re-review of active cases. In addition to the change in Federal
subsample size, the Department also proposes the Federal subsample be
allocated across five strata in order to capture cases from each of the
points in time where the State agency makes a determination to
authorize or re-authorize benefits and to be consistent with the
weighting that is proposed to determine the State agency's sampling
frame. The five strata reflect all the possible action types and
reporting periods. Since the reporting system and certification period
length assigned at certification impact the number of reports that will
end up in the sampling universe under the proposed sampling procedures,
the five strata as well as weighting are used to ensure that all types
of households are included in the sampling universe and to even out
selection probabilities so that all cases have a chance to be selected
for sampling in determining the SNAP PER. The five strata are based on
the combination of action types (i.e., certification, recertification,
and when a required monthly, quarterly, or periodic
[[Page 64762]]
report is due and an allotment is issued in the following month) and
reporting period (i.e., less than six months, exactly six months, and
more than six months). FNS chose certifications, recertifications, and
required reports with allotments in the following month because they
are points in which the State agency must make an eligibility
determination or terminate the household from the Program. FNS based
the proposed strata on an analysis of the FY 2017 SNAP QC data (see
table).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strata Action type Reporting period Frequency Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....... Certification/ Less than 6 365 4.9
recertification. months.
B....... Redetermination.. Less than 6 94 1.3
months.
C....... Certification/ Exactly 6 months. 3,873 52.2
recertification.
D....... Redetermination.. Exactly 6 months. 1,628 21.9
E....... Any *............ More than 6 1,457 19.6
months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes the three actions: certification, recertification, and
redetermination.
The proposed changes to determine the Federal subsample would be
necessary to determine State agency PERs based on the new proposed
methodology. Under the proposed changes, the Federal subsample size
would be determined using the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average monthly reviewable caseload (N) Federal subsample target (n')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60,000 and over........................ n' = 400.
10,001 to 59,999....................... n' = .005 N + 100.
10,000 and under....................... n' = 150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the Federal subsample size n' is determined using Table 1
above, the Federal subsample must be allocated across the five strata
proportionally to the State final weights to ensure the Federal
subsample is self-weighting and there is no loss of precision due to
differential sampling probabilities. The Federal subsample size for
each stratum shall be determined as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE23.097
In the table formulas above: N is the sampling universe/monthly
caseload; F is the sampling frame; n is the state sampling size; n' is
the Federal subsample size; W is the state sampling weights; and W' is
the Federal sampling weights. For stratum i, the Federal subsample size
n'<INF>i</INF> shall be proportional to the sum of the final state
weights for that stratum, nixWi = N<INF>i,</INF> in other words
[[Page 64763]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE23.098
This means that the final weight for the cases selected for the Federal
subsample from stratum i, W'i, is given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE23.099
for every i, which is a constant across the strata.
7 CFR 275.3(d)(4)(i)(A)--Federal Monitoring--Arbitration
Currently, when there is a dispute between a State agency and FNS
regarding a finding (whether a case was correct, overissued,
underissued, or was ineligible as of the review date) or disposition
(whether a case was complete, not subject to review, incomplete, or the
case was deselected) of a QC case, the State agency may request
arbitration from the FNS Arbitrator. FNS's Arbitrator is the SNAP
Administrative and Judicial Review Branch. This Branch includes
administrative review officers who serve as a neutral third party, as
they do not directly work with SNAP certification policy or quality
control. The disputes subject to arbitration are limited to
disagreements over finding or disposition only and the arbitrator's
decision on a case is considered final and not subject to subsequent
appeal. Any other disagreements should be handled through an informal
resolution process, which is separate from the arbitration process.
FNS issued a policy memorandum dated November 7, 2003, that
provided procedures for arbitrating application processing timeliness
(APT) disagreements when the APT measure was first introduced. FNS
intended the memorandum to be temporary, covering FY 2003 only, but did
not identify an expiration date. The preamble in the final rule,
Quality Control Provisions of the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief
Act (62 FR 29652 \27\), published June 2, 1997, detailed the reasoning
for why arbitrations were only to be used for finding and disposition
disagreements. The Department noted that arbitrating ``agree cases,''
which encompasses disagreements solely on APT, would adversely impact
the accuracy and timeliness of the arbitration process. FNS discovered
in 2017 that some FNS regional offices were still allowing their State
agencies to arbitrate APT-only disagreements. The FNS national office
provided clarification through policy guidance, but to clarify the
Department's original intent in the 1997 Rule, the Department proposes
to update language in 7 CFR 275.3(d)(4)(i)(A) to clarify that, other
than those circumstances specified in regulations, other disagreements
would not be provided arbitration rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1997/06/02/97-13946/food-stamp-program-quality-control-provisions-of-the-mickey-leland-childhood-hunger-relief-act">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1997/06/02/97-13946/food-stamp-program-quality-control-provisions-of-the-mickey-leland-childhood-hunger-relief-act</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, current regulations instruct State agencies to send
arbitration requests to their FNS regional office, addressed to the
attention of the FNS Arbitrator. Over time, FNS found that by providing
the Arbitrator's contact information for State agencies to make direct
arbitration requests, FNS was not only able to provide better customer
service, but also have a more efficient request process. Therefore, the
Department proposes to update its regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(d)(4)(iv)
to require that a State agency send its request for arbitration
directly to the FNS Arbitrator and copy the appropriate FNS regional
office.
Subpart C--Quality Control (QC) Reviews
7 CFR 275.11--Sampling--General
Currently, the universe (all cases with the possibility of being
selected for the QC sample) for SNAP's active frame includes all
households receiving SNAP allotments in any given sample month. Under
this proposed rule, the active frame sample universe would no longer
include all households receiving SNAP allotments in any given sample
month. Instead, only those households that experienced an eligibility
action--i.e., certification for SNAP, recertification for SNAP, or
requirement to submit a required monthly, quarterly, or periodic report
in the sample month and an allotment is issued in the following month--
would constitute the universe for the active frame. The following
paragraphs in this preamble explain the proposed new sampling plan in 7
CFR 275.11, which would then be reviewed according to the proposed
sampling review procedures in 7 CFR 275.12.
7 CFR 275.11(a)(1)-(2)--Sampling Plan--Content and Criteria
Currently, at 7 CFR 275.11(a), State agencies have two options for
designing their minimum QC sampling size: a standard or a reduced
sample size. The Department proposes to remove the language about
alternative sampling designs at 7 CFR 275.11(a)(2) since, unlike the
current methodology, the proposed methodology would not be conducive to
State agencies utilizing a reduced sample size due to issues with
reliability of the estimates that would result from the sample size
reduction. This would include the removal of alternative sampling
related rules in subsections 7 CFR 275.11(a)(2)(iii) and 7 CFR
275.11(a)(2)(iv). In addition, the Department proposes to add language
in section 7 CFR 275.11(a)(2)(ii) about the sample size selection to
help State agencies ensure they follow the procedures set forth in
subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f).
7 CFR 275.11(a)(3)--Sampling Plan--Design
Computer programs and systems that assist in selecting probability
samples have progressed considerably since the publication of the
current QC regulations in 1977. Now, systematic sampling is but one of
the many possible ways to select a probability or random sample, and
there are new statistical software tools available that can easily draw
a random sample without using systematic sampling. The Department
proposes to amend the recommendation at 7 CFR 275.11(a)(3) that State
agencies should primarily utilize systematic sampling to also recommend
that State agencies be open to considering other sampling software
tools.
In addition, the Department proposes to revise the language at 7
CFR 275.11(a)(3), describing the proposed active sampling design. This
revised language provides specific details about how State agencies
would need to design their new sampling procedures
[[Page 64764]]
to align with the new review process, including how to construct the
new sampling frame and which variables to use to create the proposed
strata (discussed further below). The revision would also clarify that
each month, State agencies must select a sample size equal to one
twelfth of the annual sample size specified in 7 CFR 275.11(b) (rounded
to the next whole number) to ensure the sample accurately reflects the
entire year of SNAP cases.
7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)-(2)--Sample Size--Active Cases and Negative Cases
The Department proposes to simplify and standardize the active case
review process by (1) eliminating the current allowance for choosing
between two different possible sample sizes and (2) increasing the
current sample size for active cases specified in 7 CFR
275.11(b)(1)(iii) by 30 percent. Increasing the overall sample size
ensures that the new sampling design would deliver the same level of
precision as the current sampling design by providing for sufficient
sample sizes within each stratum. Without this increase in overall
sample size and proper allocation among the strata, the new design
would over-represent cases with shorter reporting periods and under-
represent those with longer reporting periods. Having a larger overall
sample size is necessary to ensure statistical validity of the sample,
which results in a more precise PER estimate. The Department proposes
to remove the choice of the other sample size option, currently
described at 7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)(ii), because in order for the new
sampling methodology to provide a basis for calculating a national PER,
all States must follow the same sampling design; therefore, a second
option is no longer appropriate. Given the proposed deletion of 7 CFR
275.11(b)(1)(ii), the Department proposes to re-designate the remaining
paragraphs of 7 CFR 275.11(b)(1) that follow paragraph 7 CFR
275.11(b)(1)(i).
In the final rule published on June 11, 2010, titled,
``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Quality Control Provisions
of Title IV of Public Law 107-171'' (75 FR 33422),\28\ the regulations
pertaining to SNAP negative case reviews (the review of cases that were
denied, terminated, or suspended) were changed to emphasize customer
service. This rule required State agencies to determine whether the
action on the negative case under review was correct and whether the
State agency correctly notified the household or participant \29\ in
clearly understandable language of the adverse action on their case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-11/pdf/2010-13446.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-11/pdf/2010-13446.pdf</a>.
\29\ Not all adverse actions are against an entire household.
Sometimes an adverse action will occur against a specific
participant in a household.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department implemented this change in FY 2012, and later began
informally referring to the associated error rate as the case and
procedural error rate, as opposed to the negative error rate, to
reflect the change in focus. This practice of referring to the error
rate for negative case reviews as CAPER continues today and is the
commonplace term State agencies and FNS use. As such, the Department
proposes to amend 7 CFR 275.11(b)(2)(i) to include the explanation that
negative case reviews result in determining the ``case and procedural
error rate.''
The Department found State agencies typically utilize the minimum
annual sampling size for their negative case samples. Just as with the
proposed removal of the alternative active case sampling design
discussed earlier, the Department proposes to amend 7 CFR
275.11(b)(2)(i) to remove the alternative design option for the
negative sample size so that sample sizes are standard, provide more
precision for error rate estimates, and align with the language used
for the selection of active cases in 7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)(i).
7 CFR 275.11(b)(4)--Sample Size--Alternative Designs
Consistent with the proposed removal of alternative design options
for both the active and negative sampling frames, the Department also
proposes to remove the regulatory provisions at 7 CFR 275.11(b)(4)
through 7 CFR 275.11(b)(4)(iii) since those paragraphs discuss the
options for State agencies concerning alternative QC sampling sizes.
7 CFR 275.11(c)(2)--Sample Selection--Corrections
To ensure they select enough cases to review annually, State
agencies often pull supplemental samples when they find they do not
have enough cases to meet FNS requirements. FNS refers to this act of
pulling a supplemental sample in current regulations at 7 CFR
275.11(c)(2) as a `correction.' Corrections can be necessary for many
reasons but most often occur because some cases in the sample were
later determined to be not subject to QC review or because an increase
in the average monthly reviewable caseload necessitated an increase in
monthly sample size. The Department proposes to amend the provisions
regarding corrections at 7 CFR 275.11(c)(2) to clarify that the new
procedures for sample size, sample selection, sample frame, and sample
allocation in proposed paragraphs 7 CFR 275.11(b), (c), (e), and (g)
are also applicable to corrections, or in other words, when State
agencies pull additional cases to compensate for under sampling.
7 CFR 275.11(e)--Sample Frame
Current regulations at 7 CFR 275.11(e) allow State agencies a
`choice' in what their sampling frame must include. The Department
proposes to remove language concerning the `choice' of the sampling
frame since the Department's proposed methodology requires State
agencies to use a specific frame for sampling.
7 CFR 275.11(e)--Sample Frame--Active Cases
The Department proposes to change its active case sampling frame
description at 7 CFR 275.11(e)(1) to include only households that
either experienced an initial certification action, a recertification
action, or were required to submit a required monthly, quarterly, or
periodic report in the sampling month and an allotment is issued in the
following month. As noted earlier, this simplified QC process would
shift the review focus to when an eligibility action occurred rather
than a review of a random month within a household's certification
period.
The simplification of only reviewing the eligibility action would
ease compliance with QC requirements for both recipients and SQCRs by
eliminating the complex aspects of the current review process and by
making the SNAP review consistent with other benefit programs' improper
payment review procedures. The complexities of the current process can
contribute to State agencies having low QC case review completion rates
and to, the integrity issues discussed throughout this proposed rule.
7 CFR 275.11(f)--Sample Universe--Active Cases
Regulations at 7 CFR 275.11(f)(1) inform State agencies which cases
they must exclude from their sampling frames. Consistent with proposed
changes in this rule to the sampling frame, the Department is also
proposing corresponding changes for those cases the State agency must
exclude. The Department proposes to amend one condition and remove one
condition from the current list of excludable households for review at
7 CFR 275.11(f)(1).
[[Page 64765]]
The Department proposes to amend the provision at 7 CFR
275.11(f)(1)(iv) that addresses the exclusion of a household appealing
an adverse action when the review date falls within the time period
covered by continuing participation pending a fair hearing, or in other
words, the time the household continues to receive benefits while they
await their fair hearing. Instead of the condition being ``when the
review date falls within the time period covered by continuing
participation pending the hearing,'' the Department proposes to exclude
all cases under review where the household is appealing an adverse
action for any of the sampled actions, since the benefit determination
is subject to change based on the result of the appeal.
The Department also proposes to remove the condition for exclusion
at 7 CFR 275.11(f)(1)(v) that indicates a household can be excluded
when the household is receiving restored benefits but is not
participating based upon an approved application. This condition no
longer applies to the new proposed sampling method because only
approved applications will be included in the sample. As such, only the
instruction that, ``Other households excluded from the active case
universe during the review process are identified in 7 CFR 275.12(g)''
would remain in this paragraph.
7 CFR 275.11(g)-(h)--Active Sample Allocation and Weighting
In order for the new sampling method to be reflective of the SNAP
caseload, the Department proposes to add two new paragraphs at 7 CFR
275.11(g), entitled ``Active sample allocation'' and 7 CFR 275.11(h),
entitled ``Weighting,'' which will describe how State agencies would
allocate the sample across the strata defined in the new sampling
design and compute the weights needed to make the sample representative
of the sample universe/target population.
As described earlier, the Department proposes to add requirements
at 7 CFR 275.11(g) for the active sample allocation so that active
cases are allocated to five pre-defined strata. These five strata are
based on the combination of action type (i.e., certification,
recertification, and when a required monthly, quarterly, or periodic
report is due and an allotment is issued in the following month) and
reporting period (i.e., less than six months, six months, and more than
six months). This proposed change would ensure the resulting allocation
will contain sufficient sample sizes within each stratum and cases from
each stratum are represented in the sample.
In addition, the Department proposes to add a section, 7 CFR
275.11(h) ``Weighting'' to illustrate how to compute the weights needed
to make the sample representative of the universe/target population.
The new sampling design samples cases with unequal probabilities across
the strata and, therefore, some cases have higher selection
probabilities than others. State agencies must provide FNS the data
necessary to compute the weights. To compensate for the unequal
probabilities of selection across the strata, the Department is
proposing the following formula for the weights W<INF>i</INF>:
W<INF>i</INF> = (N<INF>i</INF>/F<INF>i</INF>) x (F<INF>i</INF>/
n<INF>i</INF>) = N<INF>i</INF>/n<INF>i</INF> for i = a,b,c,d,e,
Where:
--W<INF>i</INF> is the weight for cases sampled from stratum i (the
new proposed sampling design has five strata);
--N<INF>i</INF> is the size of stratum i in the sampling universe/
target population;
--F<INF>i</INF> is the size of stratum i in the sampling frame;
--n<INF>i</INF> is the number of cases sampled from stratum i.
--F<INF>i</INF>/n<INF>i</INF> is in the inverse of the sampling
probability for cases sampled from stratum i (also called sampling
weight), while N<INF>i</INF>/F<INF>i</INF> represents the post-
stratification weights and corrects for the biases in the sampling
frame. This ensures the sample represents the sampling universe,
i.e., the SNAP caseload.
State agencies would be responsible for providing to FNS the counts
N<INF>i</INF>, F<INF>i</INF>, and n<INF>i</INF> (for i = a,b,c,d,e).
7 CFR 275.12--Review of Active Cases--General
By focusing only on eligibility actions, the Department anticipates
the information obtained through the modified QC review process will be
more useful for program improvement purposes, as it will be focused on
the main touchpoints of a SNAP case and will be collected closer in
time to those touchpoints. Currently, SNAP's error rates are a
combination of errors measured at random points of time within a
household's certification period and at points of eligibility. By
narrowing the review, FNS would issue an error rate derived from the
time of most recent eligibility action for all cases reviewed. This
would allow FNS to more accurately identify where errors are occurring
and allow State agencies to correct more effectively the causes of
error at certification or the point of most recent eligibility action.
FNS would also be collecting information at a point in time that is
closer to when many actions and their corresponding errors are
occurring, making the monitoring of State agency performance timelier
than is possible under the current QC system.
Under the new proposed methodology, the PER would be representative
of points in time when households have an obligation to report or
confirm their circumstances and attest the information is accurate. In
addition, at those points in time, the State agency also has an
obligation to verify those household circumstances and accurately
determine the household's eligibility and benefit level. With this new
approach, payment errors would specifically reflect errors made
directly as a result of the benefit determination process, a connection
that has proven challenging with the current review system due to the
distance in time between the selected review month and the action
causing the errors. By identifying errors in a timelier manner, FNS
could raise deficiencies in program operations more quickly and
effectively, and State agencies and FNS would be able to address the
root causes of errors more quickly than under the current QC system.
Another significant impact of moving from a random ``point in
time'' review of the present QC system to this modified ``eligibility
action-only'' review is that FNS would no longer require SQCRs to re-
create all of a household's sample month circumstances for a random
month within a certification period. Currently, to review the sample
month (which can be at any point in time during a household's
certification period), SQCRs must collect and validate the household's
circumstances for that new month, which most of the time does not exist
in the case record, to determine whether the allotment they received
that month is accurate for what they should have received based on
those circumstances. In order to determine whether the sample month's
allotment determination by the SQCR is accurate, the SQCR must often
request information about household circumstances for the past months
in between the sample month and the most recent certification month, if
they are not one in the same, making the review process very complex
and prone to inaccurately applying QC policy since it relies on the
ability to collect information from SNAP households for, in some
instances, a year or more in the past. The reason these are so
challenging to obtain is that SNAP households do not always have stable
incomes, bank accounts, and contracts with cellular phone carriers or
other utility companies, for example, that
[[Page 64766]]
would make verifications easy to recall months later.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates Final
Report, January 2016, <a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPQCCompletion.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPQCCompletion.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the new approach, SQCRs would still be required to verify the
household's circumstances for the sample month; however, the sample
month would be the month the action took place, eliminating the need to
look at previous months. As a result, the process would require fewer
months to review, and much of the information a SQCR needs to verify
the household's circumstances and determine the allotment's accuracy
should already be available in the case record. In addition, if
verifications do not already exist in the case record and SQCRs must
either obtain this information from the SNAP household or collateral
contacts, it would be less challenging for them to produce verification
from the previous month or two than it would be for them to produce
verification issued at some point in the previous four to twelve
months, as is necessitated under the current system. Since this change
would make obtaining verifications less challenging, compliance from
households and collateral contacts will likely increase and SQCRs would
be able to complete more of their QC case reviews, resulting in a more
accurate PER.
Given the proposed change in review focus, FNS considered whether
an ex parte review, in which the SQCR relies solely on the case record
and does not contact the household, would be appropriate. FNS
determined that relying solely on an ex parte review for QC reviews
would not be appropriate for several reasons. First, the purpose of the
QC review is to determine the accuracy of the allotment authorized by
the State, and to accomplish that purpose, SQCRs must verify all
household circumstances in the sample month. However, using allowable
administrative flexibilities, many States choose to ease verification
requirements at certification to reduce the administrative burden on
applicants. As a result, verifications of all household circumstances
may not be included in the case record and available for QC reviewers.
Generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) require
reviewers to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for addressing review objectives and supporting their
findings and conclusions.\31\ If SQCRs rely solely on the information
in the case record, they may not have sufficient evidence from which to
assess the accuracy of eligibility and benefit determinations. In
addition, GAGAS require reviewers to have a certain level of
independence when conducting quality control evaluations and audits,
and to avoid situations that could lead reasonable and informed third
parties to conclude they are not independent and thus are not capable
of exercising impartial judgment.\32\ If SQCRs were to rely solely on
the information in the case record, they may not be able to
independently review all elements of eligibility and benefit
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Section 5.08 of the Government Auditing Standards, GAO
21-368G, April 2021, Government Auditing Standards: 2018 Revision
Technical Update April 2021 (Supersedes GAO-18-568G) [bond] U.S.
GAO.
\32\ See Section 3.19 of the Government Auditing Standards, GAO
21-368G, April 2021, Government Auditing Standards: 2018 Revision
Technical Update April 2021 (Supersedes GAO-18-568G) [bond] U.S.
GAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed review would still require a complete and independent
review of the household's circumstances to assess whether the State
agency accurately determined the household's eligibility and SNAP
benefit amount. By focusing on the eligibility action and not on a
random sample month, FNS hopes to place greater emphasis for corrective
action on making more accurate benefit determinations through better
documentation, verification, and accountability.
The change in review procedure would also eliminate the current
SNAP QC Comparison I and Comparison II process when determining a QC
case's reportable error (an error that is above the current fiscal year
threshold for excluding small errors).\33\ As described earlier, SQCRs
and FQCRs conduct up to two assessments, Comparison I and Comparison
II, to determine the final error amount in a case. In Comparison I, the
reviewer determines the accuracy of the benefit received by the
household based on the household's sample month circumstances. If the
reviewer finds an error above the national error tolerance threshold
(presently $54) in Comparison I, the reviewer completes Comparison II
by examining the accuracy of the certification action that authorized
the sample month's benefits. The final error amount is the lesser error
amount of the two comparisons. In OIG's audit report titled, ``FNS
Quality Control Process for SNAP Error Rate,'' \34\ OIG asserted that
these comparisons measure two different points in time and suggested
FNS should take action to increase consistency in the PER measure. FNS
has determined the improvements to the quality and consistency of QC
data inherent with the proposed approach would address OIG's concerns
regarding the Comparison I and II processes. Along with these changes,
the Department also proposes to eliminate the concept of ``as of the
review date'' throughout 7 CFR 275.12, since eligibility actions would
now be the critical focus of the QC review and this phrase would no
longer be meaningful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Section 16(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the FNA or 7 CFR
275.12(f)(2).
\34\ OIG Audit Report 27601-0002-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 275.12(b)--Review of Active Cases--Household Case Record Review
The process of reviewing a case in QC has several distinct
components, including the household case record review, where the
reviewer gathers information and evidence from the case record to
determine what occurred in the case and to plan for the next fact-
finding phase.
The Department proposes to amend the regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(b)
to update the case record review provisions to reflect the new proposed
review process. The proposed change specifies that the case record must
include the initial certification or recertification application or,
the monthly, quarterly, or periodic report, and QC worksheets
applicable to the sample month determination. Documentation contained
in the eligibility case record is allowable as verification, but only
if the evidence used in the eligibility determination meets or exceeds
QC verification standards found in the FNS Handbook 310. The Department
also proposes to eliminate the requirement at 275.12(b) that reviewers
examine the household issuance record for pertinent information if they
cannot find the household's case record, as the case record review
would be an essential component of the active review process. Under the
proposed rule, situations where the case record could not be located
would result in an incomplete case and, therefore, the total dollar
amount issued would be reported as an error. Further discussion on
incompletes becoming total dollar errors is in this preamble under the
heading, Review of active cases--Disposition of case reviews.
The purpose of this proposed change is two-fold. First, including
dropped/incomplete cases in the error amount would strengthen integrity
by acting as a deterrent against the types of dropped-case manipulation
that previously led to unreliable State PER data reporting, discussed
in the history part of this preamble. Second, by including dropped/
incomplete cases now
[[Page 64767]]
excluded from the improper payment rate calculation, the proposed
change would align SNAP with PIIA and other Federal programs, as noted
in an audit released on July 6, 2016, by the General Accounting
Office.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ GAO 16-708-T, <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-708T">https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-708T</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 275.12(c)--Review of Active Cases--Field Investigation
The field investigation is another fact-finding phase of the QC
review and includes interviewing the household and collateral contacts.
Collateral contacts can include, for example, individuals,
organizations, governmental agencies, and businesses that hold relevant
information on the household's circumstances.
While conducting QCIRs, FNS staff found that State agencies do not
widely use technology to collect documentary evidence during the field
investigation phase. For example, while some SQCRs have access to
digital scanners or cellular phone cameras to make electronic copies of
verifications, many SQCRs have no access to these technologies during
the field investigation or were not aware the use of electronic devices
was a permissible way of obtaining documentary evidence that could not
be brought back to the office.
Additionally, in the 2018 RFI,\36\ FNS asked for recommendations to
encourage greater use of technology that could enhance the accuracy of
case reviews. A prevalent response was that more funding and grants
from the Federal Government would assist in State agencies using
additional technology. The Department emphasizes here that, under
current regulations at 7 CFR 277.3, expenditures for technology to aid
in program administration, including in association with QC reviews,
qualifies for reimbursement up to 50 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS hopes that promoting the use of technology in regulations to
collect documentary evidence from both households and collateral
contacts would encourage State agencies to offer households better
customer service by limiting the need to send in a physical copy of
documentary evidence, a step that can prove challenging for many.
Therefore, the Department proposes to amend paragraph 7 CFR 275.12(c)
to provide that the use of technology is not only permitted, but
encouraged, to obtain verification, including copies of documentary
evidence from households and collateral contacts, so long as the
privacy of the household and the information gathered are protected
pursuant to applicable Federal and State privacy laws.
7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)--Review of Active Cases--Personal Interviews
QC regulations currently require SQCRs to conduct a face-to-face
personal interview for all households. Under current regulations at 7
CFR 275.12(c)(1), only specific circumstances allow telephone
interviews to be used in lieu of face-to-face interviews for the QC
field investigation. Seventy percent of State agency responses to the
RFI \37\ question about the interview process included requests that
telephone interviews be an acceptable interview method instead of face-
to-face, citing reports of QC staff regularly traveling long distances
only to find households failing to meet for the scheduled interview
times, resulting in lost time and wasted administrative funds. During
FNS's QCIRs, SQCRs raised concerns about staff safety while conducting
the required face-to-face interviews outside of the local office.
Finally, comments on the RFI from non-profit organizations presented
that face-to-face interviews may be more challenging for SNAP's working
households to comply with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the various comments provided by different
stakeholders, the Department determined that switching to telephone
interviews as the primary interview method will continue to meet the
needs of the proposed QC review changes in this rule. As a result, the
Department proposes to revise the QC personal interview regulation at 7
CFR 275.12(c)(1) to require that telephone interviews be the default
interview format, and require that State agencies inform households
that a face-to-face interview is an option available to them by
request. This change will not only address the concerns brought forth
by commenters but may also have a positive impact on State agency
completion rates since the increased flexibility that telephone
interviewing allows will provide more households the opportunity to
comply with the QC review process. The reason the Department proposes
standardizing the telephonic interview as the default interview mode as
opposed to making it another interview option is to ensure fair
treatment for all sampled households during the QC review process. In
addition, because of this change, the Department proposes to eliminate
the exception at 7 CFR 275.12(c)(1) available to remote, isolated
households in Alaska because this proposed change will cause the
exception to be unnecessary.
Regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iii) require that, during the
personal interview, reviewers must review with the household all
documentary evidence in the household's possession and secure
information about collateral sources of verification. The Department
proposes to amend the provisions at 7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iii) to codify
that during the personal interview, reviewers would also be required to
review with the household all documentary evidence that is already in
the case file and request new documentary evidence from the household,
as needed. This is a best practice of State agencies and, by codifying
this requirement, FNS seeks to ensure greater consistency in the
interview process as well as accountability for the quality and scope
of interviews, a vital component in the QC review process.
7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)-(2)--Review of Active Cases--Collateral Contacts
During, prior to, or after the personal interview, the SQCR may
need to contact a collateral contact of the household who can be used
as a source to verify household circumstances. Because State law might
require an SQCR to obtain consent from the head of household to contact
collateral contacts FNS codified the provision at 7 CFR
275.12(c)(1)(iv), which currently reads, ``If required by the State,
the reviewer shall obtain consent from the head of the household to
secure collateral information.'' However, FNS has since discovered the
language of 7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iv) is being interpreted differently by
States. For example, some States without such laws are still mandating
consent be obtained, which has created roadblocks for SQCRs and
resulted in preventing the SQCR from being able to complete cases. It
is imperative that SQCRs accurately complete as many QC cases as
possible without any unnecessary burdens. Therefore, the Department
proposes to amend the language at 7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iv) to clarify its
intent by linking obtaining consent to the presence of a State law.
Currently, regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(c)(2) require SQCRs to
obtain verification from collateral contacts in all instances when
adequate documentation is not available from the household. The current
regulatory provision does not address situations when there is
inadequate documentation in the case file. Therefore, the Department
proposes to
[[Page 64768]]
amend 7 CFR 275.12(c)(2) to require the reviewer to obtain verification
from collateral contacts in all instances when adequate documentation
is not available.
7 CFR 275.12(d)--Review of Active Cases--Variance Identification
According to Section 2(b) of the PIIA,\38\ an improper payment
includes ``any payment that should not have been made or that was made
in an incorrect amount, under a statutory, contractual, administrative,
or other legally applicable requirement.'' Per Section 2(c), when an
agency cannot discern whether a payment was proper because of lacking
or insufficient documentation, the payment shall be treated as an
improper payment. The Department proposes to amend and reorganize 7 CFR
275.12(d), as discussed in the three sections that follow, to reflect
the new review focus and align it with requirements in PIIA. In
addition, consistent with what was noted earlier, all references under
7 CFR 275.12(d) regarding the ``sample month'' would either be changed
to ``action under review'' or eliminated, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 31 U.S.C. 3351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)--Review of Active Cases--Variances Excluded From
Error Analysis
Regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d) define a `variance' as a review
finding that policy was applied incorrectly or that information
verified as of the review date differs from the information used at the
most recent certification action. The Department is also proposing to
allow fewer opportunities for variance exclusion from the error
analysis. There are two reasons for this proposal: (1) a more
restrictive review focus in accordance with PIIA specifications on
which errors are and are not considered payment errors; and (2) the
change in review focus to reviewing only the household's eligibility
determination versus a point in time analysis. As such, the Department
proposes to eliminate regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(i), (iii), and
(ix). These provisions are related to variances associated with
countable income unable to be verified at the time of certification,
changes in household circumstances that were not yet required to be
reported as of the review date, and changes to child support orders
that occurred after the most recent certification action, respectively,
and no longer align with the new review focus. Provisions (ii) and
(viii) regarding variances resulting from postponed verification for
expedited service households and from incorrect written Federal policy,
respectively, would be revised, as further discussed below, and
references to Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) would be
updated.
FNS found in its QCIRs that inadequate documentation in household
eligibility case records presents challenges for reviewers to complete
cases, particularly in expedited service cases where verification of
certain elements of eligibility is postponed. In these cases, the QC
reviewer must rely solely on the eligibility case record to determine
what verification was postponed and if any variances in benefits
resulting from the postponed verification qualify to be excluded from
the error rate calculation, called a variance exclusion. In these
cases, a lack of required documentation should result in forfeiture of
the variance exclusion since the reviewer cannot validate if regulatory
requirements regarding verification were followed accurately. Current
regulations are not clear that a lack of documentation means the
exclusion does not apply, and some State agencies have used this
ambiguity to apply the variance exclusion inappropriately. Therefore,
the Department proposes to amend the language at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(ii)
to clarify that, for this exclusion to apply, the case record must
include clear documentation indicating which elements of verification
were postponed. Otherwise, if an eligibility worker does not
sufficiently document an element to indicate they properly postponed
it, the exclusion would not apply and any variances arising from errors
related to the element would then be included in the error
determination process.
The Department proposes to amend the current regulatory language at
7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(viii) [re-designated as 7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(vii)]
regarding policy memoranda for clarity. Instead of specifying
categories of policy memoranda, as exists now, the Department proposes
to generalize the concept to be all-inclusive of SNAP policy memoranda
issued.
7 CFR 275.12(d)(3)--Review of Active Cases--Other Findings
The regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d) define a variance as a review
finding that policy was applied incorrectly or that information
verified as of the review date differs from the information used at the
most recent certification action while the regulations at 7 CFR
275.12(d)(1) and (2) further describe which variances are included in
and excluded from the error analysis. Regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(3)
describe findings other than variances; however, there is currently no
requirement to report these findings to a local office. When a SQCR
does report a finding other than a variance, they do so through a
notification comment that is sent along with the case's official QC
results. The lack of a requirement to report these findings can lead
SQCRs to bypass those issues, thereby reducing the local eligibility
office's ability to determine whether a change in the case record is
warranted following the QC review. This is important to address,
because currently it is possible for a SQCR to learn information about
a household's current circumstances that do not affect the sample month
under review but could affect the household's ongoing SNAP allotment
after the sample month. For example, a SQCR conducts an interview with
a household in May for a case selected for the March sample month.
During the interview, the SQCR finds that a household member recently
started a new job that increased the household's earned income over the
income limit for its household size but failed to report this
information to the State agency within the required time frames. The
new earnings are excludable from the review because they occurred after
the sample month, but the household is required to report this change
and it may impact the household's ongoing SNAP allotment in future
months.
As a result, the Department is proposing to amend 7 CFR
275.12(d)(3) by adding that the State QC office would be required to
notify the local office of these other findings in all cases,
regardless of the error impact those deficiencies may have on the case.
The Department believes this notification is essential to good
management of the Program, because it provides information about
inaccuracies in the case file to eligibility staff, enabling them to
correct the issue, prevent future errors from occurring, and
potentially provide improved customer service to households. The
Department also proposes to remove the following examples from the same
paragraph since the household would not have been eligible for benefits
according to SNAP rules at 7 CFR 273, and therefore, any benefits
issued to such households are considered improper payments under PIIA:
\39\ an overdue subsequent certification and no current application on
file. Additionally, the Department proposes to remove the following
examples from the same paragraph since
[[Page 64769]]
the change in review focus would no longer exclude them from variances
cited in the QC review: insufficient documentation and incorrect
application of the verification requirements specified in part 273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/M-18-20.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/M-18-20.pdf</a>; Page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(3), State agencies have the
discretion to act on findings other than error variances discovered
during the review, which are pertinent to the SNAP household or the
case record. Such findings may include, for example, the incorrect age
of a household member that is unrelated to an element of eligibility
and deficiencies in work registration procedural requirements, among
others. The Department proposes to maintain this State agency
discretion to act or not act on additional information discovered
during the QC review.
7 CFR 275.12(f)--Review of Active Cases--Reporting of Review Findings
Consistent with the changes made at 7 CFR 275.12(d)(3), where SQCRs
would be required to document all variances discovered in the review
and not just those causing a reportable error, the Department proposes
to revise regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(f)(1) and (f)(2) to require
reviewers include all variances in their individual review findings
reports for both eligibility and basis of issuance variances,
respectively. Changes in both sections would also remove the reference
to `sample month', as this would be consistent with the shift in review
focus from a point in time to the eligibility action under review.
7 CFR 275.12(g)--Review of Active Cases--Disposition of Case Reviews
As noted, proposed updates to the active review would be more
reflective of improper payment requirements for PIIA, which requires a
more thorough reporting of errors. Currently, FNS ``charges'' State
agencies a penalty for having a low QC completion rate. This penalty is
part of the calculation that determines the State agency's PER. This
method is unique to SNAP. Other programs that report for PIIA, follow a
different process, whereby any case they are unable to complete for QC
results in a total dollar error. In SNAP, reviewers drop cases for
which they cannot verify an element of eligibility or basis for the
benefit amount. For instance, if a case indicates the household
received earned income, and the household is unable to provide
verification or a collateral contact that can validate the information,
the reviewer drops the case as incomplete.
To be consistent with PIIA, the Department proposes to amend 7 CFR
275.12(g)(1) so that, as with other Federal programs, all cases that
cannot be completed, regardless of the reason, would result in the
reporting of an error for the total allotment issued for the action
under review. The Department requests public comment for considerations
of circumstances it should consider in implementing this policy.
The Department is also seeking feedback on whether there should be
a threshold applied to completion rates in the proposed error rate
calculation methodology, similar to the current percent completion
threshold which requires a penalty be applied to a State agency's error
rate if it fails to complete at least 98 percent of its minimum QC case
load.
Current regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(g)(1)(ii) list instances in
which the household's unwillingness to cooperate in completing a QC
review has the effect of a refusal to cooperate. Those instances
include when the household fails to respond to mail sent Certified
Mail-Return Receipt Requested; when the household fails to attend an
agreed upon interview; and when the household does not return a signed
release of information after agreeing to do so or after receiving one
through Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested. FNS received input
from State agencies through various meetings with the American Public
Human Services Association (APHSA) that the use of certified mail is
prohibitively expensive and that delivery and service issues with the
United States Postal Service (USPS) have presented challenges even when
using Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested.
APHSA members requested reviewers be provided an opportunity to use
a process similar to the Request for Contact (RFC) process used for
unclear information, as found in 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3)(i)(A). FNS
determined the use of a modified RFC process; whereby households that
fail to respond to the request are suspended from SNAP for one month,
with opportunity to verify their circumstances during that time, prior
to having their SNAP participation terminated; is appropriate for QC
purposes. This new process would be referred to as a request for
quality control contact or RFQCC. Allowing a RFQCC will help State
agencies complete cases and reduce the number of incomplete cases that,
under the new process, would count as total dollar errors. The
availability of this process will ensure integrity in the Program by
encouraging households to cooperate with the QC process. It will also
protect access to the Program for those households that do cooperate as
required, as current regulations do not provide an additional month for
the household to cooperate before the State must pursue termination of
their participation. In addition, commonly known issues with mail
delivery necessitate other allowable processes for States to utilize in
gaining household cooperation. For that reason, the Department proposes
to revise 7 CFR 275.12(g)(1)(ii) by reordering the examples and adding
the previously mentioned RFQCC process as an alternative way to respond
to households that either refuse or fail to ever respond to
communication from State QC to cooperate with the QC review. Similar to
the RFC process outlined in 7 CFR 273.12(c)(3)(i)(B)(2), if the
household fails to respond to the RFQCC, the reviewer will inform the
State and the State will send a notice of adverse action that suspends
the household for one month to allow the household an opportunity to
cooperate with QC prior to termination. If the household does not
cooperate with QC by the deadline provided in the notice of adverse
action, the reviewer must notify the State agency of the household's
refusal and the State must follow through with terminating the
household as stated at 7 CFR 275.12(g)(1)(ii).
The proposed review process would also require an update to
regulations at 7 CFR 275.12(g)(2) regarding active cases that are not
subject to review. The Department proposes to eliminate the current
provisions at 7 CFR 275.12(g)(2)(iv) and 7 CFR 275.12(g)(2)(ix)
pertaining to households receiving restored benefits and households not
receiving benefits in the sampled month, because the provisions would
no longer be relevant to the way cases would be sampled. In addition, 7
CFR 275.12(g)(2)(x) would be removed because all cases in which the
household is unable to be reached for the QC review would result in a
total dollar error amount for the eligibility action under review, as
mentioned above, and, therefore, no longer be considered a case not
subject to review. As a result of the proposed changes, the Department
would also reorganize the section to accommodate the removals and
additions.
Subpart E--Corrective Action
7 CFR 275.16(b)(2)--Corrective Action Planning--Negative Cases
In 2012, the Department changed the negative case review process in
the final rule titled, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:
Quality Control
[[Page 64770]]
Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171 (75 FR 33421),\40\ from a
review of the accuracy of a denial, termination, or suspension to a
process that incorporated a customer service review of those actions,
including whether the State agency accurately informed the household of
the reason for the action and whether the State agency's procedures
were correct. Since that change, the requirement at 7 CFR 275.16(b)(2)
for State agencies to implement a corrective action plan (CAP) whenever
its CAPER rose above one percent has become impractical, as exceeding
the one percent threshold became routine because of the new review
procedures. State agencies have informed FNS of their concerns in
various ways, including through conferences and advisory group
meetings, since the first CAPER release in calendar year 2013. In the
2018 RFI,\41\ FNS requested feedback from commenters regarding the
factors FNS should consider in revising the current CAP requirement for
negative cases. FNS received ten comments about changes to CAP
requirements and three suggested a threshold change for CAPs required
on CAPERs. However, those three commenters overwhelmingly agreed the
threshold should be increased. FNS based the current threshold on the
previous negative case review process and now agrees that the threshold
should be adjusted to better accommodate the process implemented in FY
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-11/pdf/2010-13446.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-06-11/pdf/2010-13446.pdf</a>.
\41\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the Department is proposing that a State agency would
be required to implement a CAP when its CAPER is higher than the
national CAPER for a given fiscal year. To do so, the Department
proposes to amend 7 CFR 275.16(b)(2) by removing the phrase ``of 1
percent or more in negative cases'' and adding in its place the phrase
``above the national average CAPER.'' However, because FNS has received
only limited and mainly anecdotal feedback from State agencies since
the changes, the Department is seeking additional comments through this
rulemaking regarding when State agencies would be required to implement
a CAP to improve their CAPER.
7 CFR 275.16(b)(4)--Corrective Action Planning--Incomplete Cases
The CAP requirement at 7 CFR 275.16(b)(4) for incomplete cases is
another area that State agencies have questioned. A CAP is currently
required whenever a State agency is unable to complete more than 5
percent of its annual QC caseload. The Department received comments to
the 2018 RFI \42\ on factors to consider in revising the current CAP
requirement in this area. Ten commenters provided comments on factors
to consider if revising the current CAP requirements. The commenters,
which included eight State agencies, provided the following to
consider: adjust the completion rate because a 95 percent completion
rate is unreasonable and unattainable for many State agencies; utilize
the Federal regression rate penalty only if State agencies are not
completing cases in accordance with Federal rules and regulations;
adjust acceptable levels of performance before corrective action occurs
based on trends and current data; and initiate CAPs only when FQCRs
demonstrates that incomplete cases were completed by FQCRs and SQCRs
had the ability to complete the case in the same manner. The Department
considered these comments but determined that, due to the proposed new
handling of incomplete cases as complete dollar amount errors, the most
appropriate revision to this threshold would be to eliminate the CAP
requirement altogether for active cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since this rule proposes to count the full allotment for incomplete
cases as an error, the Department has concluded that the development of
a separate CAP for active cases would be duplicative and unnecessary.
This is due, in part, to the fact that an excess number of dropped
cases would result in higher PERs and the Department has procedures,
namely the liability and sanction process, to respond to high PERs.
For negative cases, current rules related to dispositioning a case
as incomplete in the negative sample frame stipulate that State
agencies may list as incomplete only those cases where the whole case
file cannot be located. This largely stems from long-standing
requirements that eligibility workers fully document their case files
in sufficient detail to permit a reviewer to determine the
reasonableness and accuracy of the determination. As a practical
matter, the incidence of incomplete negative cases by State agencies is
extremely low. For example, for FY 2019, there were no dropped cases in
the negative sample frame.
For these reasons, the Department is proposing to remove the
provision at 7 CFR 275.16(b)(4). As a result, current regulations at 7
CFR 275.16(b)(5) will be redesignated as 7 CFR 275.16(b)(4).
Subpart F--Responsibilities for Reporting on Program Performance
7 CFR 275.21(b)(1)--Quality Control Review Reports--Mandating the Use
of SNAP QC System
In 2013, FNS successfully implemented a web-based electronic QC
review system (SNAP-QCS) for State agencies to input their QC case
review data, including the documentary evidence to support case
reviews. Therefore, the Department is proposing to require State
agencies to use the Federally funded SNAP-QCS.
The primary purpose of SNAP-QCS is to provide a central location to
house QC review cases which can be accessed at both the State and
Federal levels. SNAP-QCS provides complete audit and status tracking
for each case. All changes, beyond drafts, are available (where
authorized) for comparison to prior iterations. SNAP-QCS contains edit
check rules that prevent the submission by any user of information that
violates business logic or other policy/regulatory guidance. In all
cases, SNAP-QCS informs users of the nature of the rule violation in a
manner that allows for correction of any such violation.
Since its inception, SNAP-QCS has replaced numerous State agency
legacy systems. The system provides the following functionality: the
creation of worksheets and review schedules (FNS 380, FNS-245 and FNS-
380-1) \43\ by the States, workflow management for State review
worksheets and schedules; the Federal subsampling of QC review cases,
the creation of review notes and findings by FQCRs, detailed workflow
management for the Federal review process; tracking of case-related
information, reporting tools for workflow and case characteristics, and
analysis tools for advanced QC finding reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ FNS 380--OMB Form 0584-0074; FNS 245-OMB Form 0584-0034;
FNS 380-1--OMB Form 0584-0299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS requested comments in the 2018 RFI \44\ as to whether the
Department should mandate SNAP-QCS for all QC Worksheets. Ten State
agency respondents commented on such a mandate. Four State agencies
expressed support for mandated use of SNAP-QCS because they currently
use it and asserted that it would allow for improved consistency in the
submittal of required information to FNS across States. One State
agency indicated it
[[Page 64771]]
had no concerns about the mandate because State agencies would retain
the option to maintain their own internal automated QC system and
upload the results into SNAP-QCS. However, four State agencies objected
to the mandated use of SNAP-QCS. One State agency noted SNAP-QCS does
not account for special budgeting rules, such as waivers, and other
commenters expressed concerns related to State system variability
resulting in system modifications, increased work, and inefficient use
of State agency staff time (e.g., double data entry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-01/pdf/2018-11849.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department appreciates all comments submitted. Most State
agency commenters who opposed the requirement to use SNAP-QCS did not
have experience using the automated version of the system. The
Department understands there is a learning curve when a new reviewer
begins using SNAP-QCS. FNS anticipates that mandating the use of SNAP-
QCS will improve data integrity and expects that the edit checks would
assist in accurate data collection. Therefore, the Department proposes
to mandate the use of SNAP-QCS at 7 CFR 275.21(b)(1). This includes
using the Auto-FNS Form 380, FNS Form 380-1, and FNS Form 245, and
upload all documentation necessary to understand the disposition and
findings for each sampled case.
Subpart G--Program Performance
7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)--Determination of State Agency Program Performance--
Determination of Payment Error Rates
To accurately apply the new sampling method to determine State
agency program performance, the Department proposes to amend the
language at 7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(i)(A) to clarify what the quantities
y<INF>1</INF>, b<INF>1</INF>, x<INF>1</INF>, and X<INF>1</INF> in the
PER determination formula are and that X<INF>1</INF> should be weighted
(using W<INF>i</INF>) to account for the differential selection
probabilities of the new sampling design. The Department also proposes
to amend the language at 7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(i)(B) to clarify what the
quantities y<INF>2</INF>, b<INF>2</INF>, x<INF>2</INF>, and
X<INF>2</INF> in the formula are and that X<INF>2</INF> should be
weighted (using W<INF>i</INF>) to account for the differential
selection probabilities of the new sampling design. The Department also
proposes to remove language about stratified sample designs covered by
both provisions because it would no longer apply when using the
proposed sampling method.
To avoid confusion with the notation introduced in the new
paragraph 7 CFR 275.11(g), Active sample allocation, the Department
proposes to change the notation of ``u'' to ``Z'' in paragraph 7 CFR
275.23(b)(2)(i)(C). In addition, the Department proposes to remove and
rephrase language about the quantity ``Z'' to make its definition
clearer.
The assignment of error rates by FNS, whether for active or
negative cases, has occurred only infrequently in the past. Typically,
FNS made assignments because of extraneous circumstances beyond a State
agency's control, such as when a large disaster impedes its ability to
complete cases. However, situations do arise in which FNS must assign
rates to State agencies due to other reasons. FNS assigned multiple
State agency error rates in FY 2017 due to data integrity issues and
found that greater clarity in regulations at 7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(ii) is
necessary. First, the Department proposes to amend the regulation to
reflect the name change of the error rates for negative cases and
clarify that assigned rates could be used in the determination of
liability status, subject to 7 CFR 275.23(d). Second, the Department
proposes to amend the paragraph by adding a statement at the end of the
section to indicate that under no circumstance, would an assigned rate
be eligible for appeal unless the rate resulted in a liability amount,
per 7 CFR 275.23(d). While these clarifications are consistent with
current practice and law, the Department maintains that the additional
language adds emphasis.
7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(iii)--State Agency Error Rates--Completion Rate
Penalty
The Department proposes to change the current penalties applied to
State agencies that fail to complete 98 percent of their active QC
caseload as described in 7 CFR 275.23(b)(2)(iii) by changing the
application of the penalty to apply to any State agency that fails to
sample the required minimum annual sample size, while also increasing
the impact of the penalty. Since State agencies would report all active
cases with a disposition of incomplete as a total dollar error for the
sampled action under review, the Department believes there is a
sufficient deterrent to past State agency practices of dispositioning
cases as incomplete to avoid errors. Still, situations exist where a
State agency may not sample the minimum sample size. For FY 2022, a
total of seven States did not sample enough cases to meet the minimum
regulatory requirement for active and negative sample frames. This
could happen in situations beyond the control of the State agency, such
as when a natural disaster impedes the State agency's ability to sample
and complete its required QC reviews. This could also occur in
situations that are within the State agency's control to prevent, such
as when a State agency fails to sufficiently staff the QC unit and is
subsequently unable to complete the required minimum sample size.
Specifically, the Department seeks input on the proposal to apply
an adjustment penalty to a State agency's error rate when the State
agency fails to sample enough cases to complete the minimum sample size
in any given sample month, including the following: (1) if the changes
proposed to the current penalty formula are sufficient and (2) whether
FNS should distinguish in how it applies the penalty based on whether a
State agency cannot sample its minimum sample size due to situations
beyond its control.
7 CFR 275.24--High Performance Bonuses
Section 4013(d) of the 2018 Farm Bill removed the requirement for
the Secretary to award performance bonus payments to State agencies and
prohibited the Secretary from awarding performance bonuses in calendar
year 2019 for FY 2018 performance. The 2018 Farm Bill also required the
Department to establish performance criteria relating to actions taken
to correct errors, reduce rates of error, improve eligibility
determinations and any other indicators of effective administration
determined by the Secretary.
To ensure SNAP performance bonuses are removed from regulations
throughout 7 CFR 275.24, the Department proposes to amend current
regulations at 7 CFR 275.24 with this rulemaking and replace that
language with performance criteria, as directed by Congress pursuant to
Section 4013(d)(3) of the 2018 Farm Bill. The performance criteria
mirror current language at 7 CFR 275.24 but removes all references to
bonuses and adjusts the language, grammar, and structure of the
provision accordingly. The Department proposes these performance
criteria because they mirror prior performance bonus criteria, which
the Department believes, based on prior experience with performance
bonuses, are informative measures of performance.
7 CFR 275.24(a)(3)--Performance Measures--Program Access Index
As one of the technical changes, the Department proposes to remove
the fourth sentence in subparagraph 7 CFR 275.24(a)(3)(i) as it is no
longer necessary to allow an exception to calculating the program
access index rate for the State of California as the State converted
its cash out program to allow households to receive SNAP. Therefore,
the Department can use actual SNAP participant numbers for
[[Page 64772]]
their calculation and the sentence is unnecessary.
Proposed Timeframe for Implementation of QC Sampling and Active Review
Changes
The Department recognizes the significant sampling and active
review changes will require lead time and technical assistance for
State agencies to come into compliance for implementation. The
Department is considering establishing an implementation date of two
full fiscal years after publication of the final rule. For example, if
a final rule were published in March of 2027, the Department would
establish an implementation date of October of 2029. The Department
seeks input on this implementation timeline.
To summarize, the simplification of the QC review is expected to
benefit several stakeholders. Households would benefit from no longer
having to provide verifications for multiple months in the
certification period if their case is selected for QC review, SQCRs and
FQCRs would have an equally robust but less complicated active case
review to conduct, and the Department and Congress would benefit from
both an improvement in the quality of information that comes out of the
reviews and by being able to compare improper payments more effectively
across government social safety net programs.
In addition, simplifying the QC review in the proposed manner would
also allow State agencies to implement more timely corrective actions.
Timely corrective actions should reduce the compounding impact of
improper payments as State agencies would be able to correct systemic
errors and implement policies or processes more immediately, thus
improving customer service to recipients, State agencies, and the
American taxpayer.
The Department acknowledges some of the most impactful changes for
State agencies administering SNAP and households sampled for review
include (1) the shift in review of the action that authorized the
allotment; (2) the handling of cases that cannot be validated, and (3)
the introduction of the RFQCC process. The Department asks for and
welcomes comment on all provisions in this proposed rulemaking, and we
also request comments on potential impacts, direct and indirect, of
these changes on State agencies and SNAP households. The Department
reiterates this is a proposed rule, and we will consider all comments
provided before a final rule implements any changes to SNAP's QC
system.
Procedural Matters
Executive Order 12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Under
Executive Order 12866, as amended, OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is
significant and, therefore, subject to OMB review. This proposed rule
has been determined to likely be significant under E.O. 12866, as
amended, and is being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. The analysis below outlines the impacts that the
Department anticipates may result from this proposed rule, if
finalized, and was prepared pursuant to the above-mentioned executive
orders.
Summary of Total Cost Impacts
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for rules which
are determined to be significant under Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866,
as amended ($200 million or more in economic effects in any one year).
USDA does not anticipate this proposed rule is likely to have an
economic impact of $200 million or more in any one year, and therefore,
does not meet the definition of significant under Section 3(f)(1) of
E.O. 12866 as amended. This proposed rule will not impact SNAP
participants' benefit levels. Overall household burden will increase
due to the increase in case samples required by the new process, not by
adding additional burden to individual households.
The Department expects several of the proposed rule provisions to
impact State Administrative Expenses (SAE) or FNS administrative costs.
The rule includes the following changes expected to have measurable
impacts:
--Section 275.11(b)(1)(iii) modifies the active case sample size
formulas for State reviewers and Federal re-reviewers, increasing the
sample size by 30 percent, to maintain the current level of precision.
--Section 275.11(3)(1) changes the active case sampling frame from all
households to those with an action, including initial certification,
recertification, and the submission of monthly, quarterly, or periodic
reports.
--Section 275.12(b) clarifies that reviewers will only be required to
examine households' circumstances for the month that the action took
place, eliminating the need for comparing households' circumstances at
the month of action versus the month of the review. As a result of the
changes to the active case reviews, the shift to only reviewing
eligibility actions will result in collecting less information about
the household since only the point of eligibility will be reviewed,
rather than a random point in time during a household's certification,
which requires the collection of a new month's circumstances, not one
that's already in the case record.
--Section 275.11(g) specifies that the active sample is divided into
five strata, allowing the sample to be representative of the SNAP
caseload.
--Section 275.12(d)(3) requires SQCRs to notify local offices of all
non-error causing variances found in the review.
--Section 275.21(b)(1) mandates that SQCRs use the SNAP-QC system for
QC reporting, rather than using their State systems.
Below in Table E.1 is a summary of the combined impacts of these
provisions on both State Agencies and the Federal Government. The
Annual Baseline column shows the current annual costs for each row. The
columns with FY headers are the difference between the annual baseline
and new procedures resulting from this rule change in that specific
fiscal year, with FY 2024 being the first implementation year and the
first year in which the discount rate is applied. The Total column
shows the sum of the five FY columns: the costs over the first five
years of implementation. As noted previously, there are no anticipated
impacts on SNAP allotments, but there are some expected costs for SNAP
households as a result of the increased number of sampled households.
Cost savings are anticipated after the implementation year, in FY 2026,
due to expected reductions in the time needed for a caseworker to
perform a QC review in under the new rule from 8.98 to 6.33 hours.
[[Page 64773]]
Table E.1--Summary of Total Cost Impacts **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts on state administrative Baseline: Annualized cost differences from pre-rule baseline
expense (cost in nominal FY 2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$000s) FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Sampling Procedures............ $11,370.3 $3,393.4 -$950.9 -$950.9 -$950.9 -$950.9 -$410.2
Training........................... 0.0 974.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 974.2
Reporting all variances............ 0.0 0.0 411.5 411.5 411.5 411.5 1,646.0
Record keeping..................... 59.8 0.0 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 71.6
Help Desk **....................... 70.0 0.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 210.0 840.0
Require all States use QCS **...... 175.0 0.0 525.0 525.0 525.0 525.0 22,100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 11,675.1 4,367.6 213.5 213.5 213.5 213.5 55,221.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted Cost Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 percent.......................... 11,675.1 4,081.9 186.5 174.3 162.9 152.2 4,757.7
3 percent.......................... 11,675.1 4,240.4 201.2 195.4 189.7 184.2 5,010.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts on Household Burden (cost in nominal 000s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in Household Burden for 0.0 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 247.5
Newly Sampled Cases...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted Cost Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 percent.......................... 0.0 46.3 43.2 40.4 37.8 35.3 203.0
3 percent.......................... 0.0 48.1 46.7 45.3 44.0 42.7 226.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** These costs are incurred only by the Federal Government.
The net present value of costs to State and Federal governments
over five years is $4,76 million at a seven percent discount rate and
$5,01 million at a three percent discount rate. The net present value
of costs to SNAP participants over five years is $203.0 thousand at a
seven percent discount rate and $226.7 thousand at a three percent
discount rate. Annualized in perpetuity, the government costs are
$333.04 ($150.33) thousand per year at a seven (three) percent discount
rate, and participant costs are $14.21 ($6.80) thousand per year at a
seven (three) percent discount rate.
This rule change will result in substantive benefits for QC
reviewers. By changing the active case review to focus on eligibility
determinations (certifications, recertifications, and submission of
required reports), the rule will result in the SNAP QC process being
better aligned with how other Federal programs measure payment accuracy
and with PIIA. The proposed changes are also expected to simplify QC
reviews, which in turn will improve the quality of the reviews and of
the information collected. The time spent by each caseworker in QC
review is anticipated to drop from 8.98 to 6.33 hours per case, which
will result in -$950.9 thousands in savings per year, even accounting
for the expected increase in 13,649 QC reviews per year (see Table
E.3). Simplifying the process and focusing on eligibility actions will
also allow for more timely corrective actions.
Implementation Costs (State and Federal Administrative Expense)
Developing New Sampling Plans. Statisticians from each of the 53
State Agencies will need to develop new sampling plans for active
cases. It will take an estimated 40 hours for each State Agency to
develop a plan. Given an hourly rate of $47.81 (the median hourly wage
for a statistician, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)),
the total one-time cost is $101,400 (Table E.2). Because these are
State Administrative Expenses for which the Federal Government
reimburses States, $50,700 will be borne by the Federal Government and
$50,700 will be borne by State Agencies.
Training SQCRs on new review procedures. SQCRs will need to be
trained in the changes to the active case QC review process. There are
approximately 634 SQCRs. Training will take an estimated 40 hours. At
an hourly rate of $27.83 (the median hourly rate for a social worker,
according to the BLS at time of analysis), the total cost for training
will be $705,800. Because these are State Administrative Expenses for
which the Federal Government reimburses States, $352,900 will be borne
by the Federal Government and $352,900 will be borne by State Agencies.
Training SQCRs on entering data into the SNAP QC system. All SQCRs
will be required to enter QC review data into the SNAP QC system.
Currently, 263 SQCRs of an estimated 634 SQCRs nationwide are entering
QC data into the SNAP QC system. Therefore, based on this estimate, an
additional 371 SQCRs will need to be trained on how to enter data into
SNAP-QCS by making the system mandatory. This training will take an
estimated 26 hours. At an average social worker rate of $27.83, the
cost for this training will be $268,400. Because these are State
Administrative Expenses for which the Federal Government reimburses
States, $134,200 will be borne by the Federal Government and $134,200
will be borne by State Agencies.
Longer time initially processing cases. During the first year,
reviewers are expected to take an estimated 2 hours longer to review
each case as they become accustomed to the changes in QC. With an
estimated 59,149 cases, at $27.83 an hour, the one-year cost is
$3,292,100. Because these are State Administrative Expenses for which
the Federal Government reimburses States, $1,646,100 will be borne by
the Federal Government and $1,646,100 will be borne by State Agencies.
These one-time implementation costs will total an estimated
$4,367,700, of which $2,183,900 will be borne by the Federal Government
and $2,183,900 borne by State Agencies.
[[Page 64774]]
Table E.2--Implementation Costs (State and Federal Administrative Expense) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional time
Develop Train SQCRs on Train QC for SQCRs to Total
sampling new review revisers to use process active implementation
plan procedures QC system cases cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Impacted.................................................... 53.0 634.0 371.0 59,146.1 ................
Time (hours)....................................................... 40.0 40.0 26.0 2.0 ................
Hourly rate........................................................ $47.8 $27.8 $27.8 $27.8 ................
Total Cost ($000).................................................. $101.4 $705.8 $268.4 $3,292.1 $4,367.7
Federal Share ($000)............................................... $50.7 $352.9 $134.2 $1,646.1 $2,183.9
State Share ($000)................................................. $50.7 $352.9 $134.2 $1,646.1 $2,183.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Annual Operational Costs and Cost Savings (State Administrative
Expense)
Impact of changes in sample size and review procedures. Currently,
SQCRs review 45,497 active cases per year.\45\ It takes an average of
8.908908 hours per review. The median hourly rate for a social worker
is $27.83. Thus, the cost of performing QC reviews is currently an
estimated $11,370,300. (Table E.3)) Under the proposal, SQCRs will
review about 59,146 cases per year, an increase of 30 percent. However,
after the first year, the average time per review is expected to drop
from 8.908908 hours to 6.33 hours. This is because reviewers will only
be required to examine households' circumstances for the month that the
action took place, eliminating the need for comparing households'
circumstances at the month of action versus the month of the review.
The cost of performing QC reviews is estimated to be $10,419,400, a
savings of $950,900. Because these are State Administrative Expenses
the savings will be equally split between the Federal Government and
State Agencies, with each saving $475,450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The changes in sampling procedures only affect active
cases, not negative cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New requirement to report non-error causing variances. Currently,
States are not required to report non-error causing variances back to
local SNAP offices. Section 275.12(d)(3) will require SQCRs to notify
the local office of deficiencies in all cases, regardless of the error
impact on the case. Little is known about how many variances of these
kinds are currently reported, how many non-error causing variances will
be reported under the requirement, or how long it takes to report such
variances. Some cases will have no non-error causing variances, whereas
others may have multiples of these variances. FNS is assuming that the
additional time will average 15 minutes per case. This average is not
meant to assume that all cases will have variances to report; rather,
it is an average to balance cases with many variances to report against
cases that have no additional variances to report. Using the hourly
rate of $27.83 for a social worker times 59,146 cases (this is equal to
30 percent more than the FY 2017 actives QC case load, as required by
the proposed sampling methodology) times 15 minutes per case yields a
cost estimate of about $411,500, of which nearly $205,750 will be borne
by the Federal Government and $205,750 will be borne by State Agencies.
Record keeping for more cases. States are required to keep records
of all State QC reviews. It is estimated that the record keeping takes
about 3 minutes per case, and that will be unchanged under the proposed
system. However, because the number of cases is increasing by 13,649,
using the average hourly rate of $27.83 for a social worker, the cost
will increase by an estimated $17,900. This cost will be split between
the Federal Government ($8,950) and State Agencies ($8,950).
New requirement to attest the validity of the sampling plan. State
Agencies will now be required to provide an annual statement attesting
to the validity of the sampling plan. The time to provide the statement
is estimated to be 12 minutes. Each of the 53 State Agencies will have
a SNAP manager provide this statement. According to the Bureau of Labor
and Statistics, the median rate for a general manager is $55.41 at time
of analysis. Thus, the cost is $600 per year, $300 borne by the Federal
Government and $300 borne by State Agencies.
Increased QC help desk support. FNS will be required to provide
increased help desk support. Currently, FNS contracts for one staff
member to provide this support, at an annual cost of $70,000. FNS
anticipates needing to contract for three additional people, for an
additional cost of $210,000. This cost will be entirely borne by the
Federal Government.
Additional QC data storage. FNS currently stores the SNAP QC data
on six servers, at an annual cost of $27,333.33 per server, or $164,000
total. In addition, the storage costs are currently $11,000 per year.
With all States using the SNAP QC data system and the increased sample
size, FNS anticipates that these costs will quadruple, to $656,000 for
the servers and $44,000 for storage, for a total of $700,000. The
additional cost will total $492,000 for the servers and $33,000 for
storage, for a total of $525,000. This cost will be entirely borne by
the Federal Government.
The total annual administrative cost of the changes to the QC
review process is estimated to be $214,100. Because some costs, such as
help desk support and additional data storage, are not shared with
State Agencies, the estimated cost to the Federal Government is
$474,600. State Agencies are expected to save $260,500 annually due to
the reduced case processing time.
Annual Household Administrative Burden
As discussed previously, the changes to the case sampling
procedures will result in an overall increase in the number of cases
sampled each year, from 45,497 annually to 59,146 (an increase of
13,649 cases). As described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of
this proposed rule, the burden to an individual household selected for
review is not expected to change and will remain about 30 minutes per
household. However, since the number of cases selected will increase,
overall household burden will also increase. The increase is expected
to cost $49,477.6 annually (13,649 cases x .5 hours per case x minimum
wage of $7.25).
Uncertainties
While this proposed rule is expected to improve SNAP program
integrity, it is
[[Page 64775]]
unclear whether the rule provisions will result in additional sanctions
or liabilities being imposed on State Agencies as a result of these
proposed changes.
Table E.3--Annual Operating Costs and Savings (Changes From Current Procedures) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Proposed
Annual variable costs Current Proposed Difference Current Proposed Difference hourly hourly Difference Current cost Proposed cost Difference
units units hours hours ($) rate ($) rate ($) ($) ($000's) ($000's) ($000's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing Active Cases.......................... 45,497.00 59,146.10 13,649.10 8.98 6.33 -2.65 27.83 27.83 0.00 11,370.30 10,419.40 -950.90
Reporting all non-error causing Variances........ 0.00 59,146.00 59,146.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 27.83 27.83 0.00 0.00 411.50 411.50
Record Keeping................................... 45,497.00 59,146.10 13,649.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 27.83 27.83 0.00 59.80 77.70 17.90
Attest Sample Plan............................... 53.00 53.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 55.41 55.41 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Fixed Costs Current Proposed
unit cost unit cost
($) ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help Desk Support................................ 1.00 4.00 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 70,000.00 70,000.00 0.00 70.00 280.00 210.00
Servers.......................................... 6.00 24.00 18.00 N/A N/A N/A 27,333.33 27,333.33 0.00 164.00 656.00 492.00
Storage.......................................... 1.00 4.00 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 11,000.00 11,000.00 0.00 11.00 44.00 33.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Costs........................... ......... ......... .......... ....... ........ .......... ......... ......... .......... 11,675.10 11,889.20 214.10
Federal Share................................ ......... ......... .......... ....... ........ .......... ......... ......... .......... 5,95960.05 6,434.60 474.55
State Share.................................. ......... ......... .......... ....... ........ .......... ......... ......... .......... 5,75715.05 5,454.60 -260.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Agencies
to analyze the impact of rulemaking on small entities and consider
alternatives that would minimize any significant impacts on a
substantial number of small entities. The entities impacted by this
rule are State SNAP agencies that conduct QC reviews, which are not
considered small entities for purposes of this analysis.
Pursuant to our review, the Department certifies that this rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal
governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
Department generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local or Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule,
Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Department to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule.
This rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal
governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 12372
SNAP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under
Number 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule codified in
7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and the related Notice (48 FR 29115), this
Program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consider the
impact of their regulatory actions on State and local governments.
Where such actions have federalism implications, agencies are directed
to provide a statement for inclusion in the preamble to the regulations
describing the agency's considerations in terms of the three categories
called for under Section (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121.
The Department has considered the impact of this proposed rule,
with comment, on State and local governments and has determined that
this rule does not have federalism implications. Therefore, under
Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism summary is not
required.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect
with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
and timely implementation. This rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Dates section
of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
the final rule, all applicable administrative procedures must be
exhausted.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed the proposed rule, Provisions to Improve the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's QC System, in accordance
with the Department Regulation 4300-004, Civil
[[Page 64776]]
Rights Impact Analysis to identify and address any major civil rights
impacts the proposed rule may have on participants on the basis of
race, color, national origin, sex, and disability. A comprehensive
Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) was conducted on the proposed rule,
including an analysis of data and provisions contained in the proposed
rule. The CRIA outlines outreach and mitigation strategies to lessen
any possible civil rights impacts. The CRIA concludes the provisions of
the proposed rule will impact the statistical design and active case
review process, as well as clarify and update current regulations. The
proposed rule would result in more SNAP households being selected for
QC review in the active frame. The demographic profile of SNAP
participants includes minorities, persons with disabilities, and the
elderly; thus, program participants in these groups may be selected for
QC review in the active frame. Additionally, the proposed rule will
require State agencies to revise their review procedures, possibly
resulting in less onerous reviews for a larger number of cases. The
Department finds that the implementation of mitigation strategies and
monitoring by the FNS Civil Rights Division and FNS SNAP may lessen
these impacts. If necessary, the FNS Civil Rights Division will propose
further mitigation and outreach strategies to alleviate impacts that
may result from the implementation of the proposed rule.
Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies
that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative
comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or
actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This regulation has possible
Tribal implications, so consultation is required. FNS attended a Tribal
consultation meeting on May 1, 2019, in Washington, DC and virtually to
a Nevada meeting on December 6, 2022, where the changes to this rule
were explained. No questions or concerns were brought to FNS's
attention about this rule by any members of either meeting. If further
consultation is requested, the Office of Tribal Relations will work
with FNS to ensure quality consultation is provided.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR
1320), requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve
all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public
before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond
to any collection of information unless it displays a current, valid
OMB control number. We are seeking a new OMB Control Number for these
new, existing, and changing provisions in this rule and, once OMB
approves the information collection request burden associated with this
rulemaking, we will submit a request to merge the burden hours into
their respective OMB Control Numbers. Once the merge is approved the
newly assigned OMB control number can be discontinued. The current
burden inventories for this collection are found in OMB-0584-0074,
Expiration Date: 07/30/2025; 0584-0299, Expiration Date: 07/31/2023,
and 0584-0303, Expiration Date: 1/31/2024. These changes are contingent
upon OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Additionally, when the information collection requirements have been
approved, FNS will publish a separate action in the Federal Register
announcing OMB's approval.
Comments on the information collection in this proposed rule must
be received by November 20, 2023.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, Washington, DC 20503. Please also
send a copy of your comments to John McCleskey, Branch Chief, Quality
Control Branch, Program Administration and Nutrition Division, 1320
Braddock Place, 5th Floor; Alexandria, Virginia 22314. For further
information, or for copies of the information collection requirements,
please contact John McCleskey at the address indicated above. Comments
are invited on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the proposed information
collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
All responses to this request for comments will be summarized and
included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become
a matter of public record.
Title: Provisions to Improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program's Quality Control System.
OMB Number: 0584-NEW.
Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.
Type of Request: New collection.
Abstract: Section 16 of the Act provides the legislative basis for
the operation of the QC system. Part 275, Subpart C, of SNAP
regulations implements the legislative mandates found in section 16.
Regulations at 7 CFR 275.1, 275.14(d) and 275.21(a) and (b)(1) provide
the regulatory basis for the QC reporting requirements. Section 11(a)
of the Act provides the legislative basis for the recordkeeping
requirements. Existing SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 275.4 specifically
address record retention requirements for QC including form FNS-380,
FNS-380-1, and the sampling plans found in 7 CFR 275 of the
regulations.
Component (1) Form FNS-380 [OMB Control Number: 0584-0074], is a
SNAP worksheet used to determine eligibility and benefits for
households selected for review in the QC sample of active SNAP cases.
This form provides a systematic means of aiding the State's Quality
Control Reviewer in analyzing the case record, planning and doing field
investigation and gathering, comparing, analyzing and evaluating data.
FNS estimates that while this rule will require thirty percent more
cases (households) be reviewed for QC, the rule does not change the
existing burden on households, and will effectively decrease the
ongoing burden for 53 State agencies by 20,151 hours annually. In
addition, in order to implement the changes of the rule in the first
year, the rule will add 196,915.17 startup burden hours for State
agencies. These startup hours include 40 hours of training for 263
State QC reviewers on just the new review procedures for active cases,
64 hours to train 371 reviewers on using both SNAPQCS's automated FNS
380 worksheet and the new review procedures for active cases, and FNS
is including 2.75 hours of additional time for State agencies to
complete the FNS 380 worksheet for each case review to properly review
and document according to the new procedures for the active case
review. The revised total ongoing burden associated with this rule for
this component is 385,844.12 reporting and recordkeeping burden
[[Page 64777]]
hours and the first year's total reporting and recordkeeping burden due
to rulemaking including the startup hours is 196,915.17 hours, bringing
the total burden in the first year of implementation of the rule to
582,759.29 reporting and recordkeeping hours for this component.
Component (2) FNS 380-1 [OMB Control Number: 0584-0299], is SNAP's
QC Review Schedule which collects QC and household characteristics
data. The information needed to complete this form is obtained from the
SNAP case record and State quality control findings. The information is
used to monitor and reduce errors, develop policy strategies, and
analyze household characteristic data. FNS estimates this rule will
require 53 State agencies a revised total of 63,853.892 ongoing
reporting and recordkeeping burden hours annually for this component of
this collection. This is an increase of 14,735.33 burden hours. An
estimated total of 742 additional startup hours are necessary for the
first year's implementation of components within this collection for
this rule. This startup includes 2 hours for 371 State QC reviewers to
be trained on how to use SNAPQCS's automated FNS 380-1 worksheet. The
revised total reporting and recordkeeping ongoing burden hours for the
first year 64,595.89 hours.
Component (3) In the 275 regulations [OMB Control Number: 0584-
0303], each State agency is required to develop a QC sampling plan that
demonstrates the integrity of its case selection procedures. The QC
system is designed to measure each State agency's payment error rate
based on a statistically valid sample of SNAP cases. A State agency's
payment error rate represents the proportion of cases that were
reported through a QC review as being ineligible, overissued and
underissued as well as the proportion of SNAP allotments that were
either overissued or underissued to SNAP households. The FNS 311
Handbook is used by State agencies as a reference tool for creating
their sampling plans. The current ongoing reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection is 2,829 hours. FNS estimates this rule will
require 53 State agencies a revised total of 2,829 ongoing reporting
and recordkeeping hours and an additional 2,120 startup reporting
burden hours for this first year of implementation of components within
this rule. These startup hours include 40 hours for 53 State agency
statisticians to update their State's sampling procedures to comply
with the new sampling requirements of this rule. The first year of
implementation for this component of the rule will require a total of
4,949 reporting and recordkeeping burden hours.
In total, FNS estimates this rule will decrease the overall ongoing
burden associated with these three collections by 5,416 reporting
burden hours. The overall total burden for these three components
associated with the rule will require 53 State agencies, a total of
422,951 ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burden hours and 59,146
households 29,573 ongoing reporting burden hours annually. FNS also
estimates this rule will require State agencies an additional
199,777.17 startup burden hours to implement the changes in this rule.
Therefore, a grand total of 652,302 reporting and recordkeeping burden
hours are estimated for this first year of implementation for this
rule. This rule affects the three components of the QC process
mentioned above, the use of (1) FNS forms 380, (2) FNS 380-1 and (3)
the creation of the State QC Sampling plan attestation. The average
burden per response and the annual startup and ongoing burden hours are
explained below and summarized in the charts that follow.
Ongoing Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
FNS 380: A SNAP worksheet used to determine eligibility and
allotment amounts for households selected for review in the QC sample
of active SNAP cases.
Reporting Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 59,199 (59,146
Individuals/Households and 53 State, Local and Tribal Government).
Estimated reporting responses for this Rule: 473,172 responses
(59,146 for Individuals/Households and 473,172 for State, Local and
Tribal Government).
Estimated hours per reporting response: 6.58 hours (0.5 hours for
Individuals/Households and 6.08 hours for State, Local and Tribal
Government).
Estimated Responses per Respondent to report for this Rule: 7812.81
(7,811.81 responses per State agency and 1 response per Household).
Estimated Reporting hours for this Rule: 384,449 hours (354,876
hours for State agencies and 29,573 burden hours for Households).
Estimated Records to keep per respondent for this Rule: 59,146
records for State agencies and there is no recordkeeping burden imposed
on Individuals/Households.
Estimated hours per recordkeeping response: 0.0236 hour.
Estimated Total Recordkeeping hours for this Rule: 1,396 hours.
Estimated Total Ongoing Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
for this rule: 385,845 hours.
Rule impacting ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burden: -20,151
hours.
FNS 380-1: SNAP's QC Review Schedule which collects QC and
household characteristics data.
Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 53 State, Local, and Tribal
Government.
Estimated Responses for this Proposed Rule: 59,146 responses.
Estimated Responses per Respondent to report for this Proposed
Rule: 1,115.96 responses.
Estimated hours to report each response: 1.056 hours.
Estimated Total Reporting burden for this Rule: 62,458 hours.
Estimated Records to keep for this Proposed Rule: 59,146 responses.
Estimated Number of Records to keep per respondent for this Rule:
1,115.96 records per respondent to keep.
Estimated hours per recordkeeping response: 0.0236 hour.
Estimated Total Recordkeeping burden for this Rule: 1,395.84 hours.
Estimated Annual reporting and recordkeeping Burden on Respondents
for this Proposed Rule: 63,853.89 hours.
Rule impacting ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burden:
+14,735.33 hours.
FNS 275 Rules: Sampling Plan, 3rd Party Contractors, Arbitration, Good
Cause, New Investment
Estimated Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 53 State, Local, and
Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent to report for this
Proposed Rule: 129 responses.
Estimated hours to report for each response: 21.91 hours.
Estimated Total Reporting Burden for this rule: 2826 hours.
Estimated Records to keep for this Rule: 246 records.
Estimated Records to keep per respondent for this Rule: 4.64
records per respondent.
Estimated hours to keep records for each response: 0.118 hours.
Estimated Total Recordkeeping burden for this Rule: 2.7612 hours.
Estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping Burden on Respondents
for this Proposed Rule: 545 hours.
Rule impacting ongoing reporting and recordkeeping burden: 0 hours.
Estimated Grand Total Reporting and Recordkeeping Ongoing burden
for this rule: 2,828.75 hours.
Estimated Total Rule impacting ongoing reporting and recordkeeping
burden: 0 hours.
[[Page 64778]]
Startup Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
FNS 380:
Reporting Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 687 State, Local and
Tribal Government (53 State agencies and 634 State QC reviewers).
Estimated Number of startup reporting responses for this Rule:
237,218 responses.
Estimated hours per reporting response: .83 hours.
Estimated Number of annual Reporting hours for this Rule: 196,915
hours.
Estimated Total Recordkeeping startup hours for this Rule: 0 hours.
Estimated Total startup year Burden for this Rule: 196,915 hours.
FNS 380-1:
Reporting Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 371 State QC
Reviewers.
Estimated Number of startup reporting responses per respondent for
this Rule: 1 response.
Estimated hours per reporting response: 2 hours.
Estimated Number of annual Reporting hours for this Rule: 742 hours
for State reviewers.
Estimated Total startup year Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden for
this Rule: 742 hours.
FNS 275:
Reporting Respondents for this Proposed Rule: 53 State, Local and
Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of startup reporting responses for this Rule: 53
responses.
Estimated hours per reporting response: 40 hours.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent to report for this
Rule: 1 response.
Estimated Number of annual Reporting hours for this Rule: 2,120
hours.
Estimated Total Recordkeeping startup hours for this Rule: 0 hours.
Estimated Total startup Burden for this component of this Rule:
2,120 hours.
Estimated Grand Total Reporting and Recordkeeping Startup burden
for this rule: 452,524.40 hours.
Estimated Grand Total Reporting and Recordkeeping burden for first
year for this rule: 652,302 hours.
Table A.1--Revised I/H Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting burden for individuals/households FNS 380, OMB 0584-0074
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Revised
Estimated Estimated Revised number of estimated Previous Difference Difference
Reg. section Description of number of responses total burden total submission due to due to
activity respondents per annual hours per burden total hours program adjustments
respondent responses response hours changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.12 (c)(1)................. Personal 59,146.00 1 59,146.00 0.5 29,573 22,748 ........... +6,825
Interviews--Ind
ividuals or
Households.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals & Households Grand Total 59,146.00 ........... 59,146.00 ........... 29,573 ........... ........... +6,825
Reporting Burden Hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.2--Revised State agency (SA) Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden 0584-0074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Revised
Est number Estimated Revised number of estimated Previous Difference Difference
Reg. section Description of of responses total burden total submission due to due to
activity respondents per annual hours per burden total hours program adjustments
respondent responses response hours changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Burden for State Agencies FNS 380, OMB 0584-0074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.12 (b)..................... Household Case 53 1,115.96 59,146 2 118,292 136,490.37 -18,199 ...........
Record Review.
275.12 (c)..................... Field 53 1,115.96 59,146 2 118,292 159,238.77 -40,947 ...........
investigation.
275.12 (c)(1).................. Personal 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,573 22,748.40 6,825 ...........
interviews.
275.12 (d)(1).................. Variance 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,573 40,947.11 -11,374 ...........
identification.
275.12 (e)..................... Error analysis... 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,573 22,748.40 6,825 ...........
275.12 (f)..................... Reporting of 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.25 14,786 n/a 14,786 ...........
review findings.
275.12 (d)(3).................. Reporting all 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.25 14,786 n/a 14,786 ...........
variances to
Local offices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub Total Reporting Burden.................... 53 7,811.72 414,021 6.08 354,875 382,173 -27,298 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping Burden for State Agencies FNS 380, OMB 0584-0074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS 380 Recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.4.......................... Record Retention. 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.0236 1,396 1,073.73 322.113568 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total Reporting & Recordkeeping Burden.. 53 ........... 473,167 0.75295 356,271 383,247 -26,976 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.3--State Agency (SA) Reporting Startup Burden 0584-0074
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Startup Startup
Estimated Estimated Startup number of estimated
Reg. section Description of number of responses annual burden total
activity respondents per responses hours per burden
respondent response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Burden Hours for State Agencies FNS 380, OMB 0584-0074 STARTUP Hours First Year Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.12 (d)(1)................ Variance 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.75 44,359.41
identification.
[[Page 64779]]
275.12 (e)................... Error analysis.. 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.75 44,359.41
275.12 (f)................... Reporting of 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.5 29,572.94
review findings.
275.12 (d)(3)................ Reporting 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.75 44,359.41
findings to
Local offices.
275.12....................... Training State 263 1 263 40 10,520.00
Agency QC
reviewers on
New Actives
Process only.
275.12 and 275.21 (b)(1)..... Train reviewers 371 1 371 64 23,744.00
on New Actives
Process AND
train new
SNAPQCS users
(reviewers) how
to use SNAPQCS
for 380.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total STARTUP Hours Reporting Burden 687 345.294789 237,218 106.75 196,915.17
Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.4--State Agency (SA) Reporting Revised Burden 0584-0299
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised
Estimated Estimated Revised number of Revised Previous Difference Difference
Reg. section Description of activity number of responses total burden estimated submission due to due to
respondents per annual hours per total annual total hours program adjustments
respondent responses response burden hours changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS 380-1 Reporting for State Agencies OMB Control Number 0584-0299
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.12(f)...................................... Reporting of Review Findings..... 53 1,115.96 59,146 1.056 62,458.049 48,044.83 14,413.22 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total Reporting Burden Hours Only....................................... 53 1,115.96 59146 1.056 62,458.049 .............. 14,413.22 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reg. section Description of activity Estimated Estimated Annual Ongoing Number of Previously Differences Differences
number of responses responses number of annual burden submission due to due to
respondents per burden hours per total burden program adjustments
respondent hours per response changes
response
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS 380-1 Recordkeeping Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.4.......................................... Record Retention................. 53 1,115.96 59,146 0.0236 1395.842768 1,073.7292 322.1136 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total Affected Public................................................... 53 2,231.92 118,292 1.08 63,853.892 49,118.56 14,735.33 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.5--State Agency (SA) Startup Burden 0584-0299
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Startup
Estimated Startup number of
Description of Estimated responses Startup number of annual
Reg. section activity number of per annual burden burden
respondents respondent responses hours per hours per
response response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNS 380-1 Reporting for State Agencies OMB Control Number 0584-0299 STARTUP First Year Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.21 (b)(1).................. Train new State 371 1 371 2 742
agency reviewers
how to use
SNAPQCS for 380-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total STARTUP Hours Reporting Burden Only 371 1 371 2 742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.6--State Agency (SA) Revised Burden 0584-0303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised
Estimated Estimated Revised Revised estimated Previous Difference Difference
Reg. section Description of number of responses total number of total submission due to due to
activity respondents per annual burden hours burden total hours program adjustments
respondent responses per response hours changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275 Regs Reporting OMB 0584-0303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.11(a)(1)-(a)(2).......... Sampling Plan.. 53 1 53 20 1,060 1,060 0 0
275.2(c)(1)(i)............... Use of 3rd 3 1 3 0.25 0.75 0.75 0 0
Party
Contractors--N
otification of
intent to hire.
275.2(c)(1)(ii).............. Use of 3rd 3 1 3 0.5 1.5 1.5 0 0
Party
Contractors--S
ubmission of
signed
contract and
tasks.
[[Page 64780]]
275.2(c)(1)(iii)............. Use of 3rd 3 1 3 0.5 1.5 1.5 0 0
Party
Contractors--S
ubmission of
completed
deliverables.
275.2(c)(1)(iv).............. Use of 3rd 3 1 3 0.08 0.24 0.24 0 0
Party
Contractors--N
otification of
training
sessions.
275.2(c)(4).................. Arbitration 12 3 36 34 1,224 1,224 0 0
Process.
273.23(f).................... Good Cause 1 1 1 160 160 160 0 0
Process.
275.23(h).................... New Investment 9 1 9 32 288 288 0 0
Plan Template
Form FNS 74 A.
275.23(h)(4)................. New Investment 9 2 18 5 90 90 0 0
Progress
Report
Template Form
FNS 74 B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total Reporting Burden................ 53 2.433962264 129 21.90689922 2,825.99 2,825.99 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.4........................ Sampling Plan 53 1 53 0.0236 1.2508 1.2508 0
Record
Retention.
275.4........................ Arbitration 12 3 36 0.0236 0.8496 0.8496 0
Process Record
Retention.
275.4........................ Good Cause 1 1 1 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0
Process Record
Retention.
275.4........................ New Investment 9 1 9 0.0236 0.2124 0.2124 0
Plan Template
Form FNS 74 A
Record
Retention.
275.4........................ New Investment 9 2 18 0.0236 0.4248 0.4248 0
Progress
Report
Template Form
FNS 74 B
Record
Retention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping Total....................... 53 2.20754717 117 0.0236 2.7612 2.7612 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.7--State Agency (SA) Startup Burden 0584-0303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Revised
Estimated Estimated Revised number of estimated
Reg. section Description of number of responses total burden total
activity respondents per annual hours per burden
respondent responses response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275 Regs Reporting STARTUP OMB Control Number 0584-0303
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
275.11....................... Implement new 53 1 53 40 2,120
sampling plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total Reporting Burden............... 53 ........... 53 ........... 2,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.8--Summary of Grand Total Annual Reporting & Recordkeeping Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
activity Estimated Annual Number of Estimated
Form or citation (ongoing or number of responses burden hours total burden
start up) respondents per response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
380 SA........................ Ongoing......... 53 473,172 0.75295 353,272.00
380 I/H....................... Ongoing......... 59,146 59,146 0.5 29,573.00
380-1......................... Ongoing......... 53 118,292 1.0796 63,854.00
275........................... Ongoing......... 53 246 20 2,828
380 SA........................ Startup......... 53 236,584 2.75 162,651
380 SA Staff train on Review Startup......... 263 263 40 10,520.00
process.
380 SA Staff train on Review Startup......... 371 371 64 23,744.00
process and SNAPQCS.
380-1 SA Staff for SNAPQCS.... Startup......... 371 371 2 742
275 Regulations............... Startup......... 53 53 40 2,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total Reporting and Recordkeeping 59,886 888,498 98 649,304.00
Burden for Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64781]]
Table A.8--Summary of Current and Rule Associated Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control number 0074 Rule related Rule related
revised ongoing new startup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total No. Respondents........................ 45,550 13,649 687
Estimated Average No. Responses per Respondent......... 6.991833 0.97 345.294
Estimated Total Annual Responses....................... 318,478.00 154,689.00 237,218
Estimated Average Hours per Response................... 0.00 ................. 0.83
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested.......... 582,759 385,844 196,915.17
Current OMB Inventory.................................. 405,997 405,997 .................
Difference Due to Rulemaking........................... 176,762 (-20,152) 196,915.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control number 0299 Rule related Rule related
revised ongoing new startup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total No. Respondents........................ 53.00 53 371
Estimated Average No. Responses per Respondent......... 2,238.925 2,231.920 1
Estimated Total Annual Responses....................... 118,663.000 118,291.760 371
Estimated Average Hours per Response................... 0.54654 0.54607 2
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested.......... 64,854.000 64595.89205 742
Current OMB Inventory.................................. 49,119 49,119 .................
Difference Due to Rulemaking........................... 15,477 14,735 742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control number 0303 Rule related Rule related
revised ongoing new startup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total No. Respondents........................ 53.00 53 53
Estimated Average No. Responses per Respondent......... 4.6420 4.642 1
Estimated Total Annual Responses....................... 246 426 1
Estimated Average Hours per Response................... 11.4989 11.4989 40
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested.......... 4,949 4,949 2,120
Current OMB Inventory.................................. 2,829 2,825 0
Difference Due to Rulemaking........................... 0 10 2120
-
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on September 19, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.