Food Assistance Program Rule Rewrite

Food Assistance Program Rule Rewrite

Attachment to Rulemaking #12-1-3-2

Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

Food Assistance Rule Rewrite

CDHS

January 29, 2013

9:00 am-3:00 pm

Attendees: Amanda Dyer, Tim Anderson, Jim Adams-Berger, Kelcey Wetzel (insert name of attendees)

Introductions and Ground Rules

Jim distributed a handout with general norms for the group and guiding questions.
The group agreed with the norms.
Throughout the conversation, it was suggested that the group keep the idea of two customers, Food Assistance workers and the clients we service, in mind.
In regards to the guiding questions, the group was also asked to think through the lens of the two customers.

Section 4.500, Verification and Documentation

Overall Flow and Organization of Section

The group liked that all of the information is now in one place. It will be easier for clients who want to research their own case. It will also be easier to find the verification information.
4.502 (page 1) – It was asked why the expedited requirements were listed first.
It was explained that every applicant should be screened as expedited first.
Jim polled the group to determine if they agreed with the decision to have the expedited requirements first. The majority of the group agreed with this decision.
4.505.1 (page 11) – There were questions around whether Collateral Contact is acceptable for the EBT office.
Collateral Contact should be accepted. All information should be documented in the case record.
Workers can attach a copy of this screen with the form.

Information Considered Verified Upon Receipt (4.503.6)

4.503.5, 2, A (page 7) – It was noted that 2A is confusing.
It was clarified that unemployment benefits are considered verified upon receipt.
4.503.5 H, 1 (page 6) – It was noted that H1A and H1C are redundant.
It was recommended that C be removed and numbers 1- 4 be added under B, as examples of information that can be verified through SDX and BENDEX.
In terms of training, it is important to stress to workers that SDX and BENDEX are different. SDX provides immediate, up-to-date information, and BENDEX provides the last updated information. BENDEX may not be the most current information.
4.503.6, C (page 8) – It was suggested that the following language be added: a claim that is created that is the result of a change that is verified upon receipt is valid.
It was also suggested that the first sentence be bulleted out into three pieces.
4.503.6, B (page 8) – It was recommended that the title of the citation (Section B-4.608.1), Advance Notice of Adverse Action, be added.
The group thought the title of the citation be added to all citations referenced throughout the rules.
It was noted that UIB is verified upon receipt from the IEVS hit.
The agency has 45 days to work through IEVS.
The IEVS is considered valid when reported rather than when it is worked. This is a federal clarification.
It was suggested that it would be helpful if this information interfaced like child support.
It was also suggested that clarification is needed in the rule and in trainings that the agency has 10 days to act.
This also needs to be cross-walked with CBMS.
4.503.6, D, 13 (page 9) – It was noted that this change is effective with the rules rewrite.
There were questions around how workers should act on this information if it is reported by a third-party rather than the household and whether the information is verified upon receipt.
This is creating a significant amount of confusion at the county-level and each individual worker is deciding what to enter into CBMS.
It was suggested that the references to death and nursing homes be kept, but there were questions around listing jails and prisons.
For example, nursing home information could be verified using forms like the 5615. Death information could come from the household and other consistent statewide sources (burial program, general assistance program).
Based on the conversation, Amanda will send out this section to counties for further feedback.
It was also suggested that it would be helpful to separate out what information the household reports and what is known in CBMS.
4.503.6, D, 5, A (page 9) – Currently, there is no clarification around when the information is considered reported and verified.
It was suggested that 4.503.6, D, 12 be moved closer to 4.503.6, D, 5.
4.503.6, D, 12, A (page 9) – It was suggested that the language be changed to the date the PA grant is authorized.
4.503.6, D, 7 (page 9) – It was suggested the rule specifies when the information is reported and verified.
For non-compliance information, it was asked what is reported and verified.
The agency should allow for noticing when they have a sanction, and the focus should be on when the sanction is effective.
4.503.6, D, 8 (page 9) – It was noted that adverse action is not allowed for IPVs.
4.503.6, 10 and 11 (page 9) – The group agreed to removing 10 and 11 from this section.
These numbers will be added to the section around sources that can be used to verify information.

Information Not Considered Verified Upon Receipt (4.503.61)

This is a new section that is being added to the rules. It does not currently exist.
It was asked if you are able to request verification for new hire hits.
It was noted that a case should not be closed based on a failure to receive verification.
Since there is no CBMS solution, a verification request should be sent outside of CBMS.
It was suggested that the following language be added into the rules: new hire hits are not considered verified upon receipt.
When a new hire hit is received, workers are not required to request verification.
Rather than shutting down cases, workers should wait for the RR period.
It was suggested that workers focus on IEVS rather than new hire hits. IEVS are more reliable.
Amanda will add language into the rules around how workers should handle and act on new hire hits. This language will apply to more than new hire hits.
4.503.61, B, 1 and B, 6 (page 10) – It was suggested that numbers 1 and 6 be further looked into. The rules need to be very clear whether the information is verified or not.
It was decided that B1 and B6 will be revised.
4.503.61, B, 7 (page 10) – This information must be independently verified. If it is not verified, no action should be taken. If it is verified, it must be acted upon.
It was decided that B7 will be removed.
For CBMS, it was recommended that workers use verify at recertification under verification type.

Section 4.600, Ongoing Case Management

Overall Flow and Organization of Section

Since this section is very crucial in determining adverse actions and appeals, Amanda asked the group to review the section again after the work session.
4.602 (page 2) – For the all capital letters paragraph, it was suggested that the language specific to the change reported date be included rather than the citation. Did not incorporate this feedback because the goal is to keep 4B clean, easy to read, and non-repetitive
4.602, A (page 2) – Since paragraphs 2 and 3 are very similar, both paragraphs will be combined into one. We are combining both paragraphs
4.602, B (page 2) – The following text, “and/or verification that has been provided,” will be removed. Done
4.603 (page 2) – It was recommended that clarification be provided on when a household turns in their certification and when a change occurs between. The paragraph in question appears to clarify the confusion. It clearly states that if a household turns in its application, then experiences changes prior to the processing of that application, the FA office will act on the changes (the most current information)
4.603, A, 2 (page 2) – It was suggested that A, 2 be expanded to include RRs, interviews and periodic reports. I added language to 4.603, A, 3 to address this issue.
4.604, F (page 6) – It was noted that F is too far into the rule and should be moved up in the section. This feedback was incorporated into the re-write. This section was moved
It was suggested that this section be placed between C (Changes Resulting in an Increase) and D (Changes Resulting in Ineligibility). This is exactly where we moved this section
4.604, F, 1 (page 6) – It was recommended that the Household Composition Rule be referenced in F, 1 (4110.1 and 4110.11). A citation to the household composition section (4.304) was included here
Amanda will also look at the language used in the white papers. Done.
4.604, F, 1, H – In terms of what you can do, it was noted that this section is difficult to read Revisions were made in an effort to make it easier to read
Amanda noted that this is a correction from what we have been doing. However, CBMS is programmed to do the right thing.
4.601, E (starts on page 1) – In the first paragraph, it was suggested that all households for simplified reporting be added. The word “all” was added to the questionable sentence to clarify that it applies to all simplified reporting households.
4.603, B, 3 and B, 4 (page 3) – It was recommended that B, 4 be placed before B, 3. They were rearranged in this way. It was also suggested to tie 4.604, F, 1, H into B, 4.
B3 – Regardless of income, households don’t have to report.
B4 – It was asked what workers should do if households report on B, 4. B, 4 was changed to B, 3, and language was added to B, 3 referencing the “Action on Reported Changes” section
It was noted that only the elderly and disabled, people under Family Preservation, are certified over 130% FPL. Noted
Amanda will continue to work on this language, including being certified between 130% and 200% FPL and reporting when a client goes over 130% FPL. New language was added to this section to clarify the reporting requirements for household’s certified above 130%
Amanda will get clarification around clients certified below 130% FPL as well as clients certified above 130%. Clarification was incorporated into 4.600
CBMS is currently programmed to send out FS3Ls.
The 130% FPL reports do not have to be acted upon. However, workers will act on these reports.
Amanda will look into CBMS for 130% FPL reports. We aren’t sure what reports this is talking about
4.604.1 (last paragraph on page 7) – It was asked if this paragraph could be reworded. This paragraph was reworded to make it easier to read
4.604, C, 2 – This section also deals with an increase in food assistance and should also be reworded. This section deals solely with increases to FA. Not sure what the commenter is referencing.
What type of verification is needed? For example, if a client tells the worker they are no longer employed, should the worker take their word for it and get a copy of their last paycheck? Clarification was added that HHs must report and verify the loss of employment.
4.605, A (page 7) – It was recommended that the language be changed to date the change was authorized rather than reported. This was done.
4.604.1 (pages 6 and 7) – It was recommended that language around what we will do for simplified reporting households be added. Language was added to this section to clarify this topic.

Advance Notice of Adverse Action (4.608)

Amanda explained that this section is still being worked on internally.
4.608, B (page 10) – The terminology “day the notice expires” is confusing. It was suggested that the language be changed to last day of that month rather than month the notice expires. Clarifying language was added to help readers understand this concept.
It was also recommended that this be added to the definitions section. DONE
4.608, B (second paragraph, page 10) – It was suggested that the paragraph be separated out. It would be more helpful for the “10 calendar day advance notice period” statements to be two paragraphs. DONE
4.608, B (page 11) – It was asked how we can make it more clear that it is the date reported.
It was suggested that a reference to 4.602 (When Changes are Considered Reported) be added. DONE
4.608.1, H (page 12) – It was suggested that the reference to Section B-4242.3 include the name of the section. Once the manual is finalized and we know where this section lands, we will update this citation and ensure that a title is included.

Section 4.400, Financial Criteria

Review of New Rules

Prisoner Release Monies – 4.405, F (page 17)
It was recommended that the examples of lump sum payments be bulleted out.
It was asked how to treat a second diversion payment received in a 12-month period.
The second diversion payment would not count as a recurring lump sum because it was not expected to be received.
It was noted that a lump sum is a resource and is exempt from income.
Monies received from a reverse mortgage – 4.405, G, 2 (page 18)
G, 1 – It was suggested that G, 1 be clarified and language around bona fide loans, loans with a specific repayment plan, be added in.
Vendor Payments – 4.405, I (page 18)
The letter bullets under section I need to be changed to numbers. This will be consistent with the bulleting format throughout the document.
Excess Shelter Deduction – 4.407.3, E, 1 (page 34)
It was recommended that clarifications are needed for paying rent in advance and paying extra for pets.
Clients get a regular deduction for paying rent in advance.
Pet fees are not an allowable deduction.
Service animals are clarified under 4.407.6, A, 6 (page 39).
Excess Shelter Deduction – 4.407.3, E, 2 (page 34)
Clarifications around property taxes and insurance if not escrowed in the mortgage should be added.
Telephone Costs – 4.407.3, E, 5 (page 34)
It was asked if prepaid phones and pagers are included.
Prepaid phones are included.
It was asked if prepaid phones should be specifically included in the rule. Disposable phones are already listed.
4-Tiered Mandatory Standard Utility Allowance – 4.407.31 (page 35)
It was suggested that language around clients declaring to be responsible to pay be added into the rule.
Child support paid by a member under 18 years of age – 4.407.5, A (page 37)
In the first sentence, it was recommended that a period be added after made and “to or for non-household members” be deleted.
It was also suggested that information around calculating deductions and payments be added.
Income Excluded by Other Federal Statute – 4.405.2, Part B American Indian or Alaska Native (page 26)
It was noted that it is difficult to find out what should be counted as income or is exempt from income for Native American populations.
Amanda will compare information from FNS and the federal regulations.
Service Animal – 4.407.6, A, 6 (page 39)
It was recommended that rent payments for pets be added.
It was asked what constitutes special training.
Since FNS has not outlined this, there are questions on how workers can verify.
Amanda will look into requirements for this.

This was intentionally left vague as this will need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Reasonable transportation – 4.407.6, A, 7 (page 39)
The group approved using the flat IRS business rate for miles driven.
Non-allowable medical costs – 4.407.6, B (page 39)
It was recommended that the following text be added: “include, but not limited to.”
Amanda will also look into expanding the list.
It was noted that workers get many requests for vitamins and supplements.
It is not an allowable cost if clients can get the vitamins and supplements from food. If the vitamins or supplements are prescribed, they are allowable costs.
Amanda will clarify this in the rule.
Ineligible non-citizen vs. ineligible student – 4.411 (page 49)
The group agreed that no additional clarification is needed.
Households Destitute of Income – 4.406 (page 30)
It was asked if this section should be expanded.
Volume 4 only applies to migrant or seasonal farmworker households.
Amanda will look at Title 7 to determine if it should be applied to other workers.
It was also suggested that the verification of requirements be researched to see if the section would fit in.

Section 4.200, Applications and Recertifications

Review New Clarifications

Amanda went through old agency letters around the three topics as an attempt to take all of the letters and put them into rule.
Interview requirements – 4.204, A (page 10)
Households certified for 24 months are not required to do an interview at the 12-month mark.
Scheduling interviews – 4.204, B (page 11)
It was asked if interviews have to be scheduled if they are later on in the day.
The scheduled date and time must be documented in the case record.
A physical copy of the client appointment letter is not needed in the case record.
Amanda will look further into the first sentence.
It was also asked if workers can give clients a period of time rather than an exact appointment time. We looked into this possibility, and although FNS allows it as a potential waiver, the State has to monitor and track this and also ensure that every person who comes for an interview during the allotted timeframe is seen in a timely fashion. Colorado is not pursuing this waiver.
Amanda will also look into this question.
Missed interviews – 4.204, C (page 11)
If a client misses their interview, the county is not obligated to expedite the application.
It may be necessary to include this additional language. This language was included in the regulation
It was noted that the language was pulled from the federal regulations.
In the second paragraph on page 12, it was suggested that language around prorating benefits and clarifying from the date that they take the required action be added. Done

Other Thoughts and Discussions

There was a suggestion to drop the B in volume 4B.
The group also asked what training will look like for the new rules.
The effective date of the new rules is December 2013. Therefore, food assistance staff will conduct more training sessions closer to implementation.
The counties thought it would be helpful to receive guidance from the state on how to deal with known issues in CBMS.
If there is a short-term solution, it would be helpful to send communication so everyone is aware of it.
During the process of rewriting the rules, it was noted that the child support interface is an issue.
It was noted that additional feedback can be sent to Amanda in between the work sessions.

Food Assistance Rule Rewrite Work Session #2

Arapahoe County Human Services