[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24820-24831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10541]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 271, 272, and 275
RIN 0584-AD86
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major
Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to amend
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food
Stamp Program) regulations to implement Section 4116 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill). Section 4116 of
the Farm Bill, Review of Major Changes in Program Design, requires the
United States Department of Agriculture (the Department) to identify
standards for major changes in operations of State agencies'
administration of SNAP. The provision also requires State agencies to
notify the Department if they implement a major change in operations
and to collect data that can be used to identify and correct problems
relating to integrity and access, particularly by certain vulnerable
households.
This NPRM proposes criteria for changes that would be considered
``major changes'' in program operations and identifies the types of
data State agencies must collect in order to identify problems relating
to integrity and access. It also proposes when and how State agencies
must report on implementation of a major change.
This NPRM proposes to amend the Management Evaluation (ME) Review
regulations by modifying the requirements for Federal and State reviews
of State agency operations. It also proposes to revise the definitions
of large, medium and small project areas. Finally, it proposes to
remove sections of the regulations pertaining to coupons and coupon
storage since they are obsolete.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites interested
persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Preferred method. Go to http://www.regulations.gov gov; follow the online instructions for submitting
comments on Docket FNS-2011-0035.
Fax: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to (703) 305-2486,
attention: Moira Johnston.
Mail: Send comments to Moira Johnston, Branch Chief, Program Design
Branch, Program Development Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810,
Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2501.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to Ms. Johnston at the
above address. All comments on 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 comments publicly available on the
Internet via http://www.regulations.gov.
All submissions will be available for public inspection at the
office of FNS during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria,
Virginia 22302-1594.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
this NPRM you may contact Moira Johnston, Branch Chief, Program
Development Division, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 3101
Park Center Drive, Room 800, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-
2501, or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
This proposed rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory
action,'' although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary
Need for Action
This action is needed to implement section 4116 of the Farm Bill
(Pub. L. 110-234). Section 4116, Review of Major Changes in Program
Design, amends Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the
Act) (7 U.S.C. 2020). It requires the Department to develop standards
for identifying major changes in the operations of State agencies that
administer SNAP; State agencies to notify the Department upon
implementing a major change in operations; and State agencies to
collect any information required by the Department to identify and
correct any adverse effects on program integrity or access, including
access by vulnerable households. The provision identifies four major
changes in operations: (1) Large or substantially-increased numbers of
low-income households that do not live in reasonable proximity to a
SNAP office; (2) substantial increases in reliance on automated systems
for the performance of responsibilities previously performed by merit
pay personnel; (3) changes that potentially increase the households'
difficulty in reporting information to the State; and (4) changes that
may disproportionately increase the burdens on specific vulnerable
households. In addition, the provision gives the Department the
discretion to identify other major changes that a State agency would be
required to report as well as to identify the types of data the State
agencies would have to collect to identify and correct adverse effects
on integrity and access.
In addition, the Department proposes to modify the requirements for
Federal and State reviews of State agency operations, which will result
in the more efficient use of staff and resources. This rule proposes
several changes to the ME review regulations: (1) Remove the
requirements that FNS conduct an annual review of a State agency's
operation of SNAP and a biennial review of a State agency's ME system;
(2) modify the regulations to reflect the elimination of the use of
paper coupons and the nationwide implementation of the Electronic
Benefit Transfer System (EBT); (3) redefine the terms, large project
area, medium project area, and small project area.
[[Page 24821]]
Benefits
This rule will require State agencies to report on the impacts of
implementing major changes in State agency operations and to identify
and correct problems caused by implementing these changes. This rule
will benefit State agencies by requiring them to identify and correct
problems before they cause hardships for applicants or recipients or
the integrity of the program is compromised. This rule will benefit
applicants, recipients or individuals otherwise eligible for SNAP by
requiring State agencies to identify and correct adverse impacts.
This rule will modify the requirements for Federal and State
reviews of State agency operations. It will allow FNS the flexibility
to put resources where the risks are greatest and to conduct more
effective reviews. It will benefit State agencies by allowing them more
time to conduct higher quality reviews.
Costs
The proposed rule will have a minimal cost in FY 2011 and over the
5 years FY 2011 through FY 2015. To estimate the cost impact, we
multiplied the total burden hours by the average hourly wage of the
staff likely to fulfill the reporting requirements. We assumed 70
percent of the work would be completed by a GS-11 employee, 20 percent
by a GS-12 employee, and 10 percent by a GS-13 employee. We used the
Step 5 hourly wages in the Rest of U.S. locality pay area. Seventy
percent of the 7,696 burden hours are completed by a GS-11 employee
with an hourly wage of $31.17 at a cost of $167,919. Twenty percent are
completed by a GS-12 employee with an hourly wage of $37.37 at a cost
of $57,520, and ten percent are completed by a GS-13 employee with an
hour wage of $44.43 at a cost of $34,193. The annual cost is estimated
at $259,632 ($167,919 + $57,520 + $34,193) or approximately $1.3
million over the 5 years FY 2011 through FY 2015.
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 small
entities. Pursuant to that review, it is certified that this proposed
rule would not have a significant impact on small entities. State
agencies that administer SNAP will be affected to the extent they
implement major changes in program operations. State agencies will also
be affected to the extent they perform ME reviews of large, medium and
small project areas.
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 to State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to 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 least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that impose costs on State, local,
or tribal governments or to the private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year. This rule is, therefore, 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
No. 10.551. For the reasons set forth in the final rule in 7 CFR part
3015, Subpart V and 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 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 13132. FNS has
considered the impact of this rule on State and local governments and
has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications.
This rule does not impose substantial or direct compliance costs on
State and local governments. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the
Executive Order, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
Prior Consultation With State Officials
After the Farm Bill was enacted on June 18, 2008, FNS held a series
of conference calls with State agencies and FNS regional offices to
explain the SNAP provisions included in the law and to answer questions
that State agencies had about implementing the changes to the program.
On July 3, 2008, FNS issued an implementation memorandum that described
each SNAP-related provision in the Farm Bill and provided basic
information to assist State agencies in meeting statutorily mandated
implementation timeframes. FNS responded to additional questions that
State agencies submitted and posted the answers on the FNS Web site.
Another forum for consultation with State officials on implementation
of the Farm Bill provisions included various conferences hosted by FNS
regional offices, State agency professional organizations, and program
advocacy organizations. During these conferences, held in the latter
part of 2008 and early months of 2009, FNS officials responded to a
range of questions posed by State agency officials related to
implementation of Farm Bill provisions.
Nature of Concerns and the Need To Issue This Rule
Recently many State agencies have redesigned how they operate SNAP.
Some of these changes have been small and have predominately impacted
internal State agency operations. Some of the changes have included
major overhauls of the State agency operations and how they interact
with the public. As States face rising caseloads and shrinking budgets
as well as the availability of new technologies that could help
streamline State agency operations, the Department anticipates that
more State agencies will implement major changes in their operations of
SNAP. The provisions of this rule will require States to closely
monitor the impact of the changes and to correct any problems before
they have a negative effect on applicants and recipients or on the
payment error rates of State agencies.
In addition, the regulations concerning Federal monitoring of State
agency operations are very prescriptive concerning the nature and
frequency of Federal reviews, whereas the Act is not. As resources have
become scarce, it has become clear that by regulating itself in this
manner FNS is restricting its ability to adapt the nature of Federal
reviews to changes in staffing and resource
[[Page 24822]]
levels. Therefore, the Department is proposing to remove the
regulations concerning the frequency of Federal reviews of State agency
operations. In addition, the regulations proscribe the frequency with
which States are required to review large, medium and small project
areas in relation to their caseload size. Large project areas are
required to be reviewed more frequently. In response to rising
caseloads and decreasing State budgets, the Department is proposing to
modify the definition of large, medium and small project area. This
will reduce the number of reviews State agencies are required to
conduct on an annual basis and enable them to use their limited
resources to conduct more targeted reviews. Finally, with statewide
implementation of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) and the elimination
of paper coupons, many of the provisions in this section have become
obsolete. The Department is proposing to eliminate outdated and
obsolete regulations pertaining to issuance and storage of paper
coupons.
Extent to Which We Meet Those Concerns
In drafting this NPRM, FNS considered the impact of the proposed
rule on State and local agencies. In addition, the Department is
seeking comments on those areas of discretion and will use those
comments to inform its decision making before issuing final
regulations. This NPRM is required to implement changes required by the
Farm Bill, which were effective on June 18, 2008.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule, when published final, 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 implementation. This rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the ``Effective Date''
paragraph of the final rule. Prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this rule or the application of its provisions, all
applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. In SNAP, the
administrative procedures are as follows: For program benefit
recipients--State administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
2020(e)(1) of the Act and regulations at Sec. 273.15; for State
agencies--administrative procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 of
the Act and regulations at Sec. 276.7 (for rules related to non-
Quality Control liabilities) or Part 283 (for rules related to Quality
Control liabilities); for Program retailers and wholesalers--
administrative procedures issued pursuant to Section 14 of the Act (7
U.S.C. 2023) and regulations at 7 CFR 279.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis
FNS has reviewed this rule in accordance with the Department
Regulation 4300-4, ``Civil Rights Impact Analysis,'' to identify and
address any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on
minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. After a careful
review of the rule's intent and provisions, and the characteristics of
SNAP households and individual participants, FNS has determined that an
important impact of this rule will be to help identify and correct the
adverse effects of changes in program operations on certain protected
classes. All data available to FNS indicate that protected individuals
have the same opportunity to participate in SNAP as non-protected
individuals. FNS specifically prohibits the State and local government
agencies that administer the Program from engaging in actions that
discriminate based on race, color, national origin, gender, age,
disability, marital or family status (SNAP's nondiscrimination policy
can be found at 7 CFR 272.6 (a)). Where State agencies have options,
and they choose to implement a certain provision, they must implement
it in such a way that it complies with the regulations at 7 CFR 272.6.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR
part 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. This proposed rule contains new requirements
that are subject to review and approval by OMB; therefore, FNS is
seeking public comment on the changes in the information collection
burden that would result from adoption of the proposals in the rule,
and will submit a request to OMB for approval of a new information
collection package covering the requirements in Section 272.12. Once
approved, FNS will publish a separate announcement in the Federal
Register.
Comments on the information collection pursuant to this proposed
rule must be received by July 5, 2011.
Send comments to Moira Johnston, Branch Chief, Program Design
Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. For further information,
or for copies of the information collection package, please contact
Moira Johnston at the above address or via e-mail at
[email protected].
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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 notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record. For further information, or for copies of the
information collection requirements, please contact Moira Johnston at
the address indicated above.
Title: Review of Major Changes in Program Design.
OMB Number: [0584-NEW].
Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.
Type of Request: NEW.
Abstract: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Food and Nutrition Service is submitting a copy of
this section to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review. Section 4116, Review of Major Changes in Program Design, amends
Section 11 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) (7 U.S.C.
2020). It requires the United States Department of Agriculture (the
Department) to develop standards for identifying major changes in the
operations of State agencies that administer the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP). Section 272.12 of this proposed rule
requires State agencies to notify the Department when planning to
implement a major change in operations; and State agencies to collect
any information required by the Department to identify and correct any
adverse effects on program integrity or access, including access by
vulnerable households. Since decisions to make major changes to program
operations rest with each individual
[[Page 24823]]
State agency, the frequency and timing of the changes can only be
estimated. The proposed rule will require that State agencies provide
descriptive information regarding the major change together with an
analysis of its projected impacts on program operations. Based upon
this information and analysis, FNS may require that the State collect
and report additional information regarding the impact of implementing
the major change. The reports would be monthly or quarterly depending
upon the nature of the change and data availability. Reporting would
continue for up to a year after the change is completely implemented.
It is not uncommon for a State to pilot a change prior to statewide
implementation. FNS could require information from the pilot and then
after full implementation, similar information regarding the statewide
impacts of the change.
Respondents: The 53 State agencies that administer SNAP.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Although by the time
this rule is implemented in fiscal year 2012 the current budget crises
facing many States may have abated, there is no reason to expect that
the pressures and opportunities that contribute to States' decisions to
modernize will change significantly. The rule proposes five categories
of major changes: replacement of the States automated system,
contracting for use of non-merit pay personnel, office closings, and
significant reductions in State SNAP staff, and changes that may make
it more difficult for households to report. Such changes in operations
are made by States based upon a variety of interrelated factors, but
there is no evidence that the States size (population), or regional
location predict when or what type of changes States will make.
In examining the first of the above criterion, it is reasonable to
expect States may continue to replace automated systems at one or two
per year, but with so many States running older systems and the delays
required by their budget difficulties, we are more likely to see three
per year beginning in fiscal year 2011. However, it is likely that we
will see several more States look into using call centers and
developing on-line applications that will be used by larger proportions
of their applicants. Since it appears that as many as 30 States will
have on-line applications in place and perhaps 20 States will be using
phone centers by fiscal year 2012, the number of additional States that
might implement these systems in a year is most likely no more than
five. The estimate would then be eight States per year would report
major changes under this criterion.
With regard to the second criterion, to date only two States have
implemented a process that uses non-merit personnel in the
certification process. It is unlikely that many more States will pursue
this course of action, and while one State exploring such a change
every three years would be the most reasonable estimate, one per year
will be used in estimating reporting burden to avoid underestimation.
The third criterion, office closings, may become more common with
the expanded use of call centers and on-line applications. A fair
estimate would be three per year.
The fourth criterion is staff reductions and this tends to
fluctuate with States' budgetary situations, caseloads and other
changes they make in their program design. We estimate that there would
be three significant staff reductions per year.
The fifth criteria would occur in conjunction with or as a result
of changes in the States administration. This is the most difficult to
predict, but as States continue to take advantage of new technology and
streamlined processes, changes of this type may become more common. An
estimate of five such changes per year would appear to be reasonable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses
Criterion per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of automated system............................. 8
Contracting for use of non-merit pay staff.................. 1
Office closings............................................. 3
Significant reductions in SNAP staff........................ 3
Changes that may make it more difficult for households to 5
report.....................................................
-----------
Total................................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second step in the major change process is FNS determining
what, if any, additional data the State will be required to collect and
report. FNS believes that most often, the ongoing data collection tools
it employs will be sufficient to provide the needed information on a
major change. Additional data will sometimes need to be generated from
States' automated eligibility systems. In more limited cases, FNS may
require the State to gather data by conducting additional case review
surveys.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents
Section 272.12(3) requires that States provide both descriptive and
analytic information regarding the major change. FNS believes that
States will have completed the majority of the analysis in the normal
course of their own planning and decisionmaking. The descriptive
information should also be readily available and require minimal data
gathering since it is the State's decision to make the major change. We
estimate that it will take 8 hours to describe the change and 32 hours
to repackage and complete the required analysis for a total of 40 hours
per response. Thus, with 20 States reporting one major change per year,
the initial reporting and analysis aspect of the rulemaking would be 20
annual responses x 40 hours per State = an estimated 800 burden hours
per year (20 States x 1 response per respondent = 20 annual responses x
40 hours per respondent to respond = 800 annual burden hours).
FNS believes that for 30 percent of the major changes States
report, no additional reporting will be necessary. In another 35
percent of the major changes some additional reporting of already
available information will be necessary and that additional data
collection will be required for the final 35 percent of the reported
major changes. Therefore for six of the 20 major changes there would be
no reporting burden.
For the seven major changes requiring additional reporting without
additional data collection, some automated system reprogramming to
generate the data will be necessary. At 24 hours per reprogramming
effort, this would be 168 hours per year (7 x 24). The reports
themselves would be estimated to require 8 hours and that out of 53
States (including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam), four
States would be required to report monthly and three States quarterly.
[[Page 24824]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Respondents annual Responses per Hours per Total hours
responses year response per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 States monthly................................ 12 48 8 384
3 States quarterly.............................. 4 12 8 96
---------------------------------------------------------------
7 States.................................... 16 60 8 480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total for these seven States would be 168 + 480 hours = 648
total hours for reporting divided by the seven states = (92.6 hours per
State per year).
For the last seven States the 648 hours from the above would be
required in addition to the time needed to collect additional data.
Such data will generally be collected through a sample of case reviews.
While the required sample sizes may vary based on the type of major
change and the proportion of the State's SNAP caseload it may affect,
200 cases per quarter would likely be an upper limit on what FNS could
ask of a State. At an estimated one hour to review and report on a
case, this would require 800 hours per year per State. Seven States
times 800 hours yields 5,600 hours. (7 State respondents x 1 response
per respondent = 7 annual responses x 800 hours per respondent to
respond = 5,600 annual burden hours). When the 648 hours is added for
the non-sample information, the total for these seven States is 6,248
(892.6 per State per year). With four States reporting monthly and
three of the Sates reporting quarterly, there would be 60 responses. (4
States x 12 = 48 annual responses) + (3 states x 4 response per
respondent = 12 annual responses) = 60 annual responses. Twenty eight
of the 60 reports would contain information from sample data since it
would all be reported quarterly from all seven States).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States
Section Requirement responding Responses per Number of Hours per Total burden
per year respondent responses response hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
272.12(a)(3).......................... Initial analysis of Major Change 20 1 20 40 800
272.12(b)(1).......................... Reports required without 7 \a\ 8.57 60 10.8 648
additional data collection.
272.12(b)(1).......................... Reports required with additional 7 \a\ 8.57 60 104 6,248
data collection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................ ................................ 20 \a\ 7 140 54.9 7,696
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ (Average).
Note: Although this proposed rule contains amendments to section
275.3, Federal Monitoring, there are no changes in the burden based
on these changes. All required burden for this section is already
approved under OMB No. 0584-0010, Performance Reporting System,
Management Evaluation, expiration date 4/30/2013.
E-Government Act Compliance
FNS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002
(Pub. L. 107-347), in order to promote the use of the Internet and
other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to government information and services and for other
purposes.
Background
Section 4116 of the Farm Bill amended Section 11 of the Act to
require the Department to define ``major changes'' in SNAP (or Program)
operations, State agencies to notify the Department when they implement
a major change in Program operations, and to collect data for use in
identifying and correcting problems with Program integrity and access,
particularly among vulnerable populations. Many State agencies have
changed or are in the process of changing the way they operate SNAP.
Some of these changes have been small and have predominately impacted
internal State agency operations. Some of the changes have included
major overhauls of the State agency operations and how the State
interacts with applicants and participants. While the goal of such
changes is to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the
States' operations, some of these changes have adversely impacted the
States' payment accuracy rates as well as access to the Program. With
most States facing rising caseloads and restricted budgets, many are
likely to make use of new technologies that could help streamline their
SNAP operations. Section 4116 of the Farm Bill anticipates this and
provides the Department the authority to better provide States with
technical assistance and monitor implementation of major changes in
their operation of SNAP.
We are proposing to update the Management Evaluation (ME)
regulations to allow FNS greater flexibility to target its monitoring
resources to those States/situations that constitute the greatest risk.
In addition we propose to update the States ME requirements to allow
States more time to conduct more effective reviews. With limited
resources the proposed changes will allow FNS and States to streamline
operations while maintaining the integrity of the Program.
What acronyms or abbreviations are used in this supplementary
discussion of the proposed provisions?
In the discussion of the proposed provisions in this rule, we use
the following acronyms or other abbreviations to stand in for certain
words or phrases:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym, abbreviation, or
Phrase symbol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Federal Regulations............ CFR.
Federal Register....................... FR.
Federal Fiscal Year.................... FY.
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008......... Act.
Food and Nutrition Service............. FNS.
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of Farm Bill.
2008.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance SNAP.
Program.
U.S. Department of Agriculture......... the Department.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is a major change in the operation of SNAP?
The Farm Bill requires the Secretary to develop standards for
identifying
[[Page 24825]]
major changes in the operation of a State agency's SNAP and provides
general guidance on what changes are to be included in those standards.
The four major changes that were identified by legislation are:
Large or substantially-increased numbers of low-income
households that do not live in reasonable proximity to an office
performing the major functions described in Section 11(e) of the Act
(Section 11(e) enumerates the procedural requirements States must
adhere to in the certification of households and operation of the
Program);
Substantial increases in reliance on automated systems for
the performance of responsibilities previously performed by personnel
described in Section 11(e)(6)(B) of the Act (this subsection requires
that State agency personnel utilized in the certification process shall
be employed in accordance with the standards for a Merit System of
Personnel Administration);
Changes that potentially increase the difficulty of
reporting information under Section 11(e) or Section 6(c) of the Act (7
U.S.C. 2015(c)). Section (6)(c) specifies the options and requirements
States must implement that govern a household's responsibility to
report changes while Section 11(e) requires that each State identify
the reporting requirements it has implemented in its plan of
operation); and
Changes that may disproportionately increase the burdens
on any of the types of households described in Section 11(e)(2)(A) of
the Act. (Section 11(e)(2)(A) of the Act includes elderly households,
households living in rural areas, households containing a disabled
member, homeless households, non-English speaking households, and
households living on a reservation).
The Department is proposing to include the first three types of
changes described above as major changes (with additional specificity).
The Department believes that the fourth criteria is a critical factor
in considering the impact of any major changes and is consequently
proposing that it be considered and analyzed in relation to all major
changes. The Department proposes to add a fourth and fifth type of
change to the definition. The Department includes these changes based
upon past experience that demonstrates that they can have a significant
impact on State operations:
The use of non-merit pay staff to perform functions
previously performed by merit personnel described in Section
11(e)(6)(B) of the Act (again, this subsection requires that State
agency personnel utilized in the certification process shall be
employed in accordance with the standards for a Merit System of
Personnel Administration); and
Independent of any other change in operation, significant
reductions in the number of State or local staff involved in the
operation of SNAP.
The criteria for defining a major change are general rather than
specific. How does the Department propose to clarify when States are to
report major changes?
To assist States in evaluating if they are making a major change,
the Department proposes the following additional guidance for each of
the six criteria that would better define when a major change would
need to be reported:
(1) Large or substantially-increased numbers of low-income
households that do not live in reasonable proximity to an office
performing the major functions described in Section 11(e) of the Act.
States would report a major change under this criterion when an office
is closed that serves 500 or more SNAP households and there is not
another office available to the affected households within 25 miles, or
that can be reached via public transportation. For the purposes of this
section an ``office performing major functions'' would be defined as an
office where people can file an application in person.
(2) Substantial increases in reliance on automated systems for the
performance of responsibilities previously performed by personnel
described in Section 11(e)(6)(B) of the Act. Since any new system that
States would build would add functionality to the certification
process, States would report a major change whenever the primary
automated systems used by caseworkers during the certification process
to determine eligibility are replaced. Additions to the States existing
systems that automate tasks previously performed by caseworkers in the
certification of applicant households would also be reported as a major
change. This would include the establishment of an online application
process through the Internet or the use of call centers to accept
applications if it is expected that these would account for 5 percent
or more of the State's SNAP applications. States would report a major
change if they projected that 5 percent or more of the applications
would be submitted through the call center or on-line system during the
year following full implementation. The use of document imaging would
not be considered a major change if that were the only change the State
is making. Reporting a major change as required under this authority
does not relieve States of meeting the requirements for new system
approvals in Sec. 277.18.
(3) Changes that potentially increase the difficulty of reporting
information under Section 11(e) or Section 6(c) of the Act. While call
centers and other innovations are designed to make reporting changes
more efficient, such changes can also make reporting more difficult for
some households. Therefore, any change a State makes to the way
households are allowed or required to report changes in their
circumstances would be considered major and be evaluated as explained
later in this preamble. This would include implementation of a call
center for change reporting, a major modification to any forms that
households use to report changes or the discontinuation of an existing
avenue for reporting changes, e.g., households can no longer call the
local office to report a change. Major changes would not include
altering change reporting policy options, or the implementation of
policy waivers.
(4) The establishment of a contract to use non-merit pay staff to
perform functions previously performed by merit personnel described in
Section 11(e)(6)(B) of the Act. Section 11(e)(6) reads as follows:
``(A) the State agency shall undertake the certification of applicant
households in accordance with the general procedures prescribed by the
Secretary in the regulations issued pursuant to this Act; and (B) the
State agency personnel utilized in undertaking such certification shall
be employed in accordance with the current standards for a Merit System
of Personnel Administration * * * ''. Under this proposal, when a State
contracts with a private entity to perform SNAP work that is currently
being handled by State employees, a major change in operations would
occur and would have to be reported to FNS. While the interview and the
eligibility decision functions must be performed by merit personnel
(unless FNS approves a waiver request under Section 17(b) of the Act 7
U.S.C. 2025(b)), other functions can be performed by non-merit staff.
These other functions could include obtaining verification of household
circumstances, accepting reports of changes in household circumstances,
accepting applications and screening households for expedited service.
In each of these instances non-merit pay staff would be interacting
directly with households which have the potential of increasing the
burden on households applying for and
[[Page 24826]]
participating in SNAP. In addition, FNS has determined that use of non-
merit pay staff in these functions can have a detrimental impact on the
efficient and effective operation of the program and, as a consequence,
must approve States' use of such staff before sharing in the costs of
non-merit pay staff in the performance of the above functions.
Because functions such as data entry and document imaging do not
involve interaction with households, the use of non-merit pay staff in
activities of this type would not constitute a major change. If a State
obtains a waiver from FNS under Section 17 of the Act to allow non-
merit pay Staff to conduct interviews or the eligibility decision
functions reserved for merit pay staff in the Act and regulations, this
would not be reported as a major change since the waiver approval would
specify all necessary reporting and evaluation requirements.
(5) Significant reductions in the number of State or local staff
involved in the certification of SNAP households. While changes in
States' staffing levels are not unusual, reductions can have a
significant impact on SNAP operations and household participation.
Since there are no staffing standards or baselines for determining what
minimum level of staffing is necessary, and States are generally
operating as efficiently as they can, almost any decrease has the
potential of adversely affecting operations and pursuant to this
proposed rulemaking would have to be reported as a major change. We
propose that any decrease in staffing levels from one year to the next
of more than five percent would have to be reported as a major change.
This would include decreases resulting from State budget cuts or hiring
freezes, but it would not include loss of staff through resignation,
retirement or release when the State is seeking to replace the staff
unless it were with non-merit pay personnel as discussed above. While
the Department believes that the reduction in State staffing levels has
as much potential to impact State operations as any other change, it
recognizes that this is a difficult change to define and analyze.
Therefore, the Department is particularly interested in comments on
this proposal.
The Department recognizes that Section 11(a)(4)(iv) of the Act also
identifies ``changes that may disproportionately increase the burdens
on any of the types of households described in Section (e)(2)(A) [7
U.S.C. 2020 (e)(2)(A)] of the Act'', as a major change. The Department
believes that this is such a critical consideration that any major
change a State makes needs to be examined to determine if it would have
such an effect. Therefore, rather than including this as a major change
in and of itself, the Department is requiring that the analysis of the
impact of any major change include a determination of whether the major
change has such a disproportionate effect on vulnerable households, as
defined in Section 11(e)(2)(a) of the Act.
When will States be required to report major changes in their operation
of SNAP?
The Department realizes that the specifics of many changes evolve
over time and plans for changes are often modified. Many plans for
change are never realized because of funding issues or a shift in State
leadership and its priorities. Since any properly planned major change
would be approved by State leadership well in advance of
implementation, the Department proposes that States report any major
change to FNS as soon as it is approved by State leadership, but no
less than 120 days prior to implementation. If the plans for the major
change are modified after the States initial report to FNS, the State
would update its report to FNS. The Department is interested in hearing
from States on whether some major changes are approved and
implementation begun in less than 120 days.
What information must be included in States' initial reports to FNS
regarding a major change?
The Department proposes that the initial report to FNS include a
description of the change and an analysis of its anticipated impacts on
select measures of program performance. The description would explain
the change the State is implementing, the schedule for implementation,
if the change is State-wide or, if not, it will identify the
jurisdictions it will encompass, and what the change is intended to
accomplish. It would also include answers to the following questions as
they apply to the type of change being implemented.
How will the change affect recipients? How will they be
informed?
How will the change affect caseworkers? How will they be
trained?
How will the change be tested? Will it be piloted?
How will impacts of the change be monitored?
How will the change affect the State automated system?
If the change in operations creates significant problems,
what is the State's contingency plan?
The Department proposes that the analysis portion of the report
include the expected impact of the change on:
Payment accuracy;
Program access--impact on applicants in filing initial
applications and reapplications;
Negative error rates;
Application timeliness, including both the households
entitled to 7-day expedited service and 30-day processing standards;
The types of households described in Section 11(e)(2)(A)
of the Act (the determination of whether the major change
disproportionally increases the burden on these households would
include the difficulty these types of households would have: obtaining
SNAP information, filing an initial application, providing
verification, being interviewed, reporting changes and reapplying for
benefits); and
Customer service. The Department believes that States
should measure the impact on customer service depending upon the nature
of the major change, but at a minimum the time it takes for a household
to contact the State, be interviewed and report changes would need to
be evaluated.
In addition, the analysis must include an evaluation of the impact
of the change during implementation (pilot/rollout) versus its expected
long term impact. The Department believes that it is important to
understand States' plans for implementation because even changes that
are meant to be beneficial to SNAP operations can often have unintended
consequences during long term implementation that can be difficult for
States to correct.
The Department believes that much of the information and analysis
it is requesting in this proposal will be readily available to most
States since they will have thoroughly planned the change and evaluated
its potential impacts prior to implementation. If this assumption is
correct, the burden on States in developing reports should be minimal.
To the extent that this proposal requires additional analysis of the
potential impact of the change, this should generally be helpful to the
State in its planning and implementation and, in the longer run,
beneficial to its SNAP participants. The Department recognizes that,
depending upon the nature of the major change, there may be minimal or
no impact on one or more of the above areas.
What format should States use to report a major change?
The Department is not proposing any standard format for the initial
report required by this rule. The types of
[[Page 24827]]
changes can vary significantly and without prior experience, the
Department has no preference on format. So long as the required
information is clear and complete, FNS should be able to understand and
evaluate the major change. Initial reports should be sent to FNS
Regional Offices.
What data will FNS require States to report regarding the impact of its
major change?
Section 11(a)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act provides that States
implementing major changes, ``collect such information as the Secretary
shall require to identify and correct any adverse effects on program
integrity or access, including access by any of the types of households
described in Section (e)(2)(A).'' FNS will evaluate the initial report
provided by a State to determine if it agrees that the change is in
fact, ``major'' and if so will propose what additional information it
will require from the State. While the Department reserves the right
provided by the Act to require the information it needs to determine
the impact of a major change on integrity and access in SNAP, as States
make major changes the Department intends to work with States to
determine what information is practicable and require only the data
that is necessary and not otherwise available. SNAP standard reports
provide a good deal of information, but depending on the nature of the
major change and how it is implemented, more specific or timely data
may be required. States also obtain performance data as part of Program
management and monitoring and when possible the Department will meet
its needs by obtaining already existing data.
For any major change the Department needs some level of information
on the effect of the change on one or more of the five areas States
must include in their evaluation of the impact of the change. Within
these areas, the Department will require additional, more specific or
more timely data as explained below:
Payment accuracy--The quality control (QC) system provides
sound information on payment accuracy on a statewide basis, but the
data is not as reliable at the county level. In addition, the data is
not available for several months and would not be specific to the
effects of the major change. FNS intends to use QC generated data as
much as possible, but is likely to need data from focused case reviews
with local reliability and/or more timely data.
Negative error rates--The QC system provides sound
information on negative error rates on a statewide basis, but the data
is not as reliable at the county level. In addition, the data is not
available for several months and would not be specific to the effects
of the major change. FNS intends to use QC generated data as much as
possible, but is likely to need data from focused case reviews with
local reliability and/or more timely data. Where QC data is not
sufficient, FNS may require a State to report on applications and
reapplications filed and processed with a breakout of approvals and
denials.
Application timeliness--The QC system provides sound
information on application processing timeliness on a statewide basis,
but the data is not as reliable at the county level. In addition, the
data is not available for several months and would not be specific to
the effects of the major change. FNS intends to use QC generated data
as much as possible, but is likely to need data from focused case
reviews with local reliability and/or more timely data. In addition FNS
may request information on the timeliness of processing re-
certifications. As noted below this information could be required to be
reported by mode of intake: paper, on-line or call center.
Impact on the types of households described in Section
11(e)(2)(A) of the Act--For any major change that could
disproportionately impact the vulnerable households with special needs
as defined in Section 11(e)(2)(A), information on the number of
applications received from such households and the number certified or
recertified would be needed. It is likely that the nature of the change
and its potential impact would dictate how this information would need
to be reported, e.g., broken out between applications filed on-line and
on paper.
Customer service--In many instances, customer satisfaction
can help determine if a change is having an adverse effect or simply
provide information for improvements in process. States would define
customer service as best addresses the major change with a focus of the
change's effect on program access.
What are other data elements may the Department ask States to report
depending on the type of major change?
Following are examples of additional data that could be required
depending upon the type of major change being implemented.
If a State were to implement a change that allowed or required
households to report changes in their individual circumstances through
a change center, the following general data could be required:
The number of changes received;
The average time to process a change; and
The number of changes processed.
If a State were to implement a change that allows applicants to
apply on-line the following data could be required:
Number of applications submitted, approved, denied;
Number of expedited versus regular 30-day processing
cases;
Number of applications abandoned/terminated before
completion;
Processing time for approved applications including those
subject to the expedited time frames; and
Demographic information on the households using on-line
applications.
FNS recognizes that States and their call center software are
measuring performance using a variety of different definitions and
statistics. If a State were to implement a major change that allows
applicants to apply through the use of call centers, FNS would expect
to negotiate the exact definitions and reporting requirements, but
believes the following data elements would be central to understanding
the call center's performance:
Volume of calls to the center;
Average hold time from the time the request is made to
speak to an agent;
Percentage of calls with excessive total waiting times to
speak with a caseworker (e.g. 15 minutes combined time spent waiting
for an initial response and holding after the initial response);
Percentage of calls abandoned prior to and after the
initial response; and
Customer satisfaction based upon survey results.
If a State were to implement a change that allows applicants to
apply on-line and through the use of a call center, the following
general data could also be required:
The number of applications and recertifications submitted
by paper including faxing; and mailing; online; and call center; and
The number of applications and recertifications approved
by paper including faxing; and mailing; online; and call center.
Under what circumstances would FNS require separate reports regarding
the impact of the major change on the types of households described in
Section 11(e)(2)(A) of the Act, particularly the elderly and disabled?
Whenever FNS believes that the major change has the potential to
have a disproportionate impact on these households, specific reports on
these households would be required. The decision that such potential
exists could
[[Page 24828]]
be based upon the State or FNS analysis of the major change.
How often will States be required to report?
Depending on the type of major change and its implementation
schedule, FNS would work with the State to establish either a monthly
or quarterly reporting schedule.
How long after implementation would reports continue to be required?
While dependent on the type of major change, FNS would need reports
for a minimum of one year after the change had been fully implemented.
Based upon FNS' assessment of the reports submitted by the State, it
may find it necessary to extend the reporting timeframe beyond the one-
year minimum. The rule provides FNS with this discretion.
What is the process if FNS believes that a State is implementing a
major change, but the State has not reported the change?
If it came to FNS' attention that a State appeared to be
implementing a major change that had not been formally reported, FNS
would contact the State about the change, determine if it were major
and proceed as specified above.
When will FNS notify the State of that data that must be reported?
FNS will evaluate the State's analysis of the impact of its change,
and determine if it is a major change that requires additional
reporting and if so, what data is necessary to identify potential
adverse effects on SNAP access and integrity. While the nature and
extent of the change will impact the time necessary to complete its
evaluation, FNS intends to respond within 90 days. During this 90-day
period FNS will be in communication with appropriate State officials
and, to the extent possible, negotiate with them regarding the most
efficient way to obtain the needed information.
If the data a State submits regarding its major change indicates an
adverse impact on SNAP access or integrity, what action will FNS take?
As with any problem FNS identifies, FNS would work with the State
to correct the cause of the problem and provide whatever technical
assistance it can. Some problems can be addressed quickly through a
simple adjustment to the State operations. In other instances, the
cause and/or the solution is more difficult to determine and a formal
corrective action plan would be needed. In either case FNS would intend
to work in partnership with the State to resolve the issue(s).
Where does FNS propose revising the regulations to include Major
Changes in Program Design?
FNS proposes to codify these provisions in a new Sec. 272.12.
Why is the Department proposing to update the Management Evaluation
(ME) Reviews regulations?
The proposed regulation will amend the regulations at Sec. Sec.
275.3 through 275.7. While the Act does not require Federal monitoring
of SNAP in the form of annual or biennial reviews, current regulations
are very proscriptive about the type and frequency of reviews. For
example, the regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(a) and (b) require FNS to
conduct an annual review of certain functions performed at the State
agency level and a biennial review of each State agency's management
evaluation system. However, since the regulations were published, FNS
has experienced reductions in staff and resources. Consequently, over
time FNS has adjusted its expectations concerning how often and the
methods to be used to conduct reviews of the State agency operations of
SNAP. In the course of developing program specific ME review guides and
in light of the current reality of reduced resources, FNS has
recognized the need to redefine what constitutes a Federal review of a
State agency's operation of SNAP and change the frequency of reviews.
Revising the regulations to modify how often FNS conducts reviews of
State agency operations will allow FNS the flexibility to put resources
where the risks are greatest and to conduct more effective reviews.
What changes to the regulations is the Department proposing that affect
FNS?
Current regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(a) provide that FNS shall
conduct an annual review of State agency operations of SNAP. This
review has been called informally a State Agency Operations Review or
SAOR. The Department is proposing to remove the requirement that such a
review be conducted on an annual basis. In addition, FNS is proposing
to use one term to define any Federal review of State agency
operations. The use of the term ``State Agency Operations Review'' will
be discontinued and the term Management Evaluation or ME is proposed to
cover all future reviews. Since these terms were so often interchanged
we believe this change will improve communication across the Program.
The Department proposes to revise the regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(a) to
reflect these changes.
The Department proposes to remove the regulations at 7 CFR 275.3(b)
which requires FNS to review a State agency's ME system on a biennial
basis. Removing this requirement will provide FNS the flexibility to
conduct reviews of State agencies' ME systems on an at-risk basis
resulting in more efficient allocation of staff and resources. In
keeping with current practice, FNS will continue to identify national
target areas that Regional Offices are required to review each year,
which will generally include reviews of State agency ME systems, and
will communicate what these areas are via memorandum. In accordance
with Sec. 275.8, FNS will also continue to notify State agencies of
the national target areas to be incorporated into their reviews of
local agencies.
What changes is the Department proposing to make that affect State
agencies?
Current regulations at Sec. 275.7 provide for the selection of
sub-units for review. Paragraphs 275.7(a)(2) through 275.7(a)(5) define
sub-units as issuance offices, data management units, bulk storage
points and reporting points. All of these sub-units deal with the
issuing or storage of paper coupons and therefore are outdated and
obsolete. The regulations at 7 CFR 275.7(b), (c), and (d) also refer to
these out-dated sub-units. The Department proposes to remove these
paragraphs in their entirety to reflect the elimination of the use of
paper coupons and the nationwide implementation of the Electronic
Benefit Transfer System (EBT). The Department also proposes to remove 7
CFR 275.7(a)(1) and to modify 7 CFR 275.7(a) to provide that sub-units
are the physical locations of organizational entities within project
areas responsible for operating various aspects of the SNAP and include
but are not limited to certification offices, call centers, and
employment and training offices. The Department proposes to renumber 7
CFR 275.7(e) to 7 CFR 275.7(b) and modify it to remove the term ``on-
site.'' The term ``on-site'' is outdated since current technology and
the availability of data allows many aspects of a review to be
conducted effectively off-site. Current regulations at 7 CFR
275.9(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1) (iv) provide that the State agency review
plan shall identify the issuance offices and reporting points selected
for review. The Department is proposing to revise the regulations at 7
CFR 275.9(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1) (iv) to reflect the elimination of the
use of paper coupons and the nationwide implementation of the EBT.
[[Page 24829]]
Under current regulations at 7 CFR 275.5(b) State agencies are
required to conduct a review of large project areas once a year, a
review of medium project areas once every two years and a review of
small project areas once every three years. Current rules at Sec.
271.2 define the term large project area as project areas with monthly
active caseloads of more than 15,000 households; medium project area as
project areas with caseloads of 2001 to 15,000 households and small
project area as project areas with caseloads of 2,000 households or
less.
The Department proposes to modify Sec. 271.2 to redefine the term
large project area as those project areas with monthly active caseloads
of more than 25,000 households; medium project area as project areas
with caseloads of 5000 to 25,000 households; and small project area as
project areas with caseloads of 4,999 households or less. The proposed
changes will recognize the growth of SNAP over the last 25 years (about
30 percent) and allow States more time to conduct higher quality
reviews.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 271
Food stamps, Grant programs--social program, Reporting and
recordkeeping.
7 CFR Part 272
Alaska, Civil rights, SNAP, Grant programs--social programs,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment
compensation, Wages.
7 CFR Part 275
Administrative practice and procedure, SNAP, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 271, 272 and 275 are proposed to be
amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for parts 271, 272 and 275 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011-2036.
PART 271--GENERAL INFORMATION AND DEFINITIONS
Sec. 271.2 Definitions.
2. In Sec. 271.2:
a. Amend the definition of Large project area by removing the word
``15,000'' and adding in its place the word ``25,000''.
b. Amend the definition of Medium project area by removing the
words ``2,001 to 15,000'' and adding in their place the words ``5,000
to 25,000''.
c. Amend the definition of Small project area by removing the word
``2,000'' and adding in its place the word ``4,999''.
PART 272--REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES
3. A new Sec. 272.12 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 272.12 Major changes in program design.
(a) State's reporting of major changes. (1) State agencies shall
notify FNS when they make major changes in their operation of SNAP.
State agencies shall notify FNS when the plans for the change are
approved by State leadership, but no less than 120 days prior to
beginning implementation of the change.
(2) Major changes shall include the following:
(i) Closure of one or more local offices that perform major
functions for 500 or more SNAP households and there is not another
office available to serve the affected households within 25 miles or
that can be reached via public transportation. An office performing
major functions includes any office where households can file an
application for SNAP in person.
(ii) Substantial increased reliance on automated systems for the
performance of responsibilities previously performed by State merit
personnel (as described in Section 11(e)(6)(B) of the Act). This
includes the replacement of the State's primary automated systems used
by caseworkers during the certification process to determine
eligibility and additions to the States' existing system that automate
tasks previously performed by caseworkers in the certification of
applicant households. Establishment of an online application process
through the Internet or the use of call centers to accept applications
would not be a major change unless one of these methods is expected to
account for 5 percent or more of the State's SNAP applications.
Reporting a major change as required in this section does not relieve
States of meeting the requirements for new system approvals in Sec.
277.18.
(iii) Changes in operations that potentially increase the
difficulty of households reporting required information. This includes
implementation of a call center for change reporting, a major
modification to any forms that households use to report changes or the
discontinuation of an existing avenue for reporting changes, e.g.,
households can no longer call the local office to report a change.
Modifying selected change reporting policy options, or the
implementation of policy waivers would not be major changes.
(iv) Use of non-merit pay staff to perform functions previously
performed by merit personnel. While the interview and the eligibility
decision functions must be performed by merit personnel (unless FNS
approves a waiver request under Section 17 of the Act), other functions
including obtaining verification of household circumstances, accepting
reports of changes in household circumstances, accepting applications
and screening households for expedited service may be performed by non-
merit personnel (although FNS must approve a State's use of non-merit
pay staff before matching funds will be provided for the performance of
these functions). Functions such as data entry and document imaging do
not involve interaction with households, and consequently, the use of
non-merit pay staff in activities of this type would not constitute a
major change. If a State obtains a waiver from FNS to allow non-merit
Staff to conduct interviews or the eligibility decision functions
reserved for merit staff in the Act and regulations, this would not be
reported as a major change since the waiver approval would specify all
necessary reporting and evaluation requirements.
(v) Any decrease in staffing levels from one year to the next of
more than five percent in the number of State or local staff involved
in the certification of SNAP households. This would include decreases
resulting from State budget cuts or hiring freezes, but not include
loss of staff through resignation, retirement or release when the State
is seeking to replace the staff.
(3) When a State initially reports a major change to FNS as
required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section an analysis of the
expected impact of the major change shall accompany the report. The
initial report to FNS that the State is making one of the major changes
identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall include a
description of the change and an analysis of its anticipated impacts on
program performance.
(i) The description of the change shall include the following:
(A) Identification of the major change the State is implementing,
(B) An explanation of what the change is intended to accomplish,
(C) The schedule for implementation,
(D) How the change will be tested and whether it will be piloted,
(E) Whether the change is Statewide or identification of the
jurisdictions it will encompass,
[[Page 24830]]
(F) How the major change is expected to affect recipients and how
recipients will be informed,
(G) How the change will affect caseworkers and as applicable how
they will be trained,
(I) How the impact of the major change will be monitored,
(J) How the major change will affect operation of the State
automated system, and
(K) The State's backup plans if the major change creates
significant problems in one or more of the program measures in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
(ii) The analysis portion of the State's initial report shall
include the projected impact of the major change on:
(A) The State's payment error rate,
(B) Program access, including the impact on applicants filing
initial applications and reapplications,
(C) The State's negative error rate,
(D) Application processing timeliness including both the households
entitled to 7-day expedited service and those subject to the 30-day
processing standards;
(E) Whether the major change will disproportionately increase the
difficulty elderly households, households living in rural areas,
households containing a disabled member, homeless households, non-
English speaking households, and households living on a reservation
will have obtaining SNAP information, filing an initial application,
providing verification, being interviewed, reporting changes and
reapplying for benefits;
(F) Customer service as defined by the State agency, but shall
include the time it takes for a household to contact the State, be
interviewed, and report changes.
(G) The State's performance as measured by paragraphs
272.12(a)(3)(ii)(A) through (a)(3)(ii)(F) of this section during
implementation of the major change.
(b) FNS action on State's reports. (1) FNS will evaluate the
initial report provided by a State to determine if it agrees that the
change is, in fact, major and, if so, will propose what information it
will require from the State. While FNS reserves the right to require
the information it needs to determine the impact of a major change on
integrity and access in SNAP, FNS will work with States to determine
what information is practicable and require only the data that is
necessary and not otherwise available from ongoing reporting
mechanisms. Depending upon the nature of the major change, FNS will
require specific or more timely information concerning the impact of
the major change within the following general areas.
(i) Payment accuracy. FNS will use QC generated data as much as
possible, but may need data from focused case reviews with local
reliability or more timely data.
(ii) Negative error rates. FNS will use QC generated data as much
as possible, but may need data from focused case reviews with local
reliability or more timely data. Where annual statewide QC data is not
sufficient, FNS will require a State to report on applications and
reapplications filed and processed with a breakout of approvals and
denials.
(iii) Application processing timeliness. FNS will use QC generated
data as much as possible, but is likely to need data from focused case
reviews with local reliability, more timely data and/or information on
the timeliness of actions to re-certify households. As noted in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, this information could be required to
be reported by mode of intake: paper, on-line or call center.
(iv) Impact on the types of households identified in paragraph
(a)(3)(ii)(E) of this section. For any major change that could
disproportionately impact these households, information on the number
of applications received from such households and the number certified
or recertified would be needed. It is likely that the nature of the
change and its potential impact would dictate how this information
would need to be reported.
(v) Customer service. States should define and measure customer
service in a manner that best indicates if the major change is having
an adverse affect on program access.
(2) Additional data that States could be required to provide
depending upon the type of major change being implemented includes, but
are not be limited to the following:
(i) If a State were to implement a major change that allows
applicants to apply on-line, the following data could be required:
(A) Number of applications submitted, approved, denied,
(B) Number of expedited versus regular 30-day processing cases,
(C) Number of applications abandoned/terminated before completion,
(D) Processing time for approved applications including those
subject to the expedited time frames, and
(E) Demographic information on the households using on-line
applications.
(ii) If a State were to implement a major change that allowed or
required households to report changes in their individual circumstances
through a change center, the following data could be required:
(A) The number of changes received,
(B) The average time to process change, and
(C) The number of changes processed.
(iii) If a State were to implement a major change that allows
applicants to apply through the use of call center, the following data
could be required:
(A) Volume of transactions and calls to the center;
(B) Average hold time from the time the request is made to speak to
an agent;
(C) Percentage of calls with excessive total waiting times to speak
with a caseworker (e.g. 15 minutes combined time spent waiting for an
initial response and holding after the initial response);
(D) Percentages of calls abandoned prior to and after the initial
response; and
(E) Customer satisfaction based upon survey results.
(iv) If a State were to implement a major change that allows
applicants to apply on-line and through the use of a call center, the
following additional data could be required:
(A) The number of applications and recertifications submitted by
paper including faxing and mailing; online; and call center, and
(B) The number of applications and recertifications approved by
paper including faxing and mailing, online, call center.
(3) Depending on the type of major change, its implementation
schedule, and negotiations with FNS, States shall submit reports on
their major changes either monthly or quarterly.
(4) States shall submit reports for one year after the major change
is fully in place. FNS may extend this timeframe as it deems necessary.
(5) If FNS becomes aware that a State appeared to be implementing a
major change that had not been formally reported, FNS would work with
the State to determine if it is a major change, and if so proceed as
required by this section.
(6) If the data a State submits regarding its major change or other
information FNS obtains indicates an adverse impact on SNAP access or
integrity, FNS would work with the State to correct the cause of the
problem and provide whatever technical assistance it can. Depending
upon the severity of the problem, FNS may require a formal corrective
action plan as identified in Sec. 275.16 and Sec. 275.17 of this
chapter.
[[Page 24831]]
PART 275--PERFORMANCE REPORTING SYSTEM
4. In Sec. 275.3:
a. Revise paragraph (a).
b. Remove paragraph (b).
c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).
d. Redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 275.3 Federal monitoring.
* * * * *
(a) Management Evaluation Reviews of State Agency's Administration/
Operation of SNAP. FNS shall conduct management evaluation reviews of
certain functions performed at the State agency level in the
administration/operation of the program. FNS will designate specific
areas required to be reviewed each fiscal year.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 275.7:
a. Revise paragraph (a).
b. Remove paragraph (b).
c. Remove paragraph (c).
d. Remove paragraph (d).
e. Redesignate paragraph (e) as paragraph (b).
f. Amend newly redesignated paragraph (b) by removing the word
``on-site''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 275.7 Selection of sub-units for review.
(a) Definition of sub-units. Sub-units are the physical locations
of organizational entities within project areas responsible for
operating various aspects of the SNAP and include but are not limited
to certification offices, call centers, and employment and training
offices.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 275.9:
a. Revise paragraph (b)(1)(iii).
b. Amend paragraph (b)(1)(iv) by removing the first sentence.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 275.9 Review process.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Identification of the sub-units selected for review and the
techniques used to select them;
* * * * *
Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kevin Concannon,
Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-10541 Filed 5-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P