Step 12_SNAP Cover for the Annual Report.doc

.
Office of Inspector General
Quality Control
Quality Control Annual Report
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)
FFY 2013
Prepared by:
Marilyn Trout, Director
April 28, 2014
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Earl Ray Tomblin
Governor
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Quality Control
State Capitol Complex
Building 6, Room 817
Charleston, WV 25305
Telephone: (304) 558-0630
Fax: (304) 558-1992
Karen L. Bowling
Cabinet Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date:
April 28, 2014
To:
Jolynn Marra, Interim Inspector General
From:
Marilyn Trout, Quality Control Director
Subject:
SNAP Quality Control Report Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2013
http://intranet.wvdhhr.org/reports.htm
Attached is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) report for FFY 2013. This report
is intended to provide information on West Virginia SNAP error rates and to provide assistance in
corrective action planning.
The Error Rate
Sanction Error Rate
Agency Errors
Client Errors
FFY 2013
5.3%
65%
35%
FFY 2012
7.1%
48%
52%
The error prone causes of errors listed below make up 86% of total payment errors in FFY 2013.
Reference the graph on Page 13.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Earned Income – 42.5%
Unearned Income – 26.4% (specifically, unemployment benefits and child support income)
Household Composition – 14.2%
Work Registration – 10.3%
Shelter Deduction 6.6%
This report will be posted on the DHHR intranet at the Management Reports section. The address is:
http://intranet.wvdhhr.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SNAP Quality Control Report
FFY 2013
Executive Summary
1
Graph - FFY 2013 Sample Distribution
2
SNAP Sanction Data History
3
Graph - WV SNAP Sanction Error Rate (FFY 2008 - 2013)
4
Recent Trends in the Error Rate
5
Graph - SNAP Leading Error Causes (FFY 2011 - 2013)
6
Analysis of Quality Control Findings
Chart - Agency Case and Payment Errors
7-8
9
Graph - Agency Caused Errors
10
Chart - Client Case and Payment Errors
11
Graph - Client Caused Errors
12
Graph - SNAP Error Prone Elements (Payment vs Case)
13
Chart - Error Discovery Source
14
Chart - Error Occurrence
15
Quality Control Findings by County
16
Quality Control Findings by Region (FFY 2011 - 2013)
17
Quality Control Findings by District
18
Quality Control Findings by County (FFY 2011 - 2013)
19
Quality Control Findings by District (FFY 2011 - 2013)
20
Map - Quality Control Findings by County of Total Error Payments
21
Quality Control Findings for Negative Case Reviews
22
Chart Quality Control Findings for Negative Case Reviews
23
Executive Summary
The Quality Control process was created and is regulated by the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each state is
responsible for maintaining sound administration of all facets of the Quality Control
process. The integrity of the Quality Control process is outlined in the state’s sampling
plan, which is validated by FNS prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The work of the
State Quality Control is monitored by FNS Regional Quality Control staff. This is
accomplished by a monthly re-review of state sampled cases combined with an annual
management review. At the end of each fiscal year, the State Quality Control unit
compiles and reports their findings. The following represents such a report.
The purpose of the quality control process for active cases is determining if households
are eligible for and receiving the correct amount of SNAP benefits at a given point in
time. Reviews of negative cases determine the correctness of the action to deny or
terminate a household’s benefits. Quality Control reviews are randomly selected by the
state’s eligibility computer system (RAPIDS) on a monthly basis and assigned
geographically to State Quality Control Reviewers.
For FFY 2013, Quality Control completed 972 of the 1102 SNAP cases sampled for the
year. There were 130 cases dropped as either “Incomplete” due to non-cooperation or
“NSTR” (Not Subject To Review).
Quality Control data was collected from the 972 cases and conclusions are most valid
when applied on a statewide basis. Information by county, district and region is
included solely for the purpose of payment accuracy. The number of cases sampled for
individual offices is small; therefore, the reliability of the data enables only general
conclusions and trend identification. It is important to note that the district offices and
the customer service reporting center share responsibility for case activity for any
particular district office.
West Virginia’s reported error rate for FFY 2013 is 5.3%. This error rate is a decrease
from the FNS validated 7.0% error rate for FFY 2012. Based upon an annual SNAP
issuance of $504,485,784, Quality Control estimates that $2,228,146 SNAP benefits are
in error for any given month.
The official FFY 2013 error rate for West Virginia will be finalized by the federal regional
office after federal quality control reviews of findings are completed. These will be
published by USDA in June 2014.
1
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - QUALITY CONTROL
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
FFY 2013
Sample Distribution
1102
Total Cases
890
130
11
28
21
15
7
Correct Cases
Dropped Cases
Benefit Group Errors
Earned Income Errors
Unearned Income Errors
Deduction Errors
Work Registration Errors
SNAP FFY 2013
Sample Distribution
Correct Cases
Dropped Cases
Benefit Group Errors
Earned Income Errors
Unearned Income Errors
Deduction Errors
Work Registration Errors
2
SNAP Sanction Data History
The Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act of 1989 governs all sanction
liability determinations. The Farm Bill of 2002 established performance measures and
bonuses. The Act put in place a two-year liability system for excessive payment error
rates. Under this system, a liability amount is established when, for the second or
subsequent consecutive fiscal years, the lower confidence limit of a state’s payment
error rate exceeds 105% of the national performance measure for payment error rates.
(A state’s payment error rate comes with an upper and lower confidence limit, which
reflects the statistical uncertainty of the measurement.) Six percent is the potential
liability threshold provided in the Act. If a state’s error rate is below 6%, no liability
amount would be established. The following is a summary of the active error rate for
West Virginia since FFY 2008.

For FFY 2008, Quality Control reported an error rate of 7.2%; the federal adjusted
error rate was 7.4%; and the national average was 5.01%. As FFY 2008 was the
second consecutive year that West Virginia exceeded the tolerance level, a liability
amount of $425,772 was established. Fifty percent of that amount ($212,886) was
placed at risk for repayment if West Virginia’s error rate for FFY 2009 again
exceeded the tolerance level.

For FFY 2009, Quality Control reported an error rate of 5.3%; the federal adjusted
error rate was 5.4%; and the national average was 4.36%. Since West Virginia fell
within the tolerance level for FFY 2009, the FFY 2008 at risk money was no longer
a potential liability for the State. In addition, no liability amount was established for
FFY 2009.

For FFY 2010, Quality Control reported an error rate of 6.9%; the federal adjusted
error rate was 7.1%; and the national average was 3.81%. West Virginia’s error
rate fell outside the tolerance level and the State was placed in a first year
sanction status for FFY 2010.

For FFY 2011, Quality Control reported an error rate of 6.3%; the federal adjusted
error rate was 6.3%; and the national average was 3.80%. As FFY 2011 was the
second consecutive year that West Virginia exceeded the tolerance level, a liability
amount of $154,191 was established.

For FFY 2012, Quality Control reported an error rate of 6.9%; the federal adjusted
error rate was 7.06%; the national average was 3.42%. As FFY 2012 was the third
consecutive year that West Virginia exceeded the tolerance level, a liability amount
of $77,095.50 was established for FFY 2011. In addition, a liability amount of
$530,427 was established for FFY 2012 with 50% ($265,213.50) placed at risk
should the FFY 2013 error rate be excessive. The other 50% was designated for
new investment in approved activities to improve the administration of SNAP
benefits.

For FFY 2013, Quality Control reported an error rate of 5.34%. The validated error
rates will be published by FNS in June 2014.
3
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL / QUALITY CONTROL
West Virginia
SNAP Sanction Error Rate
FFY 2008- 2013
10%
8%
Error Rate
6%
West Virginia
National Average
4%
2%
0%
FFY
2008
FFY
2009
FFY
2010
FFY
2011
FFY
2012
FFY
2013
Note: FFY 2013 Error Rates have not been validated by FNS as of the date of this report.
4
Recent Trends in the Error Rate FFY 2011-2013
The SNAP sanction error rate decreased from 7.1% validated for FFY 2012 to 5.3%
reported for FFY 2013 prior to federal adjustment. The following is a table of elements
with the percentage of all errors and annual costs for the last 3 years.
Element
Household Composition
Child Support Income *
Shelter Deduction
Standard Utility Allowance
Child Support Deduction
Other Unearned Income*
Student Status
Earned Income
Social Security (RSDI) *
Unemployment Compensation*
Contributions*
Supplemental Social Security (SSI) *
FFY
2011
FFY
2012
9.4%
0.0%
8.6%
3.8%
0.8%
2.8%
3.0%
36.3%
6.8%
11.4%
5.2%
5.3%
6.6%
0.0%
6.4%
3.3%
.99%
2.2%
0.4%
51.1%
5.3%
6.0%
0.7%
3.7%
FFY
2013
12.2%
5.6%
5.7%
3.6%
2.4%
3.8%
2.9%
41.7%
.12%
6.8%
0.0%
5.8%
3-Year
Average
Average
Annual Cost
9.4%
1.9%
6.9%
3.5%
1.4%
2.9%
2.1%
43.0%
4.1%
8.1%
2.2%
4.9%
$2,909,383
$588,067
$2,135,611
$1,083,281
$433,312
$897,575
$649,968
$13,308,878
$1,268,986
$2,507,021
$680,919
$1,516,593

Earned income continues to be the largest contributor to the error rate at 43% of
all errors, which is an average annual cost of $13,308,878.

*Unearned

Household Composition at 9.4% remains the third largest error element and has
increased with an average annual cost of $2,909,383.
Income combined is the next largest error element at 24.1% of all
errors with an average annual cost of $7,459,161.
These three elements combined make up 76.5% of all errors for this period of time.
Note: The average annual cost is an estimation based on the average three year
percentage multiplied by the average three year error costs of $30,950,879 from FFY
2011–2013.
5
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL / QUALITY CONTROL
SNAP
Leading Error Causes
FFY 2011 - 2013
45%
40%
35%
Percent of All Errors
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Earned
Income
43.0%
Unearned
Income
24.1%
Household
Composition
9.4%
Element
6
Shelter
Deduction
6.9%
Standard
Utility
Allowance
3.5%
Analysis of Quality Control Findings
Client and Agency Errors
For FFY 2013, the ratio of case errors is 61% agency and 39% client. For payment
errors, 65% were agency caused errors and 35% were client caused errors.
For Agency Payment Errors, four factors of eligibility (listed largest to smallest) caused
the most agency errors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Non-Financial Information (Household Composition, Work Registration)
Earned Income, including Self-Employment
Unearned Income
Deductions
Information disregarded or not acted on was the largest percentage of all agency error
payments at 24%. Policy incorrectly applied accounted for 18% of all agency error
payments.
For Client Payment Errors, four factors of eligibility (listed largest to smallest) caused
the most client errors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Earned Income, including Self-Employment
Non-Financial Information (Household Composition, Work Registration)
Deductions
Unearned Income
The largest cause of client errors (18% of all error payments) resulted from unintentional
misrepresentation. Intentional misrepresentation occurred in 17% of all payment errors.
Please refer to the graphs on pages 9-12 for more information concerning Agency and
Client caused errors.
Eligibility Requirements
Basic eligibility factors contributed to 24% of all payment errors in this group. The
largest contributors were:
1. Household Composition
2. Work Registration
3. Student Status
7
Income eligibility factors contributed to 65% of all payment errors. The largest
contributors were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Wages and Salaries
Self-Employment
Unemployment Compensation
Social Security Benefits (RSDI and SSI)
Child Support Income
Deduction eligibility factors contributed to 12% of all payment errors in this group. The
largest contributors were:
1. Shelter Deduction
2. Standard Utility Allowance
3. Child Support Deduction
Error Discovery
The majority of payment errors were found through the recipient interview (30%) and by
examining the case record (40%). The case record included the physical file as well as
the electronic file and automated matches from RAPIDS data exchanges.
Errors occurred more often during the recertification for benefits. This accounted for
67% of payment errors.
Refer to the graphs on pages 14 and 15 for detailed information about error discovery
sources.
8
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL / QUALITY CONTROL
Agency Case Errors
Non-Financial
12.2%
18.3%
Earned Income
RSDI/SSI Income
9.8%
Other Unearned Income
13.4%
7.3%
Deductions
Agency Payment Errors
Non-Financial
8.5%
Earned Income
21.1%
13.9%
RSDI/SSI Income
Other Unearned Income
19.1%
Deductions
9
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - QUALITY CONTROL
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Agency Caused Errors
CAUSE
Policy Incorrectly Applied
Information Disregarded
No Follow-Up/Incomplete Information
No Follow-Up/Impending Change
Computer Programming
Data Entry Error
Computation
Other
Percentage
of
Error Cases
13.41%
26.83%
4.88%
2.44%
6.10%
2.44%
2.44%
2.44%
Percentage
of
Error Dollars
17.89%
24.43%
5.18%
2.30%
7.00%
1.38%
2.39%
0.44%
61.0%
61.0%
FFY 2013
AGENCY CAUSED ERRORS
Policy Incorrectly Applied
Information Disregarded
No Follow-Up/Incomplete
Information
Case Errors
No Follow-Up/Impending
Change
Computer Programming
Dollar
Errors
Data Entry Error
Computation
Other
0%
10%
10
20%
30%
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL / QUALITY CONTROL
Client Case Errors
3.7%
6.1%
Non-Financial
Earned Income
6.1%
RSDI/SSI Income
20.7%
Other Unearned Income
Deductions
Client Payment Errors
Non-Financial
Earned Income
RSDI/SSI Income
22.6%
Other Unearned Income
Deductions
11
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - QUALITY CONTROL
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Client Caused Errors
CAUSE
Percentage of Percentage of
Error Cases Error Dollars
13.33%
11.7%
2.86%
2.1%
9.52%
9.2%
4.76%
3.4%
30.5%
26.4%
Information Not Reported (Non-Fraud)
Inaccurate Information Provided (Non-Fraud)
Information Withheld (Fraud)
Inaccurate Information Provided (Fraud)
SNAP FFY 2013
CLIENT CAUSED ERRORS
Case
Errors
Dollar
Errors
0%
5%
10%
12
15%
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL / QUALITY CONTROL
SNAP Error Prone Elements
Payment vs. Case
45%
40%
35%
30%
Percent of All Errors
Payment
25%
Case
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Wages and
Salaries
Unearned
Income
Household
Composition
Element
13
Work
Registration
Shelter
Deduction
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - QUALITY CONTROL
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Error Occurrence
Percentage of
Error Cases
Source
Case Record
Case Automated Match
Recipient Interview
Employer
Financial Institution
Landlord
Government Agency
Government Automated Match
Other
Percentage of
Dollar Errors
26%
11%
30%
16%
1%
1%
7%
5%
2%
100%
28%
12%
30%
17%
1%
1%
7%
3%
2%
100%
SNAP FFY 2013
Error Discovery Source
Case Record
Case Automated
Match
Percentage of
Error Cases
Recipient Interview
Employer
Percentage of
Dollar Errors
Financial Institution
Landlord
Government Agency
Government
Automated Match
Other
0%
10%
20%
14
30%
40%
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - QUALITY CONTROL
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Error Occurrence
Percentage of
Error Cases
Percentage of
Dollar Errors
Type of Action
Certification
Recertification
35%
65%
33%
67%
When Errors Occurred
Before the most recent action by Agency
At the time of most recent action by Agency
After the most recent action by Agency
22%
53%
25%
22%
51%
27%
SNAP FFY 2013
Type of Action
(Chart based on Case Errors)
Certification
Recertification
SNAP FFY 2013
When Errors Occurred
(Chart based on Case Errors)
Before the most
recent action by
Agency
At the time of most
recent action by
Agency
After the most recent
action by Agency
15
Quality Control Findings by County for FFY 2013
County
01 Barbour
02 Berkeley
03 Boone
04 Braxton
05 Brooke
06 Cabell
07 Calhoun
08 Clay
09 Doddridge
10 Fayette
11 Gilmer
12 Grant
13 Greenbrier
14 Hampshire
15 Hancock
16 Hardy
17 Harrison
18 Jackson
19 Jefferson
20 Kanawha
21 Lewis
22 Lincoln
23 Logan
24 Marion
25 Marshall
26 Mason
27 Mercer
28 Mineral
29 Mingo
30 Monongalia
31 Monroe
32 Morgan
33 McDowell
34 Nicholas
35 Ohio
36 Pendleton
37 Pleasants
38 Pocahontas
39 Preston
40 Putnam
41 Raleigh
42 Randolph
43 Ritchie
44 Roane
45 Summers
46 Taylor
47 Tucker
48 Tyler
49 Upshur
50 Wayne
51 Webster
52 Wetzel
53 Wirt
54 Wood
55 Wyoming
Totals
Selected
Cases
Case
Errors
11
33
18
8
7
57
9
6
4
26
2
7
22
12
12
6
27
20
19
91
9
18
28
24
15
16
51
10
23
25
5
4
25
16
23
6
3
5
11
16
51
13
6
9
10
10
4
5
14
29
10
8
4
50
19
1
3
2
1
1
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
2
8
0
3
6
0
2
1
4
0
0
3
2
0
4
2
0
2
0
0
4
1
6
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
2
2
972
82
16
Allotment
Dollar
Error
Sanction
Error Rate
$1,785
$7,748
$3,841
$1,693
$1,300
$10,390
$2,771
$1,246
$913
$8,542
$148
$1,385
$5,920
$2,988
$2,582
$2,032
$6,386
$5,525
$5,376
$21,887
$2,366
$4,570
$8,264
$6,375
$3,659
$3,610
$12,284
$2,623
$6,504
$6,141
$545
$1,163
$6,071
$3,618
$7,701
$1,470
$815
$917
$3,787
$3,521
$12,434
$2,510
$1,691
$2,088
$2,650
$2,338
$810
$731
$3,837
$6,852
$3,289
$1,607
$759
$13,969
$4,797
$56
$359
$286
$102
$326
$476
$0
$0
$0
$451
$0
$0
$0
$0
$526
$0
$518
$0
$303
$951
$0
$998
$951
$0
$229
$70
$921
$0
$0
$859
$193
$0
$557
$231
$0
$392
$0
$0
$486
$93
$777
$114
$90
$0
$0
$0
$170
$0
$136
$359
$82
$58
$0
$146
$597
3.1%
4.6%
7.4%
6.0%
25.1%
4.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.4%
0.0%
8.1%
0.0%
5.6%
4.3%
0.0%
21.8%
11.5%
0.0%
6.3%
1.9%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
14.0%
35.4%
0.0%
9.2%
6.4%
0.0%
26.7%
0.0%
0.0%
12.8%
2.6%
6.2%
4.5%
5.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
21.0%
0.0%
3.5%
5.2%
2.5%
3.6%
0.0%
1.0%
12.4%
$240,824
$12,863
5.3%
Quality Control Findings by Region for FFY 2013
Allotment
Dollar
Error
Sanction
Error Rate
15
27
16
24
$57,548
$77,052
$42,218
$64,006
$2,752
$4,184
$2,016
$3,911
4.8%
5.4%
4.8%
6.1%
82
$240,824
$12,863
5.3%
Region
Selected
Cases
Case
Errors
I
II
III
IV
224
325
169
254
State
972
Quality Control Findings by Region for FFY 2011 - 2013
Region
Selected
Cases
Case
Errors
I
II
III
IV
706
954
524
750
State
2934
Allotment
Dollar
Error
Sanction
Error Rate
63
115
60
75
$181,083
$232,620
$135,969
$177,309
$8,693
$16,836
$8,390
$11,063
4.8%
7.2%
6.2%
6.2%
313
$726,981
$44,982
6.2%
Regional SNAP Error Rates
FFY 2013
FFY 2011-2013
8%
7%
Error Rate
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
I
II
III
IV
Region
17
State
Quality Control Findings by District for FFY 2013
Selected
Cases
Case
Errors
42
15
27
49
13
28
50
224
2
0
4
3
1
3
2
15
Boone
18
2
$3,841
$286
7.4%
Cabell
57
4
$10,390
$476
4.6%
Mason/Jackson/Roane
45
1
$11,223
$70
0.6%
Kanawha
91
8
$21,887
$951
4.3%
Lincoln
18
3
$4,570
$998
21.8%
Logan
28
6
$8,264
$951
11.5%
Mingo
23
0
$6,504
$0
0.0%
Putnam
Wayne
16
29
1
2
$3,521
$6,852
$93
$359
2.6%
5.2%
325
27
$77,052
$4,184
5.4%
Barbour/Taylor/Preston
Berkeley/Jefferson/Morgan
32
56
5
5
$7,910
$14,287
$542
$662
6.9%
4.6%
Grant/Hardy/Pendleton
19
2
$4,887
$392
8.0%
Hampshire/Mineral
22
0
$5,611
$0
0.0%
Lewis/Upshur
23
1
$6,203
$136
2.2%
Randolph/Tucker
17
3
$3,320
$284
8.6%
Region III Total
169
16
$42,218
$2,016
4.8%
Braxton/Clay
14
1
$2,939
$102
3.5%
Fayette
26
2
$8,542
$451
5.3%
Summers/Greenbrier/Monroe/Pocahontas
42
2
$10,032
$193
1.9%
McDowell
25
4
$6,071
$557
9.2%
Mercer
51
4
$12,284
$921
7.5%
Nicholas/Webster
26
3
$6,907
$313
4.5%
Raleigh
51
6
$12,434
$777
6.2%
Wyoming
$4,797
$597
12.4%
District
Brooke/Hancock/Ohio
Calhoun/Gilmer/Wirt
Harrison
Marion/Monongalia
Pleasants/Ritchie/Doddridge
Tyler/Wetzel/Marshall
Wood
Region I Total
Region II Total
Allotment
Dollar
Error
Sanction
Error Rate
$11,583
$3,678
$6,386
$12,516
$3,419
$5,997
$13,969
$57,548
$852
$0
$518
$859
$90
$287
$146
$2,752
7.4%
0.0%
8.1%
6.9%
2.6%
4.8%
1.0%
4.8%
19
2
Region IV Total
254
24
$64,006
$3,911
6.1%
Totals
972
82
$240,824
$12,863
5.3%
18
Quality Control Findings by County for FFY 2011 - 2013
County
01 Barbour
02 Berkeley
03 Boone
04 Braxton
05 Brooke
06 Cabell
07 Calhoun
08 Clay
09 Doddridge
10 Fayette
11 Gilmer
12 Grant
13 Greenbrier
14 Hampshire
15 Hancock
16 Hardy
17 Harrison
18 Jackson
19 Jefferson
20 Kanawha
21 Lewis
22 Lincoln
23 Logan
24 Marion
25 Marshall
26 Mason
27 Mercer
28 Mineral
29 Mingo
30 Monongalia
31 Monroe
32 Morgan
33 McDowell
34 Nicholas
35 Ohio
36 Pendleton
37 Pleasants
38 Pocahontas
39 Preston
40 Putnam
41 Raleigh
42 Randolph
43 Ritchie
44 Roane
45 Summers
46 Taylor
47 Tucker
48 Tyler
49 Upshur
50 Wayne
51 Webster
52 Wetzel
53 Wirt
54 Wood
55 Wyoming
Totals
Selected
Cases
Case
Errors
29
111
49
28
28
166
21
20
15
84
9
14
62
40
39
16
93
47
55
276
31
54
80
76
50
49
143
35
75
74
17
20
76
50
65
10
7
15
35
46
140
53
20
29
33
24
11
15
40
83
26
27
9
158
56
3
10
11
4
3
16
3
2
1
12
1
1
3
6
6
0
9
2
8
36
4
7
17
5
4
3
17
0
8
7
3
2
7
4
5
2
1
0
6
3
15
6
2
3
2
3
4
0
5
9
1
3
0
13
5
2934
313
19
Allotment
Dollar
Error
Sanction
Error Rate
$5,951
$29,706
$11,862
$5,592
$6,324
$38,795
$4,834
$4,581
$2,993
$22,299
$1,250
$2,383
$12,726
$11,178
$10,106
$3,810
$25,178
$12,863
$14,506
$65,165
$9,367
$14,292
$20,726
$21,424
$12,812
$12,625
$34,033
$8,936
$18,393
$17,821
$3,156
$6,808
$17,777
$10,405
$20,387
$2,456
$1,605
$2,814
$9,165
$11,120
$35,087
$13,307
$4,534
$6,275
$8,485
$5,446
$2,752
$3,514
$10,198
$20,504
$7,067
$6,650
$1,474
$40,177
$13,287
$207
$1,417
$1,598
$420
$519
$2,135
$175
$237
$80
$2,103
$85
$164
$459
$603
$1,177
$0
$1,067
$259
$1,063
$5,441
$679
$1,219
$2,312
$780
$329
$668
$3,165
$0
$774
$1,525
$224
$179
$855
$369
$979
$392
$80
$0
$647
$299
$1,797
$776
$233
$296
$324
$529
$733
$0
$1,001
$1,835
$82
$275
$0
$1,389
$1,028
3.5%
4.8%
13.5%
7.5%
8.2%
5.5%
3.6%
5.2%
2.7%
9.4%
6.8%
6.9%
3.6%
5.4%
11.6%
0.0%
4.2%
2.0%
7.3%
8.3%
7.2%
8.5%
11.2%
3.6%
2.6%
5.3%
9.3%
0.0%
4.2%
8.6%
7.1%
2.6%
4.8%
3.5%
4.8%
16.0%
5.0%
0.0%
7.1%
2.7%
5.1%
5.8%
5.1%
4.7%
3.8%
9.7%
26.6%
0.0%
9.8%
8.9%
1.2%
4.1%
0.0%
3.5%
7.7%
$726,981
$44,982
6.2%
Quality Control Findings by District for FFY 2013
Selected
Cases
Case
Errors
Allotment
Dollar
Error
Sanction
Error Rate
Brooke/Hancock/Ohio
132
Calhoun/Gilmer/Wirt
39
14
$36,817
$2,675
7.3%
4
$7,558
$260
Harrison
3.4%
93
9
$25,178
$1,067
4.2%
Marion/Monongalia
150
12
$39,245
$2,305
5.9%
Pleasants/Ritchie/Doddridge
42
4
$9,132
$393
4.3%
Tyler/Wetzel/Marshall
92
7
$22,976
$604
2.6%
Wood
158
13
$40,177
$1,389
3.5%
Region I Total
706
63
$181,083
$8,693
4.8%
Boone
49
11
$11,862
$1,598
13.5%
Cabell
166
16
$38,795
$2,135
5.5%
Mason/Jackson/Roane
125
8
$31,763
$1,223
3.9%
Kanawha
276
36
$65,165
$5,441
8.3%
Lincoln
54
7
$14,292
$1,219
8.5%
Logan
80
17
$20,726
$2,312
11.2%
Mingo
75
8
$18,393
$774
4.2%
Putnam
46
3
$11,120
$299
2.7%
Wayne
83
9
$20,504
$1,835
8.9%
Region II Total
954
115
$232,620
$16,836
7.2%
Barbour/Taylor/Preston
88
12
$20,562
$1,383
6.7%
Berkeley/Jefferson/Morgan
186
20
$51,020
$2,659
5.2%
Grant/Hardy/Pendleton
40
3
$8,649
$556
6.4%
Hampshire/Mineral
75
6
$20,114
$603
3.0%
Lewis/Upshur
71
9
$19,565
$1,680
8.6%
Randolph/Tucker
64
10
$16,059
$1,509
9.4%
Region III Total
524
60
$135,969
$8,390
6.2%
Braxton/Clay
48
6
$10,173
$657
6.5%
Fayette
84
12
$22,299
$2,103
9.4%
Summers/Greenbrier/Monroe/Pocahontas
127
8
$27,181
$1,007
3.7%
McDowell
76
7
$17,777
$855
4.8%
Mercer
143
17
$34,033
$3,165
9.3%
District
Nicholas/Webster
76
5
$17,472
$451
2.6%
Raleigh
140
15
$35,087
$1,797
5.1%
Wyoming
56
5
$13,287
$1,028
7.7%
Region IV Total
750
75
$177,309
$11,063
6.2%
2934
313
$726,981
$44,982
6.2%
Totals
20
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
QUALITY CONTROL
FINDINGS BY COUNTY OF TOTAL ERROR PAYMENTS OF $12,863
HANCOCK
BROOKE
OHIO
MARSHALL
ZERO PAYMENT ERRORS
UNDER 5%
5% to 10%
MONONGALIA
WETZEL
MORGAN
MARION
BERKELEY
TYLER
PRESTON
MINERAL
PLEASANTS
 OVER 10%
DODD- HARRISON
RIDGE
WOOD
RITCHIE
TAYLOR
HAMPSHIRE
BARBOUR
JEFFERSON
GRANT
TUCKER
WIRT
HARDY
LEWIS
CALHOUN
JACKSON
GILMER
RANDOLPH
MASON
ROANE
BRAXTON
PUTNAM
PENDLETON
WEBSTER
CLAY
CABELL
KANAWHA
NICHOLAS
POCAHONTAS
LINCOLN
WAYNE
FAYETTE
BOONE
GREENBRIER
LOGAN
RALEIGH
WYOMING
MCDOWELL
SUMMERS MONROE
MERCER
21
QUALITY CONTROL
SNAP FINDINGS FOR FFY 2013
Negative Case and Procedure Error Rate (Closures and Denials)
Quality Control reviews of negative cases and procedures are conducted to determine
whether the decision to deny or to terminate the household’s SNAP benefit was correct
and to determine if notification procedures were properly followed. Negative action
reviews are primarily desk reviews.
For FFY 2013, Quality Control completed 671 of the 717 sampled cases. There were
46 cases dropped as “Incomplete” or “NSTR” (Not Subject To Review).
Of the 671 reviewed cases, 107 cases were identified as invalid negative actions. The
negative error rate increased from 12.81% validated for FFY 2012 to 15.95% reported
for FFY 2013. Validated findings for FFY 2013 will be available in June 2014.
The chart on Page 23 shows a breakdown of the types of case errors and procedures
that were discovered.
22
Quality Control
Negative Case and Procedural Error Causes
FFY 2013
DENIALS
Number
Percentage of Number of Percentage
of
Cases
Cases
of Cases
Cases
ERROR CAUSES
OVERALL
TOTAL
TERMINATIONS
Number of
Cases
Percentage
of Cases
Late denial agency failed to process the application timely
25
40.32%
0
0.00%
25
23.36%
Policy incorrectly applied
7
11.29%
12
26.67%
19
17.76%
Improper termination or suspension for failure to meet reporting requirements
0
0.00%
10
22.22%
10
9.35%
Failed to send notice of action
4
6.45%
5
11.11%
9
8.41%
Improper denial/termination - failure to provide - for verification requested for another program
1
1.61%
4
8.89%
5
4.67%
Improper denial/termination - failure to provide - household never notified of needed verification
5
8.06%
0
0.00%
5
4.67%
Improper Denial/Termination - failure to provide - verification was received or is in case file
5
8.06%
0
0.00%
5
4.67%
Agency failed to follow up on inconsistent or incomplete information
2
3.23%
2
4.44%
4
3.74%
Improper denial prior to end of timeframe for providing verification
0
0.00%
3
6.67%
3
2.80%
Notice reason does not match reason for action
1
1.61%
1
2.22%
2
1.87%
Other
2
3.23%
0
0.00%
2
1.87%
Eligible person(s) disqualified
1
1.61%
1
2.22%
2
1.87%
Eligible person(s) excluded
1
1.61%
1
2.22%
2
1.87%
Failed to process the reapplication timely (recertification application)
1
1.61%
1
2.22%
2
1.87%
Failed to provide expedited service to expedited eligible household
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Improper calculation - Income averaged incorrectly
0
0.00%
1
2.22%
1
0.93%
Improper denial or termination, not out of the project area
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Improper income calculation
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Eligible person(s) with income excluded
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Eligible person(s) with no income, resources, or deductible expenses excluded
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Failed to consider or incorrectly considered reported information
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Agency failed to follow up on known and reported impending changes
0
0.00%
1
2.22%
1
0.93%
Averaging not used or incorrectly applied
0
0.00%
1
2.22%
1
0.93%
Conversion to monthly amount not used or incorrectly applied
1
1.61%
0
0.00%
1
0.93%
Data entry and/or coding error (includes selection of incorrect codes)
0
0.00%
1
2.22%
1
0.93%
Improper denial/termination - failure to provide - failed to send a request for contact
0
0.00%
1
2.22%
1
0.93%
62
100%
45
100%
107
100%
TOTAL
23

Download Report