[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62096-62098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24572]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service


Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program (SNAP) Revision of the Program and Budget Summary Statement 
Part B--Program Activity Statement

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Each year, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
State agencies are required to submit the Program and Budget Summary 
Statement Part B, Program Activity Statement (FNS-366B) to the Food 
Nutrition Service (FNS) per 7 CFR 272.2(c)(ii). Information collected 
on this form includes fraud activity for the reporting fiscal year such 
as a total number of fraud referrals, investigations, prosecutions, 
disqualification consent agreements (DCA), administrative 
disqualification hearings (ADH) and ADH waivers. This form further 
contains data on program dollars associated with pre-certification and 
post-certification fraud investigations, as well as program dollars 
that may be recovered resulting from an ADH or prosecution. This 
information is reported not later than 45 days after the end of the 
State agency's fiscal year, which is typically August 15th for most 
States. FNS is contemplating proposed changes to this form in order to 
improve the reliability and accuracy of State integrity reporting by 
revising data field definitions, such as what constitutes an 
investigation, for clarity and consistency. FNS is also considering an 
increase in the frequency

[[Page 62097]]

of reporting and would be interested in better understanding what 
impact increasing the reporting frequency may have on stakeholders. 
Furthermore, FNS is considering the addition of new data elements in 
order to better understand the impact and value returned to the 
taxpayer as a result of fraud prevention activities. Through this 
notice, FNS announces a request for information regarding the impacts 
for consideration in revising the Program Activity Statement (FNS-
366B). FNS will consider all comments in the development of the new 
reporting form.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Jane Duffield, Chief, State 
Administration Branch, Program Accountability and Administration 
Division, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, VA 22302. 
Comments may also be emailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3e0fdf2e3e0f2f1f3d5ddc09dc6c0d7d29dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8bba6a9b8bba9aaa88e869bc69d9b8c89c68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments will 
also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments electronically.
    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the FNS 
office located at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 
Room 800, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday). All responses to this notice will be summarized and 
included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of this request for information should be directed to Kelly 
Stewart at (703) 305-2425.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  State agencies report annually to FNS using 
the Program and Budget Summary Statement Part B--Program Activity 
Statement (FNS-366B) per 7 CFR 272.2(c)(ii) of the Federal regulations. 
FNS is considering changes to the form that could include changing the 
reporting frequency, adding new data elements, and changing or removing 
current data elements. FNS is also soliciting stakeholder suggestions 
for establishing with State data a national cost avoidance calculation 
methodology, as well as obtaining input on how best to clearly define 
all data elements and instructions to gain consistency among States.
    FNS National and Regional Office staff developed a national 
standardized Recipient Integrity Management Evaluation (ME) protocol 
which provides a comprehensive assessment of how effectively States are 
managing recipient fraud prevention activities and provides an 
opportunity for communication between FNS and State agencies. 
Management evaluations have allowed FNS to discuss the FNS-366B with 
State and local officials, gathering information about its usefulness 
and ease of completing the form. Based on the results of management 
evaluations completed to date, it is apparent that State reporting 
lacks consistency and the FNS-366B does not have clearly defined data 
elements or instructions. Due to the lack of clarity in these 
instructions, responses are left open to interpretation, and can and do 
vary among States, leading to unreliable reported data.
    Further, the FNS-366B lacks certain data elements that would 
increase its effectiveness and provide more accurate information on the 
types, as well as impact, of fraud prevention activities implemented by 
State Agencies. FNS is considering the addition of new data elements, 
such as those focusing on trafficking investigations and 
disqualifications, in order to gather better information that allows 
FNS to focus fraud prevention and detection strategies where they are 
most needed.
    FNS is also considering changes to the frequency States report the 
information collected on the FNS-366B. An increase in reporting 
frequency would allow for greater and more timely access to program 
data. It would help States, FNS, and other stakeholders identify 
trends, inconsistencies and inefficiencies earlier in each fiscal year. 
With more current data, States and other interested parties would be 
able to identify gaps and areas in need of greater attention, and allow 
States to respond more quickly to those gaps.
    FNS is proposing to add new reporting elements to better measure 
the effectiveness and impact of fraud prevention activities. FNS would 
like to define a standard national methodology for States to determine 
cost avoidance from their fraud prevention activities in order to 
quantify a return on investment for investigations or activities that 
result in a finding of fraud. A cost avoidance calculation methodology 
would attempt to quantify program dollars that a fraud determination 
outcome, such as a finding of an intentional program violation (IPV), 
prevented from being improperly used. For example, if an investigation 
finds that a recipient is guilty of trafficking, by establishing an 
IPV, how many program dollars might have been abused if the case was 
not investigated or prosecuted? Related to this, FNS would like to 
identify a methodology to measure how quickly disqualification takes 
place once recipient trafficking is identified. This methodology should 
allow FNS to assess how quickly States investigate and remove 
individuals that are guilty of trafficking, while ensuring FNS rules 
and regulations are upheld and clients receive due process.
    Finally, FNS is always mindful of the importance of balancing 
integrity and access. The Agency does not tolerate any level of fraud 
and takes an aggressive stance to work with its partners to hold guilty 
individuals accountable for their actions.
    However, those actions cannot be taken at the expense of 
discouraging eligible individuals from participating in the program or 
violating any individual's right to due process. FNS is interested in 
stakeholder input regarding the types of information that might be 
collected to help ensure that fraud prevention strategies are not 
resulting in any unintended consequences that adversely impact program 
access. Examples include failing to advise an individual of their 
rights, unlawfully withholding an eligible individual's access to 
benefits, or using coercion to obtain a signed disqualification consent 
agreement.
    With these general interests in mind, FNS is seeking information 
from stakeholders on the following particular questions:
    1. What new data elements should FNS consider adding to the FNS-
366B that are not currently reported?
    2. Do States currently utilize or possess performance measurement 
methods or tools to evaluate the new data elements being suggested? If 
not, what evaluation tools should be developed in order to collect and/
or analyze new data elements?
    3. What data elements should FNS remove or revise on the FNS-366B?
    4. What, if any, barriers would States have to reporting 
trafficking fraud as a separate category from other types of fraud?
    5. How are investigations currently defined? Should investigations 
be separated into pre-certification investigations and post-
certification investigations for reporting purposes? Why or why not? 
What other distinctions should be considered?
    6. What barriers, if any, keep States from accurately completing 
the form?
    a. Are these concerns regarding the form and/or instructions?
    b. Are there hurdles within State agencies that make reporting of 
data required on this form difficult?

[[Page 62098]]

    7. Do States or stakeholders anticipate an increase in 
administrative expenditures or other impact if SNAP restructures the 
FNS-366B? If yes, please explain.
    8. How much time would be required for State agencies to adjust 
their systems and reporting mechanisms in order to provide different or 
additional information on a revised FNS-366B?
    9. How would increasing the frequency of reporting impact 
stakeholders? If additional costs would be part of this impact, please 
explain.
    10. How is this data currently used by the State and what 
benefit(s) does it provide?
    11. What data and methodology for calculating cost avoidance as a 
result of fraud prevention activities should FNS consider?
    12. What data and methodology should be considered to measure how 
quickly recipient trafficking suspects are investigated and 
disqualified in accordance with FNS rules and regulations?
    13. What data should FNS consider collecting to ensure that fraud 
prevention activities do not adversely impact program access?

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Jeffrey J. Tribiano,
Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-24572 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>