FFY 2005 ALASKA FOOD STAMP PROGRAM REPORT

Transcription

1 FFY 2005 ALASKA FOOD STAMP PROGRAM REPORT Division Of Public Assistance Program Integrity and Analysis Section Research Unit Connie J. Olson May

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS QUALITY CONTROL BACKGROUND...3 ACTIVE AND NEGATIVE FOOD STAMP SAMPLE.3 ALASKA S PAYMENT ERROR RATE.3 ERROR REDUCTION STATUS.4 Federal Variances ALASKA REGIONAL FINDINGS. 4 DISTRICT OFFICE PAYMENT ACCURACY.5 FOOD STAMP ERRORS CAUSED BY AGENCY AND CLIENT.6 DOLLARS IN ERROR BY ERROR ELEMENT..6 CLOSED AND DENIED FOOD STAMP CASES APPENDIX I..9 Final 2005 Food Stamp Open Report by Month..9 Final 2005 Food Stamp Open Report by District Office APPENDIX II..11 APPENDIX III 18 Final 2005 Food Stamp Closure/Denial Report by Month..18 Final 2005 Food Stamp Closure/Denial Report by District Office

3 QUALITY CONTROL BACKGROUND Food Stamp Program benefits are fully funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Alaska shares the cost of operating the program. In 2005, Alaska s Food Stamp Program issued nearly $82 million in food stamp benefits. The program helped a monthly average of nearly 60,000 persons in about 20,000 households. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Public Assistance delivers these program services statewide. The Food Stamp Program requires precise measurement of work quality. Monthly audits of sampled cases by the division s quality assessment staff determines if the correct benefit amount is issued to participating households. The state-determined error rate is calculated by dividing the total benefits issued in error by the total benefits issued. These findings result in an annual payment error rate for each state. Each states error rate collectively determines the national food stamp payment error rate. States with an error rate above the national average are subject to financial penalties. The quality control payment error rate includes overpayments, where a household receives more benefits than it should, and underpayments where the amount issued is too low. Payment errors are typically caused by the state agency miscalculating the monthly benefit amount or participants not accurately reporting household circumstances and earnings. Table 1 summarizes Alaska s food stamp payment error rate for federal fiscal years 2000 to 2005 compared to the national average. Alaska data for FFY 2005 are state findings and the national average is an estimate Table 1. Food Stamp Payment Error Rates Alaska vs. National Average 14 ACTIVE AND NEGATIVE FOOD STAMP SAMPLE The annual quality control sampling plan requires monthly review of the accuracy of our eligibility and benefit decisions on open food stamp cases. These reviews are called the active sample. Eligibility decisions to deny food stamp applications or close/suspend an open case are also reviewed. These reviews comprise the negative sample. The Quality Assessment unit randomly samples active and negative food stamp cases to ensure statistical precision. The USDA, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) must approve the Alaska s Food Stamp Program quality control sampling plan each year. Quality control data is not statistically valid until the completion of the full sample in September, the end of the federal fiscal year. Interim data compiled during the reporting period identifies error trends and monitors performance and corrective action initiatives. A Quality Assessment Review Committee (QARC) is the primary statewide forum for discussing food stamp errors, trends, and action steps for improvement in both open and closed cases. The greatest impact is in improved communication, identifying training needs, clarifying policies, and automation enhancements needed to improve operating systems. The state s error rate was reduced by about two percentage points because cases are reviewed by the QARC. Alaska submits a Corrective Action Plan to FNS in May and November outlining corrective actions implemented to reduce the payment error rate. The Corrective Action Plan is a comprehensive overview of Food Stamp errors, their causes, and the actions planned to remedy such errors and improve work quality. ERROR RATE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR Alaska National Average ALASKA S PAYMENT ERROR RATE Alaska s state-estimated payment error rate for FFY 2005 was 6.17 percent. Table 2 on page 4 compares Alaska s payment error rate to the other states and Guam in the Western FNS region. The error rates are state estimated error rates for the Federal Fiscal Year The estimated national error rate is 5.6 percent. The weighted and regressed error rates will be released by FNS in June

4 Payment Error Rate 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Table 2. Western Region States FS Error Rates ALASKA 6% ARIZONA 8% CALIFORNIA 6% GUAM 6% HAWAII 5% IDAHO ERROR REDUCTION STATUS 8% NEVADA 2% OREGON State National Average 5.6% 6% WASHINGTON 3% Alaska s final Food Stamp Program payment error rate for FFY 2003 was 13.9 percent - the highest in the nation. The division s Better than Average accuracy improvement campaign began on October 1, 2003, with an ambitious goal of achieving a payment error rate of less than 7 percent by September The division achieved the goal with an error rate of 6.7 percent. Work quality focus by the DPA staff, the Better than Average campaign, the institution of a Quality Assessment Review Committee to examine each error s cause, and progressive policy changes like semi-annual reporting all contributed to reduce the error rate. The 6.9 percentage point reduction from 13.9 percent in 2003 to 6.7 percent in 2004 was the most significant improvement recorded by any state or territory. For this accomplishment, Alaska received a performance bonus of $205,389. The Food and Nutrition Service re-reviews approximately 59 percent of the active and 33 percent of the negative cases completed in the state s quality assessment sample. If they detect errors made in the state s review, a variance is cited. Federal re-review findings are factored into the state s final regressed Food Stamp Program payment error rate. Variances are the discrepancies between the state and federal re-review findings. Regression formulas applied to variances can significantly change the final error rate calculation from that determined initially by the state. In the FFY 2005 sample, Alaska received two payment variances from FNS. In FFY 2005, these two variances will add 0.5 percent to our state-determined error rate. Our final regressed payment error rate is 6.71 percent. Not subject to review (NSTR) sampled cases decreased dramatically from 9.5% in FFY 2004 to 5.6% in FFY The percentage of NSTR cases result in a penalty if states are unable to complete 98 percent of the cases sampled. Alaska s completion rate was 94.4 percent. Alaska s final federal error rate figures and the national rate for FFY 2005 will be announced in June Appendix I summarizes the FFY 2005 active food stamp cases by month and Division of Public Assistance office. Appendix II includes the Synopsis of FFY 2005 Food Stamp Errors. The synopsis is a case profile plus a brief description of all errors discovered on a case. ALASKA REGIONAL FINDINGS Table 3 shows quality assessment findings of payment accuracy rates on open cases. The chart compares Alaska 100% Table 3. Food Stamp Payment Accuracy National, Statewide and Regional The goal for the FFY 2005 Better than Average accuracy improvement campaign was set at 6 percent. The year ended with a state recorded error rate of 6.17 percent. The campaign goal was nearly met, and the campaign will continue into FFY 2006 with the same goal. Federal Variances Payment Error Rate 4 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 FFY 2006 Central Coastal Northern Southeast National Statewide

5 statewide, the division s four operational regions and national accuracy rates for Federal Fiscal Years 2002 through The chart includes the target accuracy rates for FFY In reviewing payment accuracy for FFY 2005, the Coastal and Southeast regions exceeded the National Average of 94.4 percent and the statewide average of 93.8 percent. The Coastal Region has a significant impact on the statewide accuracy rate because their food stamp issuance represents 43.9 percent of the total QC sample allotments. The Central Region accounts for 33.1 percent of the total, Northern Region 14.9 percent and Southeast Region 8.1 percent. The payment accuracy rate for FFY 2005 was slightly higher than FFY 2004 at 93.3 percent. This is an improvement of 0.5 percentage points. The target payment accuracy rate for FFY 2006 has been set at 94 percent. DISTRICT OFFICE PAYMENT ACCURACY The payment accuracy rate is derived from the error rate. A payment error rate equals the total dollar amount in error divided by the total allotment. To find an accuracy rate, subtract the payment error rate from 100. Table 4 through Table 7 show payment accuracy rates of the national, regional, and district offices for FFY 2002 through The statewide accuracy rate is a red, green or yellow line, and compares region s accuracy to the statewide and national accuracy rates. The dark blue line shows the national payment accuracy rate. Payment Accuracy Rate Payment accuracy in the Central Region decreased from 95.6 percent in FFY 2004 to 91.6 percent in FFY The Gambell and Mat-Su district offices met or exceeded the national and statewide averages. In the FFY 2005 sample, the Mat-Su office processed 37.6 percent of the Central region allotments and 12.4 percent of statewide issuance. The Gambell office issued 29.8 percent of Central Region and 9.9 percent of statewide allotments. Together, these two district offices process nearly a fourth of all benefits issued % 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% Table 5. Food Stamp Accuracy Rates Coastal Region FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 Region Bethel Field Office Field Office #3 Kotzebue Nome Kenai Kenai SSU National Statewide The Coastal Region increased payment accuracy from 90.5 percent in FFY 2004 to 95.0 percent in FFY The Bethel, Kotzebue, Nome, Kenai and Kenai SSU district offices met or exceeded the national and statewide averages. The Bethel office worked nearly half of the Coastal Region total sample allotments and 18.9 percent of statewide allotments issued. This office consistently works cases with larger allotments than other offices in the state due to larger households in this rural area. FNS rules allow rural households to receive increased allotments % Table 6. Food Stamp Accuracy Rates Northern Region Payment Accuracy Rate 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Table 4. Food Stamp Accuracy Rates Central Region Payment Accuracy Rate 95.0% 90.0% 85.0% 80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 Northern Region Fairbanks NSB Fairbanks Rural NRO APA Unit National Statewide FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 Region APA Unit Gambell Muldoon Mat-Su Mat-Su APA National Statewide The Northern Region payment accuracy decreased from 94.1 to 92.3 percent. Their accuracy rate was slightly under the state-reported accuracy rate of

6 percent. The Fairbanks Rural office processed 54.3 percent of the Northern Region allotments and 8.1 percent statewide sample issuance. The Northern Region processed 14.9 percent of all state allotments in FFY Payment Accuracy Rate 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% Table 7. Food Stamp Accuracy Rates Southeast Region FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 Southeast Region Ketchikan Southeast APA Office Statewide Juneau FS Unit Sitka National The Southeast Region had the highest accuracy rate of the four regions at 99 percent in FFY 2004 and This region has the smallest percentage of the statewide allotment total (8.1 percent), yet their high accuracy rate helps to improve the statewide rate. By FFY 2005, client caused dollars in error dropped to 29 percent as shown in table 9. The implementation of semi-annual reporting helped reduce client caused dollars in error by 12 percent from FFY 2003 to Client Fail to report 10% Table 9. and Client Caused Errors FFY 2005 Client Misrepresentation 19% Other 3% Arithmetic error 2% Data entry error 16% Inaction 32% Incorrect policy 18% FOOD STAMP ERRORS CAUSED BY AGENCY AND CLIENT Alaska implemented semi-annual reporting in January 2004, to help reduce the food stamp payment error rate and reduce the change-reporting burden for clients and staff. Table 8 shows client and agency errors in FFY Client caused errors comprised 41 percent of the total dollars in error. Table 10 shows the percentage of client and agency dollars in error by category of error. In FFY 2005, agency-caused errors accounted for 71.1 percent (40 cases) of all dollars in error. Client failure to report was 10.1 percent (4 cases) and client misrepresentation was 18.7 percent (5 cases) of all dollars in error. Table 10. Type of Caused Errors Table 8. and Client Caused Errors FFY 2003 Client - Misrepresentation 14% Client - Failure to Report 27% - Other 4% - Arithmetic error 2% - Data entry/coding error 3% - Inaction 41% - Incorrect Policy 9% Arithmetic error 3% Data entry error 22% Incorrect policy 25% Other 4% Fail to verify 8% Reported info disregarded 25% Fail to follow up on changes 8% Fail to follow up on inaccurate info 5% 6

7 A further analysis of the type of agency-caused errors by dollar amount of errors reveals 46 percent of the errors were caused by not acting on available information. inaction errors include failure to: follow up on changes; verify required information; follow up on inaccurate information, and information reported by the client disregarded. This type of error can often be prevented by giving attention to details. Application of incorrect policy created 25.4 percent of the dollars in error. Data entry, arithmetic and other errors were 28.5 percent of all dollars in error. Table 9 on page 6 represents the type of error but puts inaction errors into a single category. Table 11. Earned Income Dollars in Error Error Element and Description Dollars in Error Number of Errors % Error $ to $6, Wages and Salaries $2, % 150 Household Composition % 363 Shelter Deduction % 350 Child Support Received % 151 Recipient Disqualification % 334 Unemployment Compensation % 331 RSDI Benefits % 335 Worker s Compensation % DOLLARS IN ERROR BY ERROR ELEMENT In the FFY 2005 food stamp active sample, $8,686 were paid in error. Of this amount, $6,179 involved cases with agency or a combination of agency and client-caused errors, with the remaining $2,507 being client caused. Table 11 identifies agency caused errors by error element in the order of the total dollars in error, and the percentage of total agency errors attributed to each element. Earned income errors represent nearly half of all agencycaused dollars in error, and are always the most common. Table 12 shows a breakdown of earned income errors by the type of agency error. Data entry errors on two cases represent 32 percent of earned income errors by dollars in error. failure to act caused 37 percent of the earned income dollars in error. These errors include disregarded information, failure to verify and failure to follow up on inaccurate information. 312 Self-Employment % 344 TANF, PA or GA % 366 Child Support Paid % 333 SSI and/or State SSI Supplement % 346 Other Unearned Income % 361 Standard Deduction % 111 Student Status % 520 Arithmetic Computation % Total $6, % Table 12. Type of Caused Food Stamp Errors in Earned Income Arithmetic error 4% Other 8% Reported information disregarded 16% Fail to follow up on inaccurate info 9% Data entry error 32% Incorrect policy 19% Fail to verify 12% 7

8 CLOSED AND DENIED FOOD STAMP CASES Quality Assessment reviewers completed 254 of the 280 negative Food Stamp sample reviews. Of the 254 completed reviews, only two had errors. The statewide negative error rate is 0.8 percent. Alaska performed well in this category ranking seventh among the states. The national average negative case error rate was 5.9 percent. The Negative Error Rate is a case error rate measurement. It is not based on miscalculated benefits like the active sample. Rather, it is a simple percentage of the number of negative sample cases found in error divided by the total number of completed sample cases. Table 13 shows negative error rates from FFY 2000 through Alaska s negative error rate is consistently below the national average. Error Rate Table 14. Western Region States FS Negative Error Rates 25% 20% 19.1% 15% 11.2% 10.6% 10% 7.3% 4.4% 5.6% 5% 2.2% 0.8% 1.7% 0% ALASKA ARIZONA CALIFORNIA GUAM HAWAII IDAHO NEVADA OREGON WASHINGTON State National Average 5.9% Table 13. Negative FS Error Rate Error Rate 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 5.9% 4.6% 6.5% 4.2% 7.9% 8.3% 5.0% 5.4% 3.1% 6.8% 2.6% 0.8% Error Rate Table 15. Regional Negative FS Error Rates 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 0.0% FFY00 FFY01 FFY02 FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 Federal Fiscal Year 2.0% 0.0% AK Negative Error Rate National Average Federal Fiscal Year Central Coastal Northern Southeast Table 14 compares Alaska s negative error rate to the other states and Guam in the FNS Western Region. Alaska has the lowest negative error rate in the Western Region. Table 15 displays the negative food stamp error rates by region from FFY 2000 through The Northern and Southeast regions had no errors during most of the six year period. Appendix IV summarizes the FFY 2005 Food Stamp Program negative sample findings in tables by month for region and district. 8

9 Appendix I Food Stamp Open Report by Month 9

10 Food Stamp Open Report by District Office 10

11 Appendix II Synopsis of FFY05 FS Errors Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral Central 71 Central APA Unit Dec-04 Over Payment $151 No No 1. failed to act on report of change in SSI. Change reported on 9/ Apr-05 Under Payment $60 No No 1. failed to verify heating expenses and did not allow SUD. 2. APA Apr-05 Ineligible $130 Yes No 1. failed to anticipate PI's SSI for 4/05 food stamps. 2. used work statement to verify income and it lacked information about payment frequency. Used 2.0 for conversion rather than APA Jun-05 Over Payment $177 No No 1. failed to compensate for the COLA increase in the children's SSA benefits in January. 2. incorrectly prospected AHFC rent and utilities. 3. APA 77 Mat-Su Oct-04 Over Payment $298 & Client No Yes 1. Household failed to report both PI and spouse where employed at the time of the interview. 2. entered the wrong amount of UIB in EIS Oct-04 Ineligible $101 Yes No 1. continued to count UIB after client reported she expected benefits would end in September. 2. All household members received a PFD resulting in household being over the income limit for food stamps Nov-04 Over Payment $154 & Client Yes Yes 1. failed to enter client reported child support on EIS. 2. Client failed to report she went over the gross income limit in 9/04. The change should have been reported by 10/10/ Jun-06 Page 1 of 7 11

12 Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral Apr-05 Over Payment $234 No No 1. used net rather than gross Worker's Compensation. Spouse has garnishment for child support. 2. Child support deduction not converted correctly. 3. did not allow a phone deduction. 4. No TA/APA Apr-05 Under Payment $51 No No 1. failed to inquire about student status May-05 Over Payment $105 & Client Yes Yes 1. did not include the utility allowance in calculating client's rent with AHFC. 2. Client failed to report children's social security benefits at recertification May-05 Ineligible $310 Client Yes No 1. Client failed to report spouse had several different types of retirement accounts Aug-05 Over Payment $254 Client No Yes 1. Client is over the resource limit because she owns a joint bank account with her spouse. The joint account was unreported. 2. TA Sep-05 Under Payment $150 No No 1. proceed the re-certification without including one of the children. He was reported at re-cert and cannot be 2. counted a child's SSI recoupment in the budget. A recoupment is not countable. 3. TA 83 Anchorage-Gambell Feb-05 Under Payment $55 Yes No 1. miscalculated client's self-employment income by failing to deduct verified expenses. 2. failed to verify child support expense. Household only pays by garnishment so a deduction is not allowed. 3. APA May-05 Over Payment $48 & Client Yes No 1. failed to recognize spouse was convicted of drug trafficking and permanently disqualified from the food stamp program. 2. Client failed to report child care expense. Used for least quantitative error. 08-Jun-06 Page 2 of 7 12

13 Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral Jun-05 Over Payment $124 Yes No 1. miscalculated the client's income. Math error. 2. TA Jun-05 Over Payment $151 Yes No 1. did not count client reported earned income in sample month. delayed action on the case which led to the error Jul-05 Over Payment $132 Yes No 1. allowed child support when there is no CSED case nor a legal obligation for the PI to pay. It is not an authorized deduction. 2. TA Jul-05 Under Payment $69 Yes No 1. listed entire TA benefit under the PI in EIS rather than prorate it between the 4 person household. 2. TA 84 Anchorage-Muldoon Oct-04 Over Payment $697 & Client Yes Yes 1 Case was processed using FY2004 benefits. Did not roll into 2005 tables. 2. Client provided misleading wage information at interview. 3. coded ATAP next to PI. It should have been coded next to the children with the income. ANI case. 4. TA Nov-04 Over Payment $67 No No 1. coded TANF under the non-citizen member of the household rather than the child. 2. TA Jun-05 Over Payment $402 Yes No 1. did not convert wages. assumed the client was paid once a month when she was actually paid twice a month. 2. did not count Social Security income of the siblings. 3. did not count unemployment for the PI. 4. TA 08-Jun-06 Page 3 of 7 13

14 Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral Coastal 46 Nome Jul-05 Under Payment $97 Yes No 1. Client failed to list a household member at re-certification but the agency was aware he was in the household. 2. counted the net amount instead of the gross amount of spouse's SS OT benefits. 3. failed to update Old Age Assistance amounts for the client and her spouse at re-certification. 4. APA 47 Kotzebue Jan-05 Ineligible $320 Client No Yes 1. Client failed to report she was over her income limit Jul-05 Over Payment $72 Yes No 1. incorrectly converted prospected wages. Client was paid 2 times per month rather than every other week. 51 Bethel Nov-04 Under Payment $147 No No 1. failed to remove fishing income anticipated for client in August. 2. recorded SS income of $303 per month when it should have been $297 per month. 3. APA Jan-05 Over Payment $255 & Client Yes Yes 1. failed to verify income of client's boyfriend. No interview at recertification. 2. Client failed to report that her brother is in the National Guard and receiving income Feb-05 Over Payment $248 Yes No 1. misunderstood the amount of income that was to be used in calculating the budget. ET used $7.50 per hour rather than the correct $750 per pay period. 2. anticipated income for client based on prior certification period. Client was not working because the office where she worked was closed Jun-05 Over Payment $32 Yes No 1. miscalculated wages. 2. did not allow the household an opportunity to provide the utility expenses. Client was not notified of a request to verify these expenses. 08-Jun-06 Page 4 of 7 14

15 Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral Sep-05 Under Payment $240 Yes No 1. entered the income incorrectly on EIS. Documentation of income was correct Sep-05 Over Payment $98 Yes No 1. failed to correctly anticipate earned income for the review month. 70 Field Office # Jun-05 Over Payment $87 No No 1. failed to act on a report of a change in child support income. 2. APA Aug-05 Ineligible $125 Client Yes No 1. Client failed to report wages. 2. APA Sep-05 Over Payment $120 No No 1. The household must be re-certified every 6 months when a non-apa client is in the household. Since it was certified for 12 months, SAQA must use actuals for the review month causing an over payment. 2. APA 76 Kenai Jan-05 Over Payment $89 No No 1. failed to remove client's son as a household member Feb-05 Ineligible $232 Client No Yes 1. Client failed to report receiving a "quick refund" from H&R Block for a tax refund. It put the household over the resource limit. 08-Jun-06 Page 5 of 7 15

16 Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral 82 Field Office # Nov-04 Ineligible $356 Yes No 1. missed the client's pay raise on 2 pay stubs for a 5 week period when calculating income. No case notes for the recertification action Mar-05 Ineligible $551 Client No Yes 1. Client failed to report savings accounts for children. Children's savings accounts put household over the resource limit. Northern 41 Fairbanks NSB Oct-04 Over Payment $117 & Client Yes No 1. Client failed to report she closed her business and started working for another business where she incurred no expenses. 2. allowed $41 for rent when only $31 was rent and $10 is for water. A $42 water standard should have been allowed in the budget Nov-04 Under Payment $147 No No 1. failed to code the baby "IN" for the Food Stamp case. 2. TA Mar-05 Under Payment $135 Yes No 1. failed to issue benefits. Client had drug conviction set aside Sep-05 Ineligible $465 Client Yes Yes 1. Client failed to disclose earned income for both her and her spouse. 43 Fairbanks APA Office Feb-05 Ineligible $124 No No 1. interpreted the "suspension of sentence" to mean the same as "set aside" and so continued to issue food stamps to a convicted drug felon. 2. APA 08-Jun-06 Page 6 of 7 16

17 Region District Review Case Sample Finding Error Responsibility Earned Fraud Number Number Month Amount Income Referral May-05 Over Payment $281 Yes No 1. failed to take action on the client provided paycheck and did not include the countable income in the review month. 2. failed to re-initiate SSI income. PI requested SSI re-instatement verification. 3. APA income was not included in the food stamp budget because when food stamps were re-initiated for 05/05, APA benefits were not. 4. should not have included child support because it was sporadic and fluctuating. 5. APA 44 Fairbanks Rural Mar-05 Ineligible $190 Client No Yes 1. Client misrepresented her rent and utility costs May-05 Over Payment $116 No No 1. should have anticipated $550 child support since it had been received monthly from 8/ Sep-05 Over Payment $33 Yes No 1. failed to take into consideration client's report of expected change in the household's income. Spouse would be working less hours. Southeast 23 Ketchikan Sep-05 Over Payment $60 Client Yes Yes 1. Client failed to report receiving child support for the past several months. No TA/APA Sep-05 Over Payment $29 Yes No 1. failed to address client's carving income in the telephone interview at re-certification. had anticipated carving income in the past but failed to update. 2. failed to address client's phone expense. 08-Jun-06 Page 7 of 7 17

18 Appendix III Food Stamp Closure/Denial Report by Month 18

19 Food Stamp Closure/Denial Report by District Office 19