Examples of Questionable & Contradictory Information

 

Example 1:

Anh Nguyen and her two children receive TAFDC and SNAP. Recently one of her children was approved for SSI. Ms. Nguyen submits a rent receipt showing that her subsidized rent is increasing from $200 to $450 per month. Based on the totality of this information this change is not questionable. Her rent is increasing because her family’s income has increased. This makes logical sense as it relates to the case as a whole.

 

Example 2:

Matt Medeiros is applying for SNAP benefits for the first time. He reports that his hours at his job have been cut and he is now only averaging $800 per month in gross income. He reports that his monthly rent is $1000 and that no utilities are included.  He has a small balance in a savings account.  Matt has been unable to pay his rent in full for 2 months, and has received warning notices from his phone and electric companies.

As Mr. Medeiros’ explanation is plausible and the Department has no other information that contradicts what was reported during the interview, we should not consider anything he told us to be questionable or contradictory at this time.

Mr. Medeiros is not required to provide a statement about not meeting expenses as he explained that during the interview process.  Per SNAP policy, he is allowed to self-declare these expenses in writing. It is extremely important that a detailed narrative be created so it is clear to the next person reviewing this case what he reported at the time of application.

 

Example 3:

Monica Jeffers reports on her Interim Report that there is no change in her income ($2000 gross per month) or shelter costs ($700 in rent and phone SUA). However, she is newly reporting that she has obtained a child care subsidy through EEC and is now paying $100 per week for each of her two children to go to an after school program 3 days per week ($200 per week total). Although the expenses claimed are within Ms. Jeffers’ income, the amount sounds more in line with costs for someone without an EEC subsidy.

It is appropriate for the case manager to contact Ms. Jeffers.  She explains that the amount is actually only $10 per week, per child not $100. Because the amount annotated on the IR was $100, a VC-1 must be sent to Ms. Jeffers so she can send a new self-declaration that identifies the correct expense. The IR must be processed without the dependent care expense, as it is an optional verification. The dependent care expense will be applied and benefits recalculated if and when verification is received.

 

Example 4

Tina Sullivan is reapplying for EAEDC and SNAP. Her cases closed 2 months ago due to returned mail with an out of state address that the Department received through the National Change of Address match.  Ms. Sullivan claims that she is living with her adult daughter in Lowell at the address the Department had on file when her case closed.

This same issue occurred twice in the last year.  In light of this, her residency now is questionable. The case manage must issue a VC-1 requesting proof of Massachusetts residency.  In addition, a referral must be made to the FIDM Unit as there appears to be ongoing reason to believe Ms. Sullivan is no longer a Massachusetts resident.

 

Verifications Policy and Procedures (EAEDC)

Verifications Policy and Procedures (SNAP)

Verifications Policy and Procedures (TAFDC)

 

 

  Last Update:  September 29, 2017