7 CFR § 273.18(b)

  There are 4 types of overpayments that result in claims:   

• Agency Error (AE)  
• Inadvertent Household Error (IHE)  
• Suspected Intentional Program Violation (SIPV)  
• Intentional Program Violation (IPV)  

Workers establish AE and IHE claims.  Staff with overpayment approval security approve AE and IHE claims.

The Office of Quality Assurance Client Fraud Investigations Division establishes and approves IPV claims, and some IHE claims.

Note:  DSS may change the claim type.  

Example:  Change the claim from an SIPV to an IHE as result of a court decision finding no IPV but that an IHE exists.

Agency Error (AE)

7 CFR § 273.18(b)(3)

An overpayment caused by the agency’s action or failure to take action.  

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Benefits were issued after the benefit period ended.
• Benefits were issued when an IPV disqualification should have been imposed.
• Failure to take prompt action on a reported change.
• Incorrect calculation of SNAP benefit amount.
• TFA grant changes were not budgeted.

AE claims are coded in ImpaCT as Overpayment Type – Agency Error.

Inadvertent Household Error (IHE) 

7 CFR § 273.18(b)(2)

An overpayment resulted from a misunderstanding or unintended error on the part of the EDG. 

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Incorrect or incomplete information was provided. 
• Benefits were received pending a fair hearing decision, and the hearing decision found in favor of DSS.
• Required changes were not reported to the agency; or if reported, they were not reported timely.  

Code IHE claims in ImpaCT as Client Error.

Suspected IPV (SIPV)

7 CFR § 273.16(a) & 7 CFR § 273.18(a)(4)(i)-(ii)

A Suspected IPV (SIPV) is when an overpayment occurred and it appears it was intentionally caused, but a determination of IPV has not been made.

Refer SIPV cases to The Office of Quality Assurance Client Fraud Investigations Division using the ImpaCT Referral Module with a Suspected Intentional referral type. See Preparing Evidence. Cases are tracked in the Client Fraud Referral Tracking System.

SIPV claims are pended until the IPV determination is completed.  Client Fraud Investigations must complete the investigation within 180 days and: 

• notify the referring worker’s supervisor when declining to pursue the SIPV and to take action as an AE or IHE claim, or 
• retain the referral and establish a claim.

Code Suspected IPV claims in ImpaCT as: 

• Overpayment Type – Client Error
• Overpayment Type – Program Integrity - Suspected Intentional Detail – Null, Suspected Intentional, but investigations did not prove IPV. 
• Overpayment Type - Suspected Intentional - Suspected Intentional Detail - pending Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH).
• Overpayment Detail – Suspected Intentional - Suspected Intentional Detail - pending court adjudication.

Intentional Program Violation (IPV) 

7 CFR § 273.16(b)(1) & 7 CFR § 273.18(b)(1)

The Office of Quality Assurance Client Fraud Investigations Division handles and recovers all SNAP IPV claims.  See Intentional Program Violation.

Note:  Overpayments are only classified as IPV once the client's guilt is formally established.

IPV claims are identified in ImpaCT by:

• Overpayment Type – Intentional Program Violation - Suspected Intentional Detail - Court guilty.
• Overpayment Type – Intentional Program Violation – Suspected Intentional Detail – Fraud, including ADH, waiver of ADH hearing, and disqualification consent agreements.

Note:  Overpayments are only classified as Intentional Program Violation once the individual's guilt is formally established. 

When Not to Establish Claims

7 CFR § 273.2(j)(1)(iv) and (k) 7 CFR § 273.12(a)(2) and (5)(i) and (iii)(G) & 7 CFR § 273.18(e)(2)(i)

Do not establish a claim for the following reasons:

• The case lacks information and details needed to process an overpayment.
• The claim is on a closed case and the case record cannot be located, or was destroyed following record retention policies.
• The claim is related to a change not required to be reported.  

Exception: if a change was reported by the EDG and the agency did not act on the change, complete a claim as an AE.

• The EDG was categorically eligible and the claim is due to: 
• being over the income or asset limits, or  
• not eligible for the program making the EDG categorically eligible.  See Categorical Eligibility
• The claim is related to household composition, but there is not enough notes and verification to support an overpayment.
• The claim is income related, but the case lacks notes and verification, and automated resources do not support the overpayment.
• The overpayment can’t be verified.

Example:  The employer is no longer in business.

• An active EDG claim for $100 or less.

Exception:  If QC finds an overpayment, establish the claim.

• An inactive EDG claim for $500 or less.

Exception:  If QC finds an overpayment, establish the claim.