H- 7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6-23-2023)

Appendix H- OMB 0584-0299
7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (2023-06-23)

This content is from the eCFR and is authoritative but unofficial.

Title 7 —Agriculture
Subtitle B —Regulations of the Department of Agriculture
Chapter II —Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture
Subchapter C —Supplemental Nutrition Assistance and Food Distribution Program
Part 275 —Performance Reporting System
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036.

Subpart C
§ 275.10
§ 275.11
§ 275.12
§ 275.13
§ 275.14

Quality Control (QC) Reviews
Scope and purpose.
Sampling.
Review of active cases.
Review of negative cases.
Review processing.

Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.
Subpart C—Quality Control (QC) Reviews
§ 275.10 Scope and purpose.
(a) As part of the Performance Reporting System, each State agency is responsible for conducting quality
control reviews. For SNAP quality control reviews, a sample of households shall be selected from two
different categories: Households which are participating in SNAP (called active cases) and households
for which participation was denied, suspended or terminated (called negative cases). Reviews shall be
conducted on active cases to determine if households are eligible and receiving the correct allotment of
SNAP benefits. The determination of whether the household received the correct allotment will be made
by comparing the eligibility data gathered during the review against the amount authorized on the master
issuance file. Reviews of negative cases shall be conducted to determine whether the State agency's
decision to deny, suspend or terminate the household, as of the review date, was correct. Quality control
reviews measure the validity of SNAP cases at a given time (the review date) by reviewing against SNAP
standards established in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Regulations, taking into account any
FNS authorized waivers to deviate from specific regulatory provisions. FNS and the State agency shall
analyze findings of the reviews to determine the incidence and dollar amounts of errors, which will
determine the State agency's liability for payment errors in accordance with the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008, as amended, and to plan corrective action to reduce excessive levels of errors for any State agency.
(b) The objectives of quality control reviews are to provide:
(1) A systematic method of measuring the validity of the SNAP caseload;
(2) A basis for determining error rates;
7 CFR 275.10(b)(2) (enhanced display)

page 1 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.10(b)(3)

(3) A timely continuous flow of information on which to base corrective action at all levels of
administration; and
(4) A basis for establishing State agency liability for errors that exceed the National performance
measure.
(c) The review process is the activity necessary to complete reviews and document findings of all cases
selected in the sample for quality control reviews. The review process shall consist of:
(1) Case assignment and completion monitoring;
(2) Case reviews;
(3) Supervisory review of completed worksheets and schedules; and
(4) Transmission of completed worksheets and schedules to the State agency for centralized data
compilation and analysis.
[Amdt. 149, 44 FR 45893, Aug. 3, 1979, as amended by Amdt. 260, 49 FR 6304, Feb. 17, 1984; 54 FR 7016, Feb. 15, 1989; Amdt.
328, 56 FR 60051, Nov. 27, 1991; Amdt. 373, 64 FR 38294, July 16, 1999; 75 FR 33436, June 11, 2010]

§ 275.11 Sampling.
(a) Sampling plan. Each State agency shall develop a quality control sampling plan which demonstrates the
integrity of its sampling procedures.
(1) Content. The sampling plan shall include a complete description of the frame, the method of sample
selection, and methods for estimating characteristics of the population and their sampling errors.
The description of the sample frames shall include: source, availability, accuracy, completeness,
components, location, form, frequency of updates, deletion of cases not subject to review, and
structure. The description of the methods of sample selection shall include procedures for:
estimating caseload size, overpull, computation of sampling intervals and random starts (if any),
stratification or clustering (if any), identifying sample cases, correcting over-or undersampling, and
monitoring sample selection and assignment. A time schedule for each step in the sampling
procedures shall be included.
(2) Criteria. Sampling plans proposing non-proportional or other alternative designs shall document
compliance with the approval criteria in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. All sampling plans shall:
(i)

Conform to principles of probability sampling;

(ii) Specify and explain the basis for the sample sizes chosen by the State agency;
(iii) If the State agency has chosen an active sample size as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this
section, include a statement that, whether or not the sample size is increased to reflect an
increase in participation as discussed in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the State agency will
not use the size of the sample chosen as a basis for challenging the resulting error rates.
(iv) If the State agency has chosen a negative sample size as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section, include a statement that, whether or not the sample size is increased to reflect an
increase in negative actions as discussed in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the State agency
will not use the size of the sample chosen as a basis for challenging the resulting error rates.

7 CFR 275.11(a)(2)(iv) (enhanced display)

page 2 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.11(a)(3)

(3) Design. FNS generally recommends a systematic sample design for both active and negative
samples because of its relative ease to administer, its validity, and because it yields a sample
proportional to variations in the caseload over the course of the annual review period. (To obtain a
systematic sample, a State agency would select every kth case after a random start between 1 and
k. The value of k is dependent upon the estimated size of the universe and the sample size.) A State
agency may, however, develop an alternative sampling design better suited for its particular
situation. Whatever the design, it must conform to commonly acceptable statistical theory and
application (see paragraph (b)(4) of this section).
(4) FNS review and approval. The State agency shall submit its sampling plan to FNS for approval as a
part of its State Plan of Operation in accordance with § 272.2(e)(4). In addition, all sampling
procedures used by the State agency, including frame composition, construction, and content shall
be fully documented and available for review by FNS.
(b) Sample size. There are two samples for the SNAP quality control review process, an active case sample
and a negative case sample. The size of both these samples is based on the State agency's average
monthly caseload during the annual review period. Costs associated with a State agency's sample sizes
are reimbursable as specified in § 277.4.
(1) Active cases.
(i)

All active cases shall be selected in accordance with standard procedures, and the review
findings shall be included in the calculation of the State agency's payment error rate.

(ii) Unless a State agency chooses to select and review a number of active cases determined by
the formulas provided in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section and has included in its sampling
plan the reliability certification required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, the minimum
number of active cases to be selected and reviewed by a State agency during each annual
review period shall be determined as follows:
Average monthly reviewable caseload (N)

Minimum annual sample size (n)

60,000 and over

n = 2400

10,000 to 59,999

n = 300 + [0.042(N−10,000)]

Under 10,000

n = 300

(iii) A State agency which includes in its sampling plan the statement required by paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) of this section may determine the minimum number of active cases to be selected
and reviewed during each annual review period as follows:
Average monthly reviewable caseload (N)

Minimum annual sample size (n)

60,000 and over

n = 1020

12,942 to 59,999

n = 300 + [0.0153(N−12,941)]

Under 12,942

n = 300

(iv) In the formulas in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section n is the required active case
sample size. This is the minimum number of active cases subject to review which must be
selected each review period. Also in the formulas, N is the average monthly participating
caseload subject to quality control review (i.e., households which are included in the active
universe defined in paragraph (e)(1) of this section) during the annual review period.
7 CFR 275.11(b)(1)(iv) (enhanced display)

page 3 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.11(b)(2)

(2) Negative cases.
(i)

Unless a State agency chooses to select and review a number of negative cases determined by
the formulas provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section and has included in its sampling
plan the reliability certification required by paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section, the minimum
number of negative cases to be selected and reviewed by a State agency during each annual
review period shall be determined as follows:
Average monthly reviewable negative caseload (N)

Minimum annual sample size (n)

5,000 and over

n = 800

500 to 4,999

n = 150 + [0.144(N−500)]

Under 500

n = 150

(ii) A State agency which includes in its sampling plan the statement required by paragraph
(a)(2)(iv) of this section may determine the minimum number of negative cases to be selected
and reviewed during each annual review period as follows:
Average monthly reviewable negative caseload (N)

Minimum annual sample size (n)

5,000 and over

n = 680

684 to 4,999

n = 150 + [ 0.1224(N−683)]

Under 684

n = 150

(iii) In the formulas in this paragraph (b)(2), n is the required negative sample size. This is the
minimum number of negative cases subject to review which must be selected each review
period.
(iv) In the formulas in this paragraph (b)(2), N is the average monthly number of negative cases
which are subject to quality control review (i.e., households which are part of the negative
universe defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) during the annual review period.
(3) Unanticipated changes. Since the average monthly caseloads (both active and negative) must be
estimated at the beginning of each annual review period, unanticipated changes can result in the
need for adjustments to the sample size. FNS shall not penalize a State agency that does not adjust
its sample size if the actual caseload during a review period is less than 20 percent larger than the
estimated caseload initially used to determine sample size. If the actual caseload is more than 20
percent larger than the estimated caseload, the larger sample size appropriate for the actual
caseload will be used in computing the sample completion rate.
(4) Alternative designs. The active and negative sample size determinations assume that State agencies
will use a systematic or simple random sample design. State agencies able to obtain results of
equivalent reliability with smaller samples and appropriate design may use an alternative design with
FNS approval. To receive FNS approval, proposals for any type of alternative design must:
(i)

Demonstrate that the alternative design provides payment error rate estimates with equal-orbetter predicted precision than would be obtained had the State agency reviewed simple
random samples of the sizes specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.

(ii) Describe all weighting, and estimation procedures if the sample design is non-self-weighted, or
uses a sampling technique other than systematic sampling.
7 CFR 275.11(b)(4)(ii) (enhanced display)

page 4 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.11(b)(4)(iii)

(iii) Demonstrate that self-weighting is actually achieved in sample designs claimed to be selfweighting.
(c) Sample selection. The selection of cases for quality control review shall be made separately for active and
negative cases each month during the annual review period. Each month each State agency shall select
for review approximately one-twelfth of its required sample, unless FNS has approved other numbers of
cases specified in the sampling plan.
(1) Substitutions. Once a household has been identified for inclusion in the sample by a predesigned
sampling procedure, substitutions are not acceptable. An active case must be reviewed each time it
is selected for the sample. If a household is selected more than once for the negative sample as the
result of separate and distinct instances of denial, suspension or termination, it shall be reviewed
each time.
(2) Corrections. Excessive undersampling must be corrected during the annual review period. Excessive
oversampling may be corrected at the State agency's option. Cases which are dropped to
compensate for oversampling shall be reported as not subject to review. Because corrections must
not bias the sample results, cases which are dropped to compensate for oversampling must
comprise a random subsample of all cases selected (including those completed, not completed, and
not subject to review). Cases which are added to the sample to compensate for undersampling must
be randomly selected from the entire frame in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraphs (b), (c)(1), and (e) of this section. All sample adjustments must be fully documented and
available for review by FNS.
(d) Required sample size. A State agency's required sample size is the larger of either the number of cases
selected which are subject to review or the number of cases chosen for selection and review according to
paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Sample frame. The State agency shall select cases for quality control review from a sample frame. The
choice of a sampling frame shall depend upon the criteria of timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and
administrative burden. Complete coverage of the sample universes, as defined in paragraph (f) of this
section, must be assured so that every household subject to quality control review has an equal or known
chance of being selected in the sample. Since the SNAP quality control review process requires an active
and negative sample, two corresponding sample frames are also required.
(1) Active cases. The frame for active cases shall list all households which were:
(i)

Certified prior to, or during, the sample month; and

(ii) issued benefits for the sample month, except for those households excluded from the universe
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. State agencies may elect to use either a list of certified
eligible households or a list of households issued an allotment. If the State agency uses a list
of certified eligible households, those households which are issued benefits for the sample
month after the frame has been compiled shall be included in a supplemental list. If the State
agency uses an issuance list, the State agency shall ensure that the list includes those
households which do not actually receive an allotment because the entire amount is recovered
for repayment of an overissuance in accordance with the allotment reduction procedures in §
273.18.
(2) Negative cases. The frame for negative cases shall list:

7 CFR 275.11(e)(2) (enhanced display)

page 5 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

(i)

7 CFR 275.11(e)(2)(i)

All actions to deny an application in the sample month except those excluded from the universe
in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. If a household is subject to more than one denial action in a
single sample month, each action shall be listed separately in the sample frame; and

(ii) All actions to suspend or terminate a household in the sample month except those excluded
from the universe in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. Each action to suspend or terminate a
household in the sample month shall be listed separately in the sample frame.
(3) Unwanted cases. A frame may include cases for which information is not desired (e.g., households
which have been certified but did not actually participate during the sample month). When such
cases cannot be eliminated from the frame beforehand and are selected for the sample, they must
be accounted for and reported as being not subject to review in accordance with the provisions in §§
275.12(g) and 275.13(e).
(f) Sample universe. The State agency shall ensure that its active and negative case frames accurately reflect
their sample universes. There are two sample universes for the SNAP quality control review process, an
active case universe and a negative case universe. The exceptions noted below for both universes are
households not usually amenable to quality control review.
(1) Active cases. The universe for active cases shall include all households certified prior to, or during,
the sample month and receiving SNAP benefits for the sample month, except for the following:
(i)

A household in which all the members had died or had moved out of the State before the review
could be undertaken or completed;

(ii) A household receiving SNAP benefits under a disaster certification authorized by FNS;
(iii) A household which is under investigation for intentional Program violation, including a
household with a pending administrative disqualification hearing;
(iv) A household appealing an adverse action when the review date falls within the time period
covered by continued participation pending the hearing; or
(v) A household receiving restored benefits in accordance with § 273.17 but not participating
based upon an approved application. Other households excluded from the active case universe
during the review process are identified in § 275.12(g).
(2) Negative cases. The universe for negative cases shall include all actions taken to deny, suspend, or
terminate a household in the sample month except the following:
(i)

A household which had its case closed due to expiration of the certification period;

(ii) A household denied SNAP benefits under a disaster certification authorized by FNS;
(iii) A household which withdrew an application prior to the agency's determination;
(iv) A household which is under active investigation for Intentional Program Violation;
(v) A household which has been sent a notice of pending status but which was not actually denied
participation;
(vi) A household which was terminated for failure to file a complete monthly report by the extended
filing date, but reinstated when it subsequently filed the complete report before the end of the
issuance month;

7 CFR 275.11(f)(2)(vi) (enhanced display)

page 6 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.11(f)(2)(vii)

(vii) Other households excluded from the negative case universe during the review process as
identified in § 275.13(e).
(g) Demonstration projects. Households correctly classified for participation under the rules of an FNSauthorized demonstration project which FNS determines to significantly modify the rules for determining
households' eligibility or allotment level, shall be included in the selection and review process. They shall
be included in the universe for calculating sample sizes and included in the sample frames for sample
selection as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. In addition, they shall be included in
the quality control review reports as specified in § 275.21(d) and included in the calculation of a State
agency's completion rate as specified in § 275.23(b)(1). The review of these cases shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions specified in §§ 275.12(h) and 275.13(f). FNS shall establish on an
individual demonstration project basis whether the results of the reviews of active and negative
demonstration project cases shall be included or excluded from the determination of State agencies' error
rates as described in § 275.23(b).
[Amdt. 260, 49 FR 6304, Feb. 17, 1984; 49 FR 14495, Apr. 12, 1984, as amended by Amdt. 262, 49 FR 50598, Dec. 31, 1984; Amdt.
266, 52 FR 3409, Feb. 4, 1987; Amdt. 328, 56 FR 60051, Nov. 27, 1991; Amdt. 366, 62 FR 29658, June 2, 1997; Amdt. 373, 64 FR
38295, July 16, 1999; 68 FR 59523, Oct. 16, 2003; 75 FR 33436, June 11, 2010; 86 FR 44586, Aug. 13, 2021]

§ 275.12 Review of active cases.
(a) General. A sample of households which were certified prior to, or during, the sample month and issued
SNAP benefits for the sample month shall be selected for quality control review. These active cases shall
be reviewed to determine if the household is eligible and, if eligible, whether the household is receiving the
correct allotment. The determination of a household's eligibility shall be based on an examination and
verification of all elements of eligibility (i.e., basic program requirements, resources, income, and
deductions). The elements of eligibility are specified in §§ 273.1 and 273.3 through 273.9 of this chapter.
The verified circumstances and the resulting benefit level determined by the quality control review shall be
compared to the benefits authorized by the State agency as of the review date. When changes in
household circumstances occur, the reviewer shall determine whether the changes were reported by the
participant and handled by the agency in accordance with the rules set forth in §§ 273.12, 273.13 and
273.21 of this chapter, as appropriate. For active cases, the review date shall always fall within the
sample month, either the first day of a calendar or fiscal month or the day of certification, whichever is
later. The review of active cases shall include: a household case record review; a field investigation,
except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section; the identification of any variances; an error analysis;
and the reporting of review findings.
(b) Household case record review. The reviewer shall examine the household case record to identify the
specific facts relating to the household's eligibility and basis of issuance. If the reviewer is unable to
locate the household case record, the reviewer shall identify as many of the pertinent facts as possible
from the household issuance record. The case record review shall include all information applicable to the
case as of the review month, including the application and worksheet in effect as of the review date.
Documentation contained in the case record can be used as verification if it is not subject to change and
applies to the sample month. If during the case record review the reviewer can determine and verify the
household's ineligibility the review can be terminated at that point, provided that if the determination is
based on information not obtained from the household then the correctness of that information must be
confirmed as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The reviewer shall utilize information obtained
through the case record review to complete column (2) of the Form FNS–380, and to tentatively plan the
content of the field investigation.
7 CFR 275.12(b) (enhanced display)

page 7 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(c)

(c) Field investigation. A full field investigation shall be conducted for all active cases selected in the sample
month except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. A full field investigation shall include a review
of any information pertinent to a particular case which is available through the State Income and Eligibility
Verification System (IEVS) as specified in § 272.8 of this chapter. If during the field investigation the
reviewer determines and verifies the household's ineligibility, the review can be terminated at that point,
provided that if the determination is based on information not obtained from the household then the
correctness of that information must be confirmed as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. In
Alaska an exception to this requirement can be made in those isolated areas not reachable by regularly
scheduled commercial air service, automobile, or other public transportation provided one fully
documented attempt to contact the household has been made. Such cases may be completed through
casefile review and collateral contact. The field investigation will include interviews with the head of
household, spouse, or authorized representative; contact with collateral sources of information; and any
other materials and activity pertinent to the review of the case. The scope of the review shall not extend
beyond the examination of household circumstances which directly relate to the determination of
household eligibility and basis of issuance status. The reviewer shall utilize information obtained through
the field investigation to complete column (3) of the Form FNS–380.
(1) Personal interviews. Personal interviews shall be conducted in a manner that respects the rights,
privacy, and dignity of the participants. Prior to conducting the personal interview, the reviewer shall
notify the household that it has been selected, as part of an ongoing review process, for review by
quality control, and that a personal face-to-face interview will be conducted in the future. The
method of notifying the household and the specificity of the notification shall be determined by the
State agency, in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The personal interview may take
place at the participant's home, at an appropriate State agency certification office, or at a mutually
agreed upon alternative location. The State agency shall determine the best location for the
interview to take place, but would be subject to the same provisions as those regarding certification
interviews at § 273.2(e)(2) of this chapter. Those regulations provide that an office interview must
be waived under certain hardship conditions. Under such hardship conditions the quality control
reviewer shall either conduct the personal interview with the participant's authorized representative,
if one has been appointed by the household, or with the participant in the participant's home. Except
in Alaska, when an exception to the field investigation is made in accordance with this section, the
interview with the participant may not be conducted by phone. During the personal interview with the
participant, the reviewer shall:
(i)

Explore with the head of the household, spouse, authorized representative, or any other
responsible household member, household circumstances as they affect each factor of
eligibility and basis of issuance;

(ii) Establish the composition of the household;
(iii) Review the documentary evidence in the household's possession and secure information about
collateral sources of verification; and
(iv) Elicit from the participant names of collateral contacts. The reviewer shall use, but not be
limited to, these designated collateral contacts. If required by the State, the reviewer shall
obtain consent from the head of the household to secure collateral information. If the
participant refuses to sign the release of information form, the reviewer shall explain fully the
consequences of this refusal to cooperate (as contained in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section),
and continue the review to the fullest extent possible.

7 CFR 275.12(c)(1)(iv) (enhanced display)

page 8 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(c)(2)

(2) Collateral contacts. The reviewer shall obtain verification from collateral contacts in all instances
when adequate documentation was not available from the participant. This second party verification
shall cover each element of eligibility as it affects the household's eligibility and allotment. The
reviewer shall make every effort to use the most reliable second party verification available (for
example, banks, payroll listings, etc.), in accordance with FNS guidelines, and shall thoroughly
document all verification obtained. If any information obtained by the QC reviewer differs from that
given by the participant, then the reviewer shall resolve the differences to determine which
information is correct before an error determination is made. The manner in which the conflicting
information is resolved shall include recontacting the participant unless the participant cannot be
reached. When resolving conflicting information reviewers shall use their best judgement based on
the most reliable data available and shall document how the differences were resolved.
(d) Variance identification. The reviewer shall identify any element of a basic program requirement or the
basis of issuance which varies (i.e., information from review findings which indicates that policy was
applied incorrectly and/or information verified as of the review date that differs from that used at the
most recent certification action). For each element that varies, the reviewer shall determine whether the
variance was State agency or participant caused. The results of these determinations shall be coded and
recorded in column (4) of the Form FNS–380.
(1) Variances included in error analysis. Except for those variances in an element resulting from one of
the situations described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, any variance involving an element of
eligibility or basis of issuance shall be included in the error analysis. Such variances shall include but
not be limited to those resulting from a State agency's failure to take the disqualification action
related to SSN's specified in § 273.6(c) of this chapter, and related to work requirements, specified in
§ 273.7(f) of this chapter.
(2) Variances excluded from error analysis. The following variances shall be excluded from the
determination of a household's eligibility and basis of issuance for the sample month:
(i)

Any variance resulting from the nonverified portion of a household's gross nonexempt income
where there is conclusive documentation (a listing of what attempts were made to verify and
why they were unsuccessful) that such income could not be verified at the time of certification
because the source of income would not cooperate in providing verification and no other
sources of verification were available. If there is no conclusive documentation as explained
above, then the reviewer shall not exclude any resulting variance from the error determination.
This follows certification policy outlined in § 273.2(f)(1)(i) of this chapter.

(ii) Any variance in cases certified under expedited certification procedures resulting from
postponed verification of an element of eligibility as allowed under § 273.2(i)(4)(i) of this
chapter. Verification of gross income, deductions, resources, household composition, alien
status, or tax dependency may be postponed for cases eligible for expedited certification.
However, if a case certified under expedited procedures contains a variance as a result of a
residency deficiency, a mistake in the basis of issuance computation, a mistake in participant
identification, or incorrect expedited income accounting, the variance shall be included in the
error determination. This exclusion shall only apply to those cases which are selected for QC
review in the first month of participation under expedited certification.
(iii) Any variance subsequent to certification in an element of eligibility or basis of issuance which
was not reported and was not required to have been reported as of the review date. The
elements participants are required to report and the time requirements for reporting are
specified in §§ 273.12(a) and 273.21(h) and (i) of this chapter, as appropriate. If, however, a
7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(iii) (enhanced display)

page 9 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(iv)

change in any element is reported, and the State agency fails to act in accordance with §§
273.12(c) and 273.21(j) of this chapter, as appropriate, any resulting variance shall be included
in the error determination.
(iv) Any variance in deductible expenses which was not provided for in determining a household's
benefit level in accordance with § 273.2(f)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter. This provision allows
households to have their benefit level determined without providing for a claimed expense
when the expense is questionable and obtaining verification may delay certification. If such a
household subsequently provides the needed verification for the claimed expense and the State
agency does not redetermine the household's benefits in accordance with § 273.12(c) of this
chapter, any resulting variance shall be included in the error determination.
(v) Any variance resulting from use by the State agency of information concerning households or
individuals from an appropriate Federal source, provided that such information is correctly
processed by the State agency. An appropriate Federal source is one which verifies: Income
that it provides directly to the household; deductible expenses for which it directly bills the
household; or other household circumstances which it is responsible for defining or
establishing. To meet the provisions for correct processing, the eligibility worker must have
appropriately acted on timely information. In order to be timely, information must be the most
current that was available to the State agency at the time of the eligibility worker's action.
(vi) Two variances relating to the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) Systematic Alien
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.
(A) A variance based on a verification of alien documentation by INS. The reviewer shall
exclude such variance only if the State agency properly used SAVE and the State agency
provides the reviewer with:
(1) The alien's name;
(2) The alien's status; and
(3) Either the Alien Status Verification Index (ASVI) Query Verification Number or the INS
Form G–845, as annotated by INS.
(B) A variance based on the State agency's wait for the response of INS to the State agency's
request for official verification of the alien's documentation. The reviewer shall exclude
such variance only if the State agency properly used SAVE and the State agency provides
the reviewer with either:
(1) The date of request, if the State agency was waiting for an automated response; or
(2) A copy of the completed Form G–845, if the State agency was waiting for secondary
verification from INS.
(vii) Subject to the limitations provided in paragraphs (d)(2)(vii)(A) through (d)(2)(vii)(F) of this
section, any variance resulting from application of a new Program regulation or implementing
memorandum of a mandatory or optional change in Federal law that occurs during the first 120
days from the required implementation date. The variance exclusion shall apply to any action
taken on a case directly related to implementation of a covered provision during the 120-day
exclusionary period until the case is required to be recertified or acted upon for some other
reason.

7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(vii) (enhanced display)

page 10 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(d)(2)(vii)(A)

(A) When a regulation allows a State agency an option to implement prior to the required
implementation date, the date on which the State agency chooses to implement may, at
the option of the State, be considered to be the required implementation date for purposes
of this provision. The exclusion period would be adjusted to begin with this date and end
on the 120th day that follows. States choosing to implement prior to the required
implementation date must notify the appropriate FNS Regional Office, in writing, prior to
implementation that they wish the 120 day variance exclusion to commence with actual
implementation. Absent such notification, the exclusionary period will commence with the
required implementation date.
(B) A State agency shall not exclude variances which occur prior to the States
implementation.
(C) A State agency which did not implement until after the exclusion period shall not exclude
variances under this provision.
(D) Regardless of when the State agency actually implemented the regulation, the variance
exclusion period shall end on the 120th day following the required implementation date,
including the required implementation date defined in paragraph (d)(2)(vii)(A) of this
section.
(E) For purposes of this provision, implementation occurs on the effective date of State
agency's written statewide notification to its eligibility workers.
(F) This variance exclusion applies to changes occasioned by final regulations or interim
regulations. In the case of a final regulation issued following an interim regulation, the
exclusion applies only to significant changes made to the earlier interim regulation. A
significant change is one which the final regulation requires the State agency to
implement on or after publication of a final rule.
(viii) Any variance resulting from incorrect written policy that a State agency acts on that is provided
by a Departmental employee authorized to issue SNAP policy and that the State agency
correctly applies. For purposes of this provision, written Federal policy is that which is issued in
regulations, notices, handbooks, category three and four Policy Memoranda under the Policy
Interpretation Response System, and regional policy memoranda issued pursuant to these.
Written Federal policy is also a letter from the Food and Nutrition Service to a State agency
which contains comments on the State agency's SNAP manual or instructions.
(ix) Any variance in a child support deduction which was the result of an unreported change
subsequent to the most recent certification action shall be excluded from the error
determination.
(3) Other findings. Findings other than variances made during the review which are pertinent to the
SNAP household or the case record may be acted on at the discretion of the State agency. Examples
of such findings are: an incorrect age of a household member which is unrelated to an element of
eligibility; an overdue subsequent certification; no current application on file; insufficient
documentation; incorrect application of the verification requirements specified in part 273 of this
chapter; and deficiencies in work registration procedural requirements. Such deficiencies include:
inadequate documentation of each household member's exempt status; work registration form for
each nonexempt household member not completed at the time of application and every six months
thereafter; and the household not advised of its responsibility to report any changes in the exempt
status of any household member.
7 CFR 275.12(d)(3) (enhanced display)

page 11 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(e)

(e) Error analysis. The reviewer shall analyze all appropriate variances in completed cases, in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section, which are based upon verified information and determine whether such
cases are either eligible, eligible with a basis of issuance error, or ineligible. The review of an active case
determined ineligible shall be considered completed at the point of the ineligibility determination. For
households determined eligible, the review shall be completed to the point where the correctness of the
basis of issuance is determined, except in the situations outlined in paragraph (g) of this section. In the
event that a review is conducted of a household which is receiving restored or retroactive benefits for the
sample month, the portion of the allotment which is the restored or retroactive benefit shall be excluded
from the determination of the household's eligibility and/or basis of issuance. A SNAP case in which a
household member(s) receives public assistance shall be reviewed in the same manner as all other SNAP
cases, using income as received. The determination of a household's eligibility and the correctness of the
basis of issuance shall be determined based on data entered on the computation sheet as well as other
information documented on other portions of the Form FNS–380, as appropriate.
(f) Reporting of review findings. All information verified to be incorrect during the review of an active case
shall be reported to the State agency for appropriate action on an individual case basis. This includes
information on all variances in elements of eligibility and basis of issuance in both error and nonerror
cases. In addition, the reviewer shall report the review findings on the Form FNS–380–1, in accordance
with the following procedures:
(1) Eligibility errors. If the reviewer determines that a case is ineligible, the occurrence and the total
allotment issued in the sample month shall be coded and reported. Whenever a case contains a
variance in an element which results in an ineligibility determination and there are also variances in
elements which would cause a basis of issuance error, the case shall be treated as an eligibility error.
The reviewer shall also code and report any variances that directly contributed to the error
determination. In addition, if the State agency has chosen to report information on all variances in
elements of eligibility and basis of issuance, the reviewer shall code and report any other such
variances which were discovered and verified during the course of the review.
(2) Basis of issuance of errors. If the reviewer determines that SNAP allotments were either overissued
or underissued to eligible households in the sample month, the State agency shall code and report
any variances that directly contributed to the error determination that were discovered and verified
during the course of the review. For fiscal year 2014, only variances that exceed $37.00 (the
threshold) shall be included in the calculation of the underissuance error rate, overissuance error
rate, and payment error. For fiscal years 2015 and thereafter, this QC tolerance level shall be adjusted
annually by the percentage by which the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) for the 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia is adjusted. If the State agency has chosen to report information on all
variances in elements of eligibility and basis of issuance, the reviewer shall code and report any
other such variances that were discovered and verified during the course of the review.
(g) Disposition of case reviews. Each case selected in the sample of active cases must be accounted for by
classifying it as completed, not completed, or not subject to review. These case dispositions shall be
coded and recorded on the Form FNS–380–1.
(1) Cases reported as not complete. Active cases shall be reported as not completed if the household
case record cannot be located and the household itself is not subsequently located; if the household
case record is located but the household cannot be located unless the reviewer attempts to locate
the household as specified in this paragraph; or if the household refuses to cooperate, as discussed
in this paragraph. All cases reported as not complete shall be reported to the State agency for

7 CFR 275.12(g)(1) (enhanced display)

page 12 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(g)(1)(i)

appropriate action on an individual case basis. Without FNS approval, no active case shall be
reported as not completed solely because the State agency was unable to process the case review
in time for it to be reported in accordance with the timeframes specified in § 275.21(b)(2).
(i)

If the reviewer is unable to locate the participant either at the address indicated in the case
record or in the issuance record and the State agency is not otherwise aware of the
participant's current address, the reviewer shall attempt to locate the household by contacting
at least two sources which the State agency determines are most likely to be able to inform the
reviewer of the household's current address. Such sources include but are not limited to:
(A) The local office of the U.S. Postal Service;
(B) The State Motor Vehicle Department;
(C) The owner or property manager of the residence at the address in the case record; and
(D) Any other appropriate sources based on information contained in the case record, such as
public utility companies, telephone company, employers, or relatives. Once the reviewer
has attempted to locate the household and has documented the response of each source
contacted, if the household still cannot be located and the State agency has documented
evidence that the household did actually exist, the State agency shall report the active
case as not subject to review. In these situations documented evidence shall be
considered adequate if it either documents two different elements of eligibility or basis of
issuance, such as a copy of a birth certificate for age and pay status for income; or
documents the statement of a collateral contact indicating that the household did exist.
FNS Regional Offices will monitor the results of the contacts which State agencies make
in attempting to locate households.

(ii) If a household refuses to cooperate with the quality control reviewer and the State agency has
taken other administrative steps to obtain that cooperation without obtaining it, the household
shall be notified of the penalities for refusing to cooperate with respect to termination and
reapplication, and of the possibility that its case will be referred for investigation for willful
misrepresentation. If a household refuses to cooperate after such notice, the reviewer mustattempt to complete the case and shall report the household's refusal to the State agency for
termination of its participation without regard for the outcome of that attempt. For a
determination of refusal to be made, the household must be able to cooperate, but clearly
demonstrate that it will not take actions that it can take and that are required to complete the
quality control review process. In certain circumstances, the household may demonstrate that it
is unwilling to cooperate by not taking actions after having been given every reasonable
opportunity to do so, even though the household or its members do not state that the
household refuses to cooperate. Instances where the household's unwillingness to cooperate in
completing a quality control review has the effect of a refusal to cooperate shall include the
following:
(A) The household does not respond to a letter from the reviewer sent Certified Mail-Return
Receipt Requested within 30 days of the date of receipt;
(B) The household does not attend an agreed upon interview with the reviewer and then does
not contact the reviewer within 10 days of the date of the scheduled interview to
reschedule the interview; or

7 CFR 275.12(g)(1)(ii)(B) (enhanced display)

page 13 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.12(g)(1)(ii)(C)

(C) The household does not return a signed release of information statement to the reviewer
within 10 days of either agreeing to do so or receiving a request from the reviewer sent
Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested. However, in these and other situations, if there is
any question as to whether the household has merely failed to cooperate, as opposed to
refused to cooperate, the household shall not be reported to the State agency for
termination.
(2) Cases not subject to review. Active cases which are not subject to review, if they have not been
eliminated in the sampling process, shall be eliminated in the review process. In addition to cases
listed in § 275.11(f)(1), these shall include:
(i)

Death of all members of a household if they died before the review could be undertaken or
completed;

(ii) The household moved out of State before the review could be undertaken or completed;
(iii) The household, at the time of the review, is under active investigation for intentional SNAP
violation, including a household with a pending administrative disqualification hearing;
(iv) A household receiving restored benefits in accordance with § 273.17 of this chapter but not
participating based upon an approved application for the sample month;
(v) A household dropped as a result of correction for oversampling;
(vi) A household participating under disaster certification authorized by FNS for a natural disaster;
(vii) A case incorrectly listed in the active frame;
(viii) A household appealing an adverse action when the review date falls within the time period
covered by continued participation pending the hearing;
(ix) A household that did not receive benefits for the sample month; or
(x) A household that still cannot be located after the reviewer has attempted to locate it in
accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section.
(h) Demonstration projects. Households correctly classified for participation under the rules of a
demonstration project which establishes new FNS-authorized eligibility criteria or modifies the rules for
determining households' eligibility or allotment level shall be reviewed following standard procedures
provided that FNS does not modify these procedures to reflect modifications in the treatment of elements
of eligibility or basis of issuance in the case of a demonstration project. If FNS determines that
information obtained from these cases would not be useful, then they may be excluded from review.
[Amdt. 260, 49 FR 6306, Feb. 17, 1984; 49 FR 14495, Apr. 12, 1984]

Editorial Note: For FEDERAL REGISTER citations affecting § 275.12, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which
appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at www.govinfo.gov.

§ 275.13 Review of negative cases.
(a) General. A sample of actions to deny applications, or suspend or terminate a household in the sample
month shall be selected for quality control review. These negative actions shall be reviewed to determine
whether the State agency's decision to deny, suspend, or terminate the household, as of the review date,
7 CFR 275.13(a) (enhanced display)

page 14 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.13(b)

was correct. Depending on the characteristics of individual State systems, the review date for negative
cases could be the date of the agency's decision to deny, suspend, or terminate program benefits, the
date on which the decision is entered into the computer system, or the date of the notice to the client.
State agencies must consistently apply the same definition for review date to all sample cases of the
same classification. The review of negative cases shall include a household case record review; an error
analysis; and the reporting of review findings, including procedural problems with the action regardless of
the validity of the decision to deny, suspend or terminate. In certain instances, contact with the household
or a collateral contact may be permitted.
(b) Household case record review. The reviewer shall examine the household case record and verify through
documentation in it whether the reason given for the denial, suspension, or termination is correct.
Through the review of the household case record, the reviewer shall complete the household case record
sections and document the reasons for denial, suspension or termination on the Negative Quality Control
Review Schedule, Form FNS–245.
(c) Error analysis.
(1) A negative case shall be considered valid if the reviewer is able to verify through documentation in
the household case record that a household was correctly denied, suspended, or terminated from
the program in accordance with the reason for the action given by the State agency in the notice.
Whenever the reviewer is unable to verify the correctness of the State agency's decision to deny,
suspend, or terminate a household's participation through such documentation, the QC reviewer may
contact the household or a collateral contact to verify the correctness of the specific negative action
under review. If the reviewer is unable to verify the correctness of the State agency's decision to
deny, suspend, or terminate the case for the specific reason given for the action, the negative case
shall be considered invalid.
(2) The reviewer shall exclude a variance when the State agency erroneously denied, suspended or
terminated a household's participation based on an erroneous verification of alien documentation by
the Immigration and Nationalization Services (INS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
(SAVE) Program. The reviewer shall exclude the variance only if the State agency properly used
SAVE, and the State agency provides the reviewer with:
(i)

The alien's name;

(ii) The alien's status; and
(iii) Either the Alien Status Verification Index (ASVI) Query Verification Number or the INS Form
G–845, as annotated by INS.
(d) Reporting of review findings. When a negative case is incorrect, this information shall be reported to the
State agency for appropriate action on an individual case basis, such as recomputation of the allotment
and restoration of lost benefits. In addition, the reviewer shall code and record the error determination on
the Negative Quality Control Review Schedule, Form FNS–245.
(e) Disposition of case review. Each case selected in the sample of negative cases must be accounted for by
classifying it as completed, not completed, or not subject to review. These case dispositions shall be
coded and recorded on the Negative Quality Control Review Schedule, Form FNS–245.
(1) Cases reported as not complete. Negative cases shall be reported as not completed if the reviewer,
after all reasonable efforts, is unable to locate the case record. In no event, however, shall any
negative case be reported as not completed solely because the State agency was unable to process
7 CFR 275.13(e)(1) (enhanced display)

page 15 of 16

7 CFR Part 275 Subpart C (up to date as of 6/23/2023)
Quality Control (QC) Reviews

7 CFR 275.13(e)(2)

the case review in time for it to be reported in accordance with the timeframes specified in §
275.21(b)(2), without prior FNS approval. This information shall be reported to the State agency for
appropriate action on an individual case basis.
(2) Cases not subject to review. Negative cases which are not subject to review, if they have not been
eliminated in the sampling process, shall be eliminated in the review process. In addition to cases
listed in § 275.11(f)(2), these shall include:
(i)

A household which was dropped as a result of a correction for oversampling;

(ii) A household which was listed incorrectly in the negative frame.
(f) Demonstration projects. A household whose application has been denied or whose participation has been
suspended or terminated under the rules of an FNS-authorized demonstration project shall be reviewed
following standard procedures unless FNS provides modified procedures to reflect the rules of the
demonstration project. If FNS determines that information obtained from these cases would not be
useful, then these cases may be excluded from review.
[Amdt. 260, 49 FR 6309, Feb. 17, 1984, as amended at 53 FR 39443, Oct. 7, 1988; Amdt. 373, 64 FR 38296, July 16, 1999; 75 FR
33437, June 11, 2010; 86 FR 44587, Aug. 13, 2021]

§ 275.14 Review processing.
(a) General. Each State agency shall use FNS handbooks, worksheets, and schedules in the quality control
review process.
(b) Handbooks. The reviewer shall follow the procedures outlined in the Quality Control Review Handbook,
FNS Handbook 310, to conduct quality control reviews. In addition, the sample of active and negative
cases shall be selected in accordance with the sampling techniques described in the Quality Control
Sampling Handbook, FNS Handbook 311.
(c) Worksheets. The Form FNS–380, shall be used by the reviewer to record required information from the
case record, plan and conduct the field investigation, and record findings which contribute to the
determination of eligibility and basis of issuance in the review of active cases. In some instances,
reviewers may need to supplement Form FNS–380 with other forms. The State forms for appointments,
interoffice communications, release of information, etc., should be used when appropriate.
(d) Schedules. Decisions reached by the reviewer in active case reviews shall be coded and recorded on the
Integrated Review Worksheet, Form FNS–380–1. Such active case review findings must be substantiated
by information recorded on the Integrated Review Worksheet, Form FNS–380. In negative case reviews,
the review findings shall be coded and recorded on the Negative Quality Control Review Schedule, Form
FNS–245, and supplemented as necessary with other documentation substantiating the findings.
[Amdt. 260, 49 FR 6310, Feb. 17, 1984, as amended by Amdt. 262, 49 FR 50598, Dec. 31, 1984; 75 FR 33438, June 11, 2010]

7 CFR 275.14(d) (enhanced display)

page 16 of 16