No. 27661 (Amendment): R986-100. Employment Support Programs

DAR File No.: 27661
Filed: 01/15/2005, 04:29
Received by: NL

 

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The purpose of the change is to make the provisions of Rule R986-100 comply with similar changes filed in Rule R986-700, Child Care Assistance. (DAR NOTE: The proposed amendment to Rule R986-700 is under DAR No. 27660 in this issue.)

 

Summary of the rule or change:

The Department is eliminating the need for cooperation with the Office of Recovery Services (ORS) in the establishment of paternity for Employment Support Child Care. Federal regulations do not require cooperation in establishing paternity. Eliminating this requirement will make the program easier to administer and is expected to affect very few customers. Since the disqualification periods are the same as food stamps but contained in Rule R986-700 reference is made to "rule" in Section R986-100-117.

 

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Sections 35A-3-101 et seq., 35A-3-301 et seq., and 35A-3-401 et seq.

 

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This is a federally-funded program so there are no costs or savings to the state budget.

 

local governments:

This rule does not apply to local government so therefore there are no costs or savings to local governments.

 

other persons:

There are no costs or savings to any other persons as there are no fees associated with this program and it is federally funded.

 

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There are no costs or savings to any affected persons as there are no fees associated with this program and it is federally funded.

 

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

There are no compliance costs associated with this change. There are no fees associated with this change. It will not cost anyone any sum to comply with these changes. This is a federally-funded program and the money is within current Department budgets to pay any costs associated with this change.

 

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Workforce Services
Employment Development
140 E 300 S
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-2333

 

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Suzan Pixton at the above address, by phone at 801-526-9645, by FAX at 801-526-9211, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

 

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

03/17/2005

 

This rule may become effective on:

04/01/2005

 

Authorized by:

John Nixon, Acting Executive Director

 

 

RULE TEXT

R986. Workforce Services, Employment Development.

R986-100. Employment Support Programs.

R986-100-117. Disqualification For Fraud (Intentional Program Violations or IPVs).

(1) Any person who is at fault in obtaining or attempting to obtain, an overpayment of assistance, as defined in Section 35A-3-602 from any of the programs listed in R986-100-102 or otherwise intentionally breaches any program rule either personally or through a representative is guilty of an intentional program violation (IPV). Acts which constitute an IPV include but are not limited to:

(a) knowingly making false or misleading statements;

(b) misrepresenting, concealing, or withholding facts or information;

(c) posing as someone else;

(d) not reporting the receipt of a public assistance payment the individual knew or should have known they were not eligible to receive;

(e) not reporting a material change within 10 days after the change occurs in accordance with these rules; and

(f) committing an act intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal or withhold facts or propound a falsity.

(2) An IPV occurs when a person commits any of the above acts in an attempt to obtain, maintain, increase or prevent the decrease or termination of any public assistance payment(s).

(3) When the Department determines or receives notice from a court that fraud or an IPV has occurred, the client is disqualified from receiving assistance of the same type for the time period as set forth in rule, statute or federal regulation.

(4) Disqualifications run concurrently.

(5) All income and assets of a person who has been disqualified from assistance for an IPV continue to be counted and affect the eligibility and assistance amount of the household assistance unit in which the person resides.

(6) If an individual has been disqualified in another state, the disqualification period for the IPV in that State will apply in Utah provided the act which resulted in the disqualification would have resulted in a disqualification had it occurred in Utah. If the individual has been disqualified in another state for an act which would have led to disqualification had it occurred in Utah and is found to have committed an IPV in Utah, the prior periods of disqualification in any other State count toward determining the length of disqualification in Utah.

(7) The client will be notified that a disqualification period has been determined. The disqualification period begins the month after the disqualification decision has been issued or as soon thereafter as possible and continues in consecutive months until the disqualification period has expired.

(8) Nothing in these rules is intended to limit or prevent a criminal prosecution for fraud based on the same facts used to determine the IPV.

 

R986-100-134. Payments of Assistance Pending the Hearing.

(1) A client is entitled to receive continued assistance pending a hearing contesting a Department decision to reduce or terminate food stamps, RRP, FEPTP, or FEP financial assistance if the client's request for a hearing is received no later than 10 days after the date of the notice of the reduction, or termination. The assistance will continue unless the certification period expires until a decision is issued by the ALJ. If the certification period expires while the hearing or decision is pending, assistance will be terminated. If a client becomes ineligible or the assistance amount is reduced for another reason pending a hearing, assistance will be terminated or reduced for the new reason unless a hearing is requested on the new action.[

(2) If the client is otherwise eligible, Employment Support Child Care (ES CC) can be paid pending an appeal of a decision from ORS that the client is not cooperating in the establishment of paternity or if the Department denies good cause. The client's request for a hearing must be received no later than 10 days after the date of the notice of denial or termination. The ES CC assistance will continue until a decision is issued by an ALJ regardless of when the certification period expires. If a client becomes ineligible or the assistance amount is reduced for another reason pending a hearing, assistance will be terminated or reduced for the new reason. If a client files a new application after a decision by an ALJ denying assistance, the new application will be denied and the client will have no right to appeal that denial unless there has been a change in circumstances.]

([3]2) If the client can show good cause for not requesting the hearing within 10 days of the notice, assistance may be continued if the client can show good cause for failing to file in a timely fashion. Good cause in this paragraph means that the delay in filing was due to circumstances beyond the client's control or for circumstances which were compelling and reasonable. Because the Department allows a client to request a hearing by telephone or mail, good cause does not mean illness, lack of transportation or temporary absence.

([4]3) A client can request that payment of assistance not be continued pending a hearing but the request must be in writing.

([5]4) If payments are continued pending a hearing, the client is responsible for any overpayment in the event of an adverse decision.

([6]5) If the decision of the ALJ is adverse to the client, the client is not eligible for continued assistance pending any appeal of that decision.

([7]6) If a decision favorable to the client is rendered after a hearing, and payments were not made pending the decision, retroactive payment will be paid back to the date of the adverse action if the client is otherwise eligible.

([8]7) Financial assistance payments under GA or WTE, and CC subsidies[, except as provided in paragraph (2) above] will not continue during the hearing process regardless of when the appeal is filed.

([9]8) Financial assistance under the RRP will not extend for longer than the eight-month time limit for that program under any circumstances.

([10]9) Clients receiving financial assistance under the FEPTP program must continue to participate to receive financial assistance during the hearing process.

([11]10) Financial assistance under the FEPTP program will not extend for longer than the seven-month time limit for that program under any circumstance.

([12]11) Assistance is not allowed pending a hearing from a denial of an application for assistance.

 

KEY: employment support procedures

[April 1, 2004]2005

35A-3-101 et seq.

35A-3-301 et seq.

35A-3-401 et seq.