The revised policy memo requires supplemental reporting from processors and requires state verification of credits provided by the processor to the SFA. Processors wishing to continue participation in the pilot will have to sign the attached revised NPA amendment to extend their participation in the pilot.
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit guidance regarding the sale of, or intent to sell, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children foods, benefits and/or EBT cards verbally, in print or online through websites such as Craigslist, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, etc.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 includes several provisions related to Electronic Benefit Transfer in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
This memorandum provides additional information on the new approval process and includes sample documents that will assist state agencies with their funding requests.
This memorandum provides guidance on reporting expenditures of SNAP benefits funds in order to comply with reporting requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 and OMB guidance implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
This memorandum clarifies how SNAP benefits should be treated in determining eligibility for CSFP and TEFAP when the benefits are provided through SNAP Pilot Projects or SNAP Work Programs.
This policy memo provides clarification on terminating cases when a household does not spend their Food Stamps each month.
On March 31, 2004, the President signed PL 108-211 that continues appropriations for the Child Nutrition Programs and extends several provisions that were to expire on March 31, 2004.
On Nov. 22, 2003, PL 108-134 was enacted. This law continues appropriations for the child nutrition programs and extends several provisions that were to expire on Nov. 21, 2003.
The head of household may not be held "automatically" responsible for trafficking the household's benefits if there is no direct evidence identifying him/her as the guilty party. However, OGC was also supportive of holding the head of household responsible when there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show his/her complicity in the violative act.