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.
Attached for immediate distribution to your respective state agencies are questions and answers on implementing a mini–Simplified Food Stamp Program to replace Food Stamp Program work requirements with those under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 suspends restrictions on Able Bodied Adults Without Dependent participation in SNAP as of April 1, 2009 continuing through Sept. 30, 2010, unless state agencies choose to impose specific work requirements.
This policy memo provides clarification on terminating cases when a household does not spend their Food Stamps each month.
This policy memorandum outlines the requirements for the revised WIC Advance Planning Document process and provides additional guidance to state agencies that are interested in the transfer of a SAM system.
At the request of the state agencies, SNAP offered a two-year ABAWD waiver under limited circumstances.
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.