Presenter: Barbara J. SmithSenior Program Analyst

April 3, 2014

USDA, FNS, Child Nutrition Programs Program Monitoring Branch

The serious deficiency process of the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) was established to ensure compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) regulations and guidance.

Seriously Deficient Defined

7 CFR 226.2

“…the status of an institution or a day care home that has been determined to be non-compliant in one or more aspects of its operation of the Program…”

Intent of the Process

• Positive outcomes

• Allows for correction

• Ensures integrity

• Allows for due process

Trends from TMEs• Reports failed to note repeated

findings

• Serious review findings not identified

• Incomplete CAPs were accepted

• Missing Date of Birth

SD Process

Step 1• Identify the SD

Step 2• Prepare the SD notice

Step 3• Assess CA

SD Process (cont.)

Step 4• Prepare the notice of intent to

terminate and disqualify

Step 5• Hold the appeal

Step 6• Terminate the agreement and

place institution and RP/RI’s on the NDL

CACFP Suspension Process

• Protect children in care and protect Program funds

• Declare seriously deficient at the same time as proposed suspension or suspension

CACFP Suspension ProcessTME Trend:

Suspension Process not implemented as per regulations

Health and Safety Violations

“Imminent threat to health or safety of participants”

“Activities that threaten the public health or safety of participants”

[CACFP 13-2013 dated July 26, 2013 and HB - Part 4. B. 1, page 42]

Health and Safety Violations

What to do if the licensing agency has identified a “serious health or safety violation”?

How to most efficiently use the process when license revocation does not actually occur?

Suspension- False Claim

• Should the State agency use the term “fraud”?

• Should the State agency use suspension option or the serious deficiency process?

False Claim

Unintentional

SD Process

CA Addresses System Errors

Intentional(Can you prove it?)

No YesSuspen

sion Process(Propose

Suspension)

CA Addresses Offending Individual

Suspension Process False Claim Flow Chart

Removal from the NDL

• SAs must establish procedures

• Consideration of requests a lower priority

• Burden on institution to show correction of problems

Removal from the NDL (cont.)• Institution must show what’s different

from last request

• No deadline for SA decision

• No appeal of SA decision

SD or Not?

• Scenario 1

You be the judge…

• Scenario 2

QUESTION

During its management evaluations, what criteria will FNS use to assess the State’s performance in using the serious deficiency process for institutions?

QUESTIONHow willing is FNS to support a State in declaring seriously deficient those institutions that have significant political clout within the State, such as schools, Head Start Programs, Indian Tribal Councils and military installations?

QUESTION

If an institution simply stops submitting claims after receiving a notice of serious deficiency, and never notifies the State that it was “voluntarily terminating” the agreement, what should be done ?

QUESTION

A new institution was declared seriously deficient because it submitted false information on its application, regarding recent criminal convictions. The new institution withdrew its application. Should the SD process be implemented?

QUESTION

If the disqualification period usually runs seven years, should records relating to the serious deficiency process for that institution be retained indefinitely? 

QUESTION

Will an institution, RPIs, FDH provider, etc., be notified when it “falls off” the NDL after 7 years? 

QUESTION

When is FNS going to have the National Disqualified List available to State agencies and sponsoring organizations?

What if the State agency decides on its own to withdraw the serious deficiency notice while the appeal is pending?

QUESTION

QUESTION

What is full and permanent correction for the institution when key individuals in the institution have changed over time?  

QUESTIONIf the same serious deficiency recurs ten years after it was first found and corrected, should the State immediately propose to terminate and disqualify the institution, based on the institution’s failure to permanently correct the deficiency? 

??????