The DPA 435 has been changed as follows:

• In reviewing the regulations, we realized that while the Request for ADH was designed to be an appropriate substitute for preparing a Statement of Position, additional information would have to be included in order for it to properly serve that function. The DPA 435 will now be titled "County Allegation of Intentional Program Violation/Statement of Position."

• We have also made several other changes to assure that the ADH is meeting due process standards. These involve (1) an examination of the address to which the state’s ADH notice of hearing is sent and (2) the prosecution status of the case both at the time the ADH is requested and at the time of the hearing.

• Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Section 22-201.5(a)(4) provides in the Food Stamp (FS) ADH Program that the county representative has the same duties prior to and at the hearing which are contained in Section 22-023.2 (now renumbered to 22-073.2). Section 22-305.5(d) provides in the CalWORKs ADH Program, the county representative has the same duties prior to and at the hearing which are contained in Sections 22-023.2 and .3 (now Sections 22-073.2 and .3).

• One of the provisions contained in Section 22-073.25 is the requirement that the county representative prepare a typewritten position statement. At a minimum, that position statement, under subsection .251, shall summarize the facts of the case, set forth the regulatory justification for the county’s action, include as attachments copies of documentary evidence, and list witnesses who the county intends to call.

• The current requesting document (DPA 435) for an ADH is deficient in a number of respects. Specifically, the current request fails to require the inclusion of the specific regulatory support for the agency’s action. This is now remedied by requiring the county to include the authority for its action under the Applicable Authority, although this requirement can be met by the county noting in the request "See attached Packet titled ‘Applicable Authority’." Such packet would contain the appropriate regulatory and statutory authority for the case. We have also added a box to list witnesses who are expected to attend the hearing.

• In addition to the above changes necessitated by Section 22-073.2, we have also made a number of revisions to make the process more efficient and effective.

The most significant change requires the county to affirmatively state at the hearing that, to the best of its knowledge, the state’s notice of an ADH was, on the day indicated on the State’s Affidavit of Mailing, sent to either the respondent’s current or last known address.

If the address was not appropriate at the time of the notice’s mailing, and if the respondent is not present and the notice has not been returned, the hearing will not be heard and the respondent shall be renoticed by SHD using the correct address. If an improper mailing has resulted in the respondent receiving less than thirty days advance notice, the respondent, if present, shall be asked if he/she will waive the thirty-day advance notice and, if the respondent is not present, the matter shall be renoticed. Due process requires us to make our best effort to ensure that the notice of the hearing was actually received by the respondent. We want to avoid the situation where notices are sent to addresses that are either known to be erroneous, or should have been known to be an address where the respondent does not currently receive mail. The county is advised of this responsibility in (B) under Jurisdiction on the revised DPA 435.

• In order to proceed with the scheduling of the hearing and the triggering of the ADH waiver process, the State Hearings Division, initially, and later the Judge, must also know one of the following situations applies to the IPV case:

1. The case will not be referred to the DA for prosecution because of an agreement with the prosecutor such as monetary limit threshold for resulting overpayments of overissuances.

2. The case was referred to the DA but was declined for prosecution.

3. The case was referred to the DA or the court but the factual issues in that case are different in the ADH case.

4. The case has not yet been referred to the DA for prosecution.

Without this information, our Division cannot properly schedule the hearing. If the Judge does go forward without this information, the Judge should dismiss the county’s claim because the county has not provided information necessary for the Judge to determine whether or not the case was properly before him/her. In no circumstance should the county be requesting an ADH without knowing this information. If the county knows the situation has changed at the time of the hearing, it must inform the Judge of the change.

• We have also made changes to the last page of the DPA 435. These changes include (1) requiring the signature of the preparer of such document, and the preparer’s title, (2) requiring the name of the county reviewer, that person’s title, and the date of the review by such person, and (3) requiring the name of the county IPV hearing contact should the respondent wish to obtain further information about the hearing.

Other changes to the DPA 435 have been made for clarification purposes. These include:

• Proposed disqualification period has been changed to Proposed Penalty Period.

• The penalty periods are set forth in their entirety.

• The county should send the DPA 435 to the State Hearings Division at its 19-37 mail station (M.S.).

• Under the IPV Allegation, we have made clearer the requirement to present evidence under (C).