PER CURIAM.
This appeal arises from the decision of the Director of the Division of Family Development (DFD) denying appellant M.C. admission to the Housing Assistance Program pilot project (HAP). For the reasons explained below, we affirm the decision of the DFD Director.
Prior to her application for HAP funding, M.C. was a recipient of general assistance (GA) through the Work First New Jersey Program. She was considered incapable of working, and held a MED-1 form indicating her total disability from February 14, 2013 to February 13, 2014.
HAP provides a twenty-four month extension of housing support for qualifying applicants.
In October 2013, M.C. was denied admission to HAP by the Passaic County Board of Social Services (PCBSS). She subsequently applied for, and was granted, an emergency fair hearing by the DFD. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and an emergency fair hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On November 7, the ALJ issued a decision affirming the denial of emergency assistance because M.C. failed to prove that she had any pending application for SSI benefits or appeal from a denial of SSI benefits, as required by
Following the hearing, M.C. submitted a letter of exception to DFD. Attached to the letter was a Report of Confidential Social Security Benefit Information (Report) from the Social Security Administration (SSA), dated November 8, 2013, the day after M.C.'s emergency fair hearing. The letter of exception was reviewed by the Director of DFD, who remanded the case to the OAL for further fact-finding in light of the newly submitted Report.
On December 20, 2013, the ALJ conducted further fact-finding in light of the Report, and issued a decision affirming PCBSS's denial of emergency assistance. M.C. again filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision. On December 27, 2013, the Director issued a final decision affirming the ALJ's decision. On January 13, 2014, the Director issued an amended decision addressing the arguments in greater detail, but still adopting the decision of the ALJ and affirming the PCBSS's determination.
In the past, M.C. received SSI, but her eligibility ended on June 1, 2011 because she and her husband, G.C., failed to account for "substantial income" that G.C. had received from the estate of his mother and a separate insurance settlement. M.C. sought reconsideration of the denial. Consequently, in April 2012, SSA issued a Notice of Reconsideration informing her that SSA regulations barred her from refiling for SSI for three years, and that she could refile for SSI in November 2014. The SSA denied her request for an administrative hearing to appeal its three-year sanction of ineligibility.
"An administrative agency's final quasi-judicial decision will be sustained unless there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record."
Additionally, "our courts give `great deference' to an agency's `interpretation of statutes within its scope of authority and its adoption of rules implementing' the laws for which it is responsible."
The primary issue presented on this appeal is whether DFD's interpretation of
However, as DFD asserts, an applicant is only eligible for HAP if he or she "has applied for
In interpreting legislative language, "[w]e must assume that the Legislature purposely included every word, and we must strive to give every word its logical effect."
Viewed in this light, it is clear that DFD's decision to deny HAP funding to M.C. was consistent with the language of
Affirmed.