DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Department of Health and Human Services
SUBJECT: New York State Department DATE: June 28, 1989 of Social
Services Docket No. 89-123 Decision No. 1065
DECISION
The New York State Department of Social Services (New York/State)
appealed a decision by the Family Support Administration (Agency/FSA)
disallowing $3,472,118 in federal funds claimed by the State under the
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program. The funding at
issue was claimed by the State as the federal share of maintenance
payments to AFDC recipients for the period January 1 through September
30, 1988.
The State asserted that the issues presented by this appeal were
identical to those which it raised in a series of earlier appeals
decided by the Board in New York State Dept. of Social Services, DAB No.
999 (1988). There, New York described the claims at issue as bonus
payments made to landlords under the State's Emergency Assistance
Rehousing Program (EARP) operating in New York City. Under EARP, the
State paid bonuses to landlords who provided housing to AFDC recipients.
New York asserted that the EARP payments represented "special need"
items under New York's State plan and, therefore, were federally
reimbursable AFDC maintenance payments. Additionally, New York asserted
that FSA was aware of EARP from its inception in 1983 and could not now
withhold AFDC funding for it. Id. at 1.
Basically, the Agency alleged that the State's claims were ineligible
for federal funding as AFDC maintenance payments because the bonuses
bore no relationship to a family's countable income or to the State's
need standard.
In DAB No. 999 the Board concluded that EARP payments do not qualify as
maintenance assistance under the Act and applicable regulations and
that, even if they could so qualify, the State had not shown that it had
reasonably interpreted its State plan to authorize such payments as
"special needs" items. The Board also rejected the State's assertion
that FSA had somehow acquiesed in the State's claims.
In view of the fact that the issues in this appeal are identical to
those decided in DAB No. 999 the State requested that the Board issue a
summary decision consistent with DAB No. 999. The Agency did not object
to this course of action.
We therefore sustain the disallowance of $3,472,118 based on DAB No. 999
which we incorporate by reference here.
_____________________________ Donald F. Garrett
_____________________________ Alexander G. Teitz
_____________________________ Judith A. Ballard Presiding
Board