Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, DAB No. 1458 (1994)


         Department of Health and Human Services

               DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

                   Appellate Division


SUBJECT:  Pennsylvania Department  DATE:  January 21, 1994 of Public
                    Welfare Docket No. A-94-40 Decision No. 1458

                        DECISION

The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (Pennsylvania) appealed a
determination by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
disallowing $24,861 in federal financial participation (FFP) claimed
under Title IV-D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of the
Social Security Act (Act) for the quarter ended September 30, 1993.  ACF
determined that court fees collected by Pennsylvania in child support
cases were required to be treated as income resulting from services
under the child support enforcement program.  Therefore, ACF concluded
that this income would have reduced Pennsylvania's expenditures eligible
for FFP by the disallowance amount.

The issue presented by this case was previously raised and addressed in
Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare, DAB No. 1450 (1993).  In that
decision, the Board found that section 455(a) of the Act and the
applicable regulations require Pennsylvania to credit against its IV-D
program expenses the court filing fees at issue.  Further, the Board
found that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and
requires Pennsylvania to exclude from its expenditures claimed for FFP
any fees which resulted from services provided under the IV-D state
plan, regardless of which state entity collected the fees and how the
collected funds are used.  Finally, the Board found that the regulation
at 45 C.F.R. . 304.50(a) simply restates the statute's requirement, and
that other regulations on which Pennsylvania relied are not controlling.

Although Pennsylvania disagreed with the Board's analysis in DAB No.
1450, Pennsylvania requested that the Board issue a summary decision in
this case based on that decision.  ACF also agreed to this course of
action.


We therefore sustain the disallowance of $24,861 based on the reasoning
and analysis in DAB No. 1450, which we incorporate here in full.

 

 

                                   Cecilia Sparks Ford

 

 

                                   M. Terry Johnson

 

 

                                   Judith A. Ballard Presiding Board
                                   Member