Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Appellate Division
SUBJECT: New York State Department of Social Services
DATE: March 4, 1997
Docket No. A-97-63
Decision No. 1612
DECISION
The New York State Department of Social Services (New
York) appealed a determination by the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) disallowing $1,622,739 in
federal financial participation (FFP) claimed under title
IV-E of the Social Security Act (Act). The claim was for
foster care maintenance payments for residential foster
care provided by New York City (NYC) voluntary agencies
during the quarter ended September 30, 1994. The amount
claimed was established by vouchers as having been paid
to the voluntary agencies, but was not documented in New
York's statewide automated foster care information
system, the Child Care Review System (CCRS), as payable
for IV-E eligibles. To calculate the claim, New York
multiplied the amount by which the total vouchered
payments to voluntary agencies exceeded the amount
documented in the CCRS (referred to as the "outstanding
amount") by the percentage of expenditures documented in
the CCRS as payable to IV-E eligibles. ACF determined
that this did not result in a claim for actual
expenditures for IV-E eligible children, but rather
constituted an impermissible estimate.
The Board addressed this issue in New York State Dept. of
Social Services, DAB No. 1579 (1996), at pages 11-18.
(DAB No. 1579 was a two-part decision which also involved
other claims for FFP in foster care maintenance payments
not similar to the claim at issue here.) The Board there
concluded that the outstanding amounts were properly
disallowed because New York failed to document that they
represented allowable costs under the IV-E program that
were properly allocated to that program. The Board
rejected New York's argument that the claims were
adequately documented by the vouchers, the CCRS data and
the underlying case records. The Board noted that the
vouchers are based on bills from the voluntary agencies
for care to be provided in the coming month and establish
only that payments were made, not what the payments were
for; the CCRS documents only payments which are in the
CCRS; and the mere existence of the underlying case
records does not establish that the amounts at issue
represent foster care maintenance payments for the
children identified in the records. In addition, the
Board relied on the absence of any verifiable explanation
as to why the outstanding amounts were not identified in
the CCRS. The Board also found that New York's
methodology for computing the amount of FFP in the
outstanding amounts was not reliable since there was no
way of determining whether the outstanding amounts were
just as likely to have been paid for IV-E cases as the
CCRS-documented payments.
In its notice of appeal, New York took the position that
the claim at issue was allowable. New York stated,
however, that it would not object to the Board's issuance
of a summary decision upholding the disallowance
consistent with DAB No. 1579. ACF did not object to the
issuance of a summary decision.
Conclusion
Accordingly, based on the analysis in DAB No. 1579 with
respect to the outstanding amounts, we conclude that ACF
properly determined that New York failed to establish
that its claim was for actual expenditures for IV-E
eligible children. We therefore uphold the disallowance
in full.
________________________
Judith A. Ballard
_________________________
Norval D. (John) Settle
_________________________
Donald F. Garrett
Presiding Board Member