Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Appellate Division
SUBJECT: New York
State DATE: July 21,
1993 Department
of
Social
Services Docket No. A-93-190 Decision No. 1427
DECISION
The New York State Department of Social Services (New York) appealed
a
determination by the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF)
disallowing $10,994 in federal financial participation (FFP) claimed
by
New York under Title IV-A (Aid to Families with Dependent Children
or
AFDC) of the Social Security Act. New York had claimed reimbursement
at
a FFP rate of 100 percent for the costs of New York's 1991-1992
fiscal
year Single Audit attributable to administrative costs of the
AFDC
program. The disallowed amount of $10,994 represented the
difference
between New York's claim at 100 percent and ACF's assertion that
the
allowable rate of FFP for reimbursable administrative costs was
50
percent.
In its notice of appeal New York acknowledged that the issues presented
by
this case were previously raised and addressed in New York State
Dept. of
Social Services, DAB No. 1410 (1993). New York accordingly
requested
that the Board issue a summary decision in this appeal based
on the Board's
holding in DAB No. 1410.
ACF also agreed to the issuance of a summary decision here based on
DAB
No. 1410.
In DAB No. 1410, the central issue was the proper interpretation of
a
provision of the Single Audit Act, 31 U.S.C. . 7501 et seq.,
which
requires state or local governments to have a single audit performed
in
any year in which they receive $100,000 or more in federal funds.
New
York claimed that it was entitled to claim FFP, under such programs
as
Medicaid and Title IV-E, for the costs associated with the single
audit
at rates higher than those generally allowed for
administrative
activities under the programs. New York contended that
the single audit
costs should be reimbursed at the overall FFP rates for each
program,
with the overall FFP rate for each program determined by dividing
the
federal contribution for a fiscal year by the total dollar
amount
(federal and state) expended for that program in that year.
The Board rejected New York's arguments. The Board held that while
the
single audit costs are administrative costs, New York was
seeking
funding for those costs at enhanced levels of FFP, at rates above
those
specifically provided for administrative costs. The Board
emphasized
that eligibility for enhanced funding is "special," must be
provided for
specifically by statute, and is available only when a state
meets all
the qualifications for enhanced funding. The Board found that
the
Single Audit Act did not provide authority for reimbursement of
single
audit costs at an enhanced rate of FFP. Rather, New York was
entitled
to be reimbursed for each program only at the rates provided by
the
program statutes and regulations for administrative costs.
Conclusion
Accordingly, based on the analysis in DAB No. 1410, which we
incorporate
by reference, we sustain the disallowance of $10,994.
_________________________ Donald F. Garrett
_________________________ Norval D.
(John)
Settle
_________________________ M. Terry
Johnson
Presiding Board Member