DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Department of Health and Human Services
SUBJECT: New York State
DATE: January 22, 1990
Department of Social Services
Docket No. 89-259
Decision No. 1127
DECISION
The New York State Department of Social Services (State) appealed a
determination by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
disallowing $4,375 claimed under title IV-D of the Social Security Act
for the quarters ended December 31, 1985 and March 31, 1986. 1/ The
costs were disallowed on the ground that the State used an incorrect
rate of federal financial participation (FFP) in calculating the amount
claimed. For the reasons set out below, we sustain the disallowance.
The State claimed FFP at the rate of 70% in administrative costs and at
the rate of 90% in the cost of the development of a comprehensive
automatic data processing and information retrieval system. OCSE noted,
however, that pursuant to Public Law 99-177 (the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) the rates of FFP for costs
incurred in fiscal year 1986 were reduced to 66.65% and 85.69%,
respectively. Accordingly, OCSE disallowed the difference between the
amounts payable at the old and new rates.
In its notice of appeal, the State acknowledged that the applicable
rates of FFP were those specified in Pub. L. 99-177. It stated that it
had nevertheless filed its claims for FFP "at the original rates in
order to preserve its rights to reimbursement should the provisions of
Public Law 99-177 be changed." Letter from Demers to Kaufman dated
12/6/89. The State requested that the Board issue a summary decision
upholding the disallowance on the ground that the costs were claimed at
the incorrect rates of FFP. OCSE stated that it had no objection to the
issuance of such a summary decision.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we sustain the disallowance on the ground that the costs
were claimed at the incorrect rates of FFP.
_____________________________ Donald F. Garrett
_____________________________ Norval D. (John)
Settle
_____________________________ Alexander G. Teitz
Presiding Board Member
1. An apparent discrepancy between the amount disallowed by OCSE's
Regional Representative and the amount specified in the Acting
Director's letter affirming the decision of the Regional Representative
was explained by counsel for OCSE in a letter to the Board dated January
5,