Department of Health and Human Services
Departmental Appeals Board
AFDC QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW PANEL
SUBJECT: Washington Department
of Social and Health
Services
Docket No. A-93-185
Decision No. 51
DATE: September 2, 1993
DECISION
The Washington Department of Social and Health Services
(Washington) appealed the May 20, 1993 determination of
the Regional Administrator of the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) that the assistance unit (AU)
represented in State Review No. 000696 was ineligible to
participate in the Aid to Families with Dependent
Children-Unemployed Parent (AFDC-UP) program. ACF had
determined that the principal earner (PE) did not have
sufficient quarters of work to qualify the AU for the
AFDC-UP program.
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that this AU
is ineligible to participate in the AFDC-UP program and,
accordingly, we uphold ACF's determination.
Authority
As described at element 184 of section 3540 of the AFDC
Quality Control Manual (QCM), the AFDC-UP program
provides assistance to families in which a child is
deprived because one of the parents in the household is
unemployed. The program covers families in which both
parents are living in the household and where the PE (who
can be either the father or the mother) is unemployed.
To be eligible for the AFDC-UP program, families must
meet all of the regular eligibility requirements for
AFDC, and the deprivation of the child must be based on
the unemployment of the parent who is the PE. The PE is
the parent who earned the greater amount of income over
the 24-month period immediately preceding the family's
application for aid based on unemployment. Before a
family can receive aid, the PE must have been unemployed
for at least 30 days. The PE must also demonstrate a
recent connection to the work force by having six or more
quarters of work in any 13-calendar-quarter period ending
within one year prior to initial application for
assistance or prior to the review date. A PE may
establish quarters of work by receiving $50 or more of
earned income in a calendar quarter. QCM, section 3540,
element 184.
Primary evidence regarding the AU's eligibility (i.e.
determining which parent is the PE and then determining
the PE's employment status) to participate in the AFDC-UP
program, as set forth at element 184, includes: 1)
contact with the parents' employer(s); 2) wage stubs; or
3) evidence of self-employment. If such evidence is not
available or if there is reason to question its
completeness, other evidence may be referenced, including
State employment agency, Social Security, income tax,
State unemployment, or bank loan information records.
1/ There is no provision in element 184 for secondary
evidence.
Section 3510 of the QCM directs that, in evaluating
primary evidence, a reviewer must ensure that the
evidence: 1) meets verification requirements for the
element; 2) does not conflict with other evidence, or
that the conflicts are resolved and documented; 3) proves
the facts being verified; and 4) pertains to the case
member(s) to whom it is supposed to apply. In judging
the probative value of the evidence, the reviewer should
consider: 1) the age of the evidence or the date the
evidence was established; 2) the purpose for which it was
established; 3) the basis for the evidence; 4) the nature
of the evidence; 5) the custody of the evidence and its
availability; and 6) the way in which the information was
recorded.
Background and Arguments
The PE (here the father) in this case is part of a Native
American family living on the Skokomish Indian
Reservation. The PE's parents have a fishing business
and a fireworks business. Washington alleged that the PE
worked intermittently for his parents for ten years.
Washington alleged further that the PE's wages were paid
in cash and no withholding was taken out for taxes or
Social Security. It is via his alleged employment in his
parents' fireworks business that Washington now attempts
to prove that the PE had sufficient quarters of work to
qualify his AU for AFDC-UP benefits. See Washington's
June 22, 1993 appeal request.
In a February 16, 1993 letter, federal QC determined that
the PE had not shown a connection to the work force, i.e.
six work quarters within a 13 calendar quarter period,
pursuant to element 184 of section 3540 of the QCM. The
federal reviewer asserted that although the PE's
"Employment Supplement" showed quarters of work as self-
employment through fishing and art work sales from 1987
to 1990, federal review had found no evidence verifying
such employment and the PE had not answered written
requests to provide such verification. The federal
reviewer also considered a handwritten statement made by
the PE's mother on April 1, 1992, which statement was
made during Washington's initial quality control review.
The PE's mother stated that the PE had done odd jobs for
her in 1988 and 1989 for $50 a month. The federal
reviewer asserted, however, that when federal review
contacted the PE's mother by telephone on August 26, 1992
to verify this statement, the PE's mother asserted that
she did not remember her son working for her during that
time. The PE's mother did acknowledge that she might
have paid her son occasionally to clean nets. When asked
if this was actual employment or a contribution, the PE's
mother asserted that it was more like a contribution to
her son than wages. The PE's mother asserted further
that she had no records to verify her son's employment.
The federal reviewer found that the PE's mother's
statement was not sufficient corroborating evidence to
establish the PE's connection to the work force.
February 16, 1993 letter from Richard Karl to Dean
Gregorius.
On March 18, 1993, Washington appealed the initial
federal QC decision to the ACF Regional Administrator.
Washington asserted that the wages paid by the PE's
mother to the PE appeared to be "under the table wages."
Washington asserted further that the PE's mother's
statements to Washington QC review and federal QC review
were inconsistent as to whether payments to the son were
contributions or wages. However, Washington asserted
that there was no doubt that the PE had been working for
his parents for years and that he was paid a wage for
driving their truck in the Indian fisheries business.
Washington asserted further that, when the PE and his
mother were first interviewed by Washington QC in
February 1992, there was no question that the PE was paid
wages. Moreover, Washington stated that, upon re-
contacting the PE's parents, it had obtained new and
additional work quarter verification. Specifically,
discounting possible under the table wages, Washington
asserted that the PE's mother had supplied a handwritten
statement to Washington on March 10, 1993, which stated
that the PE had worked for her in the family's fireworks
stands in June and July of 1989, 1990, and 1991 (which
dates represent the second and third calendar quarters of
these years). Washington then stated that, via the PE's
work in the fireworks stands, the PE met the work quarter
requirements and the case was correctly paid. March 18,
1993 letter from Dean Gregorius to Stephen Henigson.
In a letter of May 20, 1993, the ACF Regional
Administrator disagreed with Washington, and upheld the
initial federal finding of ineligibility. The Regional
Administrator concluded that there was insufficient
evidence to document that the PE had been employed in any
of the alleged activities, whether odd jobs, fireworks,
or fishing. The Regional Administrator stated that there
was no evidence to corroborate the PE's mother's April 1,
1992 statement that she employed the PE to do odd jobs
during 1988 and 1989. Further, the Regional
Administrator asserted that the March 10, 1993 statement
that the mother employed the PE in her fireworks stand
during June and July of 1989, 1990, and 1991 was
inconsistent with the PE's "Employment Supplement" and
with the mother's earlier statement. As was true of that
earlier statement, there was no corroborating evidence
for the second statement. In judging the probative value
of this evidence pursuant to section 3510 of the QCM, the
Regional Administrator found that the evidence presented
could not be relied on because the PE's mother's
statements were not consistent, lacked specificity and
were made by a close relative. Nor did the Regional
Administrator find evidence to corroborate Washington's
assertion that the PE drove a truck for his family's
Indian fishing business. Further, the PE did not respond
to letters of October 9, 1992 and November 23, 1992
requesting proof that he verify that he was employed in
the fishing business.
The Regional Administrator did find that the PE's alleged
employment in the fireworks stands could, if proved,
qualify for six quarters of work within a 13-calendar-
quarter period ending within one year prior to the review
date. However, the Regional Administrator stated that
the last two quarters required and claimed (June and July
1991) were for months in which the AU was receiving
assistance. Therefore, the Regional Administrator
asserted, if the PE had earnings during those months,
those earnings should have been reported. Consequently,
there should have been corroborative evidence in the AU's
case file. However, no such evidence was found. The
Regional Administrator thus found that, as no evidence
meeting the primary evidence criteria had been developed,
no secondary evidence was cited in the QCM, and no
special determination was presented, no verifiable
evidence existed proving the PE's connection to the work
force. May 20, 1993 letter from Stephen Henigson to
Leila Todorovich.
In its appeal request, Washington argued that its
submission of the two separate statements from the PE's
employer attesting to the PE's employment (the PE's
mother's handwritten statements of April 1, 1992 and
March 10, 1993) satisfied the QCM requirement for primary
evidence. Washington submitted also a June 8, 1993
written statement prepared by the Secretary of the
Skokomish Tribal Council (Tribal Secretary) to
corroborate the PE's mother's statements. In this
statement, the Tribal Secretary asserted that the PE
worked for his parents during the fireworks season of
1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992, in the months of June and
July, for wages.
Analysis
The only issue in this case is whether the evidence of
record is probative of Washington's claim that the PE had
sufficient quarters of work to qualify his AU for AFDC-UP
benefits. ACF acknowledges that, if we find Washington's
evidence of the PE's connection to the work force to be
persuasive, the claimed employment in the family
fireworks business would establish six or more quarters
of work within a 13 calendar quarter period (the second
and third quarters of 1989, 1990 and 1991) ending within
one year of the review date, which would qualify the PE's
AU for AFDC-UP benefits. In its appeal, Washington did
not pursue its previous arguments that the PE's self-
employment in Indian fisheries or in art work sales would
satisfy the quarters of work requirement.
To support its claim that the PE had sufficient quarters
of work, Washington relied on three pieces of evidence.
This evidence consists of the two handwritten statements
made by the PE's mother and alleged employer and a recent
written statement made by the Tribal Secretary, whose
statement Washington asserted corroborates the PE's
mother's statement of March 10, 1993. We do not find
this evidence to be persuasive with regard to the PE's
connection to the work force during the necessary
quarters. Evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence
submitted by Washington against the evaluation criteria
set forth at section 3510 of the QCM, we find that the
evidence does not support Washington's contention that
the PE's AU meets the eligibility requirements to
participate in the AFDC-UP program. We find that the
evidence is not credible and appears to have been
prepared in order to qualify the PE's AU for AFDC-UP
benefits.
The statements submitted by the PE's mother are
inconsistent and lack the specificity necessary to show
that an employer/employee relationship existed between
the PE and his parents during the relevant time periods.
Specifically, the PE's mother's first handwritten
statement (that of April 1, 1992, asserting that the PE
worked for her in the years 1988 and 1989 doing odd jobs
for $50 a month) is a general statement referencing only
"odd jobs" and not the PE's alleged employment at the
family's fireworks stands. Furthermore, when federal QC
review attempted to verify this statement during an
August 26, 1992 telephone conversation with the PE's
mother, 2/ she stated that any money she gave to the PE
was in the nature of contributions, not wages for
employment. The fact that no official documents (income
tax, Social Security, State employment, bank or other
records) have been produced to substantiate the PE's
alleged employment tends to support the mother's oral
statement that the payments were contributions rather
than wages.
Moreover, both the PE's mother's written statement of
April 1, 1992 and her oral statement to the federal
reviewer on August 26, 1992 are inconsistent with her
statement of March 10, 1993 that her son worked for her
in June and July of 1989, 1990, and 1991. The Tribal
Secretary's statement is a conclusive, non-
contemporaneous document that lacks specificity, and we
do not find it persuasive corroboration of the PE's
mother's statement. Washington failed to show any basis
for the statement that the PE received wages for
employment in the fireworks business. The Tribal
Secretary has not stated how she knows that the PE was
employed by his parents. Furthermore, neither the PE's
mother nor the Tribal Secretary have specifically set out
the PE's hours, his hourly or weekly wage, or his
employment duties at the fireworks stand. Most
importantly, neither the PE's mother nor the Tribal
Secretary have explained the lack of records, especially
tax or Social Security withholding statements, that would
document the PE's alleged employment.
Moreover, the March 10, 1993 date of the mother's second
statement strongly suggests that the statement was
written specifically to support the PE's claim to have
worked during the relevant quarters. The PE's mother
(whose interest, presumably, is in seeing that her son
and his family get the maximum income possible) did not
offer the statement that her son worked at the family's
fireworks stands until it was in the best interests of
the PE to prove a connection to the work force.
Finally, we find the most contemporaneous evidence in the
record proves that no earned income was reported by the
PE to Washington in June and July of 1991. During this
time the PE's AU was on AFDC and the PE had an
affirmative duty to report any earned income he received.
The fact that no statement or documentation of this
alleged employment exists in the AU's AFDC case file is
persuasive evidence that any work the PE may have done
for his parents or any money he received from them was
not done or received in the context of an
employer/employee relationship. Only when it became
necessary to prove the PE's connection to the work force
in order for the AU to qualify for the AFDC-UP program
was such employment alleged.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, we find no probative
evidence in the record of this case to support
Washington's claim that the PE had sufficient quarters of
work to qualify his family for AFDC-UP benefits.
Therefore, we uphold ACF's determination that this AU is
ineligible to participate in the AFDC-UP program.
Leslie Sussan
Leslie Weyn
Maxine Winerman
* * * Footnotes * * *
1. If evidence regarding earnings cannot be
obtained or a recent connection to the labor force
verified through normal channels, a special determination
in accordance with section 3520 of the QCM may be
prepared. A special determination is a reasonable
conclusion, fully documented, based on evidence which
provides sufficient basis for a conclusion, but which
does not meet verification requirements. Such a
determination was not made in this case.
2. Washington has not challenged the federal
reviewer's summary of what took place during this
conversation.
(..continued)