Department of Health and Human Services
Departmental Appeals Board
AFDC QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW PANEL
SUBJECT: Appeal of Nebraska Department of Social Services
Docket No. A-92-199
DATE:
DECISION
The Nebraska Department of Social Services (State) appealed the quality control (QC) review determination of the Regional Administrator of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). ACF had found that the assistance unit (AU) in this case was ineligible to receive an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant. ACF's determination was based on a QC review finding that the recipient's child was not properly enumerated.
On July 23, 1992, this AFDC Quality Control Review Panel (Panel) provided the parties with two of our recent decisions 1/ regarding the issue of enumeration. In these decisions we sustained the Regional Administrators' error determinations. Because the facts of this case are similar to the facts upon which we based our findings in these two decisions, we asked the parties to show cause why the Panel should reach a different conclusion in this case. Both parties submitted briefs. After careful consideration of their arguments, we are not persuaded a different conclusion is warranted here.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, we uphold ACF's determination.
Relevant Legal Authority
Section 1137(a) of the Social Security Act (Act) provides that, as a condition of eligibility for AFDC payments under Title IV-A of the Act, a state shall require that "each applicant for or recipient of benefits . . . furnish to the State his social security account number. . . ." Regulations implementing this requirement (commonly referred to as the "enumeration requirement") were issued in 1986. Section 205.52 of 45 C.F.R. states in pertinent part that a state Title IV-A plan must provide that - -
(a) As a condition of eligibility, each applicant for or recipient of aid will be required:
(1) To furnish to the State or local agency, a . . . SSN . . . and
(2) If he cannot furnish a SSN (either because such SSN has not been issued or is not known), to apply for such number through procedures adopted by the State or local agency . . . . If such procedures are not in effect, the applicant or recipient shall apply directly for such number, submit verification of such application, and provide the number upon its receipt.
45 C.F.R. § 205.52 (1991) (emphasis added).
Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 setting up the present QC system, a payment shall be considered erroneous for QC purposes if made to a family "any member of which is a recipient of aid . . . and does not have a [SSN] . . . (unless an application for a [SSN] . . . for the family member has been filed within 30 days after the date of application for such aid)." Section 408(c)(4)(B) of the Act.
The Quality Control Manual (QCM) issued by ACF contains several options for applying for a SSN. A state may have an agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) through which the local agency accepts applications for SSNs (termed "agreement" states). Once proof of application is in the case file, an AFDC applicant or recipient does not have to provide the SSN, when received, to the local agency, because SSA sends the number directly to the agency. In other cases, a state may refer an applicant or recipient to the SSA District Office to make direct application for a SSN (termed "non- agreement" states). In a non-agreement state, the applicant or recipient without a SSN must first provide proof of application for a SSN and then furnish the SSN, when received, to the local agency. Under the Enumeration at Birth (EAB) procedure, a parent may apply for a SSN for a newborn child through the hospital at which the child is born. The hospital sends the necessary information to the state's vital statistics office, which in turn transmits the information to the SSA via magnetic tape for automatic issuance of a SSN. The QCM provides that, where this option is used, proof of application must be provided for the case file and "the SSN must be provided to the agency upon its receipt." QCM, Appendix W.
Factual Background and State Arguments
The facts of this case are not in dispute. The recipient applied for a SSN for her child using the EAB procedure. On or about September 9, 1991, the recipient received her child's SSN. She did not, however, report her child's SSN to the local agency upon receipt. Further, as of the November 1, 1991 review date, the recipient had not yet furnished her child's SSN to the local agency. Moreover, during her November 6, 1991, interview with the local agency pursuant to the State QC review, the recipient was unable to furnish her child's SSN. Instead, she completed a new application for a SSN using the agreement state procedure. 2/ The local agency received the child's reissued SSN on November 20, 1992. May 28, 1992 State Response to Gary Allen, ACF; July 14, 1992 State Appeal Request; August 17, 1992 State Response Brief.
The State argued that the Act does not establish time limits as to when a SSN, once received, must be reported. The State also asserted that the recipient had applied for her child's SSN, and that 45 C.F.R. § 205.52 precluded ACF from finding an error where a SSN has been applied for. The State argued that the QCM requirement that a SSN must be reported upon receipt conflicted with the Act. The State attempted to distinguish this case from those the Panel has already decided. The State argued that, in the New Mexico decision, the Panel found that the recipient who applied for her child's SSN under the EAB procedure was notified in writing that she should contact her caseworker when she received her child's SSN and that the state knew approximately when the SSN should have been issued. The State contrasted this with its own procedures, under which it does not inform a client when to contact the local agency and, furthermore, does not know approximately when to expect the SSN to be received. The State asserted that, in New Mexico, the Panel indicated that the SSN should be reported within two months of the review date, and that this was done here. Finally, the State also asserted that an error would only be warranted if it had not taken steps to obtain the SSN during the annual review. Here, however, the State obtained the SSN during the review month of November, 1991.
Discussion
The purpose of the enumeration requirement is not to see that all AFDC recipients have SSNs. The purpose is to use recipients' SSNs to obtain verification of an AU's income in order to determine eligibility and benefits. To this end, we have held that to implement the enumeration requirement the regulations specifically require that all members of an AU without a SSN apply for one and then furnish the SSN upon receipt. 45 C.F.R. § 205.52. If verification of application for a SSN sufficed, once an applicant or recipient had verified the filing of an application for a SSN, that applicant or recipient would never have to report the SSN to the local agency to comply with the enumeration requirement, thus defeating its purpose.
In prior decisions we have sustained ACF's findings of erroneous payments in cases where AFDC recipients who have properly applied for their children's SSNs through the EAB procedure and then verified that application, have failed to furnish their children's SSNs to the local agency upon receipt. We held that it is not sufficient to satisfy the enumeration requirement that an applicant for or recipient of AFDC actually have a SSN or have applied for one. An applicant or recipient who obtains a SSN must furnish it to the local agency upon receipt. Missouri Department of Social Services, Docket Nos. 92- 157, 92-161, 92-197, 92-205, 92-217, 92-241 (1992); Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Docket No. A-92-135 (1992); New Mexico Human Services Department, Docket No. A-92-78 (1992); Tennessee Department of Human Services, Docket Nos. 91-148, 91-149, 92-26 (1992), upheld on reconsideration (1992). None of the arguments made by the State in this case have persuaded us to come to a different conclusion here.
Furthermore, the State misconstrued the Panel's New Mexico decision. The Panel did not hold that a recipient had a two month grace period in which to furnish a SSN. Rather, in the circumstances of that case, the Panel decided that, where two months elapsed between the time the recipient received the child's SSN and the review date, the recipient could reasonably have been expected to report the SSN by the review date. Furthermore, the length of time in which a recipient can reasonably be expected to report a SSN "upon receipt" is irrelevant here, because the recipient never reported the number she received. Instead, she reapplied. It is immaterial whether the State explained to the recipient the necessity of reporting the SSN when received, or that the State later obtained the SSN during the State QC review. It is the State's responsibility to institute procedures to ensure that recipients timely report their SSNs. Here the recipient had received her child's SSN well in advance of the State QC review date and the State has failed to explain why the recipient was unable to furnish her child's SSN by the review date.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the payment made in this case was a payment to ineligibles, as found by ACF. Accordingly, we affirm ACF's determination.
Carolyn Reines-Graubard
Leslie Sussan
Maxine Winerman
* * * Footnotes * * *
1. New Mexico Human Services Department, Docket No. A-92-78 (1992); Tennessee Department of Human Services, Docket Nos. 91-148, 91-149, 92-26 (1992) upheld on reconsideration (1992).
2. Nebraska is an agreement state. While the recipient did apply for her child's SSN using agreement state procedures, the application was made after the review date and is therefore not relevant to our decision. The recipient had previously applied for and received her child's SSN using the EAB procedure. The only question to be addressed here is whether the enumeration requirement was satisfied by the review date.
(..continued)