GAB Decision 106
July 1, 1980 Utah Department of Social Services; Docket No. 80-33-UT-HD
Przybylinski, Donald; Woodruff, Robert Dell'Acqua, Frank
The Utah Department of Social Services, by letter dated February 11,
1980, appealed a disallowance of $904, the federal share of an
expenditure of $1205 claimed as training costs under Title XX of the
Social Security Act. The disallowance, dated December 12, 1979, was
signed by the Region VIII Program Director (Acting), Administration for
Public Services Office of Human Development Services. The Agency did
not contest the State's assertion that the notice of disallowance was
not received until January 17, 1980, so the appeal was accepted as
timely.
By letter dated March 7, 1980, the Executive Secretary of the Board
asked the Agency for its response, and requested both the Agency and the
State to answer specific questions. The State's reply was received
April 9; the Agency's April 11. On May 19, 1980 a draft decision was
sent to both parties. Both chose not to respond.
The State's claim was based on expenditures incurred as a result of
the attendance by two employees of its Family Services Division at the
annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Deficiency in
Miami, Florida, May 27 - June 1, 1979. The cost items which constitute
the claim are not shown in the disallowance or in either of the State's
submissions, but from the State's travel documents enclosed with the
Agency's response we deduce that the $1205.42 consisted of:
Round trip air transportation for two $525.42 Per diem
for six days for two 540.00 Registration for
two ($60 each) 120.00 Taxi fares
20.00 $1,205.42
The claim was disallowed on the ground that FFP for expenditures for
attendance at a conference of professional organizations is not within
the State's allotment for social services. The disallowance letter also
included an audit finding that such expenditures are matchable as
administrative costs (not training expenses) under the State's allotment
for services.
Section 2002(a)(1) of Title XX provides that the Secretary shall pay
to each State for each quarter an amount equal to 75 percent of the
total expenditures during that quarter for the provision of certain
social services, including expenditures for "personnel training and
retraining directly related to the provision of those services. . . ."
Regulations implementing Title XX were published as 45 CFR Part 228 in
1975. Comprehensive amendments to Part 228 were published on January
31, 1977.
Although Section 2002(a)(1) provides for 75 percent FFP in "total
expenditures," that section is modified by Section 2002(a)(2)(A), which
sets a ceiling (based on a State's population) on the total amount that
may be paid to any State in any fiscal year for all Title XX
expenditures "other than expenditures for personnel training or
retraining directly related to the provision of services . . . ." Thus,
it is potentially to a State's advantage to claim that an expenditure is
for personnel training or retraining under 45 CFR Part 228, since in
that case the expenditures will not count against its allotment under
Section 2002(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The State may have chosen to claim
the expenditures as training -- rather than administrative costs, which
are also reimbursable at the 75 percent matching rate -- because it
probably has no balance remaining within its ceiling.
In its Appeal, the State argued that its employees attended the
meeting solely "for the purpose of gaining the considerable value of
expertise from throughout the country that was available in the
conference," calling the Board's attention to an excerpt from the
printed program describing "special courses and special training
institute features of the annual meeting program." The State indicated
that continuing education credits were available for participation in
"special (training) courses" listed in the copy of the program enclosed
with its Appeal.
In the Executive Secretary's letter of March 7, 1980, the State was
asked:
1) Whether the two employees who attended the meeting actually
attended any of the training sessions or received credits.
2) If so, which courses were attended and for which were credits
given.
The State conceded in its reply that its employees did not receive
credit, not offering to explain the discrepancy with its earlier
(February 11) assertion that "continuing education credits are available
for conference participants."
The State did not respond directly to the first question, but instead
referred to its enclosure of the pages from the annual meeting program
listing the AAMD Special Courses." The instructors' names are
underscored in the parts where courses numbered 2A,24B, and 21B are
described. The program shows that fees were imposed for these courses
according to the following schedule:
Date Number Members Non-me
May 27 2A $85.00 June 1
and 2 24B 85.00 120 June 1
21B 50.00 70
The significance of this information is that the State did not
request reimbursement for any such fees. The $120.00 registration was
for the meeting only -- it could not have encompassed course fees, which
were additional. In light of the State's apparent unwillingness to
declare unequivocally that its attendees actually did participate in
these or other courses, we must assume they did not.
What follows from this is that the State is claiming as training
costs expenditures for mere attendance at a meeting of a professional
organization -- the American Association on Mental Deficiency. Pursuant
to 45 CFR 228.85(d) (1978), expenditures for "attendance at meetings .
. . of professional organizations" are matchable "as administrative
costs (not training expenses)."
Conclusion
We find that the State has failed to establish that the expenditures
on which it based its claim are matchable as training costs.
Accordingly, we uphold the disallowance of $904 FFP.
OCTOBER 04, 1983