SUBJECT: Missouri Department of Social Services

DECISION

The Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) appealed a determination by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) disallowing $1,157,491.09 that Missouri claimed as administrative costs under the foster care program of title IV-E of the Social Security Act (Act), for the period July 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003. Missouri claimed the disallowed amount as reimbursement for the cost of activities related to foster care cases performed by Juvenile Officers employed by Missouri's court system, pursuant to an agreement between DSS, its state IV-E agency, and the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA), which oversees the Juvenile Officers and provides administrative services to Missouri's courts. ACF disallowed the claims on the grounds that the agreement with OSCA did not satisfy the Act's criteria for when state agencies other than the state IV-E agency may perform reimbursable foster care activities, and because the criteria that the Juvenile Officers used to allocate their time to foster care cases were too broad and could result in Missouri claiming unallowable administrative costs.

As Missouri noted, eight other similar disallowances taken on the same grounds for earlier time periods were the subject of the Board's November 25, 2003 decision in Missouri Dept. of Social Services, DAB No. 1899 (2003). That decision upheld the disallowances in their entirety, on the grounds that the costs of the Juvenile Officers' activities were not necessary for the proper and efficient administration of Missouri's IV-E program. The Board found that the Juvenile Officers were not engaged in the placement and care of children, and their activities were not under the supervision of DSS, Missouri's state IV-E agency, within the meaning of sections 471 and 472 of the Social Security Act.

Missouri requested that the Board issue a supplemental decision that applies DAB No. 1899 to this disallowance. ACF did not object to Missouri's request. The Board has determined that the request for a supplemental decision is reasonable, and therefore issues this summary decision.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis in DAB No. 1899, which we incorporate by reference in its entirety, we sustain the disallowance.

Judith A. Ballard

Cecilia Sparks Ford

Donald F. Garrett
Presiding Board Member