GAB Decision 195
June 30, 1981 New Jersey Department of Human Services; Docket No.
81-83-NJ-CS, 81-84-NJ-CS Ford, Cecilia; Teitz, Alexander Settle, Norval
In applications for review filed June 12, 1981, the State requested
review by the Board of determinations of the Regional Representative,
Region II, Office of Child Support Enforcement, dated May 4 and May 8,
1981, disallowing Federal financial participation in the amounts of
$4,079 and $3,984 claimed for the quarter ended March 31, 1980 under
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (Act) for the provision of child
support enforcement services to persons not eligible for the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The appeals were
docketed by the Board as Nos. 81-83-NJ-CS and 81-84-NJ-CS, respectively.
The Board Chair has accepted the appeals, although they were not timely
filed in accordance with 45 CFR 16.6(a)(1), based on a showing of good
cause by counsel for the State.
The costs in question were disallowed on the ground that the State
did not comply with the requirement in Section 454(6)(A) of the Act that
services be provided to non-AFDC recipients only "upon application filed
by such individuals with the State...." This issue was presented in
several appeals previously filed by the State with the Board. New
Jersey Department of %human Services, Decision No. 135, November 23,
1980; Decision 146, January 29, 1981; and Decision No. 153, February
27, 1981. The State in the instant appeals relies on the brief
submitted by it in the proceedings in Decision No. 135 and requests an
expedited decision in these appeals.
The conclusion of the Board in Decision No. 135, which was reaffirmed
in Decision Nos. 146 and 153, was that the State's failure to obtain new
applications from non-AFDC recipients who had previously applied for and
received services under a wholly State-funded program was an appropriate
ground for disallowance. The Board in Decision No. 135 noted, however,
that the Agency did not disallow FFP until such time as it believed that
all states had notice of a June 9, 1976 action transmittal which
expressly stated that new applications were required, and that the State
had made a good faith effort to obtain new applications upon receipt of
the action transmittal. The Board therefore found that (2) costs
incurred within a reasonable period of time after receipt of the action
transmittal should not have been disallowed, and directed the Agency to
reduce the amount of the disallowance to the extent that it determined
appropriate.
The costs disallowed in Docket No. 81-83-NJ-CS were incurred during
the quarter ended March 31, 1980. Thus, the question of whether the
State had a reasonable amount of time to comply with Section 454(6)(A)
after receipt of the action transmittal is not presented in that appeal.
The costs disallowed in Docket No. 81-84-NJ-CS, however, represent
adjustments for periods prior to October 1, 1978 which were included in
the State's claim for the quarter ended March 31, 1980. It is possible
that some of these costs were incurred within a reasonable period of
time after receipt of the action transmittal.
No material facts are in dispute. Accordingly, based on the Board's
prior decisions cited above, we sustain the disallowance in Docket No.
81-83-NJ-CS in full, and sustain the disallowance in Docket No.
81-84-NJ-CS except with respect to those costs, if any, which the Agency
determines were incurred within a reasonable period of time after
receipt of the action transmittal.
SEPTEMBER 22, 1983