GAB Decision 654
June 10, 1985
Ohio Department of Human Services;
Ballard, Judith A.; Settle, Norval D. (John) Garrett, Donald F.
Docket No. 85-5
The Ohio Department of Human Services (State) appealed a
determination by the Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth
and Families, Office of Human Development Services (Agency), that the
State was ineligible for fiscal year 1983 funds under section 427 of the
Social Security Act (Act). That section provides that a state may
receive additional funds for child welfare services beyond the amount
available to each state under section 420 of the Act if the state meets
certain requirements for the protection of children in foster care. /1/
The Agency initially approved the State's request for additional funds
based on a written certification by the State that it met the
requirements of section 427. However, following a review completed in
July 1984 to validate the State's self-certification, the Agency advised
the State that it was ineligible for fiscal year 1983 funds since it did
not have in place a statewide information system, one of the safeguards
specified in the Act. /2/ For the reasons discussed below, we sustain
the Agency's determination.
Applicable Law As one of the conditions for the receipt of additional
child welfare funds, section 427(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that(2) a
state have implemented and be operating to the satisfaction of the
Secretary -- a statewide information system from which the status,
demographic characteristics, location, and goals for the placement of
every child in foster care or who has been in such care within the
preceding twelve months can readily be determined. . . . This Board
dealt with the requirement for a statewide information system in Ohio
Department of Public Welfare, Decision No. 472, October 31, 1983, which
upheld the Agency's determination that the State did not have a system
which complied with section 427 for fiscal year 1981. The Board there
stated in part that -- (i)t is implicit in the concept of a statewide
information system that current information can quickly be retrieved
from some central location or locations in the state. In this case, for
a child who entered foster care simultaneous with an annual update of
the information system, current information would be entered in the
system only once during a twelve-month period -- with the filing of the
initial report. For the ten months from the filing of the initial report
until the annual update, it appears that the child's individual case
file would have to be consulted to determine his or her current status
and other relevant information. In our view, this does not comport with
the concept of a statewide information system or with the statutory
requirement that certain information be "readily" available. (Decision
No. 472, p. 5) Basis for Agency's Finding of Ineligibility As indicated
above, the Agency determined that the State had no statewide information
system in fiscal year 1983 which met the requirements of section 427.
The Agency found specifically that the State had no capability "for
receiving, retrieving, or tracking information quickly on the children
under the care and/or custody of the State Agency." (Report on Ohio's
Section 427 State Eligibility for FY 1983, Agency's appeal file, Exhibit
5, p. 3) The Agency further stated that there had been no changes in the
State's system since fiscal year 1981, when the State was found out of
compliance based in part on the lack of a statewide information system.
(Id.)(3) The State asserted on appeal, however, that it in fact had a
statewide information system as required by section 427. According to
the State, the Ohio Administrative Code required each county child
welfare agency within the State to maintain a case record for each child
in custody which contains current information regarding a child's
status, demographic characteristics, location and placement goals. The
State asserted that this complied with the requirement for a statewide
information system since the information for a particular child could
normally be obtained from the child's case record within 24 hours by
contacting the county child welfare agency by telephone. The State also
asserted that the information could be obtained by consulting Form ODHS
1603. This form was used by each child welfare agency pursuant to Rule
5101:2-42-151 of the Ohio Administrative Code to report to the Ohio
Department of Human Services on reviews of a child's case. The form was
required to be filed within 60 days of receiving custody of the child
and thereafter on each anniversary date of the child's entering custody.
(State's brief dated March 21, 1985, pp. 4-5) The State further asserted
that the system had changed since fiscal year 1981, since "(t)he case
record requirements at the county level are more stringent, more
comprehensive, and more frequent . . . ." (Id., p. 7) The State also
noted that the provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code on which it
relied had been promulgated after fiscal year 1981 whereas similar
provisions relied on in fiscal year 1981 had not been mandatory.
(State's reply brief dated May 10, 1985, p. 2) The Agency did not
dispute that the type of information specified by section 427 was
present in the case records maintained for each child by the county
child welfare agencies. However, the Agency argued that this did not
constitute a statewide information system within the meaning of section
427 because this information was not readily available. (Agency's brief
dated April 24, 1985, p. 3) The Agency argued that the State "has not
provided any evidence to support its bare assertion that information
could be retrieved within 24 hours by phone." (Id., p. 6) The Agency
also noted that the Board has already held that the fact that "the
child's individual case file would have to be consulted to determine his
or her current status and other relevant information . . . does not
comport with the concept of a statewide information system. . . ." (Id.,
quoting Decision No. 472) The Agency also took the position that the
Form ODHS 1603 on file for each child at the State Department of Human
Services did not make the requisite information "readily available"
within the meaning of section 427 since that form was generally
submitted to the (4) State only on an annual basis. (Id.) The Agency
noted that in Decision No. 472, the Board found that provisions for an
annual update of the relevant information were inadequate. (Id., p. 5)
Discussion We agree with the Agency that the State did not have a
statewide information system in fiscal year 1983 which complied with
section 427. As we stated in Decision No. 427, it is not sufficient to
constitute such a system that the requisite information may be obtained
by consulting individual case records. Moreover, Decision No. 472 makes
clear that the current information contemplated by section 427 would not
be provided by Form ODHS 1603 since that information was updated only
annually after the initial report filed within 60 days of the child's
entry into the State's custody. Our holding in Decision No. 472 was
based on the plain language of the statute. The State argued here that
this language "is vague and ambiguous. . . ." (State's brief dated
March
21, 1985, p. 3) However, the State under the facts of this case has
clearly not met the basic requirement for a system which permits
information to "readily be determined." We see no evidence that the
State made any material changes after fiscal year 1981 that would render
our holding in Decision No. 472 inapplicable here. The mere fact that
the requirements for maintaining case records were incorporated in the
Ohio Administrative Code after fiscal year 1981 is not significant for
purposes of this case since the finding of ineligibility in fiscal year
1981 was not based on the legal status of the requirements. The State's
allegation that the information for any child could be obtained by the
State within 24 hours by placing a telephone call to the appropriate
county child welfare office does not change the result in this case.
The State alleged only that information regarding a particular child
could be obtained within 24 hours. It is not clear whether the State
meant that information pertaining to more than one child could also be
obtained within 24 hours. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the
information on closed cases could be obtained within 24 hours to comply
with the statutory requirement for information on every child who has
been in foster care "within the preceding twelve months." Moreover,
the
State made no showing that there were any particular individuals who
could be contacted to retrieve the (5) information from the case records
or that county child welfare offices were given any instructions on
responding to requests for information maintained as part of a statewide
information system. The existence of an ad hoc method for obtaining the
necessary information does not in our view rise to the level of a
"system" within the meaning of section 427. There is no "system"
unless
the information exists in such a format and with such arrangements for
its retrieval that it is clear before the need arises that the
information can "readily be determined." The State asserted, however,
that the Agency had "taken confusing and contradictory positions"
regarding the requirement for a statewide information system, and
appeared to argue that its system should therefore be deemed in
compliance with section 427. (State's brief dated March 21, 1985, p. 6)
The State noted that guidelines for section 427 reviews issued by the
Agency on April 1, 1982 stated that local or county information systems
which are not "linked" do not meet the test of a statewide information
system. (Guidelines for the State Agency Administrative Review, State's
appeal file, Exhibit 10, p. 4) The State argued that this position was
directly contradicted by a later statement by the Agency, made in
response to a recommendation in a General Accounting Office (GAO) report
(and incorporated in the final GAO report), that "a statewide
information system which maintains required information at the county
level can indeed satisfy the requirements of section 427(a)(2)(A) as
long as the State can 'readily determine' the information." (Report by
the Comptroller General of the United States, dated August 10, 1984,
State's appeal file, Exhibit 1, p. 65) The position taken by the Agency
in the GAO report that a county-operated system is satisfactory as long
as the information can be readily determined arguably gives states
greater latitude than the Guidelines, under which a county-operated
system is per se inadequate. As discussed above, however, our
conclusion that the State did not have a statewide information system
rests upon the fact that the information was not readily available. The
State failed to satisfy even the more liberal test enunciated in the GAO
report since it did no more than maintain current information in
individual case records with no means for assuring that the information
could be quickly obtained. /3/
(6) The State also asserted that the Agency had approved a statewide
information system for the State of Maryland which was identical to its
own. (State's brief dated March 21, 1985, pp. 5-6) The Agency responded
that the situation in Maryland was distinguishable on the ground that
Maryland had notified its local social services agencies of the section
427 requirements and directed them to centralize the requisite
information in master files maintained by each agency. The Agency also
noted that in Maryland a standard form was completed in each case at the
time of application for services, major changes and reconsideration.
(Agency's brief dated April 24, 1985, p. 7, n. 4) Although Maryland's
system bears some resemblance to Ohio's system, the differences are
sufficient in our view to support the Agency's finding of compliance in
one case and not the other. It was reasonable for the Agency to
conclude that by centralizing the requisite information in master files
within each local agency, Maryland would be able to obtain this
information more readily than if the information remained in individual
case records. The State did not dispute, moreover, that Maryland's
reporting form was required to be updated more frequently than Form ODHS
1603. Accordingly, we find that the Agency did not treat the two states
inconsistently. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that
the State did not comply with the requirement in section 427 of the Act
for a statewide information system. Accordingly, we uphold the Agency's
determination that the State was ineligible for funds awarded for fiscal
year 1983 in the amount of $760,456. /1/ The additional funds are a
proportional share of the amount appropriate for title IV-B
which exceeds $141,000,000, in this case, $760,456. /2/ The
Agency also notified the State at the same time that it had been found
ineligible for fiscal year 1982 funds, in part because of the absence of
a statewide information system during that fiscal year. However, the
State appealed only the Agency's determination relating to fiscal year
1983. (State's brief dated March 21, 1985, p. 1) /3/ In view of
this conclusion, we need not address the State's argument that it was
unreasonable to penalize the State based on the Guidelines. (See
State's brief dated March 21, 1985, p. 8)
AUGUST 08, 1985