Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.


The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Review of the Missouri Department of Social Services Claim for Title IV-E Training Costs for Long-Term Training for July 1, 2002, Through June 30, 2006

Filed under: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Of the $3 million (Federal share) in Title IV-E long-term training costs that Missouri claimed at the enhanced 75-percent Federal financial participation (FFP) rate from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2006, $301,000 was unallowable. Federal regulations authorize the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to pay an enhanced 75-percent FFP rate for certain State training costs related to Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance. The unallowable costs claimed included indirect costs that were not authorized for reimbursement at the enhanced rate, inadequately documented costs, and indirect costs that were claimed on an incorrect cost base. In addition, $1 million was potentially unallowable because the costs were not properly allocated to all benefiting programs as required by Federal regulations. The remaining $1.7 million claimed was allowable.

We recommended that the State adjust its next quarterly claim to reduce Federal reimbursement claimed for Title IV-E training by $301,000 (Federal share), work with ACF to determine an appropriate methodology to allocate $1.5 million ($1 million Federal share) in long-term training costs and make appropriate financial adjustments and revisions to the cost allocation plan as necessary, and strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure that it claims Federal reimbursement for Title IV-E training in accordance with Federal requirements and contractual provisions. The State generally disagreed with the first two recommendations and agreed with the third. We maintain that our findings and recommendations are valid.

Filed under: Administration for Children and Families