Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1925783/Social-Security-A-07-03-23086
Timestamp: 2018-06-24 18:42:08
Document Index: 165888641

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 302', 'art 6']

Social Security: A-07-03-23086 | United States Government | Government Of The United States
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S OVERSIGHT OF INDIRECT COSTS CLAIMED BY DISABILITY DETERMINATION SERVICES March 2004 A-07-03-23086
The Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units, called the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled out in the Act, is to: o Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations. o Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency. o Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and operations. o Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations. o Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations. To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with: o Independence to determine what reviews to perform. o Access to all information necessary for the reviews. o Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.
The Commissioner Acting Inspector General Disability Determination Services (A-07-03-23086)
Subject: The Social Security Administration’s Oversight of Indirect Costs Claimed by
The objective of our review was to determine if the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) oversight of indirect costs claimed by Disability Determination Services (DDS) was adequate to ensure that the costs benefit its disability programs equitably.
SSA reimburses DDSs for 100 percent of allowable expenditures incurred in making disability determinations under the Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs.1 The expenditures include both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those that are readily identifiable to the DDS, such as the costs incurred to purchase medical services.2 Indirect costs arise from activities that benefit multiple State and Federal agencies but are not readily identifiable to the DDS.3 Indirect costs include services, such as accounting, auditing, budgeting, and payroll that benefit all agencies in a State. For Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 through 2002, SSA reimbursed DDSs about $489 million for indirect costs, as shown in the following table.
FY 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 Total DDS Indirect Costs $108,585,503 99,756,430 95,535,950 90,956,936 94,218,208 $489,053,027
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1626 and 416.1026; Program Operations Manual System DI 39501.020. 48 C.F.R. § 31.202; Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Attachment A, § E-1. 48 C.F.R. § 31.203; Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Attachment A, § F-1.
Page 2 – The Commissioner In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, States can allocate indirect costs to the Federal government based on the terms of an indirect cost rate and/or a cost allocation plan (rate/plan).4 The State-developed rate/plan is reviewed, negotiated, and approved by the cognizant Federal agency.5 Upon the cognizant agency’s approval, the rate/plan is to be used by all Federal agencies that provide funds to the State agency(s) covered by the rate/plan, unless prohibited by statute. Appendix B provides additional background information on indirect costs and the scope and methodology of our review.
Our review disclosed opportunities for SSA to improve its oversight of indirect costs claimed by DDSs to ensure that SSA funds obligated by DDSs through the indirect cost process benefit SSA’s disability programs and the costs are equitably distributed to its programs. Improvements are needed because SSA’s current oversight process • relies on the cognizant Federal agencies to represent SSA’s interest in the rate/plan review, negotiation, and approval processes. However, the cognizant agencies’ process is not designed to represent SSA’s interest to the extent that it would identify all incorrect or inequitable indirect cost allocations to DDSs. delegates indirect cost oversight responsibilities to its regional offices. However, SSA did not ensure that the regional offices had the detailed knowledge needed to oversee this complicated process. relies extensively on State and Federal audits to identify and correct problems with the approved rate/plan and to ensure the rate/plan is properly executed by the DDSs. However, State and Federal audits do not provide annual audit coverage of indirect costs charged to SSA by DDSs.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1626 and 416.1026; OMB Circular A-87, Attachment E, § A.3.
OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, § B.6. defines a cognizant Federal agency as “the Federal agency responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals developed under this Circular on behalf of all Federal agencies.” OMB Circular A-87, Attachment E, § D.1.b. gives the title of cognizant agency, if not defined by OMB, to the agency that provides the most funding to the State.
Page 3 – The Commissioner SSA RELIES ON THE COGNIZANT AGENCY TO REPRESENT ITS INDIRECT COST INTERESTS We found SSA places considerable discretion with the cognizant Federal agencies to represent SSA’s interest Regional Offices expressed concern that the cognizant during the review, negotiation, and approval of indirect cost agency does not rates/plans. However, the cognizant agency’s review is adequately represent SSA’s interest. focused on whether or not the rate/plan meets Federal 6 requirements. The cognizant agency does not have specific program information on DDSs or have a detailed understanding of the DDS’ operations, so it cannot make a precise determination as to whether the rate/plan will result in a proper and equitable allocation of costs to SSA. Furthermore, while OMB designated responsibility to certain agency’s to review, negotiate, and approve indirect cost rates/plans for indirect costs charged by DDSs, SSA is ultimately responsible for ensuring that DDSs are reimbursed for only those costs that are necessary for making disability determinations under its programs.7 By accepting the cognizant agency’s approval of the indirect cost rate/plan without determining its effect on SSA funds, SSA is placed at risk of reimbursing DDSs for indirect cost services for which it received no benefit. This is an actual risk because the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) administrative cost audits have identified inequitable and incorrect indirect cost charges to SSA (see Appendix C for OIG findings on indirect costs). To determine if the rate/plan adequately reflects the level of services the DDS receives, SSA needs to take a more active role in this process. This role includes, in part, establishing relationships with the cognizant Federal agencies to provide input before the rate/plan is approved. Currently, only one SSA regional office has routine contacts with cognizant agencies. The other nine regional offices stated they had limited or no contact with the cognizant agencies. Furthermore, some regions have experienced considerable difficulties with one cognizant Federal agency, the Department of Education (DoE).
DoE refused to provide the Dallas regional office with indirect cost proposals prior to approval so that the regional office could provide input. The Denver regional office stated that the DoE was not willing to discuss the indirect cost rates/plans.
We interviewed management officials responsible for the three cognizant Federal agencies that review, negotiate, and approve rates/plans for indirect costs charged to DDSs – Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and Department of Education. Each of these officials stated that SSA was welcome to
See Appendix B for the basic steps in the cognizant agency review process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1626 and 416.1026.
Page 4 – The Commissioner discuss indirect costs with their indirect cost negotiators. SSA’s Office of Disability Determinations should establish a working relationship with these agencies to ensure that SSA has a voice in the review, negotiation, and approval of indirect costs rates/plans. REGIONAL OFFICES HAVE A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEX INDIRECT COST RATES AND PLANS To adequately review an indirect cost rate/plan, SSA Most regional offices do not have the expertise must possess a technical knowledge of indirect costs. needed to review indirect However, most regional offices stated they have only a cost rates/plans basic knowledge of indirect costs. In fact, 8 of the 10 regional offices informed us they do not have the expertise needed to adequately review rates/plans and/or monitor the resolution of indirect cost findings reported in State and Federal audits. The regional offices also stated when changes are made to a rate/plan the changes are not explained and are hard to understand. The regional offices receive an indirect cost line item charge when the DDS submits its SSA-4513 Report of Obligations and unless the regional office has a detailed knowledge of a DDS’s indirect cost allocation process, they do not know what services are being provided for the DDS by the State. SSA RELIES ON STATE AND FEDERAL AUDITS TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS WITH INDIRECT COSTS Most regional offices believed it is the responsibility of State Federal and State audit agencies do not provide and Federal auditors to ensure the indirect cost rate/plan annual audit coverage of represents SSA’s interest and ensure the DDS correctly DDSs indirect costs. executed the approved rate/plan. We agree the State single audits and the OIG’s DDS administrative cost audits play an important role in the indirect cost process. However, the State and Federal audit agencies do not provide annual audit coverage of DDS’s indirect costs. Therefore, it is critical for SSA to take a more active role in the oversight of indirect costs.
DDSs do not receive detailed audit testing under the single audit process every year. In fact, during State Fiscal Years (SFY) 1999 through 2001, some 28 of the 53 DDSs subject to a single audit received detailed testing in only 1 of the 3 SFYs. The DDSs did not receive detailed testing in the other two SFYs. Even DDSs with the largest SSA expenditures, such as California and Texas, received detailed audit testing for only one of the three SFYs. Furthermore, three DDSs received no audit coverage.8 The OIG’s administrative cost audits at DDSs provide audit coverage on a cyclical schedule ranging from 3 to 10 years. Primarily, the audit coverage is based on
Three DDSs – Vermont, North Dakota, and Guam—did not require detailed audit testing during the SFYs 1999 through 2001 single audits because SSA funding did not meet the established threshold required by OMB Circular A-133 to require testing.
Page 5 – The Commissioner annual administrative expenditures with DDSs having the largest annual administrative expenditures receiving more frequent audit coverage. As such, several years may elapse between OIG audit coverage at select DDSs. SSA IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE COSTS OF AN INDIRECT COST OVERSIGHT PROCESS SSA’s Office of Disability Determinations expressed concern to us about the resources that would be required to improve its oversight of indirect costs. Given its concerns, we recommend that SSA determine if it is financially feasible to implement an improved indirect cost oversight process. As part of its feasibility study, SSA may want to consider initially focusing its oversight efforts at the SSA regions or DDSs that have the largest indirect cost expenditures. As SSA gains expertise in reviewing indirect cost rates/plans, it could extend its oversight process to other DDSs and/or regions. • During FY 2002, 5 of SSA’s 10 regions (New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and San Francisco) had total DDS indirect cost expenditures that exceeded $15 million (see Appendix D). The indirect costs claimed by DDSs in these 5 SSA regions totaled about $87 million and accounted for about 80 percent of total DDS indirect costs during FY 2002. Fifteen DDSs had indirect cost expenditures that exceeded $2 million during FY 2002 (see Appendix D). In total, the 15 DDSs claimed indirect costs of about $80 million, representing approximately 74 percent of total DDS indirect costs during FY 2002.
The results of OIG’s administrative cost audits indicate that the resources SSA invested in an improved oversight process would result in a positive return. During the period March 1998 through September 2003, the OIG issued 10 administrative cost audit reports that contained both direct and indirect cost findings (see Appendix C). The reports contained monetary findings of about $34 million, of which $16 million related to indirect costs. The OIG audit results show that SSA is most susceptible to inequitable and/or unallowable cost allocations in the area of indirect costs. The GAO Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government require federal agencies to establish and maintain internal controls to identify and address areas with the greatest risk of fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.9 Therefore, SSA should have an adequate process in place to oversee indirect costs.
Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government, Page 1 (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (11/99)).
The indirect cost process is a unique discipline that must be learned. We acknowledge the methodologies used to allocate indirect costs to SSA are sometimes very complicated and beyond the general understanding of individuals who have not been trained on the subject. However, the complexities of the indirect cost process do not relieve SSA of its responsibility to ensure that DDSs are reimbursed for only those costs necessary to make disability determinations under its programs. Indirect cost oversight is becoming even more critical as some states, faced with fiscal pressures, explicitly pursue policies to maximize Federal cost reimbursement. Some states even use consultants and firms that specialize in creating complex cost allocation plans to claim indirect costs. The cost allocation plans are a highly technical accounting and allocation maze that at times lessen Federal agencies’ ability to interpret how or to what agency indirect costs are allocated. Indirect costs represent the lowest expenditure category of the four categories of DDS administrative costs (personnel, medical, indirect, and all-other nonpersonnel costs). However, the indirect cost category is where most monetary findings are identified by the OIG which indicates that SSA is most susceptible to receiving inequitable and/or unallowable cost allocations in the indirect cost category of DDS administrative expenditures. Accordingly, SSA should have a process in place to identify indirect cost charges that do not benefit its programs equitably. We recommend that SSA establish an indirect cost oversight process that ensures adequate technical expertise to evaluate allocation methodologies and to represent SSA’s interests during the indirect cost negotiation process.
In commenting on our draft report, SSA stated that establishing an indirect cost oversight process that ensures adequate technical expertise to evaluate allocation methodologies and to represent SSA's interests during the indirect cost negotiation process appears difficult and wasteful of its limited resources given the stewardship currently performed by cognizant Federal agencies on indirect costs. SSA also stated that additional oversight of indirect costs should be performed by the OIG not SSA. See Appendix E for the full text of SSA’s comments.
We recommended that the Agency conduct a feasibility study to determine whether it made economic sense to establish an indirect cost oversight process. SSA disagreed with this recommendation stating that the Agency did “…not believe SSA should assume comprehensive audit responsibility for the indirect cost category.” While we agree with this statement, it is not responsive to our recommendation. We did not recommend, nor would we recommend, that the Agency assume audit responsibility. Our recommendation was directed to the Agency’s fundamental responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of internal controls over the indirect costs charged to its disability programs by DDSs. OMB Circular A-123 Management Accountability and Control, states stewardship of Federal resources is the fundamental responsibility of each Federal agency. Agency employees must ensure that government resources are used efficiently and effectively to achieve intended program results. Resources must be used consistent with the agency’s mission, in compliance with laws and regulations, and with minimal potential for waste, fraud, and mismanagement. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government require federal agencies to establish and maintain internal controls to identify and address areas with the greatest risk of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Furthermore, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has prompted renewed focus on internal controls. This act specifically requires management to establish, maintain, and evaluate the internal control structure.10 The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board are working to establish new auditing standards to address the increased focus on internal controls. GAO will continue to closely monitor both standard setting bodies and will issue clarifying guidance as necessary on the incorporation of any future standards set by either the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.11 Accordingly, SSA needs to be proactive and ensure adequate internal controls over indirect costs to prevent the identification of a significant internal control deficiency in its financial statements under future standards that may be implemented based on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Public Law No. 107-204, § 302. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ position paper entitled Management’s Responsibility for Assessing the Effectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (December 2003), discusses management’s responsibilities under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and states that management’s responsibility for assessing internal controls cannot be delegated to the auditor or any other third party.
Government Auditing Standards, pages 3 and 4 (June 2003).
Page 8 – The Commissioner Due to the inherent risk in indirect costs, which will likely total over $1 billion over a 10-year period,12 we encourage the Agency to revisit the intent of our recommendation to improve its stewardship and technical oversight in this area.
For FYs 1998 through 2002, SSA reimbursed DDSs about $500 million for indirect costs. We estimate that the indirect costs will remain at approximately the same level for FYs 2003 through FY 2007. Accordingly, during this 10-year period SSA will reimburse DDSs about $1 billion for indirect costs.
Appendix A – Acronyms Appendix B – Background, Scope and Methodology Appendix C – Indirect Cost Findings Reported in the Office of the Inspector General Administrative Cost Audits Appendix D – Indirect Costs Claimed by Disability Determination Services for Fiscal Years 1998 through 2002 Appendix E – Agency Comments Appendix F – OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
ASMB DDS DoE DoL FY GAO HHS OIG OMB Rate/plan SFY SSA Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget Disability Determination Service Department of Education Department of Labor Fiscal Year General Accounting Office Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General Office of Management and Budget Indirect cost rate and/or cost allocation plan State Fiscal Year Social Security Administration
Indirect costs benefit common activities and cannot be assigned to a specific project or direct cost object. These costs are incurred by each department or agency that carries out Federal awards. There are two major types of costs included in indirect costs— departmental and statewide. Departmental indirect costs are incurred within a State department and benefit only components of the department. Statewide indirect costs are incurred at a level above the departmental agency and benefit most departments (and their components) in the State. Indirect costs are allocated to Federal agencies based on an indirect cost rate and/or a cost allocation plan (rate/plan).1 Cognizant agencies are the Federal agencies that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated as responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving rates/plans.2 The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) regional offices identified three cognizant Federal agencies—Department of Education (DoE), Department of Labor (DoL), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—responsible for reviewing, negotiating, and approving rates/plans for indirect costs charged to Disability Determination Services (DDS). The cognizant agency was developed to simplify the relations between Federal grantees and awarding agencies. The OMB Circular A-87 Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, establishes the principles and standards for the cost for Federal awards carried out through grants, and cost-reimbursement contracts.3 Under this circular, the State governmental unit submits a rate/plan to its cognizant agency. The cognizant agency reviews, negotiates, and approves the rate/plan on a timely basis. The cognizant agency review process is designed to determine if the plan/rate meets Federal requirements. The following table outlines the basic steps in the cognizant agency’s review process.
OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, § F. OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, § B.6. OMB Circular A-87, 1. Purpose. B-1
Steps in the Cognizant Agency Review Process4 1. Review the submission for materiality, completeness, and reliability of supporting data, including audited financial statements. 2. Acknowledge receipt and request any needed additional information. 3. Review prior negotiation and audit experience; assess prior agreements and applicable conditions. 4. Assess the submissions general reliability and the governmental unit’s financial condition. 5. Determine the extent to which coordination with other awarding agencies may be necessary. 6. Review the proposal for accuracy and determine whether it includes all activities and costs of the governmental entity. 7. Determine whether unallowable costs have been excluded and whether allocation methods and billing mechanisms are appropriate and properly designed. 8. Assess what the appropriate rate base (salaries and wages, modified total direct cost, etc.) should be for the resulting indirect cost rate and the extent to which any rate established should be subsequently adjusted.
To achieve our objective we: • Reviewed the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget (ASMB C-10) Review Guide for State and Local Governments State/Local-Wide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates. Reviewed OMB Circular A-87 Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Government. Reviewed OMB Circular A-133 Audits of States, Local, and Nonprofit Organizations. Reviewed indirect cost findings reported in the Office of the Inspector General’s DDS administrative cost audit reports issued during fiscal years 1998 through 2003. Obtained and analyzed information on the single audit coverage received by DDSs during State Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001. Interviewed staff from the Federal cognizant agencies HHS, DoE, DoL to obtain information on their indirect cost process. Issued a questionnaire to the SSA’s 10 regional Centers for Disability Programs to collect indirect cost information. Responses were received from all 10 regional offices and the information was compiled and analyzed.
ASMB C-10, Part 6.5.1. B-2
We performed our review in Kansas City, Missouri from May 2003 through September 2003. Our review was performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Indirect Cost Findings Reported in the Office of the Inspector General’s Administrative Cost Audits
Common Identification Number A-04-96-54001 Title Audit of Tennessee’s Disability Determination Services Administrative Costs (Fiscal Years [FY] 1993 through 1995) Finding The Social Security Administration (SSA) reimbursed the Disability Determination Services (DDS) for indirect costs related to internal audit fees; however, no audit services or benefits were received. The DDS claimed indirect costs based on a proposed fixed rate and did not adjust the costs claimed when the final indirect cost rate was approved. The DDS claimed indirect costs for activities that were incorrectly charged to the departmental indirect cost pool. The DDS used incorrect indirect cost rates and made computational errors, resulting in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs $21,769
A-05-96-51095
Audit of Administrative Costs at the Michigan Disability Determination Services (FYs 1993 and 1994) Audit of Administrative Costs at the California Disability Determination Services (FYs 1995 and 1996) Audit of Administrative Costs Claimed by the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission for Its Bureau of Disability Determination Services (FYs 1995 through 1997) Costs Claimed by the State of Illinois on the Social Security Administration’s Contact Number 600-95-22673 (FY 1995) Audit of the Administrative Costs Claimed by the Kansas Disability Determination Services (FYs 1998 through 2000)
A-09-97-51006
3,580,673
A-13-98-51007
The DDS claimed indirect costs in excess of the contract specified ceiling rate.
A-07-02-22003
Indirect costs were not allocated in accordance with the approved cost allocation plan and costs were not allocated to all benefiting components.
4,923,606
Common Identification Number A-15-00-20053
Title Administrative Costs Claimed by the New York Disability Determinations Division (FYs 1998 and 1999) Administrative Costs Claimed by the California Disability Determination Services (FYs 1999 and 2000) Administrative Costs Claimed by the Illinois Disability Determination Services (FYs 1999 through 2001) Administrative Costs Claimed by the Hawaii Department of Human Services (FYs 1999 through 2002)
Finding Indirect costs claimed were not supported by official accounting records. The DDS charged indirect costs to SSA that did not benefit its programs. The DDS claimed indirect costs based on an estimated rate, but did not adjust the costs claimed when the final rate was approved. Indirect costs claimed were not supported by official accounting records.
Questioned Costs $751,238
4,034,660
$16,356,721
Indirect Costs Claimed by Disability Determination Services (DDS) for Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 through 20021
DDS INDIRECT COSTS BY SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION REGION DDS FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2000 FY 1999 FY 1998
National Total Boston Region Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont New York Region New Jersey New York Puerto Rico Philadelphia Region Delaware Washington D.C. Maryland Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia Atlanta Region Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Chicago Region Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin Dallas Region
$108,585,503 $2,205,026 764,463 275,895 416,662 238,262 336,000 173,744 $19,012,302 4,294,490 13,475,108 1,242,704 $8,464,317 635,241 633,417 2,018,410 423,578 3,178,431 1,575,240 $17,480,352 2,894,684 2,741,637 2,890,335 1,930,624 1,150,486 1,468,036 1,867,329 2,537,221 $16,295,648 2,518,921 1,322,986 2,994,774 920,693 8,138,496 399,778 $15,350,059
$99,756,430 $1,935,160 706,026 165,298 388,677 163,728 335,000 176,431 $17,227,481 4,412,312 11,385,705 1,429,464 $7,672,852 415,998 556,204 1,616,846 244,431 3,210,817 1,628,556 $17,854,589 4,104,921 3,570,864 1,450,886 2,265,900 1,109,146 1,266,273 1,723,971 2,362,628 $16,603,279 3,785,784 1,259,555 2,446,352 1,300,335 7,442,298 368,955 $10,550,249
$95,535,950 $1,961,607 715,706 249,344 429,152 154,450 251,978 160,977 $13,772,798 4,102,598 8,353,957 1,316,243 $7,083,291 368,597 606,899 1,523,057 310,610 2,721,206 1,552,922 $17,373,757 3,852,793 2,272,045 2,188,558 2,042,335 995,889 2,049,156 1,554,908 2,418,073 $17,033,365 3,599,926 1,316,997 2,784,339 1,208,716 7,776,864 346,523 $11,426,995
$90,956,936 $1,995,017 661,597 228,553 405,370 224,638 313,833 161,026 $11,436,123 2,817,144 7,348,975 1,270,004 $8,209,188 468,623 634,995 1,666,866 1,146,095 3,129,511 1,163,098 $16,345,651 1,619,907 2,189,994 2,159,475 1,882,176 2,099,539 2,671,058 1,444,410 2,279,092 $15,804,791 3,669,133 1,582,056 2,620,680 887,632 6,660,978 384,312 $12,607,797
$94,218,208 $2,015,959 622,923 315,087 445,634 210,876 307,376 114,063 $13,178,482 2,293,594 9,650,819 1,234,069 $8,323,258 568,555 517,343 1,608,421 1,015,644 3,730,280 883,015 $16,172,783 2,960,835 2,040,442 2,128,930 1,815,519 1,986,622 1,876,210 1,256,582 2,107,643 $15,873,538 3,632,427 1,428,546 2,577,482 940,684 6,816,624 477,775 $12,015,038
The indirect cost information in this appendix was provided by SSA’s Office of Disability Determinations. We did not verify the accuracy of the indirect cost information. We found that the information contained some large variances in the DDS indirect costs amounts between FYs. The Office of Disability Determinations was able to explain some of the variances, but not all. Given the unresolved variances, this is the most reliable data Office of Disability Determinations could provide. D-1
Arkansas Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Kansas City Region Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska Denver Region Colorado Montana North Dakota South Dakota Utah Wyoming San Francisco Region Arizona California Guam Hawaii Nevada Seattle Region Alaska Idaho Oregon Washington 98,696 2,369,014 999,783 988,009 10,894,557 $5,259,658 870,090 2,505,900 1,544,774 338,894 $2,329,077 1,100,006 240,198 173,801 231,561 455,513 127,998 $18,713,832 1,289,844 16,522,597 10,992 367,487 522,912 $3,475,232 412,736 45,222 1,910,629 1,106,645 98,482 2,441,560 922,224 788,909 6,299,074 $4,705,375 762,455 1,554,590 2,102,537 285,793 $2,350,696 1,251,126 193,053 133,143 215,371 474,748 83,255 $17,682,232 1,147,899 15,600,535 13,620 413,410 506,768 $3,174,517 389,726 77,470 1,802,693 904,628 85,179 2,363,164 880,466 55,770 8,042,416 $4,596,639 687,055 1,457,011 2,193,204 259,369 $2,509,423 1,430,360 143,533 131,857 207,099 480,852 115,722 $16,804,159 1,134,943 14,740,181 6,883 450,450 471,702 $2,973,916 369,598 13,131 1,734,957 856,230 72,608 2,695,967 884,086 0 8,955,136 $5,206,867 692,831 1,391,372 2,882,853 239,811 $2,363,895 1,300,328 164,212 96,954 209,455 464,904 128,042 $14,554,670 1,171,282 12,335,557 2,302 391,496 654,033 $2,432,937 175,718 0 1,548,565 708,654 103,194 1,906,537 858,353 75,219 9,071,735 $4,320,658 458,078 1,490,069 2,148,710 223,801 $1,924,496 982,748 100,842 113,002 236,686 420,078 71,140 $17,745,244 1,174,862 15,692,269 2,870 332,979 542,264 $2,648,752 390,744 20,094 1,576,642 661,272
DDS California New York Texas Ohio New Jersey Virginia Michigan Alabama Georgia Florida Tennessee Illinois Kansas Louisiana Maryland Kentucky Oregon South Carolina West Virginia Missouri North Carolina Indiana Arizona Puerto Rico Mississippi Washington Colorado
INDIRECT COSTS BY DDS EXPENDITURE AMOUNT FY 2002 DDS FY 2002 $16,522,597 New Mexico $999,783 13,475,108 Oklahoma 988,009 10,894,557 Minnesota 920,693 8,138,496 Iowa 870,090 4,294,490 Connecticut 764,463 3,178,431 Delaware 635,241 2,994,774 Washington D.C. 633,417 2,894,684 Nevada 522,912 2,890,335 Utah 455,513 2,741,637 Pennsylvania 423,578 2,537,221 Massachusetts 416,662 2,518,921 Alaska 412,736 2,505,900 Wisconsin 399,778 2,369,014 Hawaii 367,487 2,018,410 Nebraska 338,894 1,930,624 Rhode Island 336,000 1,910,629 Maine 275,895 1,867,329 Montana 240,198 1,575,240 New Hampshire 238,262 1,544,774 South Dakota 231,561 1,468,036 North Dakota 173,801 1,322,986 Vermont 173,744 1,289,844 Wyoming 127,998 1,242,704 Arkansas 98,696 1,150,486 Idaho 45,222 1,106,645 Guam 10,992 1,100,006 Total $108,585,503
33119-24-1070
February 20, 2004 James G. Huse, Jr. Inspector General Larry W. Dye /s/ Chief of Staff
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, “Review of Social Security Administration’s Oversight of Indirect Costs Claimed by State Disability Determination Services” (A-07-03-23086)--INFORMATION We appreciate OIG's efforts in conducting this review. Our comments on the recommendation are attached. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Staff questions can be referred to Janet Carbonara at extension 53568. Attachment: SSA Response
COMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT REPORT, “REVIEW OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION’S OVERSIGHT OF INDIRECT COST CLAIMED BY STATE DISABILITY DETERMINATION SERVICES” A-07-03-23086 Below are our comments on the report recommendation. Recommendation 1 The Social Security Administration (SSA) should determine if it is financially feasible to establish an indirect cost oversight process that ensures adequate technical expertise to evaluate allocation methodologies and to represent SSA’s interests during the indirect cost negotiation process. Based on the results of this feasibility study, SSA should take appropriate action to improve its oversight of indirect costs. Comment We disagree with conducting a feasibility study, as we do not believe SSA should assume comprehensive audit responsibility for the indirect cost category. Ensuring that costs are properly funneled through the established allocation plan is where SSA’s focus and responsibility reside. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Attachment A.B.6 defines a cognizant Federal agency as “the Federal agency responsible for reviewing, negotiating and approving cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals developed under this circular, on behalf of all Federal agencies.” OMB Circular A-87 further gives the title of cognizant agency, if not defined by OMB, to the agency that provides the most funding to the state. The role of the cognizant agency is to ensure that the State’s indirect costs are distributed to all benefiting State agencies equitably and that the costs are allowable, reasonable and allocable to Federal awards. According to the Health and Human Service (HHS) indirect cost allocation plan review guide, the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) compares new submissions with prior negotiations, audit findings, and the cost principles in OMB’s circular A-87. They reconcile the proposal to the State’s financial statements and at a minimum conduct a 3-year trend analysis of the cost pools and allocation bases. The DCA determines whether the allocating methods used are appropriate and accurate. Furthermore, the DCA is familiar with the organizational structures of the States and notes any changes from year to year. The DCA practices stewardship in protecting the interest of the Federal awards. Based on their years of experience, documentation and analysis, they are in a good position to review and negotiate the indirect cost allocation plans. We agree that a vast majority of our Regional Offices (RO) have indicated they do not have the expertise needed to adequately review cost allocation plan (CAP) rates and/or monitor the resolution of indirect cost findings reported in State and Federal audits. Organizationally, there is currently no RO component that would have the expertise to handle such administrative details. The cognizant Federal agencies have the necessary technical expertise and responsibility for acting on behalf of all Federal
agencies. Therefore, duplicating the expertise required of the cognizant agency to deal with the very complicated State indirect cost agreements for the ten regions would appear difficult and wasteful of our limited resources. However, we are in favor of obtaining additional training for RO staff to more skillfully interact with cognizant Federal agencies. The RO has demonstrated its oversight in requesting specific audits of indirect costs when they detect a problem. An example is noted in Appendix C of this report, where as a result of effective SSA oversight, indirect costs were audited as the result of a RO request. During the audit OIG found $4.9 million in questioned costs (Kansas City), which was the largest monetary finding cited in this report. It should be noted that the findings in Appendix C are not related to the negotiation process, but rather the implementation of established plans (e.g., incorrect rates used, computational errors, unallowable charges, etc.). Those are the type of areas found through an audit. Another State (Illinois) cited in Appendix C was a result of the Agency’s longestablished process for adjusting indirect cost charges when final indirect rates are determined. This process, which strictly adheres to regulatory policy, allows indirect costs to be claimed using an agreed upon “provisional” rate (generally, this is the last final/approved rate). This is done in the normal course of SSA/DDS procedures and not as the result of the audit. We do agree that oversight activities are needed during the State’s implementation of the plans, which we firmly believe lies with the audit process. Therefore, it would be more effective to expand the OIG role by having them provide support to SSA in determining the accuracy of indirect costs. OIG staff is better positioned to perform substantive reviews of applicable agreements. RO staff would subsequently act on any OIG findings including those in the area of indirect costs. If significant value is found in annual OIG audits, then OIG should perform those audits as part of their normal oversight of SSA’s fiscal operations.
OIG Contacts Mark Bailey, Director (816) 936-5591 Shannon Agee, Audit Manager (816) 936-5590 Acknowledgments In addition to those named above: Kenneth Bennett, IT Specialist Karis Gaukel, Auditor Cheryl Robinson, Writer-Editor For additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.ssa.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General’s Public Affairs Specialist at (410) 966-1375. Refer to Common Identification Number A-07-03-23086.
Documents Similar To Social Security: A-07-03-23086
description: tags: ed524
anon-181747
Department of Labor: SF424Version%202
anon-583094
description: tags: 050207a
anon-728519