Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10181983 - IO.2 TO: +BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Internal Operations Committee COSta DATE: October 17, 1983 County SUBJECT: Welfare Fraud Early Prevention Program SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REQUEST: Accept Internal Operations Committee report on the study of the implementation of a Welfare Fraud Early Prevention Program. BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: At the Finance Committee meeting of June 6, 1983, during which the Social Service Depart- ment Fiscal Year 1983-1984 budget was being considered, the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association recommended that the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator to work with the Social Service Director and District Attorney to determine the feasibility of implementing the Orange County model of a Welfare Fraud Early Prevention Program. In this model , district attorney investigators are stationed in welfare offices to immediately investigate any suspected cases of welfare fraud at the intake level . The Association stated that half the cases referred to the investigators resulted in findings of fraud at a reported savings of $7 million, ten times the cost of their programs. Subsequently, Supervisor Fanden requested information on the Orange County program and the Riverside County Welfare Fraud Prevention program and her request was referred to the Internal Operations Committee on July 19, 1983. Both the Social Services Department and the Welfare Fraud Division of the District Attorney's Office had extensive discussions with their Orange County counterparts. Orange County's contention is that their early prevention program has resulted in a cost avoidance amount- ing to $10 million over a three-year period. Contra Costa County has a well-organized and effective method of investigating suspected fraud at intake. Unlike Orange County, well-experienced, highly trained Eligibility Workers at Intake identify and follow up on clues regarding ineligibility, such as inconsistencies in information provided, as a routine part of intake procedure. Unresolved discrepancies are immediately referred to the District Attorney for investigation. For the first six months of 1983, an average of 28 cases were referred per month for investi- gation. Of these, approximately 40% of the cases referred were not granted AFDC directly due to the investigation. Estimating an average AFDC grant of $420.00 with a life of 24 months, this results in a monthly savings of $1 ,128,960. The savings for PA Food Stamps is not being computed at this time because the data on the average Food Stamp benefit amount and life.of a case is not available. These investigations take top priority and are normally completed within ten days: meanwhile, no benefits are paid until the issue is resolved. It is believed, therefore, that our system is completely as effective but less costly than the Orange County model . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �_ RECOMMENDATION RD COMMITTEE _ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(5) cy C. Fanden Tom Powers ACTION OF BOARD ON October , 1983 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X OTHER X Authorized letters of commendation to the Welfare Director and District Attorney for their work on the County' s program. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 328 X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORRSS� nON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Welfare Director ATTESTED County District Attorney jJ � OLSSON. COUNTY CLERK I.O. Committee /AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD County Administrator M382/7•93 BY DEPUTY -2- In addition, the cost and program implications of having highly trained district attorney investigators visibly sitting in each of the welfare offices where people come for help, a small percentage of whom would purposely attempt fraud, is avoided. Also, an impetus for Orange County to embark on their program was because of their manually operated system which does not compare with Contra Costa's ability to cross-check information on an automated system, detecting inconsistencies and other signposts of potential fraud. One example is the ability to cross reference addresses of welfare recipients by computer. Finally, Orange County's program does not cover General Assistance, but is directed solely at the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Supervisor Fanden, therefore, suggested that Contra Costa place a special emphasis on General Assistance cases. For this reason, the Social Service Department and the _District Attorney have recently set in place their welfare fraud early prevention program in General Assistance as well as AFDC intake. This was accomplished with existing resources. Generally, very few referrals of General Assistance cases are made at intake since most discrepancies result in denial of application rather than referral for investigation. While the study seems to reveal that there is no evidence that the Orange County model would be more effective than the early prevention program in place in the County, the current error identification procedure, in which fraud is counted as an "error", indicates that resident fraud is a primary source of over- payments in ongoing cases. One reason is that there is more reliance on the client for data in the continuing caseload than at intake where the relationship is on a very intense, face-to-face basis. Social Services eliminated the non-mandatory home .visits in the early 1970's. At the present time, home visits are made for Quality Control purposes and on a selected basis when the worker and supervisor feel it is warranted based on case information. The District Attorney agrees that the greater occurrences of fraud are after aid is granted; not before. Under our current system for ongoing cases, the primary burden for resolving dis- crepancies is with the ongoing eligibility worker. If these workers are unable to resolve the discrepancy with the cooperation of the client, they discontinue the case. If the client re-applies, the worker refers to the District Attorney investigator. The District Attorney investigator' s time is used primarily on intake referrals; first priority to AFDC, then General Assistance. Seven investigators perform these duties. SUMMARY: The Orange County model for Welfare Fraud Early Prevention has had significant impact on cost savings in that county, but the circumstances that required instituting such a program in Orange County do not exist in Contra Costa. Studies show that the greater incidence of welfare fraud occurs not at intake, but with ongoing aid recipients. 329