State to state : a report on efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the Food Stamp Program

              Reducing error
rates remains a
priority for many
States. Some are
taking creative
approaches or
using the latest
technology to
eliminate errors.
Other States are
seeing some new
issuance systems
or prosecuting ef­forts
reap positive
A report on
efforts to reduce
fraud, waste, and
abuse in the Food
Stamp Program
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Service
FNS-243
January 1984
Deposito ry
Introduction
As we begin a new year, it is
becoming more apparent that
many of our efforts to fight
fraud, waste, and abuse in the
Food Stamp Program are having
an effect. Although we still have
a long way to go, it is obvious
Reducing Errors
in Certification
Bringing down certification
errors is a job many States are
tackling through "preventive
care." Recently several certifica­tion
offices in West Virginia
began broadcasting "informer­cials"
as one part of an audio­visual
campaign to keep clients
and caseworkers well informed
on certification rules. In Mon­tana,
quality assurance reviews
have been helpful in pinpointing
problem areas, such as the need
for improved caseworker train­ing.
But when information and
training aren't enough, some
States are finding computer
matching effective in reducing
overissuances caused by unre­ported
income and assets.
2
that the investments being made
in time and resources at all
levels of government are paying
some dividends. Last year was a
good year for results in tackling
the fraud and abuse problems in
the program. This year should be
better.
The projected trends being
reported for 1983 so far support
this optimism. We anticipate
that fraud investigations will
show an increase of 33 percent
over 1982; that prosecution refer­rals
will climb 47 percent; that
claims collected will rise 30 per­cent;
and that hearings upheld
will increase 125 percent. We
have also seen some numbers
and trends that reflect some im ­pressive
improvements in reduc­ing
mail issuance losses.
The progress we are now ex­periencing
is being enhanced by
your continued participation in
"Operation Awareness" and
related activities such as the
State Exchange Project, and the
fraud conferences and work­shops
we have had throughout
the country. For example, more
than 40 States participated in
the State Exchange Project last
year, which resulted in improved
communication and information
sharing between States and all
levels of government.
West Virginia
Certifies Clients
With Creative Flair
Picture yourself in a waiting
room in a West Virginia Division
of Economic Services certifica­tion
office. You have just heard
two or three country and western
songs over the sound system
when a voice breaks in and ex­plains
what food stamp "assets"
are. No, it's not a "commercial,"
but an "informercial"-a pre­recorded
message about food
stamps and other social pro­grams.
"Informercials" are just one
creative approach West Virginia
is using to help reduce errors
made by food stamp applicants
and participants. West Virginia
began using "informercials"
along with other educational ini­tiatives
this past June.
Several certification offices in
Much work still needs to be
done, however. The problem of
reducing State error rates is the
priority issue we will be focus­ing
on in 1984. While there is no
simple answer to the problem of
high errors, there are techniques
that have shown success in
some States. Publication of
State to State and the Catalog
of Program Improvement Activi­ties
will be continued through­out
the year so you can read
about what others have done.
Funding for State Exchange will
be increased to enable State
personnel to visit those States
doing well and find out firsthand
what works. Lowering error rates
will require commitment, cooper­ation,
and teamwork.
Perhaps you and your staffs
have come up with more ideas
we have not heard about. We en­courage
you to share them with
us so that we may be able to
pass this information on to all
States in future State to State
reports.
Virgil L. Conrad
Deputy Administrator
for Family Nutrition Programs
Food and Nutrition Service
the State use prerecorded "in­formercials,"
interspersed peri­odically
with the music, to define
different terms used in certifica­tion.
"Informercials" help teach
food stamp participants what is
expected of them and what they
can expect from the program.
West Virginia also employs
other teaching tools to help
make the certification process
less confusing to recipients.
Colorful posters of cartoon-like
characters are displayed on the
walls of certification areas to
depict the need to report changes.
Mazes and jumble puzzles are
also on hand to educate and
entertain applicants and partici­pants
while they wait in the
reception area.
For instance, there's a jumble
puzzle that deals with the con­cept
of assets. It lists 10 under­lined
assets with their defini-
\'it..E JN YUU~ INCOME OR
H!<\T HAVE A CASH V.A.LUE)
$ ~~ll.(' RESP(1N$161UTY!
West Virginia uses different tools, in­cluding
pre-recorded music tapes, color­ful
posters, and fact sheets to help
reduce the number of errors made by
food stamp applicants and participants.
tions. A waiting client may work
the puzzle by finding the under­lined
"asset" words hidden
within the jumble puzzle.
West Virginia has also devel­oped
a fact sheet to educate
clients to remember to report
changes. The fact sheet defines
terms such as "unearned in­come,"
serves as a reminder of
changes to report, and lists
penalties for withholding infor­mation
or providing incorrect
information.
The waiting room receptionist
gives each client a copy of the
fact sheet to read, and then ini­tials
it when the client has read
the information and is ready to
talk with an eligibility worker.
The caseworker, in turn, dates
and initials the fact sheet as he
or she talks with the client
about change reporting require­ments.
After the interview, the
client gets to keep the fact
sheet for reference purposes.
West Virginia anticipates that
all of these new teaching tools
will reduce errors, thanks to
better informed clients and
caseworkers.
•For more information contact:
Troy E. Posey, Director of Train­ing,
West Virginia Department of
Human Services, (304) 348-8834.
State workers like Karen Haynes, pic­tured
above, anticipate that these tech­niques
will result in better informed
clients and caseworkers.
Montana Reduces Error
Rate By 55 Percent
Montana was faced with a
possible penalty payment of
$536,783 for an excessive Qual­ity
Control (QC) error rate. But
within 1 year, the State was not
only able to reduce its error rate
by 55 percent, but also qualified
for $57,494 in additional admin­istrative
incentive funds. This
dramatic reduction was achieved
through basic management tech­niques
that did not drastically ·
increase State expenditures.
Four actions in particular
were effective in reducing the
error rate. First, since Montana
has a small State staff to cover
a large geographic territory,
counties felt isolated from the
State office and operated more
or less independently. Therefore,
five regional supervisors were
hired to provide policy guidance,
corrective action direction, and
general supervision. This helped
improve uniformity in county,
region, and State operations.
Regional supervisors also work
. with State staff in management
evaluation reviews and with
county staff to develop and
monitor corrective action follow­ing
the reviews. A sixth super­visor
is assigned to the State
office to coordinate day-to-day
details of regional and county
operations.
Second, Montana implemented
quality assurance reviews. Be­cause
Montana has a small case­load,
QC data were frequently in­valid
at the county level. During
quality assurance reviews, a sta­tistically
valid sample of cases
was selected in the county and
the result used to pinpoint the
causes of case errors. The major
benefit of this approach was
that corrective action could then
be designed on a statewide,
regionwide, county, or individual
worker basis.
The quality assurance desk
reviews revealed two major
reasons for errors. First, the
State's certification manual
needed to be rewritten to make
it easier to understand. Second,
better and more direct supervi­sion
of caseworkers was neces­sary.
For example, the reviews
pinpointed that caseworkers
were most error prone between 6
and 12 months of employment.
Montana's food stamp quality
assurance reviews were so suc­cessful
that they have now been
instituted for the Medicaid Pro­gram.
A third action Montana took
was to identify a lack of coordi­nated
uniform training as part of
its problem and to institute
cyclical program training as a
corrective action.
For instance, Montana now
provides food stamp training
every third month, with Aid to
Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC) and Medicaid
training in alternate months.
County staff are rotated through
the training and then share what
they have learned at regional
and county meetings. County
directors, supervisors, eligibility
workers, and support staff are
all involved in the training. The
training agenda is drawn from
QC and quality assurance data,
management evaluation reviews,
and new manual material.
The fourth action Montana
took was to form a State Level
Corrective Action Panel, which
meets monthly to discuss QC er­rors
and errors resulting from
other sources, and which plans
actions to resolve these defi-
3
ciencies. Regional corrective
action meetings are also held
monthly and are att~nded by the
State Corrective Action Coordi­nator
or his assistant. The
monthly meetings help keep
attention focused on corrective
action.
Two themes run strongly
through Montana's approach to
corrective action. The first is the
recognition that everyone in the
State who played some part in
creating the .high error rate
must also be actively involved in
reducing the error rate and main­taining
it within tolerance. The
second is that error rate reduc­tion
is a day-to-day process that
must be given high visibility at
all levels throughout the State to
be successful.
• For more information contact:
Lee Ticke/1, State Department of
Social and Rehabilitative Ser­vices
(SDSRS), (406) 444-4540 or,
for quality assurance review in­formation,
contact Pat Godbout,
SDSRS, (406) 444-4550.
New York Makes The
Most Of Wage Reporting
Since 1977, the New York
State Department of Social Ser­vices
has had one of the most
comprehensive wage matching
systems in the country. Using
"CI NTRAK," (Comprehensive
Income Tracking System), New
York matches its AFDC, food
stamp, Medicaid, and child sup­port
caseloads against a data­base
drawn from SSA benefits,
SSI benefits, unemployment
insurance benefits, and State
income tax information on a
quarterly basis.
4
CINTRAK was augmented in
1978 by a Wage Reporting Sys­tem
(WRS)-an additional data­base
of several employer pay­rolls.
WRS has strengthened
New York's wage matching ef­forts
by using up-to-date em­ployee
payroll data from 4,380
employers plus State and city
payrolls. Like the CINTRAK
matches, the WRS matches are
made quarterly. The CINTRAK
system and its WRS component
are updated quarterly and the
database itself is revised an­nually.
The State estimates the
annual cost to run WRS at $6.7
million. To date, New York has
conducted 16 quarterly matches
involving some 17.2 million
records, for a savings of $35
million.
Currently, the WRS is most
fully developed and used in New
York City. The State is planning
to expand it for use upstate and
the information will be merged
with the State's welfare manage­ment
system to create an inte­grated,
accessible database. The
State hopes to complete this in
April 1984.
New York City has recently
enhanced wage matching by im­plementing
an overnight clear­ance
system. Overnight clear­ance
allows the City to check
new applications and recertifica­tions
against its database before
establishing eligibility. The City
estimates an average denial of
357 public assistance and 399
nonpublic assistance cases per
month as a result of WRS over­night
clearance. This translates
into a cost avoidance of $9
million to the Food Stamp Pro­gram
in a year's time.
New York City is also develop­ing
a comprehensive resource
file that will include matches
with the Registry of Motor Vehi­cles
and Vital Statistics. Possi­ble
future matches may also in­clude
New York State disability
insurance and Veterans' Admin­istration
benefits, as well as
matches with neighboring States.
The City has already begun ex­changes
with Essex County,
New Jersey.
• For more information contact:
Don Kennedy, New York Depart­ment
of Social Services,
(518) 474-4983.
California Tests New
Computer Matching Effort
One of the most difficult types
of welfare fraud to detect is un­reported
income and assets. With
legislative changes in 1981 giving
States access to social security
numbers, all States now have
the tools to use wage matching
to ferret out unreported wages.
However, States are just begin­ning
to use computer matching
techniques to search for unre­ported
assets, such as money
"hidden" in unreported bank
accounts.
In California, four counties are
now exploring the use of compu­ter
matching to detect unreported
assets in bank accounts. The
State legislature authorized a
limited demonstration project
for these counties. The four
counties-Shasta, Santa Barbara,
Alameda, and Los Angeles-pro­vided
a cross section ranging
from a small rural area to a
mammoth urban center.
In late 1982, the State used
computers to match AFDC cases,
with bank account information
furnished by California's Fran­chise
Tax Board. The State turned
the welfare case file tapes over
to the Tax Board, which matched
them with tapes containing data
on the interest paid on every
bank account in California. A
printout was generated by the
computer match based on social
security numbers and the first
four letters of the last name of
each household member. The
computer then generated a list
of each matched case where
more than $30 in interest was
shown. These matched cases
were considered "raw hits" be­cause,
although it would appear
that the recipients involved are
concealing assets, further verifi­cation
is required.
The State next attempted to
follow up each "raw hit" to
determine whether or not the
assets had been reported cor­rectly
and, if not, whether it was
likely that fraud had been com­mitted.
Cases of suspected
fraud were referred to county
welfare fraud investigators for
follow-up.
Unfortunately, the bank data
contained on the Franchise Tax
Board tape were quite old. For
I
Joeanna Santiago (seated) and Caroline
Timms (standing) examine asset print­outs
and casefiles of households sus ­pected
of having unreported assets .
Both Santiago and Timms are Staff Ser­vices
Analysts for California's Depart­ment
of Social Services.
example, information for 1981
was not available until Novem­ber
1982. But California has
found that even with old data,
preliminary findings indicate
that the assets match is helping
counties detect unreported
assets.
Out of 289,000 cases (843,000
total names) matched in the four
counties, the match showed a
raw hit rate of 6 percent. In San­ta
Barbara County, 101 of the
275 raw hit cases were referred
to county welfare fraud investi­gators,
while in Los Angeles
County, 1,500 of 15,254 raw hits
were referred. Because of the
large number of hits, investiga­tors
are concentrating on cases
that are sti II active.
Since California is still con­ducting
the pilot test, cost
effectiveness data are not yet
available. But State officials
are very optimistic.
At present, the yearly cost of
performing the match is esti­mated
to be just over $1 million,
which will go primarily for
salaries and benefits for
analysts who review case files
and for welfare fraud investiga­tors.
State officials feel that pre­liminary
results indicate that,
this year, over $1 million in wel­fare
and food stamp overpay­ments
will be identified in Los
Angeles County alone. Because
of these encouraging initial
results, the State is considering
approaching the legislature to
get authority to mandate the
project statewide.
•For more information contact:
Virginia Yagi, California Depart­ment
of Social Services,
(916) 924-2841.
Better Ways to
Issue Food Stamps
Choosing the best way to
issue benefits to food stamp
clients takes careful considera­tion.
A good issuance system
not only delivers benefits effi­ciently
and reliably but also
takes precautions against un­necessary
losses.
On-line issuance and direct
delivery/vendor chargeback are
two successful techniques
recently demonstrated through
the State Exchange Project.
Another system that is
meeting with success is being
used in Tennessee, where two
counties are using computers to
deter clients from wrongfully ob­taining
double benefits and to
deter others from transacting
stolen Authorization-to-Partici­pate
(ATP) cards.
Midwest Harvests Ideas
From State Exchange
Wisconsin is one State that
has reaped immediate benefits
from a recent State Exchange.
Officials from Wisconsin were in
the planning stages of imple­menting
a statewide mail issu­ance
system when they attended
the State Exchange meeting last
May 17-18 in Lansing, Michigan.
The State Exchange Project,
which is part of Operation
Awareness, allows State and
county officials, at FNS expense,
to learn from one another about
a particularly effective antifraud
or management technique. Michi-gan's
on-line issuance system
and Illinois' direct delivery/vendor
chargeback system (See State to
State's March 1983 Report) were
showcased at the M ichigan-spon­sored
meeting.
Both the Michigan and Illinois
systems apply specific, though
varied, issuance techniques to
urban areas. Interested program
operators from several States
and five urban counties attended
the meeting. The counties attend­ing
were: Hennepin (Minneapolis,
Minn.), Ramsey (St. Paul, Minn.),
Milwaukee (Milwaukee, Wis.),
Lake (Gary, Ind.), and Douglas
(Omaha, Nebr.). This particular
exchange allowed Wisconsin to
pick up some tips on mail
issuance from Illinois.
The Illinois Department of
Public Aid has eliminated the
use of ATP cards throughout the
State and has instituted a sys­tem
of direct mail or direct deli­very
of food stamps. In urban
areas like Chicago, households
select a pickup point where they
would like their food stamps
delivered. On a specified date,
households obtain their stamps
at the designated pickup point.
After listening to Illinois' pre­sentation,
a representative from
the Wisconsin State office visited
Illinois to see firsthand how the
Illinois system operates. The
Wisconsin representative ob­served
the Illinois operation and
discussed implementation issues
with the Illinois personnel. At
the end of the 1-day visit, Wis­consin
was able to reorder its
priorities in implementing its
mail issuance system. It learned
what not to do as well as what it
should do in implementing the
issuance system. Wisconsin
now plans to use direct delivery
5
for a portion of one urban county, ·
Milwaukee, and regular mail
service to the remainder.
The State Exchange Project
meeting also provided Wiscon­sin
and other States the oppor­tunity
to witness a demonstra­tion
of a highly successful
on-line issuance system imple­mented
by Michigan's Depart­ment
of Social Services. The on­line
food stamp issuance system
was first implemented in densely
populated Wayne County (Detroit
and its suburbs). The State
replaced ATP cards with a per­sonalized
plastic card with a
magnetic strip.
The magnetic card is inserted
into a reader at the issuance
site, and, if the recipient is eligi­ble
and has not already partici­pated
that month, an adjacent
computer terminal prints an
authorization sheet that lists the
food stamp allotment, among
other things.
Michigan has found the new
system very effective and plans
to place 82 percent of its food
stamp caseload on the system.
To demonstrate the features
of its on-line issuance system,
Michigan gave each attendee at
the meeting an individualized
plastic magnetic card. The cards
were processed through a simu­lated
transaction to demonstrate
the system.
Overall, the Michigan-sponsored
State Exchange meeting provided
a forum whereby State and coun­ty
officials could share valuable
information and gain hands-on
experience with a look toward
future system development.
The State Exchange Project
provides an ideal way for States
currently implementing or con­sidering
new administrative pro­cedures
to gain timely, valuable,
technical assistance from States
that have systems already in
operation.
• For more information contact:
Irene Ruane, FNS National Of­fice,
(703) 756-3496.
Tennessee Solves
Replacement Problem
Shelby and Davidson Counties,
Tennessee's two most populous
counties, experienced unaccept ­able
losses in their ATP systems
6
Each of the State Exchange Project par­ticipants
saw Michigan ' s on-line issuance
system in action. Dave Wigent (left), Fis­cal
Management Director of Michigan' s
Food Stamp Program, demonstrates the
through duplicate participation.
To address this problem, a new
computer-supported issuance
procedure, implemented in July
1982, has virtually eliminated
monthly losses due to duplicate
issuances.
For example, in February
1981, Davidson County had ex­perienced
as high as 327
duplicate issuances a month,
representing losses of $57,343.
In July 1982, the number of
duplicate issuances dropped to
9, with losses of just $986. The
number of duplicate issuances
has remained consistently low
through fiscal year 1983.
The new procedure involves a
system of checks that success­fully
blocks clients' attempts to
obtain and execute two ATP
cards in a month. Prior to the
new system, duplicate issuances
could not be detected until after
the fact. Then, the burden of
proof was with the State agency
to show wrongdoing on the client's
part. This usually involved the
· expensive and time-consuming
process of scheduling an admin­istrative
fraud hearing and hiring
a handwriting expert to testify
that the client had negotiated
two ATP cards.
To correct this problem, Ten­nessee
developed a better proce ­dure
using computer technology.
The State began printing recipient
system to food stamp officials (left to
right) Joe Bianchi of Hennepin County,
Minnesota; Paul Spicer of the Missouri
Department of Social Services ; and Jim
Bauman of Ramsey County, Minnesota.
identification cards on a special
card stock-similar to that used
for drivers' licenses-which re­veals
any attempt to alter a card.
Each identification card is
given a unique number assigned
by a computer. The unique num­ber
is based on a formula that
scrambles the food stamp house­hold's
case number and includes
a check digit. This number is
shown on the identification card
along with the household's case
number and signature. Each is­suance
unit supervisor has a
copy of the unique ID number
formula and can readily verify its
authenticity.
Along with preventing the un­authorized
use of valid ID cards,
this system makes it virtually
impossible to use a counterfeit
ID to redeem an ATP card.
To receive his or her allot­ment,
each recipient must
negotiate the ATP card in the
presence of a State employee
who then compares the client's
signature with the signature on
the person ' s identification card.
If the signatures appear to be
the same, the State employee
writes the ID card serial number
on the ATP card.
Any time a household claims
it did not receive its ATP card, a
State employee can easily check
by computer to see if the origi ­nal
ATP card was transacted. If
the computer shows the card
was transacted, the actual card
is located and the unique ID
number recorded on the card is
compared to the number shown in
the computer as being assigned
to that household. If these
numbers match, the agency is
assured that the household did
indeed negotiate its own card,
and a replacement issuance is
not made. Of course, a fair hear­ing
on this determination is of­fered
to the client, giving the
client the opportunity to prove
that he or she did not negotiate
the card.
• For more information contact:
Mike O'Hara, Assistant Commis­sioner,
Family Assistance, Ten­nessee
Department of Human
Services, (615) 741-5461.
Claims''-Getting Back
What Recipients Owe
Ohio's Secret To
Claims Collection Success
More food stamps are issued
in Ohio each month than prac­tically
any other State-about
$56 million in April 1983. In addi­tion
to this, Ohio is one of the
leading States in claims collec­tions,
ranking sixth nationally in
the collection of fraud claims
and third in the collection of
nonfraud claims.
During the 6-month period of
October 1982-March 1983, Ohio
collected $294,130 in nonfraud
claims and $110,970 in fraud
claims, while establishing 4,812
new nonfraud claims and 563
new fraud claims.
This is quite an achievement
when you consider that the State
uses a completely manual state­wide
monitoring and collection
system. Perhaps even more im­pressive
is that it is . handled by
only three people at the State
level.
What's the secret of Ohio's
success? Ohio food stamp ad­ministrators
credit local control
over collections and strict State
monitoring of these collections.
. In Ohio, counties are required
to identify, investigate, establish,
and collect all of their own
claims. Each county chooses its
own method of establishing and
pursuing claims. Most counties
have their own investigative and
claims collection units within
the welfare department. Other
counties use their legal staffs or
sheriff's departments to investi­gate
potential overissuances,
particularly those which may be
intentional program violations.
In addition, each county has
local prosecutors to pursue
cases of suspected fraud. Some
counties use the court system's
probation department to collect
any restitution for food stamp
overissuances established by
the courts. A few counties have
established agreements with
their local prosecutors for defer­red
adjudication with collections
through the local probation of­fice.
Also, State law requires
each county to forward any po­tential
fraud case involving over
$150 to the local prosecutor for
review.
A copy of each claim estab­lished
and a listing of collec­tions
received are forwarded to
the Ohio Department of Public
Welfare's Division of Fiscal Af­fairs,
which is separate from the
Bureau of Food Stamps. This in­formation
is checked by one of
three State employees and re­corded
on an individual file card
established for each claim.
Once a year, the Division of
Fiscal Affa.irs prepares for each
county a delinquent claims report
listing any claim with no activity
for 2 or more months. Each
county must respond to this list­ing
by providing the status of
each claim identified.
The allowance for a county to
keep part of the collection has
worked as an economic incentive
to boost county collections sub­stantially.
In Ohio, the county
keeps the entire 25 percent of
nonfraud and 50 percent of fraud
collections that FNS allows the
State.
•For more information contact:
Lou Ann Cox, Ohio Department
of Public Welfare, (614) 466-6467.
Investigations and
Prosecutions
When it comes to investigat­ing
cases of suspected fraud,
some high-participation counties
in Arkansas are finding that sta­tioning
investigators in certifica­tion
offices is making a big dif­ference
in the time it takes to
begin investigating a suspected
fraud case. Another technique
that is helping one California
county gather the necessary
evidence to make fraud cases
stick is working closely with the
District Attorney's office.
Arkansas Expands
Antifraud Activities
Using Incentive Funding
Taking advantage of 75 per­cent
antifraud funding from the
Food and Nutrition Service, the
Arkansas Division of Social Ser­vices
hired eight new investiga­tors
last January and stationed
them in five county certification
offices. During their first 6
months on the job, the investiga­tors
concentrated solely on food
stamp cases and averaged sav­ings
of $20,363 per month.
Arkansas estimates that this new
system of outstationing inves­tigators
in high-participation
counties may save the State as
much as a quarter-million
dollars in 1983.
Prior to January 1983, case­workers
did their own initial
review if a case looked suspi­cious.
If fraud was suspected,
the case was referred to a cen­tral
investigative unit in Little
Rock which handled investiga­tions
for all public assistance
programs. But in some instances
so much time would pass before
caseworkers would hear the out­come
of their cases, that they
would become discouraged and
begin to refer fewer cases.
Realizing these problems,
Arkansas officials decided to
outstation investigators in the
largest counties. Outstationing
offered the State several advan­tages
that have led not only to
savings but also to increased
efficiency.
Eligibility workers can now
refer cases directly to the onsite
investigators instead of routing
all action through the central in­vestigative
unit in Little Rock .
The outstationed investigators
refer to Little Rock only those
cases where fraud is actually
detected.
7
Investigators are now on a
case within a week of referral.
Only rarely does it take as long
as a month to get a case mov­ing.
As a result, investigators
are handling a greater number of
cases and handling them more
quickly. From January 1983 to
June 1983, the outstationed in­vestigators
received 2,015 refer­rals-
nearly twice the number of
cases that the central unit
handled during all of fiscal year
1982.
Arkansas administrators have
also found that placing investi­gators
close to the action cuts
travel costs. The investigators
are now able to take on many
lower dollar cases that they
would have forgone in the past
because expenses would have
exceeded recoupments.
One final advantage of the out­stationing
system is deterrence.
Food stamp applicants know
that investigators are on site at
the certification office and this
knowledge likely deters them
from engaging in food stamp
fraud.
• For more information contact:
Ann Ruffin, Arkansas Fraud In­vestigation
Unit, (501) 371-1914.
DA's Office Cooperates
In Evidence Collection
In Santa Clara County
The Santa Clara County, Cali­fornia
Welfare Department, is
working with the District Attorney
to obtain evidence in cases of
suspected multiple participation
in its welfare programs-includ­ing
food stamps.
In one phase of the fraud con­trol
program, the Department re­quests
search warrants through
the District Attorney's office. In
order to obtain the warrants, the
Welfare Department must devel­op
information and evidence
that a crime has been committed.
A complete l.ist of what it expects
to find during the search must
be submitted. Establishing both
probable cause and a complete
list of expected evidence is
essential in obtaining a warrant.
· For example, investigators will
outline the existing evidence on
a case where two or more false
Santa Clara County is making a special
effort in gathering evidence such as the
phony County Clerk Seal (pictured
above), which was used to make phony
birth certificates and other I.D.
documents, to prosecute fraud cases.
Such evidence often makes the dif­ference
whether or not a case is suc­cessfully
prosecuted.
identities have already been
established and will state that
they expect to find evidence, in­cluding
identity papers, of other
false applications for benefits.
Using search warrants, the
County has been able to gather
evidence that has often made
the difference in whether a case
can be successfully prosecuted
or not. In addition, cases of ma­jor
welfare fraud that may have
gone undetected have been
brought to light. In the last year,
the Welfare Department has used
search warrants to gather evi­dence
for use in prosecuting 12
cases of welfare fraud.
The use of search warrants by
the Welfare Department is limited
to cases of suspected multiple
participation in welfare pro­grams,
or cases involving the
use of phony documentation (ID
and birth certificates) to obtain
benefits. Searching the resi­dences
and autos of suspected
welfare cheats has occasionally
produced unexpected evidence
of additional cases of fraud.
For example, in one case, the
Sacramento County Welfare
Department contacted Santa
Clara about a client it suspected
of using a phony birth certificate
and obtaining AFDC and food
stamp benefits in both counties.
A search warrant uncovered 12
phony ID cards, 20 blank birth
certificates, and even a phony
Santa Clara County Seal. The
client was eventually prosecuted
for five fraudulent welfare cases
involving $66,000 in AFDC bene­fits
and $11,000 in food stamps.
Welfare investigators in Santa
Clara County are not allowed to
carry firearms, so they are always
accompanied by a police officer
when presenting the warrant and
making the search. So far, there
have been no legal challenges
to this use of search warrants,
nor have there been any violent
incidents during a welfare inves­tigator's
search .
Because the County has found
some indication of multiple par­ticipation,
it is developing proce­dures
to assist eligibility workers
in identifying possible cases of
multiple participation. This effort
will involve a computer check of
identical phone numbers in multi­ple
cases.
Santa Clara County has also
stationed fraud investigators in
its welfare offices in order to
provide early identification of
possible fraudulent applications
and to heighten caseworkers'
awarenesl? of potential fraudu­lent
situations.
The County feels that providing
eligibility workers with prompt
and positive confirmation of
their efforts to identify fraud
helps them become increasingly
sensitive to fraudulent situa­tions,
more inclined to make
referrals, and better able to pro­vide
good documentation in sup­port
of cases.
• For more information contact:
Sandra Robinson, Chief, Recovery
and Legal Services Division,
(408) 299-2531.
The Food Stamp Program is an equal
opportunity program. If you believe you
have been discriminated against because
of race, color, national origin, sex, age,
handicap, religious creed, or political
belief, write immediately to the Secretary
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.