Nobody is saying that.
3) The smart thing to do would have been sit on my ass a few weeks until the bennies started to run out, then look for a job. **
[/QUOTE]
Nobody is saying that either. What people are saying is that it is stupid not to accept unemployment benefits WHILE you look for a job. Getting a job quickly after a lay-off is wonderful, but in this job market, it just isn’t that easy to find a new position. While one searches for work, one should be able to keep a roof over one’s head and be able to eat.
[q]Welfare fraud is a serious crime that threatens millions of public dollars. It is committed by individuals fraudulently receiving benefits and by public employees stealing from within the system. In both cases, these criminals who cheat the welfare system cheat more than a government agency. They cheat society of much needed resources and taxpayers of their hard-earned money. [/q]
This was very interesting as well. New York had apparently made some major changes in its welfare system, for the better.
[q]One of the most important discoveries of the Giuliani era was the need for rigorous and ongoing tests of welfare eligibility. In the first few years of Mayor Giuliani’s tenure, the caseload dropped dramatically merely because the city started rigorously scanning fingerprints, checking for double-dipping and verifying an applicant’s claims about resources.
Simply asking an applicant to come into a welfare office for an appointment produced a significant drop-off in applications, because (1) some people can’t be bothered, and (2) others are working off the books and a welfare appointment conflicts with their job.
The administration also learned that eligibility verification cannot be a one-shot deal. Even when a recipient is not deliberately ripping off the government, her circumstances can change, rendering her no longer eligible for public assistance.
Somehow, those changes never get reported unless the government periodically asks for the information. In the year 2000 alone, the administration found 40,000 cases on its rolls that should not have been there, whether the product of conscious fraud or semi-unconscious inadvertence.
“Giuliani decided to check everyone,” noted Mahamah admiringly - and** every check-point yields a significant harvest of fraud and ineligibility. **
In their view, establishing eligibility for welfare is like taking the sacrament: You do it once and you’re finished for life. But the caseload changes constantly;** to protect taxpayer dollars, the city has a duty to make sure that everyone receiving welfare still deserves to do so. **
Anyone seeking a bank loan has to re-establish his credit-worthiness, no matter if he has several loans outstanding. Welfare applicants will never be asked to repay the taxpayer money they seek to receive; at the very least, they should show that they are entitled to the assistance[/q]
Here are some numbers on how much money is lost to welfare fraud in a few areas of the country.
[q]In 2001, the Welfare Fraud Prevention Division and the DA Special Investigations Unit saved and recovered more than $41.4 million, when staff:
Detected over 1200 fraudulent applications thus preventing over $18.3 million in fraudulent payments.
Recovered almost $3 million in repayments from unqualified program participants and instituted nearly $20 million in recovery and restitution proceedings.
Adjusted monthly grant payments to current recipients, saving the people of Alameda County an average of $49,500 a month.
Referred for prosecution more than 1600 individuals for intentional welfare fraud.
**Constant vigilance and proactive investigation are required to protect the public and the community interest. **
Case Highlights
Guilty Plea and a $77,000 Loss to the County
The recipient had been sanctioned for failure to comply with the CalWORKs employment program for over a year and was only receiving aid for her child. Her Eligibility Worker referred the case to a WFPD investigator as she was wondering how the client was supporting herself. The client originally agreed to meet with the investigator, but not at her home. After several attempts to set up a meeting, the client reported that she had moved out of the county and requested that we stop her aid. This case was referred to the District Attorney’s Office for further investigation due to the suspicious circumstances surrounding her sudden request for discontinuance.
The DA/SIU investigation uncovered the fact that the recipient had actually been living with the “absent parent” for over 10 years, and there was total ineligibility for assistance as her spouse was gainfully employed. The family had been living out of county during the last four years, even purchasing a home with a $49,000 down payment. The suspect was able to conceal this information from the county as she used a local mailing address and was employed under a false Social Security number. The total loss of benefits to the county was in excess of $77,000. She and her spouse pled guilty to felony welfare fraud and perjury.
Anonymous Tip Leads to Discovery of a $15,000 Loss to the County
A WFPD Investigator received an anonymous tip that an aided teenager was actually living in New Zealand with her grandparents. The investigator made inquiries at several Oakland schools and learned that her last record of attendance was in the 4th grade in 1992. When the child’s father was contacted, he stated that the child was “not home at the moment”. When confronted with the fact that she was actually with her grandparents, he admitted to her being gone since 1994. This information, combined with a failure to report income by another household member, resulted in a cash overpayment of $9,481 and FS overissuance of $5,939. The case was referred to the District Attorney’s office for further action. [/q]
Now I know that there are “poster boys” out there who utilize the system just as it was intended to be used, but there are an awful lot of people out there who don’t.
Balle_M, you have to start looking for a job within one week of when you start collecting unemployment. You can’t “sit on your ass” and continue to collect benefits. But you’re apparently too stupid to know that.
Nobody is saying that either. What people are saying is that it is stupid not to accept unemployment benefits WHILE you look for a job. Getting a job quickly after a lay-off is wonderful, but in this job market, it just isn’t that easy to find a new position. While one searches for work, one should be able to keep a roof over one’s head and be able to eat. **
[/QUOTE]
Where do you draw the line? When does welfare fraud become an issue? Is it ok to bilk the government (tax-payers) out of money as long as someone else is doing it to a far greater extent?
misstee, I think it’s inappropriate to engage in draconian “fraud control measures” that also force off nonfraudulent applicants and cost more than they save when we have criminals like Ken Lay running free and clear after stealing more money from “taxpayers” in three months than has been lost to welfare fraud in the last decade.
Why are you being so snotty? I made it very clear in my post (the one that you are replying to) that that was in MY personal experience. I also made sure to add that I wasn’t sure about some things, and that maybe things have changed since I was in the system.
FTR, I didn’t just “think” I didn’t need the interview classes etc. I didn’t. Period.
The job that I had held previous to me being on welfare, I trained OTHERS to write resumes, apply for jobs, dress for interviews, how to interview etc. I also had a great deal of computer experience (when welfare was trying to teach me “the basics” like playing games to learn to use the mouse:rolleyes: I’d already broken down and rebuilt two computers, not to mention learned several applications such as Lotus 1,2,3 and WordPerfect[that was popular then, I’m REAL old :)]).
I also made it plain that I was talking about the area in which I’d been on the program (both in that post, and in others I’ve made in this thread) and that I was quite aware that other states’ programs might differ from my experience.
I wasn’t in any way discounting those who ARE helping within the system. I wasn’t dissing YOU when I said the system STILL needs help. All you have to do is look at those here in this thread! All are obviously pretty bright, have reasonable computer skills, etc. I doubt they need to be sat down with a computer and a mouse and taught how to play solitiare so as to learn “mousing skills”. I would wager that they all have common sense as to how to dress for and behave in an interview.
What they “taught” in the work programs they put me in was very very basic stuff. Stuff that most HS students would have learned about computers, and interviewing in a basic economics class. If a person dropped out and had NO skills whatsoever, then yes, these types of programs might help them.
But for people who are bright and already have good work skills (like some of the posters in this thread), there aren’t yet any programs available. At least not that I’ve seen. If there are some, for instance that send these people to college and teach them an actual trade, or even assist them in getting a degree (which is what would be REALLY key in helping them obtain a halfway decent living wage), I’d be really interested in seeing them. And thrilled too! For as I made clear, I hadn’t been in the system in many many years, and I do NOT know what changes may have been made.
There was one lady in the system who was very key in helping me. She was a caseworker for one of the myriad programs they kept sending me too. She was just disgusted that they kept enrolling me in the programs. For one thing my skills levels were far far above that of the programs. For another, I was working part time, and they kept insisting on me attending even though it interfered with my work schedule. She spent about two weeks getting whoever was responsible for placing me on these programs to take my name off of the rotation schedule. She also spent a great deal of time just talking to me (when she was supposed to be doing “training”) and just plain old giving support.
I am very aware of the frustrations the workers face, both with feeling empathy for people who don’t really belong on the system, but are forced there by circumstances, and frustration for those who are “working it” and satisfied to be “lifers”.
You were actually interviewing people for a job? Or this was a “test interview” in which you had previously taught them as part of a welfare workstudy program?
ftr, I agree that people who don’t know how to behave in an interview need some basic skills. I believe that what people need in a workstudy program is something FAR beyond that, such as vocational or secondary eduction.
What good is it to teach someone how to act in an interview if they have no job skills or education with which to back it up?
So glad you had the resources to ‘fend for’ yourself and stay off the dole Balle_M. There are a lot of people out there who don’t have such a privilege.
However, speaking of parasites…that YOU were able to survive a period of time without resorting to claiming welfare benefits implies that YOU were were able to suck enough dues from your previous employer to tide you over.
A parasite, by definition, attacks its host and sucks it dry without regard to its health, without making any contribution and causing great harm perhaps to the point of the host’s death. Someone who has worked and is willing and attempting to work and be self-sufficient but relies upon safety net services while doing so is not, by any definition, a parasite – particularly when that person has fed the system in the past and will do so again in the future.
It’s sad that some of us feel so free to can slap these labels on people while looking down their noses with impunity because they got lucky in the crap shoot of life.
well, with limited public dollars to prosecute, I’d say that going after the person who stole millions is probably more important than going after the person who stole $400. But that’s just me.
RE; your other post. yes, I did indeed see that you said you ‘didn’t need the classes’. And I of course am not claiming that you did. However:
It is also true that quite a few people who self assessed that they ‘didn’t need such classes’, actualy did and
that such classes were being offered for free, and took at most a couple hours of some one’s time,
I fail to see the problem with saying “everybody, line up here for these classes”, vs. going through the process of doing self assesments and staff assessments on 'does this person need this 3 hour class we give everybody to allow the 2 or 3 people out of 100 that don’t need the class to avoid that 3 hour commitment.
re; question about interviewing. In my company I’ve done all of the following: Conduct interviewing classes for groups, individual sessions on interviewing and actual interviews for new employees (some group, some individual, some pre-screening, screened applicants, developed testing and staff development/training programs for staff, yes all of them had to take it, even if they said they knew it all or even if I thought they did).
No, but many people who work even full-time still only manage to earn enough to survive week to week. They’re called the ‘Working Poor’ just in case you haven’t heard of them, and their ranks are swelling.
So when THEY are laid off, they have no choice but to seek benefits to hold them over until they can get their next insecure and badly-paid job. ‘Principles’ have a way of flying out the window when your kids are hungry and the landlord is threatening to chuck your furniture onto the sidewalk.
Yes, I agree with prosecuting the individual who stole millions, but, if you have 45,000 individual people fraudulently receiving $400 dollars a month in benefits for 6 months that totals $108,000,000. Quiet a big chuck of money. To me, that is worth prosecuting for. You have to start somewhere small ( the individual person ) before you can make changes within the system.
Shall we run some numbers? Identity theft is a fairly similar crime(meaning much of the proof that needs to be established is similar). In both instances we have a person falsely representing their circumstances in order to gain access to financial benefits they would not otherwise have. You have to prove they misrepresented, and you have to show the damages they caused by this misrepresentation to get a conviction. This typically consists of an investigation and then court time for a prosecution. A GAO[the General Accounting Office, a department of the US congress which deals with financial analysis of legal matters] study on identity theft (GAO-02-363, issued March 2002) discussed costs to federal agencies
45,000 individuals who should be prosecuted for stealing 2,400(400 over six months) each in welfare benefits through falsifying identification information to qualify for benefits when they shouldn’t have. Average cost of investigating the crime is between 15-20k. Cost of prosecuting, 11,443. Total cost, per criminal, 26,443-31,443. Prosecuting each individual out of an estimated 45,000 would cost between 1,189,935,000-1,414,935,000 to punish those 45,000 who fradulently claimed $108,000,000.
