This recommendation has been superseded by a recommendation from a subsequent report. See 2015-503 #7.
Social Services should track how counties determine prosecution thresholds for welfare fraud cases and determine the effects of these thresholds on counties' decisions to investigate potential fraud, with a focus on determining best practices and cost-effective methods. It should then work with counties to implement the consistent use of these cost-effective methods.
See initial response.
Social Services reasserts that there is no direct relationship between prosecution thresholds and counties' decisions to investigate welfare fraud. However, and as we explained in our comments on the initial response that Social Services provided in the follow-up audit report, Social Services has not taken any action to track how counties determine prosecution thresholds and the effects those thresholds on counties' decisions to investigate potential welfare fraud. We continue to expect Social Services to demonstrate the presence or absence of this effect through an analysis of actual county practices, rather than through supposition.
During the IEVS compliance review, CDSS obtains county established thresholds for prosecution. This threshold determines which fully investigated cases will be referred for prosecution. However, since there is no direct relationship between the prosecution threshold criteria and the county's determination to investigate potential fraud, CDSS concludes that there is no further action needed.
Social Services did not provide any documentation to substantiate that prosecution thresholds for welfare fraud cases do not have any effect on counties' decisions to investigate potential fraud.
Partially Implemented/Estimated Completion Date: November 30, 2015. The CDSS Fraud Bureau is working on surveying the counties and collecting data on prosecution thresholds for welfare fraud cases. The data will be analyzed to determine county cost-effectiveness and best practice methods. The CDSS Fraud Bureau will share the cost-effective methods as part of the county review process.
Please see response to Recommendation No. 2.
Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.