But was the new legislation passed this yearinresponse to the hysteria surrounding Wisconsin Sharesreally necessary?
It would be wise to remember that according to thenonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau, the vast majority of Wisconsin Sharespayments were made properly, and these parents and providers shouldn’t havetheir reputations tarnished.
And, despite the blazing headlines and politicalposturing, the evidence seems to show that there’s reason to believe that eventhe 100-plus providers who have had their payments suspended should be giventhe benefit of the doubt, too, until their cases have been heard. While thosewho have intentionally committed fraud should be held accountable, thosefamiliar with the program say not all record-keeping errors should be labeled“fraud.”
Tools to Identify Fraud Existed
The Wisconsin Shares program is an element of theTommy Thompson administration’s efforts to “end welfare as we know it” bycreating the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program that mandated that unemployed peoplework for their benefits.
But parents of young children who work in low-wagejobs are not able to afford quality day care, so the state created theWisconsin Shares program, which subsidized day care for low-income parents.
Now, Wisconsin Shares critics will say that theprogram was set up with such loose regulations and oversight thatadministrators could not go after providers who submitted fraudulentreportsfor example, when a provider claimed to have cared for a child eventhough the child did not show up to the facility.
Yet the stateand Milwaukee Countyhadthe resources to identify what the program terms “overpayments.”
In fact, instructions on how to recover overpaymentsappear in the 2008 version of the Wisconsin Shares Child Care AssistanceManual. “All overpayments made to providers must be collected, whether due toerror or fraud,” the manual states. The overpaymentswhether they were theerror of the state or county, the day care provider or the parentshould havebeen deducted from the provider’s payments until all money was recouped.
If the agency documented that the overpaymentconstituted a “program violation,” it should have been referred to a fraudinvestigator, who had 90 days to review the entire case file and determine ifthe allegations were accurate and the fraud was intentional. If so, theprovider could be suspended or referred to the local district attorney forpossible prosecution. Providers were allowed to appeal the decision.
This process changed this summer, when newlegislation was passed to allow the state Department of Children and Families(DCF) to immediately suspend payments if it had “reasonable suspicion” offraud. Instead of allowing the provider to continue doing business while payingoff the overpayment, the state now can effectively shut down these providers byimmediately and indefinitely suspending payments.
Stephanie Hayden, spokeswoman for the DCF, said thatprior to the change, the state paid the provider while his or her case wasbeing reviewed and appealed.
“They would have been paid during that time,” Haydensaid. “What if they weren’t serving any children? We would have paid them fornot doing anything.”
The Appeals Process
Many of the suspended day care providers areattempting to appeal their cases before an administrative law judge. But the waitis long and frustrating; dates are being set as far away as March 2010 forthose who have been suspended recently.
DCF’s Hayden said that the state is adding morelegal personnel to work on the appeals, and the March cases will likely bebumped up. Three appeals have been completed, Hayden saidone in favor of DCF,while the two remaining cases are waiting for a decision.
The providers and their advocates have expressedfrustration with the process, saying that the state’s representatives show upunprepared and then require hearings to be rescheduled.
What’s more, attorney N. Lynette McNeely, legalredress chair for the Waukesha County Branch of the NAACP and an advocate forthe day care providers, questions the accuracy of the information being used asevidence against the providers.
The hearings therefore pit the county’s sometimesquestionable records and the testimony of investigators against the providers’records and testimony for events that could have occurred more than a year ago.
“If there’s a decision based on hearsay that someonecommitted fraud, that’s a problem,” McNeely said. “I don’t know if a judge canmake a decision based on that.”
DCF’s Hayden said the county’s records are only “oneof the things” being used as evidence against the suspended providers.
The State Takeover
The root of McNeely’s worries is the state’simpending takeover of Milwaukee County’s responsibilitiesfor administering Wisconsin Shares and other public benefits programs. Thecounty had employed caseworkers who were responsible for authorizing payments,ensuring parents’ eligibility and overseeing providers.
But a former caseworker who asked to remainanonymous told the Shepherd thatcounty employees were overloaded with clients and often “there were too manycases to check.” Fraud-flagging protocols were not being followed, she said,and both the state and the county were responsible for the system falling apartafter 2002.
Some day care providers have said that when they’dphoned the county to correct errors, their calls weren’t answered or returned.The former caseworker said that letters sent to the providers generated littleresponse.
DCF’s Hayden said that the state had contracts withcounties to administer the programincluding suspending payments if fraud wasdetected.
“It was part of their contractual duty to make surethat the program was being run well and making sure that there wasn’t anyfraud,” Hayden said. “We [state agencies] probably could have [suspendedpayments] but because of those contracts with the counties… now we realize thatmaybe that wasn’t working as well as it could have.”
But Milwaukee County, under CountyExecutive Scott Walker’s leadership, failed to utilize $4 million since 2004that could have been used to oversee the program.
The county’s failure to properly administer publicbenefits programs has led to the state DCF’s move to take over Wisconsin Sharesin January 2010.
Yet the state is using attendance and paymentrecords generated by the countythe same county it cannot trust to administerthe programto suspend payments to providers.
