But Bichadidn’t show up to hear what Milwaukee’s day care providers had to say about thewitch hunt-like strategy DCF has used to clamp down on suspected fraud in theprogram.
AlthoughBicha was absent, panelists included NAACP attorney N. Lynnette McNeely, childcare provider La Tonya Johnson, Lisa Patrick, interim executive director of theMilwaukee Early Care Administration, and Henry Wilde, deputy secretary of DCF.
The crowdhad quite a bit to say to the panelists, although all were in agreement thatdeliberate defrauding of the taxpayer-supported program should be identifiedand punished.
But reformsenacted in 2009egged on by sensationalized reporting in the Journal Sentinelhave allowed DCF tocast a wide net in its fraud investigations. Thanks to a creative line itemveto by Gov. Jim Doyle while signing the reforms, DCF can suspend payments toproviders that it “reasonably suspects” have committed frauda very low hurdleto overcome. Mass suspensions began in September 2009, and the majority ofthose providers are appealing their suspensions. Almost a year later, few havehad their cases resolved and their businesses continue to be shuttered.
InadequateTraining, A Rigged Appeals System
If DCFSecretary Bicha had attended the meeting, he would have gotten an earful,including these complaints about his administration of DCF and the fraudinvestigations:
n A lack of due process. Karyn Rotker, senior staff attorney for theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin,said that suspended providers are being deprived of their right to due processsince they are being suspended before they are given a chance to defendthemselves and address any questions about their business records. “Beforesomething can be taken away you must be given notice and be heard,” Rotkersaid. Instead, providers were sent letters informing them of their immediateand indefinite suspension from the program.
n A disproportionate impact on Milwaukee’sAfrican-American child care providers. An estimated 90% of child careproviders in Milwaukee’sprimarily African-American central city participate in the Wisconsin Sharesprogram and serve parents who cannot pay without a subsidy. Therefore,suspending these providers from the Wisconsin Shares program effectively shutsdown their businesses and forces low-income working parents to try to find newchild care options. “Technically, DCF is saying that they are not shutting downthese businesses, but they are,” McNeely said.
n Errors automatically attributed toproviders. McNeely arguedthat discrepancies in a provider’s records and the county’s or state’s databaseare automatically attributed to the day care provider and labeled “fraud.” Andthanks to the new regulations, counties may keep money they attribute to fraud.“It’s an integrity issue,” McNeely said. “There is no recourse or repercussionfor a [county or state] staffer who misrepresents information and has aninterest in keeping their job.”
n Harsh punishment for old offenses. The state can now permanently revoke a daycare provider’s license based on old offenses turned up in backgroundchecksoffenses that the state knew about before it initially issued thelicense. One provider, now out of business because of an offense she committed10 years ago, said, “They knew about my background when I got my license. I’venever been written up [for day care-related infractions] and now I’ve been shutdown.” Another provider said, “Why can DCF go so far back? We should have beengrandfathered in.”
n A lack of proper training. Providers say they have not been given thestate’s official day care provider manual, nor have they been properly informedof changes in regulations.
Provider LaTonya Johnson said that Community Coordinated Child Care (“4C”), which offerstraining for child care providers, has been teaching “incorrect information”about attendance record-keeping, which has contributed to discrepancies inrecords that get providers in trouble with DCF. “But still the provider isresponsible,” Johnson said. “The department needs to clarify their rules.” EvenDCF’s Wilde admitted that there’s been a “systematic failure of training.”
n An appeals process that favors DCF.Suspended providers have been appealing their cases within the state’sadministrative law system. But DCF Secretary Bicha issued an order in Februarydemanding that all decisions made by the independent administrative law judgesbe sent back to DCF for final approval. In fact, DCF does not even have toissue a final decision on cases, leaving some providers in limbo indefinitely.According to the ACLU’s Rotker, 98% of all decisions that favor the providerare overturned by DCF. “DCF has set up a process that doesn’t allow theadministrative law judge to make independent decisions,” Rotker said. DCF’sWilde defended the system, saying, “Anyone who disagrees with the finaldecision can go to circuit court to argue their case.”
