Notes

Case 2 Analysis

IF and her eight children had been receiving CalFresh for 5 years. She claimed to be separated from her husband/father of her children. The only income reported was child support of $300 to $500 per month and occasional loans from family members.

A referral for investigation was made from the Overpayment (OP) Unit based upon an IEVS IFD 440 report, which matched IF’s social security number to wages reported to EDD.

The OP unit requested verification of the wages from IF, but what she provided was substantially incomplete. Therefore, the OP unit requested and obtained verification of wages directly from the employer.

The OP unit calculated an overissuance in the amount of $7,014.00 based upon those unreported wages and then referred the case to the investigative unit.

The investigation discovered IF’s 8th child was born while she was receiving CF, IF had never reported that she and the absent father had reunited or that he had moved back into the home.

Further investigation determined that the father had been in the home for the entire time and he had been working full-time for an airline.

A new CalFresh overissuance was calculated in the amount of $53,229.00. The case is currently pending with the District Attorney’s Office.

What did the perpetrator of the fraud do that violated the rules with knowledge and intent to deceive and defraud?
What tools were utilized by program staff to identify the fraudulent activity?
What actions do you believe could have been taken by program staff to prevent this fraud or detect and stop it sooner?