PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Thursday, October 30, 1997

Study: Imaging system didn't prevent fraud

By PEGGY FIKAC / Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN (AP) -- An effort to prevent welfare fraud by requiring applicants to give fingerprints didn't do much to stem cheating when tested in a $1.7 million pilot program, according to a University of Texas report.

State officials, however, stood by the finger-imaging program Wednesday. The initiative has been touted by Gov. George W. Bush and was recommended to state lawmakers by Comptroller John Sharp, a candidate for lieutenant governor.

"One of the keys to it working well is going to be when it goes statewide," said Texas Department of Human Services spokesman Michael Jones.

The Lone Star Image System is meant to detect and deter duplicate receipt of food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It requires a photo and a digital imprint of applicants' index fingers.

Because the program was piloted only in Bexar and Guadalupe counties, cheaters could have gone anywhere else in the state to try to get duplicate benefits, Jones said.

"Somebody committing fraud doesn't have to be a genius to know, 'I can't commit this fraud in Bexar County, but if I drive up the road to San Marcos, I can try to do the same thing and they won't detect me yet,' " Jones said.

He said one person was caught in San Antonio applying twice for benefits despite the fingerprint-imaging process.

The statewide program will cost about $12.7 million over three years, Jones said. DHS is looking at beginning the expansion next spring.

"Governor Bush believes the use of finger imaging is a valuable deterrent to help prevent fraud. Once it is expanded statewide, it will prevent people from being able to collect welfare benefits in two different counties," said Bush press secretary Karen Hughes.

Sharp spokesman Ross Ramsey said another comptroller-backed welfare reform, an electronic benefits card that replaced food stamps, already had purged the welfare rolls before the imaging system began. But he said both tools are needed to help keep the rolls clean.

The state eventually wants to integrate the imaging system with the benefit card, so a welfare recipient will activate the card with a fingerprint rather than the current personal identification number.

Deanna Schexnayder of the Center for the Study of Human Resources, which conducted the study under contract with DHS, said the pilot's effect may be smaller than that of a statewide program because duplicate accounts could be outside the pilot area.

The study focused on the 10 DHS offices that serve Bexar and Guadalupe counties and 10 comparison offices, said Ms. Schexnayder. Findings are based on caseload and cost data, plus interviews with welfare recipients.

"Because none of the caseload declines in these counties could be attributed to imaging, no savings from reduced welfare benefits occurred," said Ms. Schexnayder.

The DHS fraud detection office has found most fraud determinations don't involve duplicate benefits but people providing false information about their resources or household composition, said Ms. Schexnayder. Imaging wouldn't prevent that.

Jones said the reason for fewer determinations of duplicate benefits is that such fraud is so difficult to pin down. He didn't have an estimate of how many people currently get duplicate benefits but said a Texas-Oklahoma matchup recently found more than 600 people listed as recipients in both states.

It's not yet known how many of those were fraud and how many were simply people who moved. But if people are going across state lines to commit fraud, he said, they would go from one Texas city to another.

"It at least gives you an indicator that there is something going on out there and we need to have a way to be able to detect it," he said.

In California's Los Angeles County, a fingerprint imaging system is credited with saving $5.4 million within the first six months by terminating more than 3,000 illegitimate cases.

According to the UT report, a number of factors may reduce the level of benefit savings Texas can expect compared with other states. It said some savings attributed to electronic imaging in other states may have been caused by other factors; Texas payments are among the nation's lowest; and Texas was aggressively pursuing detection of fraud in its public assistance programs before the pilot project.