Quote:Caseload         8. Total cases open during the month (Item 8a plus 8b: also Items 6 plus 7)...... 59 46,892 60

185,229

 

 

 

Section III.  Investigation Results CalWORKs


(1)  8. Denials (Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 142 1,179  9. Benefits reduced (Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 147 472 10. Discontinuances (Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 152 414 11. Referred for prosecution………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 157 125 12. Referred to Administrative Disqualification Hearing (ADH)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 162 22 13. Restitution action………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 167 361 14. Benefits reduced (not Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 172 132 15. Benefits discontinued (not Early Fraud)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 177 320 16. Fraud found, no adverse financial impact………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 182 276
 

 

Gotta head to work.  But here's a quick glimpse of July 2013 in California.  I have a feeling this table won't come over as I hope...  But I'm crossing my fingers...

 

 

 

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG281.htm

 

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG365.htm

 

There ya go copycat.  Have fun..  My data that I pulled was for July of 2013.  I took the total case load from the first link and then took the total fruad cases from the second link.  That methodology would actually skew the "fraud" up because the case load I'm looking at is only CalWorks (The welfare for work program), while I'm looking at the total fraud cases for all programs, including foodstamps.  

 

As you can see, the total case load of Calworks for the month is 185,000.  The total cases of fraud found is about 10,000...  You do the math.

 

So there you have it.  The truth is that the concern that there are hundreds of millions of Welfare Queens abusing the system at an alarming rate is just not found when you do the research.

 

Why did I use California?  Well, couple reasons...  Honestly, they make their data tables easily accessable.  Try finding this data at the Florida website!  I couldn't.  And the US Deptartment of Health and Human Services website was also very difficult to navigate.  Now, Cali is a great sample to use, in my opinion for a couple reasons....  First, it's a huge state with a large population.  Second, the population has many subcultures (Hispanic, Black, White, Natives, those you have moved to Cali from other states, etc) so it gives a good representation of all of America.  Second, California has alot of resources available, it's a fairly rich state (compared to other states) with alot of resources.  Obviously, that why they have data so easily available.  So I don't think looking at the low levels of fraud in Cali is an outlier for the rest of the country.  I think it shows that the fact is, welfare abuse is not what the politicians on the right would have you believe. 

---