Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Welfare Fraud Investigations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas DCF describes fraud investigations, warns moving investigators to OIG could jeopardize federal reimbursements
Summary
DCF general counsel Mark Altenburnt told the Committee on Welfare Reform that DCF's fraud investigation unit (about 22 staff plus 4 analysts) investigates SNAP, TANF, LEAP and childcare fraud; he said federal law requires the investigative unit to remain within the administering agency and moving it to the inspector general could risk federal state‑plan compliance and reimbursement.
Mark Altenburnt, general counsel for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, briefed the Committee on Welfare Reform on DCF's welfare fraud investigation unit, its methods, staffing and the legal risks of relocating investigators to the Office of Inspector General.
Altenburnt said the unit investigates alleged fraud across SNAP, TANF, LEAP and childcare, using referrals from the Keyes/EES system and the agency hotline. He described investigative tools including electronic record review, administrative subpoenas for bank and employment records, physical surveillance when necessary and partnerships with local law enforcement or the attorney general when criminal prosecution is appropriate.
Staffing and caseloads: Altenburnt said the unit includes 14 special investigators plus a chief investigator and two deputy chiefs (22 positions total in the division) and an additional four fraud analysts (26 positions when analysts are counted). He said DCF will provide the committee with detailed tables breaking down investigations and outcomes.
On referrals and prosecution: DCF aims to refer cases to prosecutors when evidence appears sufficient for criminal charges, but local district attorneys often decline smaller cases; Altenburnt said the agency typically tries to get prosecutorial attention for cases in the "neighborhood of $5,000". He also explained that evidence standards differ: administrative hearings apply a preponderance standard while criminal prosecutions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legal limits on restructuring investigators: When asked about proposed legislation to move DCF investigators to the inspector general, Altenburnt said federal statutes governing SNAP and childcare require the administering agency to maintain a dedicated investigative unit within that agency. "These positions have to exist under DCF to comply with federal law," he said, adding that shifting the unit out of DCF could make the state out of compliance with its federal state plan and risk significant federal disallowances or loss of reimbursement.
Altenburnt also discussed outcomes and recovery: he said DCF uses administrative hearings to claw back funds and refers appropriate matters to criminal partners; he cited FY figures (e.g., 255 waivers signed and 89 proceeding to administrative hearing in one recent fiscal year) and said detailed recovery and return‑on‑investment tables are in the submitted materials.
Why it matters: DCF indicated that moving investigative authority outside the administering agency would not only raise legal compliance questions but could change how federal funds reimburse investigation costs, potentially shifting program costs to the state.
The committee asked follow‑up questions about legal authorities for subpoenas, the timing of evidence gathering and whether investigations could be hampered by consent and judicial warrant requirements; Altenburnt emphasized due‑process protections and said administrative subpoenas and documented procedures are standard parts of the investigative process.
