Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fraud Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County fraud-prevention team reports $1.47M in 2025 savings and growing estate recovery receipts
Summary
Crow Wing Countyfraud-prevention investigators reported an estimated $1.47 million in verified cost savings in 2025 and early 2026 estate-recovery receipts of approximately $955,000; staff described program staffing and the percentage-based split by which counties retain portions of recovered benefits.
Jeff Moan, operations manager for Crow Wing County Community Services, briefed the committee on the countyFraud Prevention and Investigations program (state grant-funded). He said the program identified $1.47 million in verified cost savings across 447 cases in 2025 and recovered $265,000 in overpayments that year while carrying approximately $600,000 in outstanding claims. Moan noted the program returned an estimated $11.54 in cost savings for every dollar invested in the program.
Alicia, a claims-and-overpayments staffer, said the unit established $156,000 in new claims for 2025 while recovering $265,000, and reported $166,000 of established claims in the first quarter of 2026 with $90,000 received. Michelle Node, the countypublic assistance fraud investigator, said referrals were increasing (90 referrals in quarter 1 and a backlog of unassigned referrals) and described active criminal and administrative enforcement work: three active criminal referrals submitted to the county sheriff for prosecution, a case under investigation with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and seven administrative disqualification hearings so far in 2026 totalling about $32,000 in disqualification outcomes.
Commissioners asked how recovered funds are divided when multiple funding sources (county, state, federal) contributed to benefits. Presenters explained recovery follows program rules and percentage splits: counties retain a portion of collected funds based on program type (fraud investigations often yield higher retention rates; some state recovery mechanisms allow counties to retain about 50% in legacy programs, while other program types result in lower retention). Presenters also described the programstaffing model: two fraud investigators, one claims/overpayments staffer and one estate recovery staffer.
Why this matters: detection and recovery of improper payments affects program integrity and taxpayer dollars. County staff said improved detection and added investigator capacity have substantially increased recoveries and cost-savings ratios, but commissioners noted that collection work is resource-intensive and that recovered funds are often split with state programs.
