5 ms·

FoF claimed to supply meals at the same physical locations as CCAP and paid the same owners. As mentioned, one of nine of the operators profiled, who was previo

by patio11 8mo ago

FoF claimed to supply meals at the same physical locations as CCAP and paid the same owners. As mentioned, one of nine of the operators profiled, who was previously raided in an investigation into alleged overbilling of CCAP, received $1.5M from FoF. FoF is in fact not a federal nutrition program but actually the name of a non-profit which received grants from a federal nutrition program for forwarding to third parties. CCAP is also funded by federal block funding.

refulgentis 8mo ago
The operator overlap is real, and the correction that FoF is a non-profit rather than a federal program is fair. I'll take both points. But look at what's happened across this exchange: Essay: Industrial-scale CCAP fraud is "beyond intellectually serious dispute." The evidence: the OLA report shows investigators believed 50%+ of reimbursements were fraudulent. When challenged that the OLA explicitly could not substantiate $100M and proven fraud was $5-6M: you retreat to "my citation that investigators believed this is absolutely true and is in the report as claimed." When challenged that "investigators believed X" ≠ "X is beyond intellectually serious dispute" — especially when the same report documents the IG saying "I do not trust the allegation," DHS leadership calling $100M "not credible," investigators having "varying levels of certainty" with some having "not enough experience to have an opinion," and the OLA itself saying "we cannot offer a reliable estimate": you pivot to FoF operator overlap. You still haven't addressed the actual critique. The overlap proves that some fraudsters work across programs. Not disputed, not surprising, and consistent with your essay's point about fraud lifecycles. What it doesn't do is retroactively substantiate Swanson's 50% CCAP figure. His methodology, spelled out in the very email the OLA appended, counted all payments to any center where children were poorly supervised as 100% fraudulent, a standard he himself distinguished from "the kind of proof needed in a criminal or administrative proceeding." FoF fraud was fabricating meal claims for meals never served. CCAP fraud is billing for children not present. Different programs, different billing mechanisms, different oversight bodies (MDE vs. DHS), different proven scales by orders of magnitude. That some of the same people ran both doesn't collapse the distinction. "CCAP is also funded by federal block funding" seems designed to blur a line that matters. Many programs are federally funded. That doesn't make convictions in one program evidence of the fraud rate in another. Here's what's frustrating: I think the essay's core argument is genuinely strong, and it doesn't need the overclaim. The OLA report is already damning on its own honest terms: proven fraud of $5-6M in a program with paper sign-in sheets prosecutors called "almost comical," no electronic attendance verification, 60-day billing windows, a certification statement removed from billing forms in 2013, and the investigators themselves saying centers "open faster than they can close the existing ones down." The report makes it clear fraud was likely substantially higher than proven convictions. That's already a devastating indictment of program oversight. Your argument about base rates, weak controls, and Shirley fishing in a troubled pond all follows from that, from the report as it actually reads. But "likely substantially higher than $5-6M, in a program with terrible controls" is a very different claim than "50%+ fraud, beyond intellectually serious dispute." Your essay presents the latter. The report supports the former. And the gap matters, because the essay is being read right now, today. in a context where the president is calling Somalis "garbage," prosecutors are throwing out $9 billion estimates in press conferences, and five states just had billions in child care funding frozen. Overstating what the evidence supports isn't a minor rhetorical choice in that environment. It's exactly the kind of epistemic failure the essay warns about when it talks about "irresponsible demagogues" filling the vacuum.
- patio11 8mo ago
  The thing which is beyond intellectually serious dispute is industrial-scaled fraud. You keep wanting to make me "own" the CCAP's estimate. I will not reciprocally try to make you "own" $5 million, because I am charitable and because history has been unkind to the officials who made it. I do ask you to own: "Minnesota HAS NOT suffered industrial-scale fraud across several social programs." Otherwise this is judging a high school debate competition, and I've had better.
  - laidoffamazon 8mo ago
    This is genuinely pathetic, Patrick. You want to say it so bad but can’t! No notes on the fraudsters pardoned by this current admin of course.
    - refulgentis 8mo ago
      The political sidecars attached are unnecessary.
    - tptacek 8mo ago
      Fraudsters pardoned by the current administration don't make public service and welfare fraud in Minnesota any less grave or important, and it's super weird that people across this thread keep implying otherwise.
      - laidoffamazon 8mo ago
        I frequently follow Patrick's tweets. He hasn't said a single goddamn thing about this corrupt administration but keeps talking about Gavin Newsome's vaccine policy that was in effect for 2 months in 2021
        tptacek 8mo ago
        Patrick ran VaccinateCA and has lots of reasons to have opinions on how California (in particular) managed vaccination rollout. But I'm more struck by the notion that he somehow has an obligation to use his Twitter account to support your political commitments. What a weird critique.

by patio11 8mo ago

refulgentis 8mo ago

The operator overlap is real, and the correction that FoF is a non-profit rather than a federal program is fair. I'll take both points. But look at what's happened across this exchange: Essay: Industrial-scale CCAP fraud is "beyond intellectually serious dispute." The evidence: the OLA report shows investigators believed 50%+ of reimbursements were fraudulent. When challenged that the OLA explicitly could not substantiate $100M and proven fraud was $5-6M: you retreat to "my citation that investigators believed this is absolutely true and is in the report as claimed." When challenged that "investigators believed X" ≠ "X is beyond intellectually serious dispute" — especially when the same report documents the IG saying "I do not trust the allegation," DHS leadership calling $100M "not credible," investigators having "varying levels of certainty" with some having "not enough experience to have an opinion," and the OLA itself saying "we cannot offer a reliable estimate": you pivot to FoF operator overlap. You still haven't addressed the actual critique. The overlap proves that some fraudsters work across programs. Not disputed, not surprising, and consistent with your essay's point about fraud lifecycles. What it doesn't do is retroactively substantiate Swanson's 50% CCAP figure. His methodology, spelled out in the very email the OLA appended, counted all payments to any center where children were poorly supervised as 100% fraudulent, a standard he himself distinguished from "the kind of proof needed in a criminal or administrative proceeding." FoF fraud was fabricating meal claims for meals never served. CCAP fraud is billing for children not present. Different programs, different billing mechanisms, different oversight bodies (MDE vs. DHS), different proven scales by orders of magnitude. That some of the same people ran both doesn't collapse the distinction. "CCAP is also funded by federal block funding" seems designed to blur a line that matters. Many programs are federally funded. That doesn't make convictions in one program evidence of the fraud rate in another. Here's what's frustrating: I think the essay's core argument is genuinely strong, and it doesn't need the overclaim. The OLA report is already damning on its own honest terms: proven fraud of $5-6M in a program with paper sign-in sheets prosecutors called "almost comical," no electronic attendance verification, 60-day billing windows, a certification statement removed from billing forms in 2013, and the investigators themselves saying centers "open faster than they can close the existing ones down." The report makes it clear fraud was likely substantially higher than proven convictions. That's already a devastating indictment of program oversight. Your argument about base rates, weak controls, and Shirley fishing in a troubled pond all follows from that, from the report as it actually reads. But "likely substantially higher than $5-6M, in a program with terrible controls" is a very different claim than "50%+ fraud, beyond intellectually serious dispute." Your essay presents the latter. The report supports the former. And the gap matters, because the essay is being read right now, today. in a context where the president is calling Somalis "garbage," prosecutors are throwing out $9 billion estimates in press conferences, and five states just had billions in child care funding frozen. Overstating what the evidence supports isn't a minor rhetorical choice in that environment. It's exactly the kind of epistemic failure the essay warns about when it talks about "irresponsible demagogues" filling the vacuum.

patio11 8mo ago
The thing which is beyond intellectually serious dispute is industrial-scaled fraud. You keep wanting to make me "own" the CCAP's estimate. I will not reciprocally try to make you "own" $5 million, because I am charitable and because history has been unkind to the officials who made it. I do ask you to own: "Minnesota HAS NOT suffered industrial-scale fraud across several social programs." Otherwise this is judging a high school debate competition, and I've had better.
- laidoffamazon 8mo ago
  This is genuinely pathetic, Patrick. You want to say it so bad but can’t! No notes on the fraudsters pardoned by this current admin of course.
  - refulgentis 8mo ago
    The political sidecars attached are unnecessary.
  - tptacek 8mo ago
    Fraudsters pardoned by the current administration don't make public service and welfare fraud in Minnesota any less grave or important, and it's super weird that people across this thread keep implying otherwise.
    - laidoffamazon 8mo ago
      I frequently follow Patrick's tweets. He hasn't said a single goddamn thing about this corrupt administration but keeps talking about Gavin Newsome's vaccine policy that was in effect for 2 months in 2021
      - tptacek 8mo ago
        Patrick ran VaccinateCA and has lots of reasons to have opinions on how California (in particular) managed vaccination rollout. But I'm more struck by the notion that he somehow has an obligation to use his Twitter account to support your political commitments. What a weird critique.