Executive Summary of the BSI FY20 Annual Report

An overview of the activities of the Bureau of Special Investigations in Fiscal Year 2020.

Table of Contents

Overview

On March 10, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker issued a Declaration of a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a similar declaration of a national emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has effected nearly every aspect of government work, including the work of BSI. Beginning in March 2020, BSI staff members transitioned to working outside of their primary office locations in Boston, Chicopee, and Brockton. Although faced with unprecedented challenges, the work of BSI continued by using technology and innovation. The fiscal year 2020 (FY20) Bureau of Investigations Annual Report summarizes BSI’s work and initiatives to execute the Office of the State Auditor’s mission to make government work better. This is done through BSI’s statutory charge to investigate fraud, abuse, and illegal acts involving public assistance benefits throughout the Commonwealth. During FY20, BSI continued to investigate and identify fraud in order to maintain program integrity and uphold the Commonwealth’s residents’ faith in public assistance programs. BSI’s efforts ensure that public assistance programs operate with transparency so that benefits are available to residents who truly need them.

In FY20, BSI opened 3,770 new investigations and completed 4,191 total investigations.2 This report includes a comprehensive breakdown of the fraud identified within each program BSI investigates. Of the 482 completed cases with identified fraud,3 the average amount of fraud was $16,938.67.

In FY20, BSI identified $8,164,438.85 in fraud.

Public assistance programs administered by the Department of Transitional Assistance, the Department of Early Education and Care, and MassHealth provide vital social services for the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents—children, persons with disabilities, low-income individuals and families, and seniors. Statistical data on BSI cases from FY20 demonstrates that the cases BSI investigated most frequently involved allegations of undisclosed employment, an unreported non-custodial parent in the home, or a dependent no longer in the home. By contrast, BSI investigated cases with allegations of other earners in the home the least. Looking at the cases BSI investigated during FY20 from a different perspective, the geographical statistical data shows that Hampden, Worcester, and Bristol Counties generated the most allegations overall. Dukes, Nantucket, and Franklin Counties generated the least number of allegations.

Highlighting the new capabilities of the Data Analytics Unit’s analytical support services, the following maps illustrate FY20’s total fraud allegations by county.

Figure 1. Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20) Total Fraud Instances by County

Note: The total number of allegations is higher than the total completed case count because there are often multiple allegations per BSI case number. The grand total as reflected does not filter out duplicate BSI case numbers; the count only includes the unique number of allegations.

 

Table 1A. FY20 Total Fraud Allegations by Allegation Type and County

Allegation

Barnstable

Berkshire

Bristol

Dukes

Essex

Franklin

Hampden

Total

Assets

1

1

4

0

6

0

3

15

Child Care

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Dependent Not in Home

7

8

30

0

19

2

29

95

EBT Fraud

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Employment

8

6

68

0

39

2

69

192

False Identity

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

5

Multiple Assistance

0

0

2

0

0

0

1

3

NCP Present

4

8

33

0

32

2

64

143

Non Resident

3

1

10

0

8

1

10

33

Other

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Other Earner in the Home

1

3

13

0

17

0

28

62

Out of State

0

1

3

0

8

2

6

20

Personal Care Attendant

2

5

3

0

9

1

8

28

Subject Living Above Means

3

2

19

0

8

1

21

54

Support Payments

0

0

3

0

2

0

1

6

Trafficking

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

Unemployment Compensation

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

Grand Total

29

36

191

0

154

11

241

662

 

Table 1B. FY20 Total Fraud Allegations by Allegation Type and County

Allegation

Hampshire

Middlesex

Nantucket

Norfolk

Plymouth

Suffolk

Worcester

Grand Total

Assets

2

2

0

2

1

4

3

14

Child Care

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Dependent Not in Home

3

21

0

8

9

17

37

95

Electronic Benefit Transfer Fraud (EBT) Fraud

0

1

0

0

2

0

1

4

Employment

3

46

0

13

33

66

44

205

False Identity

0

1

0

0

0

2

1

4

Multiple Assistance

1

1

0

0

0

1

4

7

Non-Custodial Parent (NCP) Present

4

28

0

9

19

29

38

127

Non Resident

1

3

0

3

4

11

7

29

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Earner in the Home

4

16

0

12

11

19

21

83

Out of State

0

5

0

1

2

6

8

22

Personal Care Attendant

1

8

0

1

2

12

6

30

Subject Living Above Means

1

19

0

8

16

13

23

80

Support Payments

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

4

Trafficking

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Unemployment Compensation

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

4

Grand Total

20

155

0

59

100

182

193

709

FY20 Itemized Fraud Instances by County

Figure 2. Employment Fraud Instances

A map of Massachusetts showing the number of employment fraud allegations by county. Barnstable had 8, Berkshire had 6, Bristol had 68, Essex had 39, Franklin had 2, Hampden had 69, Hampshire had 3, Middlesex had 46, Norfolk had 13, Plymouth had 33, Suffolk had 66, and Worcester had 44.

 

Figure 3. Non-Custodial Parent Fraud Instances

A map of Massachusetts showing the number of non-custodial parent attendant fraud allegations by county. Barnstable had 4, Berkshire had 8, Bristol had 33, Essex had 32, Franklin had 2, Hampden had 64, Hampshire had 4, Middlesex had 28, Norfolk had 9, Plymouth had 19, Suffolk had 29, and Worcester had 38.

 

Figure 4. Dependent Not in the Home Fraud Instances

A map of Massachusetts showing the number of dependent not in the home fraud allegations by county. Barnstable had 7, Berkshire had 8, Bristol had 30, Essex had 19, Franklin had 2, Hampden had 29, Hampshire had 3, Middlesex had 21, Norfolk had 8, Plymouth had 9, Suffolk had 17, and Worcester had 37.

 

Figure 5. Other Earner in the Home Fraud Instances

A map of Massachusetts showing the number of other earner in the home fraud allegations by county. Barnstable had 1, Berkshire had 3, Bristol had 13, Essex had 17, Hampden had 28, Hampshire had 4, Middlesex had 16, Norfolk had 12, Plymouth had 11, Suffolk had 19, and Worcester had 21.

 

2. Although BSI does not investigate allegations of fraud pertaining to the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA), BSI served as a conduit for citizens potentially impacted by DUA fraud. From May 2020 through June 2020, BSI fielded 579 phone calls from citizens reporting DUA fraud and relayed their information to DUA.

3. Certain aspects of BSI’s business processes were significantly impacted at the end of FY20 due to COVID-19. The reflected total does not include up to 50 cases that were completed but did not have a fraud calculation at the close of FY20.

Date published: February 18, 2021

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback