residency fraud? (!)

[Anonymous]

Yea, quite the slip.

PPs come here to talk tough, but I'm not convinced that most of you have actually called the tips line (or gone to your principal) to try to get little kids chucked out of your school.

Hard to look the parent you've gone at in the eye if they stay (and most do stay), though you won't admit that.

[Anonymous]

My younger cousin was kicked out of high school a few years ago and had to start attending his zoned high school. His zoned high school was lower rated, and his mom preferred for him to attend the other high school, which was near where she worked in another town.

Yes, I'm sure whoever told on them was a busybody (they were using a relative's address). However, his mom, who is a teacher, should've known better. I didn't know how it happened until he was kicked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My younger cousin was kicked out of high school a few years ago and had to start attending his zoned high school. His zoned high school was lower rated, and his mom preferred for him to attend the other high school, which was near where she worked in another town.

Yes, I'm sure whoever told on them was a busybody (they were using a relative's address). However, his mom, who is a teacher, should've known better. I didn't know how it happened until he was kicked out.

P.S. They are not poor, there was no unstable living situation, etc.--the mom was just breaking the rules for convenience, and someone told on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the WAMU reporter should have spoken to parents who are being investigated, to learn about how the process is working.

When we were investigated a couple years back (while divorcing), we were given the name of the fellow parent who'd complained. The parent had written a letter to the investigator's office, which we were shown. We were asked if we thought the issue was "personal." We were required to produce several years of certified tax returns, plus other residency documents DCPS had not asked for before. We were also asked to sign a form agreeing to a home visit (which never took place). A letter reporting the result (cleared) was sent to our principal.

As for the parent who tried to get our children thrown out of teh school, well, she always gets a big hello and smiles from me when I bump into her.

Re-read those stats: only 19 cases of the 269 tips have been officially closed. Of the 19 closed cases, 6 were found to be non-residents (just under one-third).

That means OSSE is sitting on a metric f#ckton of non-investigated tips and perhaps 30% are legit cases of residency fraud. That's higher than I imagined.

I don't think your conclusion is necessarily correct. I was thinking the opposite - that out of 269 tips, only 19 seemed legitimate enough to investigate fully, and 6 of those were nonresidents. Some tips are likely not worth investigating - OP is a case in point. Do you really think OSSE can do anything with a "tip" saying "I saw a car with Maryland plates dropping a child off this morning?" It seems likely that only a small fraction of tips are actually worth investigating.

[Anonymous]

As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

[Anonymous]

The investigators just aren't the clowns DCUM'ers claim them to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have posted about this before. Happened at Janney last year.

You guessed it folks... Maryland plates. After seeing the same thing 4 days in a row I finally followed them to a home in Silver Spring.

Worth looking into.

You stalked them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The investigators just aren't the clowns DCUM'ers claim them to be.

There was only 1. They may have hired the second by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Well I made my report anonymously online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Of course, even if there were a vendetta or personal beef between you and whoever reported you, if your residency didn't actually check out, you'd still be charged for tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Well I made my report anonymously online.

Courageous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Of course, even if there were a vendetta or personal beef between you and whoever reported you, if your residency didn't actually check out, you'd still be charged for tuition.

Sure, but I felt like we got the benefit of the doubt in the investigation partly because we could document the complainer's antipathy toward us (a nasty quote in a local rag). The investigator didn't come down on us like a ton of bricks or rush to judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Of course, even if there were a vendetta or personal beef between you and whoever reported you, if your residency didn't actually check out, you'd still be charged for tuition.

Sure, but I felt like we got the benefit of the doubt in the investigation partly because we could document the complainer's antipathy toward us (a nasty quote in a local rag). The investigator didn't come down on us like a ton of bricks or rush to judgement.

There is due process built into the system. You have an opportunity to prove that you are not committing fraud, and you did by producing the certified tax records and so forth. The investigator also has an obligation not to disrespect or prejudge a person being investigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Well I made my report anonymously online.

Courageous!

No more courageous than lying and cheating so you don’t have to pay for aftercare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As somebody who was actually investigated, I can report being impressed that the chief residency fraud investigator was willing to consider that a personal vendetta may have been behind a tip that wasn't anonymous (it was indeed). We were given the name of the tipster and a chance to describe our relationship with her. We turned in a bunch of extra docs proving residency at the investigator's office, consented to a home visit (which didn't go forward) and that was it. Cleared, the system worked.

Well I made my report anonymously online.

Courageous!

No more courageous than lying and cheating so you don’t have to pay for aftercare.

+1