WaPo takes deep dive into DCPS residency fraud

[Anonymous]

Your phone number does have a connection to fees and other charges you pay, though I don't think there is any legal requirement to tie your phone number to your residency. There are local taxes and 911 fees that you might pay if, for example, you have a 443 phone number as compared to a 202.

[Anonymous]

My biggest complaint about the DCP&PCS forum has always been that there's not enough discussion about cell phone area codes. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to add to your pain, PP, but ...

Years (many years!) ago when I got my first mobile phone, I had a choice of area codes and chose 703 because the taxes were lower than 202 or 301. It didn’t matter where I bought it or where I lived. I have kept the same number and lived in all three area codes. Mobile phone number does not prove or disprove residency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your phone number does have a connection to fees and other charges you pay, though I don't think there is any legal requirement to tie your phone number to your residency. There are local taxes and 911 fees that you might pay if, for example, you have a 443 phone number as compared to a 202.

I've had my 917 area code since 2000 -- and haven't live in NYC for a decade. Not unusual at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your phone number does have a connection to fees and other charges you pay, though I don't think there is any legal requirement to tie your phone number to your residency. There are local taxes and 911 fees that you might pay if, for example, you have a 443 phone number as compared to a 202.

I've had my 917 area code since 2000 -- and haven't live in NYC for a decade. Not unusual at all.

Agree, not unusual. I just found it unusual that PP declared that he has been a 40-year resident of DC but didn't have a 202 area code. Of course he has clarified about his mid-west job and it makes sense. I still find it strange though.

[Anonymous]

I have a west coast zip code (lived there years ago). Several years ago when buying a phone, I remember being told you can have any zip code you like these days. Seems this has been in place for a while now.

[Anonymous]

Back to the point I was trying to make --and it was not about cellphones. It was simply that the system of residency checks ignores the realities of modern day life and work --such as people who live in DC but work out of state, or no longer do landlines and have work and personal cellphones with various area codes, and whole range of complications that did not exist even five years ago, let alone decades.

But more to the point the vast majority of people being caught up in fraud investigations are actually District residents with small paperwork triggers, and not scofflaws from MD and VA. Which is not to say those people do not exist, but nowhere near the levels being bandied about on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the point I was trying to make --and it was not about cellphones. It was simply that the system of residency checks ignores the realities of modern day life and work --such as people who live in DC but work out of state, or no longer do landlines and have work and personal cellphones with various area codes, and whole range of complications that did not exist even five years ago, let alone decades.

But more to the point the vast majority of people being caught up in fraud investigations are actually District residents with small paperwork triggers, and not scofflaws from MD and VA. Which is not to say those people do not exist, but nowhere near the levels being bandied about on DCUM.

The over-arching point is that DCPS doesn't want to fix their residency checking. As the Post article that started this thread showed, many of the hardcore cheaters are insiders. The last thing they want is a system that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the point I was trying to make --and it was not about cellphones. It was simply that the system of residency checks ignores the realities of modern day life and work --such as people who live in DC but work out of state, or no longer do landlines and have work and personal cellphones with various area codes, and whole range of complications that did not exist even five years ago, let alone decades.

But more to the point the vast majority of people being caught up in fraud investigations are actually District residents with small paperwork triggers, and not scofflaws from MD and VA. Which is not to say those people do not exist, but nowhere near the levels being bandied about on DCUM.

The over-arching point is that DCPS doesn't want to fix their residency checking. As the Post article that started this thread showed, many of the hardcore cheaters are insiders. The last thing they want is a system that works.

And the more they can point to clerical errors - the less they are held accountable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the point I was trying to make --and it was not about cellphones. It was simply that the system of residency checks ignores the realities of modern day life and work --such as people who live in DC but work out of state, or no longer do landlines and have work and personal cellphones with various area codes, and whole range of complications that did not exist even five years ago, let alone decades.

But more to the point the vast majority of people being caught up in fraud investigations are actually District residents with small paperwork triggers, and not scofflaws from MD and VA. Which is not to say those people do not exist, but nowhere near the levels being bandied about on DCUM.

The over-arching point is that DCPS doesn't want to fix their residency checking. As the Post article that started this thread showed, many of the hardcore cheaters are insiders. The last thing they want is a system that works.

Mayor Barry may be gone, but a number of folks employed in the DC government still have the Barry bureaucrat mentality. This means, it's not about the work, its about the perks and privileges to be exploited.

[Anonymous]

We live in MD. Now. I just got my DD a cell phone this last year. 202 was an option for the cell phone number and I took it. Hah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCPS enrollment paperwork clearly states that the name of the person (parent/guardian) on the paperwork needs to also be the name on the utility bill.

Yes, but now, a plain old utility bill, even though it shows "CR" at the top where you paid the previous month, is not good enough anymore. You have to have separate proof of payment for the same month as the bill you are bringing in. Which is what happened to me when I tried to reenroll my kid earlier this week. Registrar said I could bring back in my bank statement reflecting the payment, but frankly, I don't want to give the school my bank statement even with all other info blacked out, which seems like a royal pain. We don't own a car and neither of us receives physical pay stubs. So I think I need to go get a certified copy of my tax return before I can reregister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS enrollment paperwork clearly states that the name of the person (parent/guardian) on the paperwork needs to also be the name on the utility bill.

Yes, but now, a plain old utility bill, even though it shows "CR" at the top where you paid the previous month, is not good enough anymore. You have to have separate proof of payment for the same month as the bill you are bringing in. Which is what happened to me when I tried to reenroll my kid earlier this week. Registrar said I could bring back in my bank statement reflecting the payment, but frankly, I don't want to give the school my bank statement even with all other info blacked out, which seems like a royal pain. We don't own a car and neither of us receives physical pay stubs. So I think I need to go get a certified copy of my tax return before I can reregister.

Yes it is a pain. But you could print out a copy of your online pay stub (they work; I did it this week). What do you think they would do with your redacted bank statement exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS enrollment paperwork clearly states that the name of the person (parent/guardian) on the paperwork needs to also be the name on the utility bill.

Yes, but now, a plain old utility bill, even though it shows "CR" at the top where you paid the previous month, is not good enough anymore. You have to have separate proof of payment for the same month as the bill you are bringing in. Which is what happened to me when I tried to reenroll my kid earlier this week. Registrar said I could bring back in my bank statement reflecting the payment, but frankly, I don't want to give the school my bank statement even with all other info blacked out, which seems like a royal pain. We don't own a car and neither of us receives physical pay stubs. So I think I need to go get a certified copy of my tax return before I can reregister.

Yes it is a pain. But you could print out a copy of your online pay stub (they work; I did it this week). What do you think they would do with your redacted bank statement exactly?

My pay stub has no address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS enrollment paperwork clearly states that the name of the person (parent/guardian) on the paperwork needs to also be the name on the utility bill.

Yes, but now, a plain old utility bill, even though it shows "CR" at the top where you paid the previous month, is not good enough anymore. You have to have separate proof of payment for the same month as the bill you are bringing in. Which is what happened to me when I tried to reenroll my kid earlier this week. Registrar said I could bring back in my bank statement reflecting the payment, but frankly, I don't want to give the school my bank statement even with all other info blacked out, which seems like a royal pain. We don't own a car and neither of us receives physical pay stubs. So I think I need to go get a certified copy of my tax return before I can reregister.

Yes it is a pain. But you could print out a copy of your online pay stub (they work; I did it this week). What do you think they would do with your redacted bank statement exactly?

My pay stub has no address.

Well a utility bill marked "CR" is useless, because it doesn't prove that you are the one who paid it. You could easily have people renting from you at that address who cover the bill.