County Welfare Recipients Fingerprinted : Social services: Computer finds only two cases of fraud but 700 people have refused to participate in controversial program.

Los Angeles County’s 75,000 welfare recipients are being required to submit to fingerprinting under a controversial new computerized identification system designed to prevent welfare fraud.

But the $9.6-million system has identified only two cases of intentional fraud during the first four months that Public Social Services officials have required fingerprint data.

Still, county officials say the system--believed to be the nation’s first fingerprint-matching computer used for non-law enforcement purposes--will save upwards of $3 million a year by deterring welfare cheats from filing multiple applications under different names.

So far, about 700 general relief cases have been closed because clients have refused to be fingerprinted, said county officials who believe many of those cases were fraudulent.

But the program has drawn criticism from civil rights attorneys who believe some applicants do not seek general relief because they fear the fingerprint information will be shared with law enforcement or immigration officials.

“It’s going to scare people away who want aid,” said Robert Leonard, a homeless advocate for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. “It’s a deterrent, definitely, but not a fraud deterrent.” He said he has received a few complaints from potential welfare applicants who objected to fingerprinting.

Leonard, who met with county officials this week to discuss the system, said he also questions whether a system that has only identified two welfare cheats is worth $9.6 million.

“If their purpose is to save money by preventing fraud I think they threw millions of dollars down the tubes,” he said, adding that the Legal Aid Foundation will continue to press the county on the issue.

Fred Okrand, legal director emeritus for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the system, called Automated Fingerprint Image Reporting and Match (AFIRM), conjures up images of George Orwell’s bleak vision of the future.

“It brings us another step closer to the Big Brother mentality,” he said. “I’m very troubled by it . . . I try to think of our society as free and not shackled by such totalitarian concepts.”

County officials assure applicants that fingerprint information will not be shared with other government agencies. But they said some clients nonetheless have refused to be fingerprinted for fear that the information will be used by law enforcement officials.

The debate comes as county Public Social Services workers complete the process this month of filing the fingerprints of the county’s welfare recipients into a computer used by the county’s 14 general relief offices.

Public Social Services supervisors and designers of the system defend the program, saying it prevents fraud and eliminates errors that can cost the county millions of dollars in the $200-million general relief program.

“As far as that George Orwell thinking goes, that is not occurring,” said Curtis Williams, project manager for Electronic Data Systems, the Dallas, Tex., company that won the five-year contract last year to design the system.

But Okrand said it may be possible for law enforcement officials to obtain the fingerprint information through subpoenas or search warrants. “I would rather not have it,” he said.

Lisa Nunez, section head for the Public Social Service’s computer division, said she is not certain whether the information is protected from such legal actions.

The county had previously kept fingerprints and photographs of general relief applicants who had no identification. But under the new system, each welfare recipient in the county is required to place his index finger on an electronic scanner, which feeds into a computer. Within 60 seconds, the fingerprint is compared to others.

Nunez said the system has identified about 200 cases in which fingerprints matched with others in the system--and nearly all of those cases were attributed to innocent errors by applicants who unwittingly applied twice or to glitches in the system.

Welfare investigators, she said, have identified only two cases of intentional fraud through the fingerprint-matching system. In one case, officials said, a woman applied for welfare under two different names within the space of a few hours in the same welfare office. In the other, the person applied in two offices under different names. Both lost their benefits.

Officials said the process works this way:

When the computer finds that a set of fingerprints corresponds with two or more different names, a clerk confronts the applicant. If the applicant is unable to explain the duplication, the matter is referred to a fraud investigator.

If the investigator finds fraud, the applicant can ask for a review of the prints by a forensic specialist from the district attorney’s office. As a final appeal, the applicant can sue the county for lost welfare payments.

Several welfare recipients at the Public Social Services’ downtown office this week said they were not reluctant to be fingerprinted but understood why others hesitate.

“If you have warrants I can understand how you can feel that way,” said Louis Cashier, 32, who was fingerprinted in July. “There are a few people who feel it’s an invasion of privacy.”

Mary Murphy, 45, of Los Angeles was fingerprinted Thursday when she applied for general relief benefits. She said people with criminal records are most likely to fear the fingerprinting process. “It doesn’t bother me,” she said. “It’s just something you have to do.”

Sandra Reyes, a fingerprinting clerk, said that at least once a week someone declines to be fingerprinted. “They say ‘No, no, I’m not going to be fingerprinted’ and they just walk out,” she said. “Most of the time they just ask, ‘Will my warrants show up?’ ”

Nunez said applicants are assured by clerks that the fingerprinting information will not be shared. The new fingerprint system also is explained on video monitors and through posters.

Fingerprint data is most commonly used by law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations. But county officials believe the success of the AFIRM system may signal increased use of fingerprint-matching computers by non-law enforcement agencies.

“Los Angeles County is on the leading edge in providing automated verification,” EDS Vice President Merv Forney said.

A spokesman for the county coroner’s office said that agency is interested in sharing the Public Social Service’s fingerprinting information to identify corpses. “It’s a win situation for us,” said Bob Dambacher, a coroner’s office spokesman. “If we have another source to check, we may be able to identify you through that source.”