Note: Finger Imaging: A 21st Century Solution to Welfare Fraud at our Fingertips

This Note describes the finger imaging process and summarizes the current New York Social Services law regarding public assistance. It also outlines the current finger imaging bill before the New York State Legislature. Part III examines and considers the two major policy arguments against the implementation of the program. Part IV outlines the legal controversy regarding finger imaging and addresses each express concern as well as constitutional issues. Part V compares New York\u27s finger imaging legislation with similar legislation already in place in California and argues that the New York program will be as effective as California\u27s. In conclusion, this Note urges the New York State Legislature to enact a statewide finger imaging requirement for public assistance and embrace the finger imaging system as an effective and proper method of combatting welfare fraud in the state

Note: Finger Imaging: A 21st Century Solution to Welfare Fraud at our Fingertips

This Note describes the finger imaging process and summarizes the current New York Social Services law regarding public assistance. It also outlines the current finger imaging bill before the New York State Legislature. Part III examines and considers the two major policy arguments against the implementation of the program. Part IV outlines the legal controversy regarding finger imaging and addresses each express concern as well as constitutional issues. Part V compares New York\u27s finger imaging legislation with similar legislation already in place in California and argues that the New York program will be as effective as California\u27s. In conclusion, this Note urges the New York State Legislature to enact a statewide finger imaging requirement for public assistance and embrace the finger imaging system as an effective and proper method of combatting welfare fraud in the state

Surveillance, discretion and governance in automated welfare:The case of the German ALLEGRO System

Several scholarly studies and journalistic investigations have found that automated decision-making in welfare systems burdens claimants by forecasting their behaviour, targeting them for sanctions and surveillance and punishing them without revealing the underlying mechanisms driving such decisions. This article develops an analytical framework combining three areas of concern regarding automation: how it might introduce surveillance and social sorting, how it can entail the loss of human discretion, and how it requires new systems of governance and due process. This framework steers investigations into whether and how automated decision-making welfare systems introduce new harms and burdens for claimants. A case study on automation processes in Germany’s unemployment benefit service’s IT system ALLEGRO applies this approach and finds that this system does allow for broad human discretion and avoids some forms of surveillance, such as risk-assessments from historic data, though it nevertheless increases surveillance of claimants through sharing data with external agencies. The developed framework also suggests that concerns raised in one area – whether loss of human discretion, surveillance, or lack of due process – can be mitigated by attending to the other two areas and urges researchers and policy-makers to attend to the mitigating or reinforcing factors of each concern

Life and health insurance entities, with conforming changes as of May 1, 2005; Audit and accounting guide:

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_indev/1510/thumbnail.jp

Changes in Federal and State Unemployment Insurance Legislation in 2012

Federal enactments extend federal funding for benefits provided by the Emergency Unemployment Compensation and Extended Benefits programs, require changes in the recovery of overpayments and work search requirements, permit drug testing under certain conditions, and modify the definition of the Short Time Compensation program