DeKalb County: Workforce Grants for Already-Hired Firefighters

DeKalb County, Georgia, agreed to pay $750,000 to settle allegations that it used workforce grants for already-hired firefighters who did not qualify for the training program. The government alleged that the county’s workforce agency presented grant paperwork during onboarding and offered free boots and gas cards to get the firefighters’ signatures. If you worked in hiring, payroll or the training program, the sequence matters: the county had already chosen the people whose wages the grant would allegedly subsidize.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office announcement on May 21, 2019 identified WorkSource DeKalb as the county agency administering the Department of Labor’s On-the-Job Training program. The false grant performance certification allegations covered January 1, 2013 through December 18, 2016.

How the On-the-Job Training Grant Was Supposed to Work

The On-the-Job Training program subsidized salaries to encourage employers to hire and train people who were unemployed or working without earning self-sufficient wages. The Department of Labor supplied the grant money to Georgia, which distributed it to local One-Stop operators such as WorkSource DeKalb. The announcement identified the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act as the funding authority, following the Workforce Investment Act, which authorized the funds until July 2015.

Those local operators had a job beyond passing money along. Under the program described in the settlement announcement, On-the-Job Training funds could reimburse an employer only for the extraordinary cost of training someone whose identified skills gaps prevented that person from obtaining employment. The One-Stop operator identified those gaps. The subsidy connected an eligible person’s need for training to the employer’s cost of providing it.

What the Government Alleged Happened in DeKalb County

The government alleged that WorkSource DeKalb enrolled at least 42 firefighters after the county had selected them as the most qualified applicants through a competitive hiring process. They had never heard of WorkSource DeKalb before being hired, had received no services from it and did not qualify for the training program, according to the government’s account.

The alleged enrollment took place during onboarding. According to the government, WorkSource DeKalb required ineligible people hired by county agencies on the open job market to sign training-program paperwork as part of that process. For the firefighters, the government described an inducement: WorkSource employees offered free boots and gas cards, paid for with Department of Labor grant funds, to obtain the signatures.

The boots and gas cards explain how the forms allegedly got signed. Their cost also connects the enrollment process to the same federal money that was supposed to support qualifying training. A firefighter’s signature on a form could sit in a program file while the hiring history and absence of services told a different story.

The allegations reached beyond the Fire and Rescue Department. The settlement also covered On-the-Job Training funds used for employees in other county agencies, including Human Resources, Emergency 911 and Sanitation. It also resolved allegations that WorkSource DeKalb enrolled ineligible employees of VetConnexx, a private employer.

Why the Hiring Date Matters

The hiring date matters because the government alleged that the county had already chosen qualified applicants before WorkSource DeKalb enrolled them in a program meant to overcome barriers to employment.

We see the absurdity in that account: a program meant to help people get jobs allegedly became a way for the county to subsidize jobs they had already secured. Boots, gas cards and a signature supplied the enrollment. The government said the training agency supplied no services.

For someone familiar with the hiring process, the difference can be visible before anyone examines a grant total. The competitive application establishes how the worker came to the employer. The onboarding paperwork shows when the training program entered the picture. The participant and service records address what the workforce agency actually did for that person.

We examine those records together as evidence connecting the charge to the activity it was supposed to fund. The question in this case was why the training program was paying toward that employee’s wages when, according to the government, the employee did not qualify and had received no WorkSource services.

What Is a False Certification?

A false certification tells the government that a requirement has been met when the underlying facts contradict it. In DeKalb County, the United States alleged that the county falsely certified compliance with Department of Labor On-the-Job Training rules while the money subsidized ineligible employees who received no WorkSource services.

Maricopa Community Colleges and AmeriCorps Service Hours

Maricopa County Community College District agreed to pay $4.08 million in a separate settlement over Project Ayuda. The government alleged that the district certified students had completed the national-service hours required for AmeriCorps education awards when they had not. Those certifications allegedly caused the Corporation for National and Community Service to issue the awards, and the district allegedly received improper grants to administer the project. A district employee brought that whistleblower case.

The parallel is the program assurance behind the money. DeKalb concerned whether the workers qualified for funded training and received services. Maricopa concerned whether students performed the required service. In each account, knowing the people and their actual participation exposes a contradiction that the payment total alone cannot explain.

The Settlement and the Corrective Action Plan

DeKalb County’s civil settlement addressed the alleged misuse of On-the-Job Training funds and false compliance certifications. The county also entered into a Corrective Action Plan with the Department of Labor, subjecting its administration of the program to reporting and monitoring requirements.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia and the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General investigated the case.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

In a workforce-grant case like this one, the useful proof connects the participant’s hiring and eligibility, the services provided, the program’s certifications and the money charged to the grant. We work through that connection with people who know the program from inside.

A hiring employee may know how applicants were selected and when they accepted their jobs. A participant may remember when the training paperwork appeared and what they were offered for signing. A program or payroll employee may understand how an enrollment became a salary subsidy. Those perspectives address different parts of the government’s allegations without requiring any one person to have run the whole program.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay a whistleblower reward of 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

You Know When the Paperwork Appeared

If you saw workforce-grant forms attached to people the employer had already hired, talk with our whistleblower experts about the enrollment and the money behind it. We build your case around the hiring, training and payroll decisions, and bring in grant fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand federally funded workforce programs. You bring your view inside the program, and we bring the judgment and partnership to pursue the case with you.