fraud alert

Suit: Princeton Review charged city for tutoring it didn't provide

This chart from the Justice Department's lawsuit against Princeton Review shows how many times the company billed the city for tutoring students who were absent or when school was closed — and how much it was paid. (Click to enlarge)

A company hired to provide tutoring services in New York City bilked the city out of millions of dollars in federal funding for poor students, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

The department today filed a civil fraud lawsuit against The Princeton Review, Inc., alleging that the company had gotten the city to reimburse it for tutoring it had not provided. According to the suit, the company’s fraudulent claims continued even after a city investigation — never made public — turned up misconduct in 2006.

The tutoring program, known as “supplemental education services” and mandated for low-performing students in high-needs under the No Child Left Behind law, reimbursed providers based on the number of students they served. Princeton Review documented how many students it had tutored by turning in signed attendance sheets; it also gave bonuses to supervisors of tutoring sites where attendance was high. One of those supervisors, Ana Azocar, is also named in the lawsuit.

The bonus system incentivized fraud, according to the suit. Investigators found that many of the signatures showing student attendance were falsified — and sometimes names were even misspelled. The company sought reimbursement for tutoring students who were out of the country and holding sessions when schools were closed, according to the suit. At one school, the now-closed M.S. 399 in the Bronx, the company said it had tutored 74 students on New Year’s Day.

“The Princeton Review and its employees were supposed to tutor needy students, not cheat a federal program,” said Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, in a statement. “As alleged, the company and certain of its employees forged student signatures, falsified sign-in sheets, and provided false certifications in order to deceitfully profit from a well-meaning program.”

The complaint covers the years 2006 to 2010 but notes that the city’s own investigator, Special Commission of Investigation Richard Condon, had scrutinized the program’s records from before that in 2006. That year, Condon released two separate reports detailing improprieties by a number of tutoring providers — but neither named Princeton Review. Only a small fraction of SCI investigations are ever released.

A Department of Education spokesman said today that Condon’s office had referred the current allegations to Bharara’s office.

Princeton Review had a contract with the city to provide SES tutoring from 2002 until 2010, when it closed its SES division. The company is not currently a citywide vendor, but some schools have hired the company to provide preparation for standardized tests such as the SAT. More than 100 other companies are approved to offer SES tutoring to city students, and the number of eligible students grew this year as more schools failed to hit federal accountability benchmarks.

A spokesperson for Princeton Review did not deny the allegations but said that the alleged improprieties are part of the company’s past.

“The activity allegedly occurred within the company’s former Supplemental Educational Services division, which the company discontinued in 2010,” said the spokesperson. “No former SES employees or executives are with the company today, and current management — most of whom joined the company after the division was shuttered — had no involvement or role in the affairs of SES.  We are working closely with the U.S. Attorney’s office to resolve this matter expeditiously.”

The Justice Department’s press release about the suit is below, followed by the complaint filed today in Manhattan Federal Court.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES PRINCETON REVIEW

FOR CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT FOR TUTORING SERVICES IT DID NOT PROVIDE

NEW YORK – The United States has filed a civil fraud lawsuit against The Princeton Review Inc., a leading provider of educational products and services, and Ana Azocar, a former employee at the company, for Princeton Review’s repeated submission of false claims for reimbursement in connection with a federally-funded program to provide tutoring services to underprivileged children in New York City, Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Brian M. Hickey, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Northeastern Region of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (ED-OIG), announced today.  As a result, Princeton Review received millions of dollars in federal funds for tutoring services that it did not provide.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act for the fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted by Princeton Review.

U.S. Attorney Bharara said, “The Princeton Review and its employees were supposed to tutor needy students, not cheat a federal program.  As alleged, the company and certain of its employees forged student signatures, falsified sign-in sheets, and provided false certifications in order to deceitfully profit from a well-meaning program.  As today’s suit demonstrates, this type of fraud will not be tolerated.”

ED-OIG Special Agent-in-Charge Hickey said, “The Supplemental Education Services program provides critical resources for deserving students who seek to improve their academic performance.  Today’s actions allege that Princeton Review billed and retained SES payments for students it did not tutor.  That is unacceptable.  Tracking down those who would cheat this important program is a priority of our office.”

As alleged in the complaint filed today in Manhattan Federal Court:

From 2002 to 2010, Princeton Review participated in a federally-funded program under which it provided Supplemental Educational Services (SES) – specifically, after-school tutoring – to underprivileged students attending underperforming schools in New York City.  Under the program, Princeton Review was paid a fixed amount of money per hour for each student it tutored by the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE), with funds provided to New York state by the federal government.  The allegations in the complaint relate exclusively to Princeton Review’s provision of SES tutoring in New York City from 2006 to 2010.  Princeton Review exited the SES business in 2010.

At each of its tutoring classes, Princeton Review had students sign in and out on an attendance form.  The company was required to keep a daily attendance record as a condition of getting paid.  However, many of Princeton Review’s site managers — employees who oversaw the day-to-day operations of its New York City SES program — routinely falsified entries on the daily student attendance forms to make it appear as though more students had attended tutoring classes than had in fact attended.  Azocar and other supervisors (called “directors”) used threats of termination and pay cuts to pressure site managers to maintain high daily student attendance.  Azocar also instructed and/or encouraged some site managers to falsify entries on the attendance forms, including by signing in for absent students.

From 2006 to 2010, Princeton Review’s daily student attendance forms and invoices were replete with falsifications such as:

  • Entries were changed to indicate that students were present after the students were initially marked as absent.  In some of these instances, the students’ signatures were obvious forgeries because the students’ own names were misspelled.  On one attendance form, a student named Dontae was signed in as “Donate.”
  • Students were signed in as present on days when their parents later confirmed they were absent.  For example, one student was in Mexico on a family vacation on four days when the student’s purported signature appears on daily student attendance forms.  Another student was signed in as present on three days when in fact a note from the student’s doctor shows that the student was home from school recuperating from surgery.
  • Princeton Review was paid for tutoring students on days when records from the NYC DOE show that the students were absent from school or school was closed.  For example, Princeton Review billed the NYC DOE for tutoring 74 students at MS 399 in the Bronx on New Year’s Day in 2008, when there were no SES classes due to the holiday.

Furthermore, Princeton Review maintained an incentive compensation system that encouraged the falsification of attendance records.  Specifically, the company paid directors substantial bonuses if the site managers they supervised consistently reported high daily student attendance.  For example, Princeton Review paid Azocar bonuses of $9,600 and $6,600 in 2008 and 2009, respectively, because the site managers she supervised consistently reported high daily student attendance.

For each invoice that Princeton Review submitted to the NYC DOE for its purported tutoring, Princeton Review certified that the information on the invoice was “true and accurate.”  Despite these certifications, most, if not all, of the monthly invoices contained false information, and the invoices billed the NYC DOE for thousands of hours of tutoring services that Princeton Review never actually provided.  As a result of these false monthly invoices, the NYC DOE paid Princeton Review millions of dollars in federal funds for tutoring services that it never in fact provided.

The complaint further alleges that Princeton Review management had previously been made aware of similar misconduct in the company’s New York City SES program, but failed to take adequate corrective action.  Specifically, in 2006, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District investigated whether Princeton Review had overbilled the NYC DOE for SES tutoring during the 2005-2006 academic year (the academic year immediately preceding the years at issue in this suit).  Although the company hired an outside law firm to conduct an internal investigation and implemented certain compliance measures, the company failed to implement adequate corrective action, as evidenced by the fact that the company’s compliance officers routinely approved attendance forms with clear signs of fraud.  Moreover, in 2008, a Princeton Review manager was told that Azocar had instructed a site manager to forge student signatures, but the manager failed to investigate the matter adequately and allowed Azocar to keep her job.  As a result of Princeton Review’s failure to deter or detect fraud, the fraud continued.

By filing its complaint, the government joined a private whistleblower lawsuit that had previously been filed against Princeton Review under the False Claims Act.

U.S. Attorney Bharara thanked the ED-OIG for its extraordinary assistance in this case.

The case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher B. Harwood from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York’s Civil Frauds Unit.

The Civil Frauds Unit works in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which U.S. Attorney Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group.  President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources.  The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Princeton Review Complaint

the end

A 60-year-old group that places volunteers in New York City schools is shutting down

PHOTO: August Young

Citing a lack of support from the city education department, a 60-year-old nonprofit that places volunteers in New York City schools is closing its doors next month.

Learning Leaders will cease operations on March 15, its executive director, Jane Heaphy, announced in a letter to volunteers and parents last week.

In the message, she said the group had slashed its budget by more than a third, started charging “partnership fees” to participating schools, and explored merging with another nonprofit. But the city pitched in with less and less every year, with no guarantee of consistency, she said.

“This funding volatility has created insurmountable challenges to the long-term viability of our organization,” Heaphy wrote. “We regret the vacuum that will be created by our closure.”

The group — which began as part of the city school system but became its own nonprofit in the 1970s — says its volunteers work with more than 100,000 students in more than 300 schools every year, many of them faithfully. When then-84-year-old Carolyn Breidenbach became the group’s 2013 volunteer of the year, she had been helping at P.S. 198 on the Upper East Side daily for 12 years.

Heaphy’s full message to volunteers is below:

Dear [volunteer],

It is with a heavy heart that I write to inform you Learning Leaders will cease operations on March 15 of this year. This organization has worked diligently over the last few years to sustain our work of engaging families as Learning Leaders, but the funding landscape has become too challenging to keep our programs going. While we have been able to increase our revenues from a generous community of funders, we have ultimately come to the conclusion that without a consistent and significant base of funding from the NYC Department of Education, we cannot leverage foundation grants, individual donors, or school fees sufficiently to cover program costs.

In the face of growing financial challenges, Learning Leaders reduced its costs as thoughtfully as possible — and in ways that did not affect our program quality. Rather, we sought to deepen and continually improve our service to schools and families while eliminating all but the most necessary costs. These efforts reduced our budget by more than 35 percent.

At the same time, we sought greater public support for our work with schools and families across the city. We are grateful to the foundations and individual donors that have believed in our work and provided financial support to keep it going. We were gratified when schools stepped up to support our efforts through partnership fees. While these fees only covered a portion of our costs, the willingness of principals to find these funds within their extremely tight school budgets was a testament to the value of our work.

Throughout an extended period of financial restructuring Learning Leaders advocated strongly with the Mayor’s Office and the DOE [Department of Education] for a return to historical levels of NYC DOE support for parent volunteer training and capacity building workshops. While we received some NYC DOE funding this year, it was less than what we needed and was not part of an ongoing budget initiative that would allow us to count on regular funding in the coming years. Several efforts to negotiate a merger with another nonprofit stalled due to the lack of firm financial commitment from the DOE. Over time, this funding volatility has created insurmountable challenges to the long-term viability of our organization.

We regret the vacuum that will be created by our closure. If you have questions or concerns about opportunities and support for family engagement and parent volunteer training, you can contact the NYC DOE’s Division of Family and Community Engagement at (212) 374-4118 or [email protected].

On behalf of the board of directors and all of us at Learning Leaders, I offer heartfelt thanks for your partnership. We are deeply grateful for your work to support public school students’ success. It is only with your dedication and commitment that we accomplished all that we did over the last 60 years. We take some solace in knowing that we’ve helped improve the chances of success for more than 100,000 students every year. The Learning Leaders board and staff have been honored to serve you and your school communities.
Sincerely,

Jane Heaphy
Executive Director

Rise & Shine

While you were waking up, the U.S. Senate took a big step toward confirming Betsy DeVos as education secretary

Betsy DeVos’s confirmation as education secretary is all but assured after an unusual and contentious early-morning vote by the U.S. Senate.

The Senate convened at 6:30 a.m. Friday to “invoke cloture” on DeVos’s embattled nomination, a move meant to end a debate that has grown unusually pitched both within the lawmaking body and in the wider public.

They voted 52-48 to advance her nomination, teeing up a final confirmation vote by the end of the day Monday.

Two Republican senators who said earlier this week that they would not vote to confirm DeVos joined their colleagues in voting to allow a final vote on Monday. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska cited DeVos’s lack of experience in public education and the knowledge gaps she displayed during her confirmation hearing last month when announcing their decisions and each said feedback from constituents had informed their decisions.

Americans across the country have been flooding their senators with phone calls, faxes, and in-person visits to share opposition to DeVos, a Michigan philanthropist who has been a leading advocate for school vouchers but who has never worked in public education.

They are likely to keep up the pressure over the weekend and through the final vote, which could be decided by a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence.

Two senators commented on the debate after the vote. Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who has been a leading cheerleader for DeVos, said he “couldn’t understand” criticism of programs that let families choose their schools.

But Democrat Patty Murray of Washington repeated the many critiques of DeVos that she has heard from constituents. She also said she was “extremely disappointed” in the confirmation process, including the early-morning debate-ending vote.

“Right from the start it was very clear that Republicans intended to jam this nomination through … Corners were cut, precedents were ignored, debate was cut off, and reasonable requests and questions were blocked,” she said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”