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

pre-k for all

New York City will add dual language options in pre-K to attract parents and encourage diversity

PHOTO: Christina Veiga
Schools Chancellor Carmen FariƱa, back right, visits a Mandarin pre-K dual language program at P.S. 20 Anna Silver on the Lower East Side.

Education Department officials on Wednesday announced the addition of 33 dual language pre-K programs in the 2018-19 school year, more than doubling the bilingual opportunities available for New York City’s youngest learners.

The expansion continues an aggressive push under the current administration, which has added 150 new bilingual programs to date. Popular with parents — there were 2,900 applications for about 600 pre-K dual language seats last year — the programs can also be effective in boosting the performance of students who are learning English as a new language.

Another possible benefit: creating more diverse pre-K classrooms, which research has shown are starkly segregated in New York City.

Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña said the new programs reflect the city’s commitment to serving all students, even as a national debate rages over immigration reform.

“It’s important to understand that immigrants or people who speak a second language are an asset,” Fariña said. She called bilingual education “a gift that I think all schools should have.”

Included in the expansion are the city’s first dual language pre-K programs in Bengali and Russian, which will open in Jamaica, Queens, and the Upper West Side, Manhattan, respectively. The other additions will build on programs in Spanish, Mandarin and Italian. Every borough is represented in the expansion, with 11 new programs in Manhattan, nine in Brooklyn, six in Queens, five in the Bronx, and two on Staten Island.

In the dual-language model, students split their time between instruction in English and another language. At P.S. 20 Anna Silver, where the recent expansion was announced, pre-K students start the morning in English and transition to Mandarin after nap time. Experts say the model works best when the class includes an equal mix of students who are proficient in each language so they can learn from each other as well as the teacher, though it can often be difficult to strike that balance.

Officials and some advocates view dual-language programs as a tool for integration by drawing middle-class families eager to have their children speak two languages into neighborhood schools that they otherwise may not have considered. Research has shown that New York City’s pre-K classrooms tend to be more segregated than kindergarten. In one in six pre-K classrooms, more than 90 percent of students are from a single racial or ethnic background. That’s compared with one in eight kindergarten classrooms, according to a 2016 report by The Century Foundation.

Sharon Stapel, a mother from Brooklyn, said she knew early on that she wanted her daughter to learn another language and strike relationships across cultures. So she travels to the Lower East Side with her four-year-old, Finch, to attend the Mandarin dual-language pre-K program at P.S. 20 Anna Silver. On Wednesday, the city announced it will add a Spanish dual language program at the school.

“We really see it as how you build community with your neighbors and your friends,” Stapel said. “It was also an opportunity for Finch to become involved and engage in the cultures and in the differences that she could see in the classrooms — and really celebrate that difference.”

Citywide, about 13 percent of students are learning English as a new language. That number does not include pre-K since the state does not have a way to identify students’ language status before kindergarten. However, based on census data, it is estimated that 30 percent of three- and four-year-olds in New York are English learners.

Dual-language programs can benefit students who are still learning English — more so than English-only instruction. Nationally and in New York City, students who are learning English are less likely to pass standardized tests and graduate from high school. In one study, students who enrolled in dual-language courses in kindergarten gained the equivalent of one year of reading instruction by eighth grade, compared with their peers who received English-only instruction.

The city has been under pressure to improve outcomes for English learners. Under the previous administration, New York City was placed on a state “corrective action plan” that required the education department to open 125 new bilingual programs by 2013. Though the city fell short of that goal, the current administration has agreed to place every English learner in a bilingual program by the 2018-19 school year.

Among the greatest barriers to achieving that is finding qualified teachers, Fariña said. In some cases, it can be hard to find teachers who are fluent in the target language. In others, teachers who are native in a foreign language may only be certified in their home country, and it can be hard to transfer that certification to New York.

In order to open an Urdu program recently, Fariña said, the teacher, who holds a degree from another country, went through Teaching Fellows, an alternative certification program that usually caters to career-changers or recent college grads.

“I think the biggest challenge we have right now is ensuring our teacher preparation courses are keeping up with our need and demand for teachers who can teach another language,” she said.

college plans

As Washington decides their fate, ‘Dreamers’ preparing for college are stuck in limbo

PHOTO: Joe Amon/The Denver Post
Randi Smith, a psychology teacher at Metro State University, marched to support Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals during a citywide walkout in downtown Denver, CO.

While many high schoolers spend spring of their senior year coasting through classes and waiting to hear back from colleges, undocumented students who hope to attend college spend their time calling lawyers, consulting school counselors, and scouring the internet in search of ways to pay for school without the help of federal financial aid or student loans — assuming they even get in.

That process, anxiety-provoking even in a normal year, has become incalculably more chaotic this admissions season — even traumatic — as these young undocumented immigrants watch President Trump and lawmakers wrangle over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the program that has until now allowed them to remain in the country without having to fear deportation.

As the policy battle nears a climax, these students aren’t just breathlessly waiting to learn whether they’ll be accepted into college — they’re waiting to see whether they have a future in this country.

“It’s different for me. It’s definitely more stressful and there are times when you want to give up,” said an undocumented student at KIPP NYC College Prep High School, who is graduating this year and applying to colleges. She requested anonymity because of her legal status. “But then I remind myself that regardless of what’s going on, I’m still going to do what I’ve set myself to do.”

High school counselors are also feeling the strain. They already faced the difficult task of helping undocumented students compete for private scholarships, and finding schools that will support those students once they’re on campus. Now those counselors also must monitor each twist and turn of the immigration debate in Washington, while, somehow, trying to keep their undocumented students focused on college.

One of those counselors is John Kearney, who works at Guadalupe Centers Alta Vista High School, a charter school in Kansas City, Missouri. Dozens of his soon-to-graduate students are beneficiaries of DACA, a program created under former President Obama that allows undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children to avoid deportation and work here legally. Lately, they have been asking him why they should even consider college when their fate in the U.S. is so uncertain.

“The big question is, ‘Why? Why go to college, and then I can’t even work, then why?’” said Kearney, who also helped start a nonprofit that provides scholarships to undocumented students. “It’s a really tough question.”

As of Friday, President Trump and lawmakers were still locked in heated negotiations over DACA, which Trump said this fall that he would eliminate unless Congress enshrined it in law. Without an agreement, it is set to expire March 5, just as graduating seniors firm up their college plans. If that happens, young immigrants, often called Dreamers, could lose the few crucial protections they have. For many, their DACA status has already lapsed.

Even with DACA’s protections, Dreamers face massive hurdles to enroll in college: They don’t qualify for federal aid or loans, and, in some states, are barred from receiving financial aid or even attending public universities. Out of the estimated 65,000 undocumented students who graduate from high school every year, only 5-10 percent enroll in college.

Following Trump’s announcement in September, counselors have also had to race against the clock counting down to DACA’s expiration: That meant juggling college application deadlines with the October cutoff for students to apply for renewed DACA status.

The KIPP charter school network received a donation this year to help students pay for the renewal fee, which has been a godsend for many students — including the young woman who is graduating from KIPP NYC College Prep High School.

As soon as she learned the school would pay the fee for her, she immediately called her father, who is also undocumented and repairs beauty-salon equipment for a living.

“My dad was definitely trying to round up the money before the deadline, so it was a blessing that the school was able to find a donor,” she said. “I told him not to worry about it and it was a relief — like a weight off his shoulders.”

If the girl was trying to relieve her father’s stress, her college counselor, Rob Santos, was trying to do the same for her. Even as she balanced college-application essays, transcripts, and the rest, she was also coming to realize how quickly her life would change if DACA is not extended.

“There was definitely extra emotional support that I’ve had to provide this year,” Santos said. “I definitely had my DACA student in my office, and tears were happening.”

Santos keeps a running list of the colleges that accept students who don’t have permanent legal status and the few scholarships available to them. Many of those scholarships require undocumented students to have DACA status. If the program ends, it’s unclear whether students will still be eligible.

Still, Santos said his dreamer student rarely talks about the political furor surrounding her future in the U.S. as she awaits her college-acceptance letter. Instead, she’s more likely to discuss her hope of one day studying business and fashion.

“Our DACA students are resilient. They’re optimistic,” Santos said. “But they’re also realistic for what could actually happen.”