Opinion: Connecticut must protect its public benefits with real oversight

When federal prosecutors exposed the massive fraud scheme in Minnesota’s Feeding Our Future program — involving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars intended to feed children — it was a wake-up call for states across the country. More recently, Massachusetts uncovered a $12 million public benefits fraud case involving misuse of assistance funds.

Connecticut should treat those cases as warnings, not curiosities.

As a former first selectman, I regularly commissioned forensic audits of municipal departments and programs. Not because I assumed wrongdoing — but because public money demands verification. In every organization, whether local government or state bureaucracy, strong internal controls are not a sign of distrust. They are a sign of discipline.

Connecticut administers some of the most expansive public benefit programs in the country. Through HUSKY, rental and emergency housing assistance, childcare subsidies, behavioral health funding, energy assistance, and a range of nonprofit-administered initiatives, billions of dollars flow annually to support residents in need.  That commitment reflects our values. But any system that moves large sums of money quickly and through multiple layers of administration carries inherent risk. The question is not whether Connecticut cares about vulnerable residents. The question is whether our oversight mechanisms are built for the scale and complexity of the programs we now operate.

Large fraud schemes rarely begin with dramatic theft. They grow gradually — through weak verification processes, fragmented data systems, overreliance on certifications, and the assumption that someone else is checking. In Minnesota and Massachusetts, those vulnerabilities accumulated over time.

There is no reason to assume our structural risk factors are fundamentally different.  Connecticut expanded spending significantly during the pandemic, often using emergency procedures designed for speed. Many programs rely on third-party providers and nonprofit intermediaries. Audits are typically compliance-based rather than forensic in nature. Cross-agency data matching remains limited. These are not accusations; they are management realities in any large bureaucracy.

Responsible governance requires periodic stress-testing of those systems.

Connecticut should consider establishing an independent Inspector General dedicated specifically to cross-agency public benefits oversight. Such an office should have the authority to conduct forensic audits, deploy modern fraud analytics, and publicly report findings. Oversight should be proactive and systematic, not reactive.

Modern data tools allow states to identify duplicate claims, incompatible eligibility overlaps, or anomalous billing patterns before losses grow. Whistleblower protections can ensure insiders feel secure raising concerns. Transparency regarding provider-level spending can strengthen public confidence.

None of these steps weaken public assistance programs. They protect them.

When I ordered audits at the municipal level, we sometimes found minor inefficiencies. Occasionally we uncovered more significant issues. In every instance, the result was the same: stronger controls, clearer accountability, and greater public trust.

The absence of scandal does not mean the absence of vulnerability. It simply means we have not yet tested the system hard enough.

Connecticut has not been immune from public corruption investigations over the years. That history should not breed cynicism; it should reinforce vigilance. Oversight is not partisan. It is a governing obligation.

Fraud harms the very residents public benefits are designed to serve. Every diverted dollar reduces resources available to families who genuinely depend on assistance. Every scandal fuels skepticism about programs that many communities rely on.

We should not wait for a headline to force reform.

If Connecticut believes in maintaining a strong safety net — and I do — then we must also believe in safeguarding its integrity. Generosity and accountability are not opposing values. They are complementary ones.

Public funds deserve verification. Systems deserve stress tests. And taxpayers deserve confidence that compassion is paired with competence.  That is not ideology. It is management.

Timothy Herbst served as first selectman of Trumbull, Connecticut, from 2009 to 2017 and was a candidate in the 2018 Republican gubernatorial primary.