PROVIDENCE — Last spring during General Assembly hearings on bills aimed at thwarting illegal immigration, some lawmakers asked whether the state was doing enough to limit social-service programs to people who are legally eligible for them.

The lawmakers’ questions focused on the practice of entering a standard code number — 666 — into the state computer system when someone seeking benefits such as welfare or childcare assistance can’t provide a valid Social Security number, generally available only to U.S. citizens and those with legal immigration status.

Officials in the state Department of Human Services, which administers the programs in question, say the department’s policies contain adequate protections against abuse. They say the numbers are low enough to bear that out: of the 178,667 people receiving benefits through DHS programs in July, 6,262, or 3.5 percent, had the “666” number on file in lieu of a Social Security number.

But some lawmakers and advocates say they have had trouble getting information about how widely the code is used and in what circumstances. They say the potential for abuse exists.

Based on the overall number of cases that list the code, Governor Carcieri said he is satisfied that widespread abuse is not taking place. Still, when Gary D. Alexander took over as department director — he became acting director in December and was confirmed as director in June — the governor asked him to undertake “a comprehensive review of the department’s eligibility criteria and systems,” including the “666” code, Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal said.

That review is not yet complete.

OF THE RHODE ISLAND cases that list the 666 number, 3,211 are undocumented immigrant children receiving RIte Care — state-subsidized health insurance for the poor — or undocumented immigrant women who are pregnant or have given birth in the previous two years. The state closed off RIte Care to new enrollments of undocumented immigrant children at the end of last year, but allowed enrolled children to remain in the program. The state covers the cost of health care for all low-income pregnant women, regardless of citizenship status. Two months after the child is born, the women lose their state-subsidized health coverage but remain eligible for “extended family planning” — which includes coverage for gynecological exams, birth control and treatment of sexually transmitted infections as necessary. (The child, as a U.S. citizen, qualifies for RIte Care as long as the family’s income remains below the limit, which varies by family size.)

Another 2,479 of the 6,262 are infants, less than a year old, according to data provided by DHS to the Journal. These infants need the 666 code because the federal government has not yet issued them Social Security numbers.

That leaves 572 people in the system — about a third of a percent of all benefit recipients — who don’t have a Social Security number on file for some other reason.

Officials said there are many reasons a case worker might enter this temporary number. For instance, someone might clearly be indigent and in need of medical care but suffering from such extreme mental illness that he or she can’t provide a Social Security number.

Federal immigration law also requires states to provide benefits to immigrants who have refugee status, and those immigrants may not have received Social Security numbers yet.

Compared with other states, Rhode Island’s numbers are easy to track because all programs use the same code number. Back in the late 1980s, the developers of the computer system used by the social-services programs chose 666 because they needed a number that was not in use by the federal government as a prefix for Social Security numbers. Edward P. Sneesby, who was a policy officer with DHS at the time and is now the department’s associate director for program operations, says there were “only a handful of options” and that other states used the same number.

But drawing a meaningful comparison between states is difficult because their recordkeeping methods vary. For instance, rather than enter a standard number, case workers in Connecticut enter the date a person applied for a Social Security number.

Some states have stricter verification procedures in place. For instance, in California, “we allow people two months to get a Social Security number after they’ve been enrolled, and if not, we disenroll them,” says Stan Rosenstein of the California Department of Health Care Services.

Every state is going to have some number of people receiving benefits without Social Security numbers, because the federal government requires that states cover the cost of emergency medical care regardless of a person’s immigration status, says Tanya Broder of the National Immigration Law Center. (Based in Los Angeles, the center conducts policy analysis and advises lawyers and community groups on immigration law. Its stated goal is “to protect and promote the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their family members.”)

Legal immigrants who are disabled don’t apply for work permits and therefore will not have Social Security numbers, but will still qualify for medical benefits. “It’s not a large number, but it exists,” Broder says.

DHS officials say the number of cases in the Rhode Island system with the 666 number is not so high as to be worrisome. Broder and others agree.

“It certainly doesn’t strike me off the cuff as a high number,” Broder said. “It doesn’t suggest abuse to me at all.”

DHS can’t immediately say how many of the cases with the 666 number have remained open, without a Social Security number listed, for one year or five years. For cases in which an applicant claims to have applied for a Social Security number, the department can’t say how long it takes, on average, to get that number into the system.

The department could produce those statistics, but it would take time, Sneesby says.

DIFFICULTY in getting information about the code and its use has frustrated some lawmakers. State Sen. Leo R. Blais, R-Coventry, asked DHS officials during a hearing last spring about the breakdown of children and adults within the pool of 666 cases. He says he never heard from them.

Although the state provided that analysis in response to the Journal’s requests, Blais says someone should have gotten back to him months ago. He says the situation is “like the Gordian knot,” referring to the ancient Greek legend of a knot so complex that no one could untie it.

In response to suspicions of abuse, Sneesby says the state does not consider a Social Security number to be sole proof of citizenship, but asks for a birth certificate, naturalization documents or other proof as well. If someone applying for benefits claims to have lost his Social Security card and has forgotten the number, the case worker requires that the applicant apply for a new Social Security number and show proof of that application before he or she can receive benefits, he says.

If the federal government ultimately rejects that person’s application for a new number, the state may not find out for some time, Sneesby acknowledges. But the applicant will be required to provide a Social Security number when his case comes up for “recertification” in 6 to 24 months, depending on the program.

If someone is still unable to provide a Social Security number at recertification — for instance, because his application for a Social Security number was rejected — and the state believes the person is not entitled to benefits, the state seeks to recover the money it has paid out to that person. It also makes an adjustment to the amount of federal matching funds it requests. The federal government depends on the states to ferret out errors and report them.

The department has an internal “quality-control” division that reviews cases, and the state auditor general audits the department each year, Sneesby said. “If they notice that there’s no documentation on something, they will cite us for that,” he said.

But here, too, the federal government relies on the states to be watchdogs; it does not conduct its own audits.

The auditor general’s report released in February found several lapses in DHS practices, including failure to properly restrict access to department computer systems, documents missing from case files, and cases where benefit levels and other case details did not accurately reflect the information in backup documents.

The auditor general’s office did not return a call seeking comment on the findings, but Sneesby said the office lists a dollar figure for money lost, or potential money lost, through fraud or abuse when findings are very serious. “If they thought this was a huge issue, they would have attached a dollar value,” he said. “They’re trying to assess what could happen and how we could improve our procedures.”

Sneesby said he “would find it extremely difficult to believe” that widespread abuse is taking place, or that state case workers are knowingly extending benefits to people not legally entitled to them.

“That’s a criminal act, and we would treat it as such if we ever found out,” Sneesby said.

THE MAN who introduced the bulk of bills aimed at curbing illegal immigration during this year’s session says he finds DHS officials’ assurances convincing. “As long as they’re asking for proper documentation, that’s the important thing,” says Rep. Richard W. Singleton, R-Cumberland.

Other lawmakers who introduced immigration-related bills aren’t satisfied.

“Why would someone employed by the State of Rhode Island agree that we’re giving benefits to people we shouldn’t be giving benefits to?” asks Rep. Jon D. Brien, D-Woonsocket. “The system is certainly open for abuse, and I think that it has been abused.”

Blais holds a similar opinion. Like Brien, he does not have direct evidence of abuse. But, Blais says, “We are deluding ourselves if we believe that this system is abuse-free.”

The accusations from Terry Gorman, founder of and spokesman for a group called Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, are less tempered. Gorman alleges an all-out conspiracy to extend benefits to illegal immigrants who shouldn’t be getting them.

Gorman said it at legislative hearings, and he says it again now: Case workers are being coerced to enroll people in RIte Care, subsidized childcare and the Family Independence Program — Rhode Island’s welfare program — even if the applicants shouldn’t qualify because of their immigration status. The case workers “don’t want to do it, but they’re told they have to do it. They’re afraid to speak up about it because they’re afraid they’ll lose their jobs.”

Sneesby says he thinks Gorman’s claim is based on a misunderstanding. Illegal immigrant adults do not qualify for benefits on their own behalf, but if their children are citizens, they are entitled to those benefits on their children’s behalf.

For instance, a single mother with two children gets $554 a month under FIP, as long as she meets income guidelines and is a U.S. citizen. If she is not a U.S. citizen but her children are citizens, she gets less — $449 a month.

Sneesby said individual case workers may disagree with this policy and speak out against it, but they are still bound to implement the program as set forth in state law. “We’re here to administer the program according to the rules that have been given to us,” he says.

Brien says he, for one, is not conflating the two issues.

He disagrees with the law and plans to introduce legislation again next year to restrict benefits given to illegal immigrants and their children. “Look at some of the incredibly tough budget decisions the General Assembly had to make this year,” Brien says. “We need to make sure that benefits are going to people who are supposed to be here.”

But he also finds it hard to believe that the law is being enforced without exception. “There exist actual guidebooks that are given to illegal aliens, once they get here, by social organizations in this state, telling them how to go about getting State of Rhode Island benefits,” he says.

“We’re talking about people who have just arrived here illegally, children in tow.”

egudrais@projo.com