When Tabor Community Services was able to cut Rafael Jimenez a check for $774.50, all involved considered it a success story.

The money, according to a Feb. 17 news story, came from some $2.35 million in federal "stimulus" money provided to the county to help people, who are unemployed or working fewer hours, stay in their homes. Jimenez's employer had cut him back from five days of work to two because of the economy. The money helped him make the rent, ensuring that he, his girlfriend and the three children living with them wouldn't be turned out into the street.

Stimulus mission accomplished.

But one Lancaster County law enforcement official saw Jimenez's picture in the newspaper, recognized him and told the Sunday News. Jimenez — also known as "Big Bird," according to court documents — had five criminal convictions between 1999 and 2006. He spent time in prison and still owes more than $6,500 in fines, fees and court costs.

Previous rounds of federal stimulus funding have excluded those who owe "certain debts," such as back taxes, delinquent child support and student loans, according to the IRS Web site.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money earmarked for homelessness prevention came with no such strings attached.

Indeed, they say, the bar for eligibility was intentionally set comparatively low. There is no screening process in place to ensure that those who owe a debt to "society" don't get federal funds. The goal of the program is to deploy the money as rapidly as possible in response to immediate needs, said Matthew T. Sternberg, executive director of the Lancaster County Redevelopment Authority, which is overseeing the local distribution of the federal funds.

Longer-term aid programs, such as subsidized housing, often do involve extensive background checks. But "background checks take some time, when you're trying to respond quickly to an acute situation," Sternberg said. "Background checks also [incur] a cost way out of proportion to the benefit being administered.

"From various angles, that may look more or less fair to different people at different times. But we try to set up something that will be fair at the broader, macro level."

Guilty plea
Several attempts to contact Jimenez for this story were unsuccessful. An initial message left on his girlfriend's cell phone was returned but the reporter was not available; a second, detailed message left on his girlfriend's cell phone, and a message left with the girlfriend herself, were not returned.

Court records show Jimenez was last arrested in January 2006 after police said he punched a former girlfriend in the head and face at least seven times Jan. 14, 2006. He pleaded guilty Oct. 5 of that year, receiving two years probation.

Court documents show that June 17, 2008, he was deemed to have violated his probation, and a bench warrant was issued. Sent to Lancaster County Prison the next day, he was paroled Aug. 1, 2008.

Ultimately, Jimenez was assessed fines and fees and owed a total of $867.46, according to court documents.

This followed a 2003 arrest in which he was charged with terroristic threats, harassment and disorderly conduct. He pleaded guilty to the second offense, receiving probation and incurring fines, costs and fees of $56.65.

In a 2002 case, Jimenez pleaded guilty to one count of drug possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, and one count of use/possession of drug paraphernalia. The first count carried a minimum one-year prison sentence. His sentence also included a $5,000 fine, and $539.75 in court costs.

In August 1999 he pleaded guilty to retail theft, receiving probation and incurring fines and fees of $896.75. That same year he pleaded guilty to "make/repair/sell offensive weapons"; he received probation and was assessed a total of $170.11.

Total fines, fees and costs involved in the cases: $7,575.72.

Court documents show he has paid $931.47 since 2007, including weekly payments of $25 or more since July 2009. On July 22, 2009, the county filed a praecipe to enter judgment against Jimenez for $5,539.75 — the amount owed for the 2002 drug case.

A praecipe to enter judgment is a means by which the county can attach a debtor's assets.

Nationwide, there have been stories of stimulus money going to individuals or organizations with criminal records and outstanding fines.

In December, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting at Boston University wrote that the Massachusetts Highway Division had "handed out millions in federal stimulus dollars for roadway construction to companies that have defrauded taxpayers, polluted the environment and have paid tens of thousands of dollars in fines for violating workplace safety laws."

Thirteen of 21 companies awarded transportation stimulus contracts had "a history of law breaking"; one firm, convicted in 2007 of defrauding taxpayers after "supplying thousands of truckloads of substandard concrete" to a major Boston-area road project, agreed to pay $50 million in civil and criminal penalties. Though it still owes more than $16 million, it got a transportation stimulus contract.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston told the Center for Investigative Reporting that the company could even use the federal stimulus dollars to pay its fine.

And last summer the Boston Herald newspaper reported that federal stimulus checks had been sent to 3,900 people nationwide who were actually in jail, including one Massachusetts inmate who had been convicted of first-degree murder, three prisoners jailed for second-degree murder and five convicted rapists.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Sara Sendek told the Herald that "President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill has done more to help convicted criminals than it has to actually boost our economy and create jobs."

U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, a Republican who represents Lancaster County, has been a major critic of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. An aide said he would have no comment for this story.

Two criteria
Barry Ciccocioppo, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell who deals with stimulus issues, said recipients of "homeless prevention and rapid re-housing funding" need to "meet a certain income threshold at the time of need, and we need to ensure that the person is at risk of being evicted." These, he said, are the only criteria.

The funding "is for helping people rapidly," Ciccocioppo said. "The main goal is that people don't get put out on the street, because if they are, the costs to society are going to be much greater."

The National Alliance to End Homelessness notes that homeless people spend more time in hospitals and jails, and that emergency shelter is a particularly costly alternative to keeping people in their current homes.

"If a family loses its residence and shows up at a shelter, it's much more disruptive, much more expensive to deal with assisting them," Sternberg said.

Ultimately, he asserts, the program saves taxpayer dollars.

Sternberg said those fired for cause don't qualify for the funding: "This is if something happened involuntarily [to a client] because of the economy," he said. And recipients "also have to be able to show that with this assistance, they have a reasonable prospect of being able to get the situation stabilized. ... There are other programs better suited to chronic problems."

And indeed, the federal government wants the county to spend these stimulus funds as quickly as possible, requiring that 60 percent of the money be spent by the end of the second year of the program, and all of it spent by the end of year three.

"The goal is to get this assistance out into the community as quickly as possible to respond to economic conditions," Sternberg said.