Real Alternatives Press Statement

 Regarding its

Filing of a Lawsuit in Commonwealth Court to Prevent Overreach by The Auditor General

“Real Alternatives takes very seriously its responsibility to be a good steward of taxpayer money. That is why we have a spotless record of low administrative costs, outstanding performance, and high accountability over 20 years, throughout four administrations both Republican and Democratic. During that time, our program provided over 273,000 women in unexpected pregnancies with compassionate, caring and free services throughout the Commonwealth. 

In addition to having contracts with multiple states using public funds, Real Alternatives also has other corporate contracts using private funds. These private and separate corporate contracts were specifically set up to ensure that no state taxpayer monies would be used for non-state related work.

The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and now the Pennsylvania Auditor General (AG) are attempting to audit expenses related to Real Alternatives’ non-government, private contracts expenses using private funds. DHS and the AG have no legal authority over these privately funded contracts. 

Several times over the last year and half, Real Alternatives has requested to discuss this legal issue with Commonwealth attorneys. They refused to meet with us.

Real Alternatives is amazed that this matter is even an issue since it was legally researched as well as discussed and approved by the then Department of Public Welfare prior to implementation. In addition, the same private contracts were in place during four different audits over the last 20 years, conducted by four different audit teams, and yet they had no issue whatsoever with those contracts. There must be some other reason why this is now an issue.

Although we regret we had to file the action, our request for a Declaratory Judgment by the court is necessary to save both parties time and expenses, and to finally resolve this simple legal issue.

In America, we are governed by the rule of law, and therefore we are simply following what the law provides in such differences of opinion. Far from constituting “a legal cover-up,” or hiding behind the courts, there is no more transparent way of resolving this issue than in a court of law which is a matter of public record.”