Money entrusted to township assistance offices and housing organizations is supposed to help people who need rent, utilities, shelter, and other basic support. When the people in charge divert it for themselves, they take more than taxpayer dollars. They take resources from the people the programs exist to serve.
Evansville has seen enough of this to ask a harder question than who gets charged next: why do the controls fail, and who is responsible for making them work?
The cases are not abstract
| Case | Sentence and source |
|---|---|
| Knight Township — Linda Durham | 2011: WFIE reported a two-year jail sentence for theft and official misconduct after Durham admitted taking more than $70,000 in taxpayer money. WFIE. |
| ECHO Housing — Stephanie TenBarge | 2021: The U.S. Attorney’s Office reported two years of probation and $90,513.95 in restitution after a case involving more than $102,000 embezzled from ECHO. Department of Justice. |
| Calumet Township — Mary Elgin | 2018: Elgin received 12 months and one day in prison and $21,311 in restitution after guilty pleas to wire-fraud, conspiracy, and tax charges. Department of Justice. |
| Bearcreek Township — Katina Miller | 2022: Miller received 21 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and $86,755.39 in restitution after pleading guilty to wire fraud. Department of Justice. |
| Pigeon Township — Mariama Wilson and Terrance Hardiman | 2024: Wilson received three years of probation after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Hardiman received six months in prison after guilty pleas to money laundering and conspiracy. The sentencing release reported $38,000 in restitution shared among co-defendants. Department of Justice. |
| Pigeon Township — William Payne | 2025: WNIN reported six months in prison after Payne pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. WNIN. |
These cases involve different offices and different schemes, but the public-interest question is the same. Who was checking the money before it disappeared? A board’s approval, an executive director’s reputation, or a trustee’s election does not substitute for verification.
Invoices are not proof that the work was done
The Pigeon Township prosecution involved inflated invoices for work on a homeless shelter and food pantry. The contractor received payments and returned money to township officials as kickbacks. Prosecutors described approximately $38,000 diverted through the scheme.
That is money connected to services for people in need. The payment process should require someone to verify the work, compare it with the agreed scope and price, and document approval. Signing an invoice is not the same as checking it.
Contractor selection matters too. What qualifications were checked? Were conflicts of interest disclosed? Who confirmed the contractor could legally perform the work? Those should be routine questions answered before public money changes hands.
No one should control the whole money trail
At ECHO Housing, TenBarge handled bookkeeping, bank balancing, and financial reports while controlling the organization’s checking accounts. The prosecution described unauthorized payments and payroll checks, along with the use of ECHO funds for expenses at her own home.
Boards need more than a financial summary prepared by the person spending the money. They need bank records, supporting invoices, and an independent check that the accounts agree. Payment approval, bookkeeping, and reconciliation should not all depend on one person’s honesty.
Public money deserves a public accounting
Residents should be able to find out who approved an expenditure, what service or work it purchased, and what happened when an audit identified a problem. Township boards should make their review visible through the records and meeting procedures that apply to them.
Publicly funded nonprofits should also disclose enough about their use of public money for residents and funding agencies to judge the result. If a funding agreement does not require meaningful reporting and correction of audit findings, we should ask why.
- Publish contracting and conflict-of-interest policies.
- Give board members the records and training needed to challenge questionable expenses.
- Require documented verification before payment.
- Publish audit findings, corrective actions, and progress on recovering money.
- Provide a clear route for employees and residents to report concerns and obtain a response.
A sentence should not end the discussion
The probation sentence in the ECHO case and the different sentences in the Pigeon Township case deserve public scrutiny. Courts should explain their reasoning, and residents are entitled to judge whether the consequences fit the harm.
We believe stealing from organizations that serve vulnerable people deserves serious consequences. We also want the practical answers that a sentence alone cannot supply: how much money has been recovered, which controls have changed, and who checks that the fixes are working?
Protect the funds before the next case
A conviction cannot undo every missed opportunity to help a resident. The point of oversight is to catch a questionable payment before it becomes another prosecution.
We expect trustees, nonprofit leaders, boards, and funding agencies to do the job they accepted. Verify the work. Check the accounts. Disclose the conflicts. Follow up on the audit. Public service is a position of trust, not permission to help yourself.
Send a court record, audit, response, or correction. We welcome evidence that shows how these funds are being protected—and where the safeguards still fall short.