ORGANIZED CRIME
MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
PART TWO
by
HARVESTING
CHILDREN FOR CONDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING:
BY THE NUMBERS
“Article 16.3. The family is
the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection
by society and the State.” Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, English Version, United Nations Department of Public
Information.
<http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm>
“When I meet a man I ask
myself, 'Is this the man I want my children to
spend their weekends with?'“ Rita Rudner, Comedienne, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical)
Quotations.
<http://www.quotationspage.com/>
Laying a cornerstone
Structural corruption occurs when
employees of a government agency or program are required, as a condition of continued
employment, to falsify reports, commit perjury, or engage in other illegal
activity to obtain agency funding or meet agency or program goals. Structural corruption is similar to what
accountants refer to as “implied corruption” or “implied fraud.”
Sitting down at the table
The tables included in this article
are for the benefit of those needing documentation to convince others of the
level of fraud and corruption political extremists and allied criminals have
brought into government agencies and programs.
Some readers have probably suspected children were being exploited by
government employees in child “protection” agencies, but have been unable to
convince your naive friends. When you
inform those naive friends of these articles and they dismiss you with “Ah,
he’s just some kind of anti-government militia nut job,” you can print copies,
sit them down at the table and show them.
Now, here it is. You’ve
got tables.
1.
LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR CHILD PROTECTION FRAUD: MANDATED STATE TITLE IV-E
FEDERAL FUND CLAIM REPORTS
“And every one who hears
these words of mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man,
who built his house upon the sand.” Jesus
Christ, Matthew 7:26 NAS Bible
State agencies are required, as a
condition of federal funding, to file quarterly Federal Title IV-E Expenditure
Reports (Federal Form IV-E-12, OMB No. 0980-01310, “The OMB number may have
changed as of October 1999,” George Babbitt, Arkansas Department of Human
Services). Among the information State
child protection service agencies must report are projections of the average
number of children that will be held in State protective custody and State
custody for adoption during the reporting period.
Children held in State protective
custody have been removed from parental custody. Children held in State custody for adoption have been removed
from parental custody and parental rights terminated.
Living the bottom line
Table 1 was constructed from 1997-8
fiscal year quarterly Title IV-E Expenditure Reports filed by the Arkansas
Department of Human Services Division of Children and Family Services.
The bottom line is that by reporting
holding an average 2208 children in state custody for protection or adoption,
Arkansas brought into its 1997-8 fiscal year economy $30,263,587 in federal
funds.
Let us suppress, for the moment, the
thought this money was, in whole or in part, federal taxes removed from
Arkansas and laundered through Washington, D.C to be returned with strings
attached. The strings in this case
requiring someone’s child be taken into “protective” custody or terminating
parental rights and putting their child’s picture on the internet to inform
everyone the child is up for adoption.
Someone might get angry if we thought about that.
The last column of Table 1 reports
the average number of federal dollars generated by each child held in
protective custody ($17,178.43) and held for adoption ($5,850.45). Note, the State of Arkansas obtained more federal
dollars from a child held in non-voluntary foster care than adoption
assistance.
Table
1
1997-8
FISCAL YEAR TITLE IV-E FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
|
CATEGORY |
1ST
QUARTER (ADJUSTED) |
2ND
QUARTER (ADJUSTED) |
3RD
QUARTER (ADJUSTED) |
4TH
QUARTER (UNADJUSTED) |
1998
TOTAL |
AVERAGE
FEDERAL SHARE DOLLARS PER CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY |
|
NON-VOLUNTARY
FOSTER CARE Maintenance
Assistance NET
TOTAL PAYMENTS (A5) |
$1,388,894 |
$2,387,030 |
$2,465,322 |
$2,739,211 |
$ 8,980,457 |
|
|
State
and Local ADMINISTRATION TOTAL
ADMINISTRATION (A7) |
$1,940,848 |
$2,873,454 |
$2,773,152 |
$3,286,686 |
$10,874,140 |
|
|
State
and Local TRAINING (A6) |
$ 947,488 |
$1,632,223 |
$1,628,024 |
$2,272,199 |
$ 6,479,934 |
|
|
ADOPTION
ASSISTANCE Maintenance
Assistance PAYMENTS NET
TOTAL PAYMENTS (5A) |
$ 435,302 |
$1,019,640 |
$ 870,052 |
$ 725,941 |
$ 3,050,935 |
|
|
State
and Local ADMINISTRATION (7A) |
$ 223,717 |
$ 216,831 |
$ 223,951 |
$ 231,717 |
$ 896,216 |
|
|
State
and Local TRAINING (6A) |
0 |
$ 612 |
$ 587 |
$ 706 |
$ 1,905 |
|
|
NON-VOLUNTARY
FOSTER CARE TOTAL |
$4,277,230 |
$6,892,707 |
$6,866,498 |
$8,298,096 |
$26,334,531 |
$ 17,178.43 |
|
ADOPTION
ASSISTANCE TOTAL |
$ 659,019 |
$1,237,083 |
$1,094,590 |
$ 958,364 |
$ 3,949,056 |
$ 5,850.45 |
|
TOTAL
FEDERAL SHARE (ALL
PROGRAMS) |
$4,936,249 |
$8,129,790 |
$7,961,088 |
$9,256,460 |
$30,283,587 |
$ 13,715.39 |
|
Average
Monthly Number of Non-Voluntary
Foster Care Children |
1356 |
1527 |
1624 |
1624 |
Ave. 1533 |
|
|
Average
Monthly Number of Adoption
Assistance Children |
661 |
661 |
688 |
686 |
Ave. 675 |
|
Table 2 reports the projected
quarterly Arkansas Title IV-E expenditures and average number of children in
State custody through fiscal year 2000.
Note the projections always increase.
That is an important pattern.
Table
2
PROJECTED
(1997) QUARTERLY FEDERAL SHARE OF TITLE IV-E EXPENDITURES AND AVERAGE MONTHLY
NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN ARKANSAS STATE CUSTODY
|
CATEGORY |
1998 FY |
1999 FY |
2000FY |
|
NON-VOLUNTARY FOSTER CARE Maintenance Assistance TOTAL |
$2,742,179 |
$2,879,288 |
$3,023,253 |
|
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE Maintenance Assistance PAYMENTS NET TOTAL PAYMENTS (5A) |
$ 864,308 |
$ 907,523 |
$ 952,899 |
|
Average Monthly Number of Non-Voluntary Foster Care Children |
1365 |
1400 |
1441 |
|
Average Monthly Number of Adoption Assistance Children |
650 |
660 |
671 |
Picking up an important
loose end
Responsibility for completing and
filing Federal Title IV-E Expenditure Reports is usually assigned to a specific
individual in the State child protection agency financial management
section. Completing and filing this
report is only part of the individual’s work load.
The
individual who must project the average number of children held in State
protective custody and held in State custody for adoption is given no data on
which to base their projections. There
is no mathematical formula used to calculate these projections. Projections are arbitrarily increased each
reporting period. There is no mechanism
for basing these projections on the actual number of abused children in the
general population. There is no
mechanism by which these projections can ever decrease if the number of abused
children decreases. The State
projections of the number of children held in State protective custody and held
in State custody for adoption have no foundation in reality, yet they are part
of the basis for filing federal fund claims.
Finding the Federal Title
IV-E funding facts in your State
You think this is too fantastic to
be true? File an FOIA request with your
State child protection agency requesting the following information:
1. The quarterly Federal Title IV-E Expenditure
Reports (Federal Form IV-E-12, OMB No. 0980-01310) for the past five years.
2. The mathematical formula used to calculate the
projected number of children that will be held in State protective custody and
the number held in State custody for adoption reported on the federal form.
3. A copy of all reports, data or other information
used to calculate the projected number of children that will be held in State
protective custody and the number held in State custody for adoption.
2.
COMMISSIONS GENERATED PROCESSING CHILDREN FOR FEDERAL FUND CLAIMS
“Republicans understand the
importance of bondage between a mother and
child.” Vice President Dan Quayle, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical)
Quotations.
<http://www.quotationspage.com/>
As the number of conditional federal funding programs
increased, the expertise and support needed to file claims also increased. Claim filing initially accomplished by one
State employee was contracted out to for-profit corporations1, some
publicly held, which specialized in maximizing federal fund claims. It is possible for parents to receive a
stock dividend from profits generated by a corporation filing federal fund
claims for their own children taken into state custody. Irony is still alive and well in America.
The Arkansas Department of Human Services entered into a
series of contracts for the specific purpose of maximizing federal fund
claims. Under the first contract
(contract number 0015651) with MAXIMUS, Inc. (now DMG-Maximus), MAXIMUS, Inc.
was paid 9% commission for the increase in federal fund claims resulting from
their efforts. Under “Objectives and
Scope” the contract states:
"The
contractor will develop strategies to enable the department to maximize
utilization of federal funding under the initiatives specified in Attachment I
to this agreement."
Performance indicators establish the conditional federal
funding income at the time the contract was signed as a baseline. One performance indicator is the founded
child abuse rate. MAXIMUS, Inc. is only
paid 9% commission on the increase in
federal fund claims generated and paid above the baseline existing at the time
the contract was signed. Such contracts
are renewed annually, with a baseline established for the new contract at the
level of federal funding claims generated under the previous contract. Under the second contract with MAXIMUS,
Inc., the commission rate was set at 9.5%.
This pattern of contractual relationships for processing federal funding
claims also establishes a pattern that the number of children taken into State
custody will always increase and never decrease. This is an important
pattern.
There are two ways for child protection agencies to
continually increase conditional federal funding claims. The child protection agency must continually
increase the number of children taken into State custody or the amount of
conditional federal funding claims generated from each child held in State
custody must continually increase.
Corporations specializing in “Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and
revenue enhancement” find ways to do both.
Attachment I to the first MAXIMUS Inc. contract is 53
pages in length and contains several statements of performance indicators. For example, Section V.3.6.1 states:
"The
contractor will meet the minimum targeted return of combined enhanced revenues
projected for all initiatives set forth in this agreement."
Failure to meet the targeted return will result in
imposition of one of the following remedies:
"1.
Should the Contractor not meet "acceptable performance" standards, it
will result in the withholding of quarterly payment to the contractor until
such standards are met.
2. Failure to
meet "acceptable performance" standards by the next quarter following
the quarter in which standards will be considered noncompliance with the terms
of the contract and may -- at the option of DHS -- result in:
-Continuing
withholding of payments until such standards are met; or
-Termination
of the contract and forfeiture of payments will be made in accordance with
Attachment I, Section 5.8."
If any revenue generating
condition falls below the level existing at the time the contract was signed,
including the founded child abuse rate, the contractor faces withholding of the
quarterly payment, cancellation of the contract, or both.
Noticeably absent is any research or contracts for
research to determine if children taken into State custody benefit in any
way. In fact, there is almost a total
lack of such research in the relevant professional literature. Only two studies could be located comparing
mortality rates between children in and out of state custody. Thompson and Newman (1995)2
reported that violent deaths and deaths due to disease among children in the
Canadian welfare system occurred at rates significantly higher than the general
population, both over and under the age of 18.
In the only United States study, Siefert, Schwartz, and Ortega (1994)3
reported that infant mortality in Michigan's child welfare system was
substantially higher than the general population.
A skeptic might be tempted to conclude
those managing the government child protections system have no other concern
for children in State custody than how many federal dollars they can be used to
generate for the respective State economies.
Perhaps we can find a different picture when we look at child protection
agency caseworkers - perhaps not.
Finding the facts about
commission structures in child protection agency contracts in your State
Contracts entered into by State
agencies are public records subject to FOIA requests. An additional powerful tool is available in some States. Some State Supreme Courts have ruled that
corporate records associated with state contracts are also subject to FOIA
requests. Check to see if your State
makes relevant records of State contract holders subject to FOIA requests.
Two
valuable resources for assistance with FOIA requests are the Freedom of
Information Center at the University of
Missouri <http://web.missouri.edu/~foiwww/> and the Mississippi Center
for Freedom of Information site <http://www.mcfoi.org/DEFAULT.HTM>
contains several possibly useful links.
A third site, CPS Watch <http://www.cpswatch.com/forms/>, has
model forms and other useful information specifically relating to child
protection agencies.
Submit FOIA requests to review and
make selected copies of the following:
1. All contracts issued by the State child
protection services agency (and I would recommend asking for all contracts for
the entire Department of Human Services, although it will take time to review
all the contracts).
2. Look for the performance indicators established
to determine fulfillment of the contract.
3. Determine how the contractor is compensated, a
flat fee or percent of the revenue generated from their efforts.
4. If the contractor provides training, request to
review and copy training manuals and any other related material produced.
5. If the contract requires periodic reports or
other documents, request to review and copy selected documents.
6. Document the contractual consequences of failure
to meet performance standards.
7. Look for anything that functions to coordinate
the activities of components of the child protection system. Although
these contracts are legal, they are a critical component of the crime
management structure. As with any
sophisticated criminal enterprise, compartmentalization of legal and illegal
function is useful.
3.
SEIZURE QUOTAS FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICE CASE WORKERS
“I have the heart of a
child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.” Robert Bloch, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations. <http://www.quotationspage.com/>
Table 3 contains a breakdown of
State and federal salary fund components by Division of the Arkansas Department of Human Services for the 1995-6
fiscal year. The Division of Children
and Family Services received 58% of its payroll funds from conditional federal
funds. This means that employees of the
Division of Children and Family Services must, by their own decisions and
activities, generate sufficient federal funds to cover 58% of their paychecks
Table
3
SOURCE
OF 1995-6 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SALARY FUNDS BY DIVISION FROM FISCAL
YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT
|
DIVISION
OF DHS |
TOTAL REGULAR
SALARIES |
STATE
FUNDS |
FEDERAL
FUNDS |
|
DEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITY SERVICES |
$47,531,440.69 |
$12,505,944.79
(26%) |
$33,879,958.20
(71%) |
|
CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES |
$21,665,259.33 |
$
9,031,484.81 (42%) |
$12,523,886.49 (58%) |
|
MENTAL
HEALTH |
$29,035,130.00 |
$16,751,076.79
(58%) |
$
9,807,340.08 (34%) |
|
ECONOMIC
AND MEDICAL SERVICES |
$
8,761,612.65 |
$
1,251,072.25 (14%) |
$
6,169,232.62 (70%) |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES |
$
9,800,184.52 |
$
3,861,468.82 (39%) |
$
5,696,178.48 (58%) |
|
AGING
AND ADULT SERVICES |
$
2,464,728.57 |
$
1,138,647.15 (46%) |
$
1,247,957.88 (51%) |
|
SERVICES
FOR THE BLIND |
$
2,060,357.70 |
$ 837,260.03 (41%) |
$
1,222,858.80 (59%) |
|
VOLUNTEERISM |
$ 550,197.52 |
$ 146,974.09 (27%) |
$ 401,186.91 (73%) |
|
YOUTH
SERVICES |
$
7,508,248.88 |
$
7,194,242.85 (96%) |
$ 313,947.14 (04%) |
Using an average $2230.43 in federal
salary fund revenues generated for each child held in Arkansas Division of
Children and Family Services custody, Table 4 lists the quota of children
required to generate 58% of the salary funds for each staff position in the
Division. The “AUTHORIZED NUMBER”
column lists the number of staff authorized for each position. The “PAY GRADE” column lists the official
pay code classification for each position.
Because the Division of Children and Family Services was unable to
produce the true salary for each employee, the starting salary for each pay
grade was used as an approximation for each employee in that position. This approximation is in the “GRADE STARTING
SALARY” column.
Using this salary approximation
method results in an underestimation of the quota of children required to
balance the payroll fund.
The “FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED” column
lists 58% of the starting salary for each pay grade. The “TOTAL FEDERAL DOLLARS REQUIRED TO MEET STAFF PAYROLL”
column lists the product of the “FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED” (58% of each position
starting salary) and the authorized number of staff for each position. The result of this calculation divided by
$2230.43 is listed under the “QUOTA OF CHILDREN TO MAKE CLAIMS” column. The result is a projected 5,529.33 total
number of children required to generate 58% of the Division of Children and
Family Services payroll from federal salary funds. The actual number of founded child abuse allegations reported for
the fiscal year was 5615. The
underestimation was 86.
Table
4
1995-6
ARKANSAS DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES QUOTA OF FOUNDED CHILD ABUSE
ALLEGATIONS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN BUDGETED FEDERAL SALARY FUNDS
|
POSITION
TITLE |
AUTHORIZED NUMBER |
PAY GRADE |
GRADE
STARTING SALARY |
FEDERAL
FUNDS REQUIRED (58%) |
TOTAL
FEDERAL DOLLARS REQUIRED TO MEET STAFF PAYROLL |
QUOTA
OF CHILDREN TO MAKE CLAIMS |
|
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR DCFS |
1 |
UNC |
$72,460 |
$42,026.80 |
$ 42,026.80 |
18.84 |
|
DHS
ASSIST DIR |
3 |
UNC |
$58,939 |
$34,184.62 |
$ 102,553.86 |
45.98 |
|
DCFS
ADMR ADMIN SVCS |
1 |
UNC |
$44,934 |
$26,061.72 |
$ 26,061.72 |
11.68 |
|
DCFS
ADMR PROG OPS |
1 |
25 |
$30,470 |
$17,672.60 |
$ 17,672.60 |
7.92 |
|
DCFS
ADMR COMMUN SVCS |
1 |
25 |
$30,470 |
$17,672.60 |
$ 17,672.60 |
7.92 |
|
PSYCHOLOGIST |
1 |
25 |
$30,470 |
$17,672.60 |
$ 17,672.60 |
7.92 |
|
DCFS
ADMR PROG SUPPORT |
1 |
25 |
$30,470 |
$17,672.60 |
$ 17,672.60 |
7.92 |
|
DCFS
ADMR INDIV & FAM SVCS |
1 |
24 |
$28,626 |
$16,603.08 |
$ 16,603.08 |
7.44 |
|
DHS
PROGRAM ADMR |
2 |
23 |
$26,862 |
$15,579.96 |
$ 31,159.92 |
13.97 |
|
DCFS
AREA MANAGER |
6 |
23 |
$26,862 |
$15,579.96 |
$ 93,479.76 |
41.91 |
|
DCFS
FIELD MANGER |
2 |
22 |
$25,231 |
$14,633.98 |
$ 29,267.96 |
13.12 |
|
TRAINING
PROJECT MANAGER |
1 |
22 |
$25,231 |
$14,633.98 |
$ 14,633.98 |
6.56 |
|
INFORMATION
SYSTEM PLANNER |
1 |
22 |
$25,231 |
$14,633.98 |
$ 14,633.98 |
6.56 |
|
NURSE
SUPERVISOR |
1 |
22 |
$25,231 |
$14,633.98 |
$ 14,633.98 |
6.56 |
|
DHS
PLANNING & POLICY DEV COORD |
1 |
21 |
$23,718 |
$13,756.44 |
$ 13,756.44 |
6.17 |
|
DHS
PROGRAM MANAGER |
2 |
21 |
$23,718 |
$13,756.44 |
$ 27,512.88 |
12.34 |
|
DCFS
PROGRAM ADMR |
4 |
21 |
$23,718 |
$13,756.44 |
$ 55,025.76 |
24.67 |
|
PSYCHOLOGICAL
EXAMINER II |
3 |
21 |
$23,718 |
$13,756.44 |
$ 41,269.32 |
18.50 |
|
QUALITY
ASSURANCE COORDINATOR |
1 |
21 |
$23,718 |
$13,756.44 |
$ 13,756.44 |
6.17 |
|
NURSING
SERVICE SPECIALIST |
1 |
21 |
$23,718 |
$13,756.44 |
$ 13,756.44 |
6.17 |
|
FAMILY
SERVICE WORKER III |
48 |
20 |
$22,238 |
$12,898.04 |
$ 619,105.92 |
277.57 |
|
DHS
PROGRAM COORDINATOR |
15 |
20 |
$22,238 |
$12,898.04 |
$ 193,470.60 |
86.74 |
|
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT ANALYST II |
2 |
20 |
$22,238 |
$12,898.04 |
$ 25,796.08 |
11.57 |
|
COUNSELOR |
5 |
20 |
$22,238 |
$12,898.04 |
$ 84,490.20 |
28.91 |
|
FAMILY
SERVICE WORKER II |
156 |
19 |
$20,911 |
$12,128.38 |
$ 1,892,027.28 |
848.28 |
|
DHS/DCFS
FIELD SVCS REP |
16 |
19 |
$20,911 |
$12,128.38 |
$ 194,054.08 |
87.00 |
|
DHS
STAFF SUPERVISOR |
8 |
19 |
$20,911 |
$12,128.38 |
$ 97,027.04 |
43.50 |
|
GRANTS
COORDINATOR II |
4 |
19 |
$20,911 |
$12,128.38 |
$ 48,513.52 |
21.75 |
|
REHAB
STAFF DEVELOPMENT SPEC |
1 |
19 |
$20,911 |
$12,128.38 |
$ 12,128.38 |
5.44 |
|
BUDGET
SPECIALIST |
1 |
19 |
$20,911 |
$12,128.38 |
$ 12,128.38 |
5.44 |
|
CHILD
CARE LICENSING SPEC |
41 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 465,897.76 |
208.88 |
|
DHS
PROGRAM ANALYST |
6 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 68,180.16 |
30.57 |
|
ADOPTION
SPECIALIST |
16 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 181,813.76 |
81.52 |
|
STAFF
DEVELOPMENT SPEC II |
3 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 34,090.08 |
15.28 |
|
YOUTH
SVCS COUNSELOR II |
2 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 22,726.72 |
10.19 |
|
COTTAGE
LIFE PROGRAM SUPERVISOR |
1 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 11,363.36 |
5.09 |
|
SOCIAL
SERVICE WORKER III |
2 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 22,726.72 |
10.19 |
|
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT ANALYST I |
1 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 11,363.36 |
5.09 |
|
PLANNING
SPECIALIST II |
1 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 11,363.36 |
5.09 |
|
NURSE
I |
10 |
18 |
$19,592 |
$11,363.36 |
$ 113,633.60 |
50.95 |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT II |
5 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 52,939.50 |
23.74 |
|
FAMILY
SERVICE WORKER I |
473 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 5,008,076.70 |
2,245.34 |
|
JOURNEYMAN
CARPENTER |
1 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 10,587.90 |
4.75 |
|
GRANTS
COORDINATOR I |
6 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 63,527.40 |
28.48 |
|
PERSONNEL
OFFICER II |
1 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 10,587.90 |
4.75 |
|
QUALITY
CONTROL REVIEWER |
14 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 148,230.60 |
68.46 |
|
SOCIAL
SERVICE WORKER II |
1 |
17 |
$18,255 |
$10,587.90 |
$ 10,587.90 |
4.75 |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT I |
5 |
15 |
$16,224 |
$ 9,409.92 |
$ 47,049.60 |
21.09 |
|
SOCIAL
SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE I |
1 |
15 |
$16,224 |
$ 9,409.92 |
$ 9,409.92 |
4.22 |
|
SOCIAL
SERVICE WORKER I |
20 |
15 |
$16,224 |
$ 9,409.92 |
$ 188,198.40 |
84.38 |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE SUPERVISOR |
1 |
15 |
$16,224 |
$ 9,409.92 |
$ 9,409.92 |
4.22 |
|
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY/ADMIN SECTY |
4 |
14 |
$15,235 |
$ 8,836.30 |
$ 35,345.20 |
15.85 |
|
SECRETARY
II |
14 |
13 |
$14,299 |
$ 8293.42 |
$ 116,107.88 |
52.06 |
|
SOCIAL
SERVICE AIDE II |
185 |
13 |
$14,299 |
$ 8293.42 |
$ 1,534,282.70 |
687.89 |
|
DOCUMENT
EXAMINER II |
3 |
12 |
$13,417 |
$ 7,781.86 |
$ 23,345.58 |
10.47 |
|
SECRETARY
I |
13 |
11 |
$12,616 |
$ 7,317.28 |
$ 95,124.64 |
42.65 |
|
DOCUMENT
EXAMINER I |
3 |
10 |
$11,841 |
$ 6,867.78 |
$ 20,603.34 |
9.24 |
|
CLERK
TYPIST |
32 |
10 |
$11,841 |
$ 6,867.78 |
$ 219,768.96 |
98.53 |
|
RECEPTIONIST |
1 |
10 |
$11,841 |
$ 6,867.78 |
$ 6,867.78 |
3.08 |
|
TOTALS |
1157 |
|
|
|
$12,332,774.90 |
5,529.33 |
The calculations represented by
Table 4 may be summarized in the following equation where Q represents the
projected quota of children required to generate sufficient federal salary fund
claims to balance the child protection agency payroll, Sn represents
the true annual salary for each employee in the child protection agency, P
represents the percent of agency salary funds obtained from federal salary fund
claims, and C represents the average federal salary funds obtained for each
child held in State custody.
|
[S1. . . n S1 + S2
+ S3 +. . .+ Sn ] P
C |
Table 5 compares the projected
number of founded child abuse allegations, which assumes the founded rate is
determined by the agency dependency on federal salary funds, with the actual
number of founded child abuse allegations reported by the Arkansas Division of
Children and Family Services. With
figures for two of the four fiscal years significantly affected by
administration decisions, the largest over and underestimation did not exceed
10%. It appears that the number of
founded child abuse allegations can be accurately projected using the child
protection agency dependency on federal salary funds generated by children held
in custody as the predictor.
Table
5
ACCURACY
OF PROJECTIONS BASED UPON CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY DEPENDENCY ON FEDERAL SALARY
FUNDS
|
FISCAL YEAR |
TOTAL
AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
FOR DIVISION OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES |
FEDERAL
FUNDING DEPENDENCY ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FOUNDED ALLEGATIONS |
PER
CENT UNDER/OVER UNDERESTIMATION |
ACTUAL
NUMBER OF FOUNDED ALLEGATIONS |
PERCENT
OF ANNUAL INCREASE |
|
1995-6 |
1157 |
5529 |
- 2 |
5615 |
4.68 |
|
1996-7 |
1041 |
5196* |
-10* |
5762 |
2.62 |
|
1997-8 |
1153 |
5703 |
+ 9** |
5209** |
-9.60 |
|
1998-9 |
1153 |
5705 |
- 1 |
5775 |
10.87 |
*Administrative
decisions resulted in a temporary reduction in the number of Family Service
Workers and total allocated Division of Children and Family Services positions
in the 1996-7 fiscal year. Since the
projection calculation is based in part on the total allocated staff positions,
the staff allocation reduction resulted in a decreased number of projected
founded child allegations. Please note,
that despite a reduction in staff, the number of founded allocations still
increased over the previous year. It
would be reasonable to expect that a reduction in child abuse investigators
would result in a reduction in founded child abuse allegations. A reduced number of Family Service Workers
would conduct a reduced number of investigations and detect a reduced number of
instances of genuine child abuse and neglect.
Table
6
TEMPORARY
REDUCTION IN FAMILY SERVICE WORKERS
|
POSITION
TITLE |
1995-6 |
1996-7 |
1997-8 |
1998-9 |
|
FAMILY
SERVICE WORKER I |
473 |
417 |
476 |
476 |
|
FAMILY
SERVICE WORKER II |
156 |
158 |
164 |
164 |
|
FAMILY
SERVICE WORKER III |
48 |
49 |
49 |
49 |
|
TOTAL |
677 |
624 |
689 |
689 |
**The
Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services has stated its 1997-8
reported number of founded child abuse allegations under-reports the true
number as a result of changing to a computer based tracking system called
CHRIS. Not all of the previous data
could be converted to the CHRIS system.
Table 7 lists the total budget for
the Department of Human Services and the total federal fund component for four
fiscal years. The average federal fund
component for the four years is 67.5%.
Note that these are billion dollar budgets.
Table
7
ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DEPENDENCY ON FEDERAL FUNDS FROM SUMMARY BUDGET
INFORMATION COMPARING APPROPRIATIONS AND OPERATIONS FOR THE 1995-1997 BIENNIUM
WITH REQUESTS FOR 1997-1999 BIENNIUM, (VOLUME 10)
|
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES |
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES |
REQUESTED BUDGET |
REQUESTED BUDGET |
REQUESTED BUDGET |
||||
|
FISCAL YEAR |
1995-6 |
% OF TOTAL |
1996-7 |
% OF TOTAL |
1997-8 |
% OF TOTAL |
1998-9 |
% OF TOTAL |
|
FEDERAL FUNDS |
$1,232,908,219 |
68 |
$1,335,239,657 |
68 |
$1,455,200,714 |
67 |
$1,566,355,546 |
67 |
|
% ANNUAL INCREASE |
|
|
8.30% |
|
8.98% |
|
7.64% |
|
|
TOTAL BUDGET |
$1,813,799,379 |
|
$1,960,611,367 |
|
$2,177,852,523 |
|
$2,338,117,777 |
|
The Arkansas Division of Children
and Family Services is dependent on federal salary fund revenues generated from
children taken into state custody to meet its payroll. The number of children necessary to generate
the federal fund revues required to balance the agency payroll is an accurate
predictor of the annual number of founded child abuse allegations. For this to reoccur on an annual basis,
management protocols would have to be in place to ensure that sufficient
children are taken into custody to generate this federal revenue. The other possible explanation, that it
repeatedly reoccurs by chance, is not credible.
For the number of children needing
protective State custody to continually increase, all of the State, Federal and
privately funded programs to reduce child abuse would have to be complete
failures. Yet, claims have been made
that child abuse reduction programs have been successful. It would be a strange social phenomena
indeed for child abuse to be simultaneously increasing and decreasing.
Finding the facts about
child custody quotas for the child protection agency in your State
Child protection agencies produce
annual financial reports. The
information needed to calculate the number of children required to produce
sufficient federal salary fund dollars to balance the agency payroll is (1) the
total amount paid to all child protection agency staff members; (2) the percent
of federal salary funds used to meet the agency payroll for the year; (3) the average
amount of federal salary fund claims generated for children held in State
custody. If this information is not
found in the annual financial report, file a specific request for it or ask
your State Senator or Representative to request the information.
Multiply the total staff salaries by
the percent of total salary funds derived from federal salary funds. Divide this by the average amount of federal
salary funds paid for each child in State custody. Compare the resulting number with the actual number of “founded”
or “true” child abuse allegations reported by the agency for that year. If the two numbers match, it implies the
number of founded child abuse allegations is determined by agency dependency on
conditional federal funds.
As a condition of federal funding,
State child protection agencies are required to report the annual number of
children who die or are injured in State custody. Obtain a copy of this report for your State. Check to see if your State child protection
agency also has a Child Death Review Committee. If they do, request a copy of all documents and reports generated
by this Committee. Compare the number
of deaths reported to the Child Death Review Committee with the number reported
to the federal government. Compare the
death rate for children in State custody with the child death rate for the
general population. If the death rate
is higher for children in State custody, then children are placed at greater
risk by being taken into State custody.
4.
IT IS 10:00 AM. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR
CHILDREN ARE?
“Whenever I hear anyone
arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him
personally.” Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), from Michael
Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations <http://www.quotationspage.com/>.
“Life is all one piece. Men
err when they think they can be inhuman exploiters in their business life, and
loving husbands and fathers at home. For achievement without love is a cold and
tight-lipped murderer of human happiness everywhere.” Smiley Blanton, from Poor Man's College <http://www.quotationspage.com/>.
Title IV-E Expenditure Reports
citing fictitious projections of the number of children held in State custody
are filed with the federal government.
These fictitious projections are arbitrarily increased every reporting period, making it appear that increasing
federal fund claims are justified. This
is called fraud.
Contracts are issued by child
protection agencies that require contractors to continually produce increases
in federal fund revenues or have their contract canceled and forfeit any
payment for their work. When such
contracts are renewed, the increase in revenue generated by the previous
contract becomes the baseline for the new contract. Compensating a contractor with a percent of the increase in federal fund revenues
generated is a commission system. This
commission system is based on processing children taken into State custody for
federal fund claims.
The staff of child protection
agencies must justify and produce federal salary fund claims sufficient to
obtain the federal fund component of the agency payroll. This can only be accomplished by seizing and
taking into State custody the number of children necessary to generate the
federal salary funds. This is a quota
system.
Behind a legislated wall of secrecy,
an alliance of political extremists and criminals operating in child protection
agencies have established an administrative machine to exploit children for
financial gain and to achieve an extremist political agenda. The result is a modern form of child slave
trade. Conducting this malicious
enterprise requires support from organized criminals and political extremists
in mental health, social work, and child abuse investigation units. The following installments in this series
will deal with the tools used by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers
and child abuse investigators to falsify evidence used to justify taking
children into state custody, file fraudulent insurance and federal fund claims,
and obtain guilty verdicts against parents, teachers, ministers and other
adults falsely accused of child abuse and molestation.
No one knows how many children are
actually being abused or by whom they are being abused. On the infrequent occasions when alleged
child abuse statistics have a basis in actual data, it is derived from the
State child protection agency statistical reports. As demonstrated in this installment, the number of children taken
into State custody are a product of commission and quota structures.
State child abuse statistical
reports are forwarded to the federal government to become the national child
abuse statistics. When someone cites
statistics about the child abuse rate, ask where those figures came from. Track the source back and you should find
the original source to be State child abuse statistical reports, unless the
statistics are fictitious as with the figures reported on Title IV-E Reports. (To comprehend the scope and magnitude of
the bureaucracies fed by the child abuse industry, visit the National Clearing
House on Child abuse and Neglect links
<http://calib.com/nccanch/sites.htm>.)
The current child “protection”
system is a machine that exploits children to obtain federal funds for State
economies. No one financially
benefiting from the current system cares about children in State custody. If there was any genuine concern there would
be more than two meager studies to determine if children derive any benefits
from being held in State custody. If
the safety of children was the actual goal of child protection agencies, every
one of them would have a built in monitoring system to ensure children are
benefiting from being held in State custody and the death rate would be lower than the death rate for children
in the general population.
Footnotes
1American Management Systems,
Incorporated <http://www.amsinc.com/>, expand box “Everything in this
site...” and scroll down list of service areas; DGM-MAXIMUS
<http://www.dmgmaximus.com/services/index.html>; Public Consulting Group,
Inc. <http://www.pcgus.com/units.html>;
Renaissance Worldwide, Inc.
<http://www.rens.com/consulting/government.html>.
2Thompson, A. H. and Newman,
S. C. (1995). Mortality in a child welfare population: Implications for policy.
Child Welfare, LXXIV(4), 843-857.
3Seifert, K., Schwartz, I.
M., and Ortega, R. M. (1994). Infant mortality in Michigan's child welfare
system. Social Work, 39(5), 754-579.
© Copyright October 13, 2000
by James Roger Brown. All rights
reserved.
THE SOCIOLOGY CENTERTN
220 North Willow, Suite 222
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 374-1778
thesociologist@aol.com