Archive for July 2011

March 8, 2009 Full Disclosure.net Interview with Richard Fine, explains the Dilemma of County Payments affecting Court Cases

I keep wondering what ever happened to the Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit — was the money distributed? Did this case help precipitate somehow the stipulation that only statewide agencies could distribute child support (versus the local D.A.’s office)?

Hopefully Full Disclosure people will appreciate why Im posting this, and its relevance to what happens when an ADMINISTRATIVE agency (let alone one at the Federal Level) starts affecting Trial Court Cases.

District Attorneys are paid by the county.
Court Reporters (if court-provided) are paid by the county.
Child Support Enforcement Agencies are, of course, paid by the county.
Court-appointed GALs and Child Support ATTORNEYS (who may appear in custody-related hearings) are paid by the county.
Court-appointed mediators, to my understanding, are paid by the county.
County Supervisors/Commissioners are paid by the county.

(Anyone who wants to know who or what else a County pays for — can go look at its payroll records, and accounts which are public records, often on-line, or could be requested as a FOIA, a simple form letter to the given agency requesting the information. Often newspapers or investigators may do this — but anyone is allowed to, I believe).

The county has an incentive to increase its holdings and delay distributions by this fact: it’s an institution! Certain scenarios (when it comes to child support) INCREASE account holdings, and result in Federal Matching funds or rewards. Certain practices would indicate perpetuating certain grants streams (for example, increasing noncustodial parenting time after court-referred services coming under the A/V grants system).

And I didn’t even raise the issue of when County-employees actually form separate nonprofits in order to outsource — to their own nonprofits — the basic business of government.

The “Family Justice Center” model is such a sample, although I believe the Full Disclosure crowd is not involved with this at all. It seems to be my pet peeve, and a few other people’s….

But this Transcript of a Sunday Night I believe is helpful explanation of what’s at stake.

Above the section I quoted, also see comments (and some videos) by a Supervisor and others, “to the contrary” point of view. I was searching “Silva v. Garcetti,” which brought up this section. Highlights are mine, and I might add a paragraph within a person’s comment, for easier reading.

The source is an “AV Hi Desert Forum” under “Judges Lose LA County Payments.”

{BEGINQUOTE:}

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Attorney at Law

EXCERPTS FROM FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK�
Interview With Leslie Dutton On March 3, 2009

LESLIE: You’ve been up against some formidable challenges. But none quite like the one that’s facing you today. Would you say that tomorrow’s (contempt fearing* before Judge David Yaffe) is — how would you compare that to all of the challenges you’ve had before this?

{{*”fearing” sounds like a Freudian slip? Should be obviously, “hearing”}}

RICHARD FINE: Well, tomorrow’s hearing is interesting because the challenges that I’ve had before are basically challenges that we can say work with in a functioning system. And when I was getting all of this money back and so forth, I was dealing with a system that was functional. I mean, you have a case, you go into a court; it either gets settled, you win it or you lose it, and you’re dealing with a system that has integrity.

Tomorrow’s case, or the case that we have now, is dealing with a dysfunctional system because of the fact that this is now pure politics and retaliation.

We are dealing now with a judge who took money from the County of Los Angeles, who then made an order that I should pay money to the County of Los Angeles, holds me in contempt for refusing to answer questions about my personal assets to force me to pay that money, and now wants to send me to jail because I’m in contempt for not obeying his illegal order, which was illegal because he took illegal money from the County. We’re dealing with a dysfunctional system and a judge that is dealing with political retaliation. So we’re not dealing in a justice system anymore. We’re dealing with what some people would call a third-world country; we’re dealing with all the things that America condemns about other countries. That is what we have in this courtroom tomorrow. So I wouldn’t say that it’s really a comparison. We aren’t dealing in a system that this country was set up to operate.

LESLIE Tomorrow when you go into court, Judge Yaffe is going to make a — he’s going to give you a sentence; is that it? He’s already found you in contempt?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. He’s — he’s found me in contempt for refusing to answer questions from a commissioner about an illegal order that he has made. And he wants to sentence me to jail until I answer those questions. Now, I have gone to the Court of Appeal with what is known as a writ of habeas corpus, which means “bring in the body,” and I have asked the Court of Appeal to enter a stay stopping Judge Yaffee from doing anything. I haven’t heard yet, as of [to]day, whether they’ve entered that stay or not. If they enter the stay, Judge Yaffee is dead in his tracks. If they don’t enter the stay, then I’ll go into the California Supreme Court, and if the California Supreme Court doesn’t enter the stay, then I’ll go into the United States District Court. Sooner or later, I will win. Whether I win before he sends me to jail, I don’t know. But that — that is what we are dealing with.

{{LGH COMMENTARY:

Richard Fine shows here he’s determined to have a return to the Functional Justice system — and the matter at hand is conflict of interest. Notice, his willingness to go to jail for it. He did indeed get sent to jail, but IDEALLY for the rest of us that may or may not have that amount of guts and commitment, nor can we ask others to go to jail for standing up to governmental “dysfunction” (in the form of bribes) – – I’m hoping there is another way, which would include educating enough people on what is and what is NOT a literal bribe, and how to smoke them out FIRST — and THEN go about one’s court litigation. It’s not enough to be bothered or upset; one has to have the data on what happened, what should’ve (legally) happened instead, and what has been going on over the years.

Also note: Like any attorney who’s been litigating — he understood it’s a matter of timing. If the stay he sought was delayed, he could go to jail. if it was delivered timely, then not. The entities issuing such stays (or disbursements) certainly understand the ramifications also; in fact this same Judge Yaffe presided earlier over a case with low-income tenants where the real estate developer’s simply delaying designating (I forget exact term, but whether or not it had actually “begun” its development) meant, did families get to stay — or did they get booted out? That was another prolonged struggle in which the low-income population lost, involving this same Judge in a mass-eviction: (I’ll; put this text in GREEN — it’s for a teaching point, but involves the same judge…)

From a Yahoo Groups discussion on “Lincoln Place” apartment redevelopments, Venice, CA

There are dozens of newspaper articles and TV stories about AIMCO’s redevelopment of “Lincoln Place”, which is a property in Venice, CA for which AIMCO similarly has plans to demolish garden apartments to build a larger number of new units.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/heartless-in-venice/57/ (LA Weekly News, December 8, 2005, is pasted into this e-mail), outlines the story (with a mention of the contributions of AIMCO’s lawyers to the City Attorney’s election campaign, and of Patti Shwayder, AIMCO’s Vice President who is involved in the Springhill Lake plans).

The Venice Paper, at http://www.venicepaper.net/pmt_more.php?id=248_0_1_0_M states:

“MAY 17 — An attempt at mediation between AIMCO, Lincoln Place Apartments owner, their tenants, architectural preservationists and Venice community members ended without an agreement on the fate of the fifty elderly and disabled tenants still living in the complex, nor on the shape of future development of the site…”

and

“…AIMCO spokesperson Patti Shwayder had no comment on the company’s immediate plans. However, the company was negotiating to build 1,284 units of luxury condos, including 190 units of affordable housing, on the property. That is more than the 1,008 units the company was seeking last fall. There were 795 units in the original garden apartment complex…”

http://www.lincolnplace.net/pr/pr060830.htm (August 30, 2006), “LINCOLN PLACE TENANTS TAKE STRUGGLE TO AIMCO SHAREHOLDERS”, contains the following paragraph:

“…In 2002, the City of Los Angeles approved a redevelopment of the property subject to the condition that no tenant be evicted against their will. The condition was offered by AIMCO and its then partner and subsidiary Los Angeles Lincoln Place Investors, Ltd., and is binding on all successors in interest. In 2003, AIMCO became sole owner of Lincoln Place. Rather than live up to its binding agreement to relocate tenants within Lincoln Place, AIMCO began evicting tenants in 2005. On December 6, 2005, 58 households were locked out of their apartments by L.A. sheriffs, the largest single-day lockout in the history of Los Angeles. Now senior and disabled tenants fear they will have to face the same trauma.”

It appears to me that in part, this was possible because AIMCO postponed announcing something that might have triggered the no-evict clause. Representatives from the City Attorney’s office, AIMCO and I guess the tenants, spoke in front of Yaffe – — meanwhile the sheriffs threw people out of their homes (shortly before Christmas 2005). Here’s a bit of summary from an article By LINDA IMMEDIATO; Thursday, December 8, 2005 – 12:00 am:

Some 12 hours earlier, 52 families were forcibly removed from their homes in the affordable-housing complex in Venice. Sheriff’s deputies descended at 9 a.m., kicked them out and changed locks. The families were allowed three trips, holding whatever they could carry in their arms, leaving valuables and heirlooms behind. By evening, the displaced families who had lingered on the pathways, confused, upset and lost, had found somewhere to go. Some went with friends, others to distant relatives or homeless shelters.

“When my 15-year-old son left for school today, he had no idea there would be no home to come back to,” said Clare Sassoon between sobs. “Imagine what that’s going to be like for him. We went straight to a real estate agent, and hopefully we can find something. But as of now, we are homeless.”
The tenants have 15 days to arrange to return for their belongings — a one-time shot, just before Christmas.

The evictions came just minutes before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe was to hear arguments from AIMCO — the Denver-based corporation that owns Lincoln Place — the City Attorney’s Office and preservationists.

{{And I’m sure no in on the court, or at AIMCO, or at the City Attorney’s office had “any idea” that the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department was throwing people out of their homes at the time. Must have been coincidence. Sounds like even the resident’s City Councilperson was taken by surprise; this article, a few months later (summary pasted into URL link) called “The Miseducation of Bill Rosendahl” portrays him as trying to force AIMCO to commit to a plan in order to save the remaining elderly and disabled residents. . . who must certainly have felt as they were under siege, and unheard. Apparently sticking up for one’s constituents isn’t good business practice… Residents express the situation:

[2/2006]

Lincoln Place residents have claimed that the City Council has ignored them during meetings, some members refusing to look them in the eye. “They just sit there and eat their lunch while you’re talking,” said resident Frieda Marlin, 82 (years old, trying to save her home!). “They don’t care.” Last year, during one meeting, the City Council actually threw a football around while tenants waited to be heard. Another tenant claimed she heard Councilman Jack Weiss lecturing Rosendahl. Weiss was heard saying, “You’re anti-development, Bill, and that will hurt you.” Rosendahl said he couldn’t comment on what Weiss had said, because it happened during a closed meeting.

This is the biggest problem he’s encountered with the City Council — its penchant for closed meetings. “The public should see democracy in action. What are they afraid of?” said Rosendahl. “When meetings are closed, we can’t talk about what happened inside afterward. There’s no accountability.”

AIMCO is from Denver. Interesting — so many corporations influential in the family law arena are Denver-based as well; CPR, PSI, also NCADV… something about the state, maybe, where monopolists congregate to run the rest of the country}}

[12/2005]
The hearing on Tuesday stemmed from an earlier Court of Appeals judgment requiring that conditions for Lincoln Place’s development plan be reviewed. The issue: whether AIMCO’s bulldozing of five buildings in 2003 signifies the start of the project, with all the city-approved conditions kicking in, including a no-eviction clause. It’s hard to sort through because AIMCO won’t publicly state what it plans to do with the property. “We’re not sure,” says Patti Shwayder, AIMCO vice president.

It boils down to this: If AIMCO can hold off announcing that it plans to go through with the preapproved project until after all tenants are evicted, it will make the no-eviction clause moot. This is exactly what the tenants and preservationists believe is happening. Yaffe decided that yes, the conditions must be followed, but he didn’t clarify whether they should be followed now, while tenants are being evicted, or later, if AIMCO applies for permits. Yaffe did his job — he only had to review the conditions, not enforce them. According to Amanda Seward, a representative for the preservationists, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo himself promised he would ask the court to enforce the no-eviction clause.

It’s the City Attorney’s Office, I believe, that would clear the issuance of the permits (I’m not a real estate person). If AIMCO had paid into that office, and then neither the office nor the Judge will take a position on what is, or is not, ethical behavior by this monster (one of the nation’s largest) developers — then no one is responsible. As AIMCO evicted, not applying for permits, and no one stopped them — then it wins and the tenants lose, without even a hearing on the issues. (sounds like family court, almost….)

Diamond {City Attorney spokesperson} passed the buck to Yaffe, claiming it was the judge who “declined to respond and address the issue of enforcing the conditions.” Diamond conceded, “It’s a tough time of year to not have a home.” When asked if it was true that two of AIMCO’s attorneys had contributed to Delgadillo’s campaign, Diamond replied, “You know what? It doesn’t make a bit of difference.” {oh??}

It makes a big difference to the tenants of Lincoln Place. If you hear them tell it, the 38-acre development was a community for people of all ages. Neighbors would pop in on those who were sick or elderly to see if they needed anything from Ralphs, a prescription picked up at Rite Aid, or their mail fetched. Slowly, AIMCO’s evictions have killed the once-thriving community. By next March, when the last of the evictions will have taken place, the way of life there will be but a memory, unless some city agency steps up to challenge the out-of-state developers and protect affordable housing in this city.

FAST-FORWARD TO 2009 and here is Richard Fine, who has stood in front of Yaffe before (on behalf of taxpayers) on similar issues — and he is waiting to see if a “stay” on Yaffe’s contempt action (based on conflicts of interest, etc.) is going to come. If it’s delayed, off to jail he goes, potentially. I gather this is standard practice in Los Angeles area….

California is a leader in the court arena and many other. Its practices trickle (or rather, stream, like flooding) to other states and countries — in part because so many of the personnel in the courts here do indeed have global aspirations; they want to change the world (full speed ahead, civil code of procedures & civil rights be damned.. — or just ignored…) and are good at persuading others to even pay for the transformations). Same with the educational field. So what happens in Los Angeles — and what DID happen last decade — has national relevance. (Did I mention, California is also often chosen for a “demonstration” site of the latest practices. Possibly just because it’s so large… largest court system in the US).}

{CONTINUED QUOTE : 3/8/2009 FullDisclosure.net}

LESLIE Tell us how this all started.

RICHARD FINE: Well, this — this all started in a very innocent type of way. It started back in 1999, and in 1999, I brought a lawsuit called John Silva vs. Garcetti — Gil Garcetti, Los Angeles District Attorney.

{{Note: by this time the states were to have begun centralizing their child support distribution into ONE unite per state, according to 1996 PWORA & TITLE IV}}

And that lawsuit was based upon the fact that John Silva had paid money as part of his divorce — child support money. And child support money was being paid into the County of Los Angeles because the County of Los Angeles, as you know, collects child support money. Now, what we found out is that he had paid his child support money in, but the child support money wasn’t going to his wife. The County was not distributing it. And the County wasn’t distributing about $14 million of child support money. What the County was doing is, the County was taking this money in and it was holding it.

{{It appears that, had Fine & Silva not happened to show up, that money might still be sitting in their earning interest and the kids wondering, “what happened?”}}

Now, there’s a law that says that the County must distribute the child support money within six months or give it back to the father. And they will only give it back to the father if they can’t find the wife or the children. Now, in John’s case, he knew where his wife was, and he knew where the children were, because his wife was friendly. You know, he was giving the money to the County support system; the County wasn’t giving it to his wife. His wife knew that the money was going in, so she was cooperating with us, and we found out that all these other women and children were not getting their money.

{{LGH — OHO CASE WHERE PARENTS SUED THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE :

Ohio child support collection agency sued

On behalf of Ralph A. Kerns & Associates posted in Child Support on Thursday, May 19, 2011

Ten years ago, the state of Ohio was sued by a group of parents who claimed that the state was withholding child support money. As a result, the state paid millions of dollars to custodial parents who were not distributed the correct amount of child support.

But earlier this month, another legal claim was filed against the state of Ohio and the state’s Department of Job and Family Services. Allegations are that the agency has been over-collecting child support and failing to inform parents of the actual status of their payments. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of parents who need the child support to provide for their children.

The lawsuit claims that the Ohio agency knew that parents were paying more child support than necessary and not seeing those payments go to the custodial parent. The state has said that the problem originates from computer glitches, but some believe it could be a bigger problem. In fact, an example was given of a father who had to pay the state child support even though the child was in his custody.

In addition, a parent in Ohio who fails to make child support payments can go to prison for falling behind. But if there are computer glitches, are some parents going to jail even though they have actually made timely payments?

Right now, there are millions of dollars in undistributed child support in Ohio alone. How many families are unable to provide for their children because of this undistributed money? National concern has been sparked over this issue as more child support collection agencies across the nation are being accused of deceptive practices.

At this point, it is not certain whether Ohio agencies are intentionally withholding child support or simply dealing with some technological difficulties. Regardless, custodial parents rely on child support to provide food, clothes, and shelter for their children. Going without that financial support can make things more difficult for all.

Source: The Sacramento Bee online, “Child Support Overpayments: Lawsuit Alleges State Withholds Too Much Money, Unfairly Charging Parents and U.S. Taxpayers,” 10 May 2011 {{note — broken link, although other child support articles show up on the Sacbee… }}

Here’s that article — and note, they are quoting a fathers’ rights person — but he’s right to bring this up! (I’m color-coding to keep the articles separate)

A class action lawsuit filed on Friday, 6 May 2011, claims Ohio’s Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS is the designated agency for OHIO) over collects child support payments in violation of state statutes and federal regulations. Records indicate in excess of $176 million has been wrongfully taken from over 114,000 child support payers. The suit further alleges ODJFS knowingly and willfully deceives parents concerning the status of their child support records while receiving tens of millions of dollars in unearned incentive and reimbursement payments from U.S. taxpayers.

According to Michael McCormick, executive director of The American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC, www.acfc.org):

“Overzealous and erroneous child support collection efforts affect all citizens. This case is not about parents who don’t, or can’t, pay child support. ODJFS is literally taking money it is not entitled to from tens of thousands of good support paying mothers and fathers who could use those funds for food, shelter, and education for their children when they are with them.”

McCormick adds: “The state should not be misleading parents that their child support balance is zero when they are, in fact, overpaid and should have an account credit. Parents are told they cannot recover the overpayment until the child support case is finished. For many parents that’s ten, twelve or fifteen years down the road.

“Ohio regularly incarcerates poor parents who fall behind on their support obligations sentencing them to what are in effect ‘debtor prisons.’ Now it’s alleged the state has, for years, been pilfering from parents who have fully paid their obligations. There’s more going on than can be justified by the typically forthcoming ‘computer glitch’ excuse. It appears there are problems in the agency across the spectrum of payers,” said McCormick

This is not the first time Ohio has been sued regarding child support payments. A decade ago Ohio was sued for wrongly withholding collected child support money from custodial parents. Millions of dollars were paid to affected children and parents.

In 2010 The Columbus Dispatch reported the story of a young father from whom the state collected $200 per month for his 5 year old son, while the child lived with him. Ohio deprived this child of much needed support for over a year.

(One scenario this might happen — if the father previously had an arrears, and then custody was switched from mother to him….))

Reports list Ohio as having over $26 million in net collected, undistributed child support, also known as UDC. Most states have millions that have not been timely distributed to families.

(Where are the links to those reports? Over time, I can see that as possible — especially as both OCSE and the GAO acknowledge — no one knows, really, how much UDC is there!)

These problems are not unique to Ohio. National dialogue, increased scrutiny and Congressional oversight hearings probing the numerous errors and questionable practices of child support collection agencies are necessary.

Incarcerating indigent parents unable to pay support is bad enough; for states to knowingly and unlawfully take excess money is unconscionable.

APPARENTLY THE WAY TO EXTRACT MONEY LEGALLY DUE A PERSON __ INCLUDING ONE’s KIDS — FROM THE STATE IS TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO GET IT BACK. HOWEVER, THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES INCLUDE Automatic wage garnishment, tax intercepts, etc.)

{BACK TO RICHARD FINE INTERVIEW, and SILVA case, referring to (@2009) events a decade earlier. IN other words (see above), not much has changed in the interim. you want your money? sue the State agency {or whoever is responsible} for it. Before then, figure out who the county is paying….}

So I sued the County to have this money distributed. The County answered and told me how much money was there, where the accounts were. All they had to do was distribute it. They were refusing to do it. I went into court, and we got to the end of the trial} The County moved to dismiss, and the judge dismissed the case.

And I was astounded.** And I went up into the appeal, and after the trial was over and before I filed my first brief, I found out that the judge, Judge James C. Chalfant, had received money from the County of Los Angeles. That’s how it started. That was one case.

{{**Mr. Fine was apparently not working with welfare parents here, or with anything relating to domestic violence issues — so he may have been unaware of the many other incentives to the courts (if not directly to judges) such as the A/V grants system, or the prolific supervised visitation industry supported in part by this. Also, in 1999, the Centralized State Distribution Units (at least obviously in California) were not (all) in place yet. He talks about COUNTY money functioning as bribes, however we know know that there is also federal incentives to the states functioning similarly. Not to mention private. Kids’ Turn, for example, had been up and running — however his practice appears to have been more in the taxpayer advocacy realm}}.

The second case that it started out with was the case that I mentioned earlier about the County of Los Angeles taking money from the environmental fees, and in that case — that was a case called Amjadi and Lacaoehs vs the Board of Supervisors of County of Los Angeles. And I was brought into that case to get that money out of the general fund of the County of Los Angeles and into a special fund. And I won that. I got the case, you know, got the special fund established. I got $11 million that they still had in the general fund put into the special fund. I got the fees frozen for three years until that $11 million was used up, and then when it came time to get the attorneys fees, Judge Kurt Lewin, who was the judge in the case, refused to award the attorneys fees, saying that I was representing a County union, and unions shouldn’t sue the County

{{The County appears to have the habit of keeping fees for its own purposes; another case I think Fine was on involved the DWP — Dept. of Water and Power. At some point, this guy is clearly beginning to become a thorn in their sides who wished to mix special-fees-funds with the general fund. FYI, this also came up when I was reading about the UDC (Undistributed Child Support) — at least one Southern California county dumped the interest from its withheld (“UDC”) monies into the general purpose funds, which is like trying to track water mixed with water, unless there is some procedure in place for intake & outgo! }}

SPEAKING OF, MIXING SPECIAL TAXES (AND UNFAIR PROFITS FROM UNFAIR RATES) INTO GENERAL FUNDS, TO BE USED “AT-WILL” BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

{{Speaking of water, here it is — 2006 article. I’ve posted it before, so no commentary):

(1)

…Tough Judge makes Villaraigosa return a cool $30 million

On March 25, L.A. Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman handed down a tentative ruling against the city’s practice of skimming 5 percent off the top of Angelenos’ water bills, and slamming city officials for this sleazy move just when City Hall can least afford to give back any ill-gotten funds.

For years, city leaders propped up the general fund with as much as $30 million in revenue derived from an added tax on water used by residents and firms.

In 1996, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association crafted state Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which Californians approved to make sure that “revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.”

(And of course, the City fought that, including with some “slick maneuvres” according to this article……

Here’s a 2007 article (on a different type of tax) by the President of this Taxpayers Association, called “No Tears for L.A.” Notice how the City is exploring how to get rid of the Proposition 218, in place to protect taxpayers. Jon Coupal says, some of this doesn’t pass “the laugh test,” and why:

(2) NO TEARS FOR L.A. – May, 2007

(Keep this in mind as crocodile tears over the budget keep showing up in various public official’s faces, nowadays)

BAIT & SWITCH IN PROP. 218 — PASSED TO ATTEMPT TO HOLD CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT TO THE CALIF. CONSTITUTION….

May 20, 2007by Jon Coupal

The city of Los Angeles has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. The city’s hands are experienced at this maneuver, but they don’t usually get caught. In this case, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that the city broke the law by imposing a tax increase on cell phone use that did not receive approval of voters. Voter approval is required by the expressed language of the California Constitution; specifically, Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act.

Now highly paid city officials are singing the blues that the coming fiscal year’s budget will be short an anticipated $167 million.

In the past, this would have been no problem, as the members of the City Council, the highest paid in the nation, would make up any budget shortfall by snatching up Department of Water and Power revenues that have served as a city slush fund for years. However, a recent $30 million raid on the DWP has been blocked by another court. {{see prev. article}}

There will be more posturing and blustering by public officials as they tell sad stories about the programs that must be cut if the court’s decision is not overturned by the state Supreme Court. However, in a city where most new revenue goes to support pay and benefits for the highly paid municipal workforce, the real issue about which they are concerned is their own welfare.

They should have seen this coming. The constitutional language mandating voter approval is so clear even dissembling elected officials should be able to figure it out. In response to abusive taxes, often on utility users, that were imposed by communities throughout the state without voter consent, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association authored Proposition 218. The Right to Vote on Taxes Act was enthusiastically approved by voters in 1996. It clearly stated that new taxes that were directed to a city or county general fund must be approved by a simple majority of voters — taxes that are earmarked for a specific purpose already required a two-thirds vote approval by Proposition 13. Proposition 218 also clarified the way in which fees and assessments could be imposed, guaranteeing the public a stronger say in their implementation.

So hostile were members of the Los Angeles City Council to the idea that the public would gain more control over local taxes, they approved a motion by then Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg directing the city attorney to prepare a suit that would seek to invalidate Proposition 218. After reviewing the issue, the city attorney reported back that a suit would be without merit.

Now, the City Council — I think I mentioned they are highly paid — may claim that they are victims of term limits and therefore have no institutional memory of these events, but this does not pass the laugh test. The Council has well-compensated legal advisors to point out to them that Proposition 218 and its right to vote provisions are embedded in the California Constitution and therefore take precedence over the whims of city officials. . . .

(3) “A GORILLA WALKS INTO A (SNACK) BAR”:

— overpriced water = fees slosh into the general funds, Loophole found to Prop. 218…)

L.A. Overcharging for Water

(another Jon Coupal, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association article, 10/2/2007)

Koko the gorilla, a resident of the Los Angeles Zoo, had become quite adept at picking the pockets of the zoo keeper. One day Koko used the zoo keeper’s key to let himself out of his cage, and ambled over to the snack shop. Climbing onto a bar stool, he grunted “Water.” When the man returned with a bottle of Aquafina, Koko handed him a $20 bill from the zoo keeper’s wallet. Guessing the gorilla wasn’t too smart, the man gave Koko one dollar in change. “We don’t get a lot of business from the animals here,” the man remarked. Koko snorted, “At $19 for bottled water, I’m not surprised.”

Koko is not the only Los Angeles resident paying too much for water. And the snack shop isn’t the only water purveyor hoping that its customers aren’t too smart. In fact, every Los Angeles water customer has been overcharged for years. And, although the California Supreme Court ruled last year that cities can no longer charge customers more than it costs to provide water service, the City of Los Angeles was hoping it could break the law again this year and no one would notice. Sorry, L.A., we at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association noticed.

But first, a little history: In 1999, we sued the City of Los Angeles over its water rates because, for each of the preceding four years the City set rates at an amount that significantly exceeded its cost to provide water. The overcharges resulted in a surplus of over $20 million each year, which the City transferred to its General Fund for the City Council to spend at its discretion.

Perhaps that didn’t sink in, so I’ll repeat it in red (which the practice keeps the residents in, by overcharging). $20 million OVER charged, per year X 6 years.

In 1999, we sued the City of Los Angeles over its water rates because, for each of the preceding four years the City set rates at an amount that significantly exceeded its cost to provide water. The overcharges resulted in a surplus of over $20 million each year, which the City transferred to its General Fund for the City Council to spend at its discretion.

The City will need the surplus to defend itself from lawsuits by disgruntled taxpayers. Clearly they are planning ahead…..

Our lawsuit alleged that the overcharges violated Proposition 218, which in part states, “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service,” and “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.” The suit also alleged that, to the extent water rates did exceed the funds required to provide water service and were spent on other purposes, the overcharge constituted a special tax which required voter approval.

The Taxpayer association is trying — hard — to get the City to function as the public servant it is supposed to be, and not a private corporation…At least they are putting up a fight!

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal sided with the City, ruling that metered water rates are not fees for a property-related service and therefore are not subject to Proposition 218’s cost-of-service requirement. The Court certified its opinion for publication, which made it a precedent binding every lower court in California. Cities and counties throughout the state immediately took advantage of the decision by raising their water rates to generate new General Fund revenue for things unrelated to water.

This seems like mincing words — the second inbound water hits a meter, it’s suddenly no longer a property-related service? Who is the Court working for? Prop 218 should never have been even needed — it’s obvious (to fair-minded people) that if taxes are sold as for a certain purpose, then they ought to go for that purpose. Also fair is that as we are already paying the salaries of our public officials, they ought not to be voting to gouge us for basic needs — like water! However, that assumes we’re all approximately on the same page. My point is, we aren’t! (not in this state, at least….)

This was the state of affairs for six years. Then, in 2006, the California Supreme Court granted review of a case called Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil. The Bighorn case involved a voter’s initiative to reduce water rates after a water district promised rate relief, but didn’t deliver. The lower court, adhering to the precedent in HJTA v. City of Los Angeles, held that water rates are not subject to Proposition 218. That meant, according to the court, that rates could not be reduced using 218’s initiative power.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court. The high court not only ruled that reducing rates is within the people’s initiative power, it also held that water rates are subject to the other requirements of Proposition 218 as well. In so doing, the court expressly overruled the precedent from six years earlier in HJTA v. City of Los Angeles.

Aha, persistence pays off at the Supreme Court level….

The Supreme Court issued the Bighorn decision one year ago, in July 2006.

Anyone with faith in the rule of law would expect that, by now, the City of Los Angeles would have adjusted its water rates to comply with the law as laid down by the state’s highest court. Only a cynic would be looking for the small legal notice that appeared in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise addressed to “All persons interested in the matter of the validity of the transfer of $29,931,300 from the Water Revenue Fund of the City of Los Angeles to the City’s Reserve Fund.”

According to the notice, circulated only in this one obscure newspaper and only for three days, the City of Los Angeles recently filed a lawsuit against all of its water customers, and this was their notice that they are being sued.If someone sees the notice and files an Answer to the lawsuit by July 23rd, the notice explained, then the City will litigate with that person whether it may legally continue to generate and transfer a surplus from its Water Fund to the General Fund Reserve.However, the notice continued, if no one files an Answer by July 23rd, then the Court will enter a Default Judgment against all of the City’s water customers, validate the transfer of funds, and the issue will be settled forever.

Although the City was obviously hoping that no one would catch the notice, someone did. We prepared an Answer to the City’s lawsuit denying the City’s asserted right to continue generating and transferring a surplus, and affirmatively alleged that the City’s practice became illegal not only generally, but specifically as to the City of Los Angeles when the Supreme Court overruled HJTA v. City of Los Angeles. The two sides will now battle it out in court, and we’re not monkeying around.

Jon Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Timothy Bittle is the organization’s Director of Legal Affairs.

How horrible to be dealing with a huge corporation (the City of Los Angeles) of highly paid employees in a smog-ridden city (last I heard) with all kinds of troubles, including gangs, riots {{after Rodney King beating}}, drug-dealing, police corruption ({Ramparts case}}, and major issues, like many urban areas — and KNOW, that HABITUALLY, the City is going to be trying to pull a fast one on the residents. And then retaliate on whistle-blowers like Mr. Fine… . SUMMARY here

BACK TO FULLDISCLOSURE.NET 2009 INTERVIEW and trying to cut off attorneys’ fees after they got $11 million into a special fund, where it belonged….

And in addition to that, that unions were always in negotiations with the County for wages. And therefore what the union was really doing had really brought the case, not to help the public, but really for its own benefit. Well, I also found out that Judge Lewin was getting money from the County. And to pay the attorneys fees, the attorneys fees would be coming out of these funds, which was County funds.

LESLIE When you talk about these judges getting money from the County, how is it that money is coming to them? For what purpose? Under what..?

RICHARD FINE: Okay. What — the — to answer your question, the way that the money comes from the County to the judges is that every year, the County, as part of its budget, under what is known as Trial Court Funding — if you look in the budget, you’ll actually see this under Trial Court Funding, you will see money going to the judges, and that money in this particular year is approximately $20 million, or $46,370-some-odd per judge. Now, how it started was, back in 1988, the County of Los Angeles, decided, through its Board of Supervisors, that they wanted to pay judges — and these are their — somewhat their exact words — to attract and retain qualified judges and qualified candidates to sit as judges in this — meaning LA — County. And that was their reason. Now, they knew — and we actually — I actually have a copy of the document — they knew at that point in time that they couldn’t do this. They knew that to do this was illegal because under the California Constitution, under what is known as Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution, only the State legislature could prescribe the compensation of the judges.
[Edit]

RICHARD FINE: There’s a document in November of 1988 which was written by the — at that point, the County Counsel to Frank Zolin who was the Clerk of the Courts, and it actually went from the County Counsel to the Clerk of the Courts, explaining these things. So the L.A. Superior Court actually got this document. In that document, it said that the Attorney General had given the opinion that this could not be done, and so what the County Counsel tried to rationalize is, he said, “Well, this part of the Constitution really only meant salaries and it didn’t mean compensation,” so they’re gonna try and get around it in that way. They knew they were doing wrong. They also knew that the Attorney General had given opinions that you couldn’t pay this money as part of a statute as compensation for judges. So they knew right then and there that what they were doing was wrong. The other thing that they knew is that if you’re giving the money to attract people as candidates for judges, judges are elected officials — they’re State elected officials under the California Constitution. We vote for a Superior Court judge every six years. So if you’re going to be giving money to a judge to attract him to be a candidate, you’d be giving money to his political campaign, and that would be a gift of public money to a private individual, and that would be a violation of Article 16, Section 6 of the California Constitution.

LESLIE How much was this money that they were giving them?

RICHARD FINE: It turns out that at that point in time they were giving them about 27 percent of their salary, and back in ’88 I’m not sure what the salary was, but it was probably, maybe around $20,000-some a year. Now it’s doubled to $46,000 a year.

LESLIE So would they be able to give that kind of money as a campaign contribution?

RICHARD FINE: As a campaign contribution in 1988, they wouldn’t have been able to give that amount of money to a judge because the campaign contribution limits the State to $1,000 per candidate.

LESLIE So would you say, then, that basically the County was buying judges?

RICHARD FINE: The bottom line of it is yes, because the only reason that the County could be giving this money — the only underlying reason — is that the County had — had cases in front of these judges. The County is a major litigant in the California courts, and it’s the same thing as if Tony — the fictional Tony Soprano had been giving money to the judges. In fact, the County has an average, as far as normal cases are concerned — when I say “normal,” that’s excluding child custody cases, that’s excluding criminal cases — just taking your regular cases. The County has about 700-800 new cases a year in the Superior Court. So when the County is giving this money, the underlying thought, in my opinion, is that the County wanted to influence the judges to decide the cases in the County’s favor. Now, this thought of mine actually came true because we have documents from the County Counsel to the Board of Supervisors that show that in the year 2005 and in the year 2006 and 2007, not one case that was decided by an L.A. Superior Court judge was decided against the County of Los Angeles. So basically nobody won in that period of time. And for the year 2008 — 2007, 2008, in that fiscal year, the documents are a little bit more vague, and possibly two cases were decided by a judge against the County of Los Angeles. But that was about the most. So that gives you the effect of the monies.

[Edit]
LESLIE Now, you made that statement, “That gives you from the beginning of the payments with respect to the payments,” but you’ve only cited 2005, 2006, 2007. You don’t know what the win/loss ratio was from 1988 to 2005?

RICHARD FINE: There — there are no documents that I know of that tells me the win and loss ratio from the years in between, because the only documents that I have been able to pick up are the ones that started in 2005. Now, the County may have internal documents that were not published or that have not been made public that might have — might tell us what’s happened in the previous years. And I don’t know if the court is keeping internal documents as to what has happened on the various cases. Somebody actually — if somebody wanted to go in and do the survey, you could go into the court system and take every case where the County of Los Angeles is named as a defendant and then go in and look to see what happened in the cases and whether it was a judge decision or a jury decision. That would be a fairly large project, but one could do that. And because you’re looking at from 1988 to, say, 2005, you’re looking at approximately 17 years of cases, and 700, you know, cases per year. So you’re looking at maybe 13,000-some-odd cases. It would take a little bit of time for someone to do the survey and dig up the records. But you could actually find out the exact number.

WELL, my time is up for today, so I wanted to just finish off by linking to Ron Kay in LA describing Yaffe’s decision to finally release Mr. Fine, and how holding him 180 days after the time presumed to determine whether coercive confinement is actually going to break someone was, er, wrong.

Judge Yaffe Explains Why He Freed Richard Fine after 18 Months of Coercive Confinement

By

Ron Kaye

on September 20, 2010 7:41 AM | Permalink

It was a bizarre and unexpected end to a bizarre story — the Yom Kippur release of anti-tax crusader Richard Fine from County Jail where he was locked up pointlessly for coercive confinement for 18 months.

Judge David Yaffe backed down Friday afternoon and without a hearing or attorneys present issued a court order that basically says Fine must be crazy to have endured the pain and horror of jail for so long and to have fought so hard and at so much personal cost to expose the scandal of tens of millions of dollars in illegal payments to judges by LA County.

Yaffe’s order (Yaffe-Release-Order.rtf), obtained by Leslie Dutton whose Full Disclosure Network has championed Fine’s cause, represents both an attempt to quarrel intellectually with Fine and to dismiss him a nut case whose conduct is “bizarre…irrational…makes no sense.”

“It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s conduct is irrational. Fine has always had the key to his own jail cell. He has elected to give up his freedom for 18 months in order to keep a judgment creditor from collecting a $50,000.00 judgment.

“He refuses to even discuss his obligations to the judgment creditor but portrays himself as a lone hero who is being incarcerated because he has exposed a vast conspiracy of over 400 judges of this court who are dishonestly collecting money to
which they are not entitled.”

Yaffe finally concludes:”Fine’s continued incarceration is a detriment to the public because Fine is using up jail space in an overcrowded jail, and may cause the release of persons who constitute a greater threat to the public than Fine does.”

Why it took Yaffe 18 months to determine Fine’s confinement does not serve “any useful purpose” is hard to understand unless you know the judge is regarded by attorneys who have appeared before him as erratic and often irrational in his decisions.

So I guess if Yaffe resorted in the end to self-justification by calling FIne crazy, it’s something he knows about — if only a juvenile name-calling excuse.

Maybe Fine is crazy, maybe everybody who fights for what they believe in is crazy.

That’s certainly the viewpoint of every repressive regime and of every oppressor in modern history. That’s why they use gulags, and prisons for the politically incorrect.

The legal standard for coercive confinement in a contempt of court case is five days in jail after which it is presumed the incarcerated will not back down. Yaffe exceeded that by 180 days.

There was never any question Fine would break. His whole life is marked by an obsessive passion for doing what he believe is right, fighting against illegal taxation and official abuses.

As Yaffe knows, the legal standard for insanity is knowing the difference between right and wrong. The question which deserves a proper judicial inquiry is whether Yaffe — not Fine — can tell the difference.

Tags:

anti-tax crusader Richard Fine,

illegal payments,

Judge David Yaffe,

l.a. county jail,

Yom Kippur

Free at Last, Oh Lord, Free at Last — Richard Fine Freed on Yom Kippur after 18 Months in Jail

By

Ron Kaye

on September 18, 2010 10:22 AM | Permalink

Inexplicably and without notice on Yom Kippur eve, the Jewish Day of Atonement, Superior Court Judge David Yaffe came to his senses and concluded the jailing of anti-tax crusader Richard I. Fine 18 months ago would not break his will.

Fine, 70, was freed from LA County Jail at sundown Friday night. (Previous articlesLetter from Jail, Prisoner of Conscience)

On Thursday, Yaffe issued a court order (Yaffe-Fine.pdf) refusing the Tarzana attorney’s latest filing seeking to annul the contempt of court case and other rulings against him. Neither Fine nor the attorneys for the Marina del Rey developer, Marina Strand Colony II, which had sought Fine’s financial records, were present.

Yaffe wrote his previous orders were final so he had no jurisdiction over any aspect of the case except whether the jailing of Fine in March 2009 amounted to coercive confinement that no longer served a purpose since Fine had not backed down. It is unprecedented for coercive confinement to last more than five days, the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court years ago in a case involving LA Times reporter Bill Farr.

“The only continuing jurisdiction that this court retains in case B8109420 is the discretion to release Fine from confinement in the county jail on the ground that his continued confinement will not induce him to answer questions put to him in a
joint debtors examination,” Yaffe wrote.

“Fine’s demand for a release on that ground was ruled on by this court on August 23, 2010, and is calendared for further consideration six months from’ that date.”

Yaffe noted that even if he had jurisdiction, the incarcerated Fine filed his request 13 days before the August hearing when legal procedures required 16 days’ notice.

“The Court will take this matter under submission solely for the purpose of adding to this ruling corrections to certain misstatements of fact made by Fine in his moving papers,” Yaffe said.

Yet, 24 hours later, Yaffe, who is retiring next month, issued another order freeing Fine, apparently accepting the fact that someone who refused to back down for 18 months could not be coerced even if held in jail for the rest of his life as the judge had vowed to do.”

Fine, who won numerous cases fighting illegally imposed taxes, ran afoul of the judiciary when he started crusading against secret illegal payments made to judges by county supervisors. (etc.)

Following up on this theme, I encourage us to look at Federal Incentives to Trial Courts (in custody cases) and to just get SMARTER on who’s on the local county payroll that might be showing up in court cases. After all, these institutions ARE business, they establish business relationships with vendors and contractors (and in the case of child support enforcement, sometimes multinational corporations) and any number of employees are invested in maintaining THEIR jobs also.

Nevertheless — No taxation without representation — takes work to achieve; make time for it! Who else do you think will do the job — the local City Council? Judging by Los Angeles, I’d have to say — no. You want the local churches to be making the decisions? I’ll say No to that one (by the way — see http://www. THERESPONSEUSA.com and “go figure” The ACLU has already filed several FOIA requests on that one.

So who’s going to do it? Skip a PTA meeting and take a look at your local budgets, and teach the skill to someone else.

Thanks.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 31, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Posted in History of Family Court

Tagged with Child Support, FullDisclosure.net, L.A. County Payments to Judges, Richard Fine interview, Silva v. Garcetti

Tea Party Hypocrisy — Illinois’ Rep. Joe Walsh Caught in Arrears; but the Real Hypocrite is OCSE.

RE: My last post, Footloose in Tuscaloosa:

I am still sorting out which judges, legislators, and government employees are on which “Help the Children” or “Fatherhood” nonprofits in Alabama; more to come. Meanwhile, I’m hardly going to pass up an opportunity like this:

Lawrence O’Donnell bans ‘deadbeat Dad’ Rep. Joe Walsh

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has banned tea party Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) from ever appearing on his show again.

Walsh has refused to vote for raising the nation’s debt ceiling, saying he would not place “one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids.” But it turns out that Walsh actually owes more than $100,000 in child support.

“It is time to deny deadbeat dad Joe Walsh some advantages,” O’Donnell said Friday.

“In order to teach deadbeat dad Joe Walsh a lesson about family values, yes, the very same family values that so many Republicans try to exploit politically while failing to come close to living up to them in their own lives, deadbeat dad Joe Walsh is hereby banned from this program. He can go tell his lies about his family values and his sense of fiscal responsibility elsewhere.”

Watch this video from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast July 29, 2011. (on-site).

As the video points out, using the “my kids and grandkids” rhetoric / exhibits in campaign speech is not obligatory. He chose to do so. Others chose to do some look-ups!

ProjectVoteSmart on Rep. Walsh shows his affiliations, and background:

Representative Joe Walsh (IL)

Current Office: U.S. House
Current District: 8
First Elected: 11/02/2010
Next Election: 2012
Party: Republican

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Helene*
5 Children*Birth Date:
Birthplace: Barrington, IL
Home City: Barrington, IL
Religion:Education:
MPP, University of Chicago
BA, English, University of IowaProfessional Experience:
Director, Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund
Instructor, Hebrew Theological Institute
Instructor, Jobs for Youth
Instructor, Oakton Community College
Heartland Institute {Instructor, student, speaker — what capacity?}Political Experience:
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 2011-present
Candidate, United States Congress, 1996
Candidate, Illinois State House of Representatives, 1998

Organizations:
Member, Americans for Limited Government
Member, Fabretto Childrens Foundation
Member, Legislative Education Action Drive
Member, Milton & Rose Friedman Foundation

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Member, American Education Reform Council
Member, Congressional Hockey Caucus
Member, House Republican Israel Caucus
Member, Republican Study Committee
Member, Tea Party Caucus
Member, United Republican Fund

* * re Wife & Children, make that “Current wife” and “5 children, split among two women…”

ProjectVoteSmart asks where they stand on issues:

Representative Joe Walsh refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

This candidate has demonstrated 0% courage during the test.

Voting record — against Planned Parenthood and Taxpayer funded Abortion (goes with the territory). And of course FOR Patriot Act extensions. (File where under “Small Government” label?)

But he voted in April 2011 FOR the budget:

04/15/2011

2011-2012 Budget
H Con Res 34

Resolution Passed – House
(235 – 193)

THAT MEANS he voted for the $4 billion child support collection industry (obviously it’s not too good at catching up with him….), and for siphoning parts of this off into fatherhood promotion.

The Heartland Institute:

The Heartland Institute: Free Market Solutions

Heartland Institute is a $6.1 million privately-funded nonprofit:

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization with offices in Chicago and Washington DC. Founded in 1984, it is tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.

Illinois congressman Joe Walsh, a Tea Party rising star, sued for $100,000 in unpaid child support

(,published Friday 7/29/2011 in Syracuse.com)

In this Nov. 17, 2010 file photo, then-Rep.-elect Joe Walsh, R-Ill., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Thursday, July 28, 2011, that Walsh’s ex-wife, Layra Walsh has sued her ex-husband for more than $117,000 in what she says is unpaid child support and interest. Laura Walsh filed the claim in December in their divorce case.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a rising star in the Tea Party movement best known for his blistering lectures of President Barack Obama for “spending like a drunken sailor,” is now being peppered with questions about his own financial responsibility after reports surfaced that he’s being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support.

Experts say whatever political star power the 49-year-old Republican previously emanated has been dimmed, if not extinguished, because for at least the immediate future it will be impossible for him to talk about anything other than his personal problems.

As is appropriate. Most of us would rather see a sermon than hear one any time.

“Whenever he wants to go out and talk about the debt limit, they are going to want to talk about whether (he) is a deadbeat dad,” said Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of politics at the University of Illinois-Springfield. “His individual problems become the story and he never gets to another issue.”

…

Redfield and others say it is all but impossible for politician to shake questions about whether or not they’ve provided for their families once a story like the one in Thursday’s Chicago Sun-Times is published.

Well, why should they be able to shake such questions? Would you want a representative who was dishonest with his own family, or have we come to view that as acceptable if it’s a charismatic enough leader? Particularly when it’s a Family Values type political party, let’em practice what they preach!

“Child support is always devastating to politicians when it (such a story) comes out, because the public says, ‘How can you manage our finances when you can’t manage your own?'” said Larry Sabato, a political scientist and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

This reporter could’ve affirmed that a person who cannot manage his own finances (honestly, that is) should hardly be entrusted with others’. How devastating might it be to children to have their well-known father simply ditch child support payments? But instead, the reporter distances him/herself from that point of view and describes the poor (in arrears) politician’s prospects, should word of this get out… Why don’t citizens just move beyond such petty issues as, whether the politician is a liar or not? including to the mother of three of his children?

No, that question raises a very good point, and any religious conservatives should (but often don’t) know this verse:

I Timothy 5. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

I suppose one way to handle that is divorce one’s wife and go start a new family, meaning the old ones are no longer in his “house,” and neglecting them, which this person did….

But this won’t phase Tea Partiers much, says the author — they’ll just chalk it up to a “politically motivated” attack, projecting a psychological motive for reporting facts and requesting action on them. Reminds me of how family court, when faced with allegations of abuse, has a tendency to attribute it instead to “parental alienation” and imply the (mother, FYI), just made it up to get an advantage in the divorce.

But Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said that Walsh was paying about $1,000 less than he was ordered to between November 2005 and March 2008, and then stopped paying the entire $2,135 he owed every month from April 2008 until December 2010.

He said once Walsh began serving in Congress, earning $175,000 a year, he started making payments of $2,164 a month — after Coladarci contacted the congressional office to advise the office of a court order to withhold that amount from his paycheck.

Maybe we should draft legislation that ALL Congressional New Hires have a child support background check, followed by wage garnishment if it meets certain criteria. After all, the rest of the nation is being subjected to this type of invasive reporting, why not the home boys as well?

AGAIN — NOTICE — this wasn’t a father TRYING to pay and then failing due to unemployment — zero payments from 4/2008 – 12/2010. I know even very poor fathers who can cough up SOMETHING each month (particularly as doing so exonerates them in the OCSE’s eyes)– even a third, a tenth of the order. But this is over two and a half years of nonpayment.

How this all plays out when Walsh runs for re-election remains to be seen. Despite disclosures about a 2008 home foreclosure, his divorce, traffic citations for not having car insurance, bounced checks and a lawsuit by a former campaign manager who alleged Walsh owed him $,20,000, Walsh was elected to Congress.

More than one friend emailed me about Congressman Joe Walsh’s Preaches but doesn’t Practice behavior as to child support; but one made a particularly good point: Where was the OCSE, and why did his ex-wife have to go after child support on her own? Does the OCSE not catch up when child support arrears is over $100K and the deadbeat is an employee of the U.S. Government?

They do this for women who go on welfare — but of course then there is the matter of that extra % that goes back to the Feds if it’s a Title IV case.

The Chicago Sun-Times Article (by Abdon M. Pallisch, political reporter, 7/27/22)

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

Was that his first family’s kids, or his second family’s kids he’s referring to here? Because he apparently skipped over two and a half years of child support payments (2008 – 2010) to 3 kids (two of who are now adults) while vacationing (with girlfriend), and details have emerged that he wasn’t exactly on the street during that time (see below, or articles).

Walsh starts the video by saying, “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.”

It’s hard to add much to the article – — read on:

No compromise’

An intense, silver-haired firebrand, Walsh, 49, has taken cable TV by storm in recent weeks, becoming the unofficial spokesman for the “No compromise” faction of the Republican majority in the U.S. House — refusing to consider any debt crisis solution that includes raising taxes on the wealthy.

Walsh admits he is not wealthy. Some of his financial problems — including losing his Evanston condo to foreclosure — were documented before his out-of-nowhere victory last fall in the 8th Congressional District in Chicago’s north and northwest suburbs.

FYI President Obama (or, at least, his meteoric political career) came out of Chicago’s South Side. Joe Walsh apparently is out of the North/Northwest Side. Evanston is home to Northwestern University (which actually pre-dates the city), two seminaries and many private schools. It’s per-capita median income in 2000 was about $56K, not too shabby. It’s north of Chicago, and right on Lake Michigan.

racial composition, 2000 census

…

But court documents examined this week by the Chicago Sun-Times during research for a profile on the increasingly visible congressman showed his financial issues also included a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife.

Newspapers and individuals SHOULD do this and know who we are dealing with in politics….

Trying to work out a settlement’

Both sides in the Walsh case have been negotiating Walsh’s overdue child support since he filed his response in February.

“Out of respect for his being in Washington, we haven’t been pushing it. We have been trying to work out a settlement,” Coladarci said.

After Laura Walsh filed for divorce in 2002, Joe Walsh counter-filed for divorce and sought custody of the children, saying he worked from home and Laura Walsh “suffers from psychological and other conditions.” He has not repeated that charge in written motions since 2003. The couple had three children, then ages 15, 12 and 8. They are now 23, 20 and 16.

That’s interesting. Article says she’s an attorney and was working for Eli Lilli.

Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.

Sounds here like he was lying to his ex-wife; hardly a unique situation. Sounds like she wasn’t exactly hiring private investigators — but was reading his campaign disclosures.

“Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.”

“Thanks, Dad” . . . would be appropriate for the three children he left behind in that matter. Message to them: “If you’re not living with me, I’m not paying for you. I’ll just go get some more kids with another woman….”

This is not the typical type of case the Office of Child Support Enforcement would track easily. Heck, they can’t even keep track of their own interest income and undistributed collections. The OCSE system is set up to work BEST when some (poor slob) works a job where the wages can be garnished. Certain classes of people are serial entrepreneurs, or, like this one, politically active, or businessmen. Imagine trying to track the income from venture capitalists each time there is a divorce!

Walsh’s attorneys responded in court filings: “Respondent admits that funds were loaned to his campaign fund. . . . Respondent admits that the campaign fund has repaid certain loans.”

He personally wrote in court filings that he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money he owes. He noted that the children have lived with him for part of the last nine years.

“Part” is a real vague term, both as to % and as to for which years.

Walsh lives with his new wife and children in McHenry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE OCSE’s ROLE:

My one friend commented, in essence, on behalf of others and :

..certain congressional officers—whom have authoritative oversight of HHS— believe they are exempt from following the same laws they enact and require us to follow. Representative Walsh’s wages were supposed to be garnished from his US Government congressional paycheck—but i[weren’t]. Please do not get distracted by the amounts, . . . the child support agency refused to enforce the court orders and allowed this jerk to run up a $100,000 tab, then required the mother to file her own motion with her own money to get the job done. At the same time, he has voted to DOUBLE the budget to $4 billion for the same untracable and unaccountable IV-D enforcement programs allegedly to enforce support orders. Right.

How this might’ve played out with a different class of person —

your ass would be in jail * and your kids would be caught in a federally funded custody battle. Instead of spending more time with the children during a tough divorce, he took the money he stole from the kids hired a lawyer to battle against them, then went on vacations.

In this case, either the judge is in cahoots with the father, or the judge has lost control of his courtroom because the HHS child support enforcement administrative agency will not enforce the orders. This means that the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement has modified/set aside/ and created court orders without the constitutionally required authority of the judicial branch.

{{**Or I’d like to add, sitting in a court-mandated parenting class on “How to be a father” and other abstinence-style funding that could draw some federal program $$ to whoever is offering the class }}

The comment may not make sense unless one has been a custodial parent seeking to enforce child support. The agency is frequently secretive about its dealings with the opposing party. With good reason, as we found out afterwards that Title IV-D incentives to continue the litigation exist… IF there is a contested custody matter, that’s another “reason” to suspend disbursement of COLLECTED child support funds — I learned, recently (like, in 2011).

Also, as I have shown in part, in some posts on that undistributed collected child support — the “OIG” (Office of Inspector General) is not auditing all states — or all counties in all states — nor do they affirm their audits of selected counties are even accurate — nor are these audits done even YEARLY, although states are required to report quarterloy. Nor, when serious offences (against generally accepted accounting procedures, or for that matter common sense) have occurred in the states — does the audit even have any teeth. It only “recommends” that these states get their act together. THe OCSE doesn’t have enough “resources” to figure out how many millions, really, are sitting collecting (UNreported!) interest in some state or local county funds. That’s not including those amounts that were co-mingled with the general funds, and no trail of amounts left behind:

They are taking our money, collecting the interest, not forwarding it to our children, then not claiming the interest. Our children starve while [Bank of America] profits off our undisbursed support.

YEP. See this March 2004 “Highlights” of a GAO report. GAO = “Government Accountability Office.” REPORT GAO=04-377. This is not from some heretical, unthankful critic of government practices; it is a government report.

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections are Needed

OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.

Federal law, some state policies, and inaccurate or missing information were the underlying causes of nearly all types of undistributed collections. State agencies determined how long they held collections from joint tax refunds and if they held collections received before they were due. Federal law allows collections intercepted from joint tax refunds to be held for up to

180 days and in response to GAO’s survey, 34 state agencies reported holding them for 180 days. Missing or inaccurate information, such as invalid addresses, also leads to undistributed collections. Based on state agencies’ survey responses, GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000.

Money can be held for up to 6 months (180 days) — which 34 agencies were doing, according to a survey.

That is, long ago, almost a decade ago. They visited ONLY 6 state agencies — out of all 50 states X (counties per state).

OCSE has provided some assistance to help state agencies reduce their undistributed collections. However, the Department of the Treasury has not provided OCSE information that would allow state agencies to distribute collections from joint tax refunds to families sooner. Further, OCSE’s efforts to obtain this information have been minimal.

(Highlight/Left column Inset:

Congress established the child support enforcement program in 1975 to ensure that parents financially supported their children. State agencies administer the program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services oversees it. In 2002, state agencies collected over $20 billion in child support, but $657 million in collections from 2002 and previous years were undistributed—funds that were delayed or never reached families.

State agencies DO administer the program, but they are required to “do it the OCSE” way if they want their welfare funds next year. OCSE DOES oversee it — sort of.

From the cover letter to this GAO-04-377 Child Support Enforcement
report, which is addressed to the Hon. Charles Grassley (IOWA, right?)

March 19, 2004

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on Finance United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In 2002, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), in the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that billions of dollars in child support were collected but that payments totaling $657 million were delayed or never reached the families for whom they were intended. These undistributed child support payments are a concern because child support is an important source of income for many families. According to a 2003 report, for 36 percent of poor children living in families headed by single mothers, child support payments comprised almost one-third of the family’s income in 2001. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)1 generally requires state child support enforcement agencies to disburse child support collections within 2 business days, if sufficient information identifying the recipient is provided. In addition, portions of child support collections must be distributed to state government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), to reimburse them for cash assistance provided to families.

Although state child support enforcement agencies administer the child support program, the federal government plays a major role.2

OCSE funds two-thirds of the program’s administrative costs; establishes policies and guidance; provides technical assistance, such as designing curricula and providing support for staff training; and oversees and monitors state agencies. Additionally, OCSE is responsible for taking the necessary steps to help resolve issues at the federal level that affect the child support program such as processes that prevent child support payments from reaching families in a timely manner. OCSE and state agencies collect child support through various methods, such as intercepting the federal tax refunds of noncustodial parents—parents who do not have primary care, custody, or control of their children—who are delinquent in paying their child support.3 If the noncustodial parent has a new spouse and files a joint tax return, generally, only the portion of the refund due to the noncustodial parent should be intercepted.

1Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 312(b) (Aug. 22, 1996).

2In this report we will refer to the state child support enforcement agencies as state agencies.

HOW ODD that the OCSE couldn’t locate the noncustodial in-arrears parent when the parent came to Congress with an open and in arrears? child support case! Is this a matter of principle, or do only welfare cases really count? Would welfare Dads get such an easy slide?

There was a Supreme Court case recently (within my last 5 posts) where a man whose child support was about $60/month was incarcerated for contempt. Respect of persons, much, when Joe Walsh can get along and not pay for over 2 years..

Page 8 of this report:

OCSE Reported Millions in Undistributed Collections, but Data Were Unreliable

Page 11 of this report:

Some State Agencies Reported Inaccurate Amounts of Undistributed Collections

They could be lower, or they could be substantially higher. OCSE doesn’t know!

Local agencies in California used forms that did not always include the federal data elements used by the state agency to report undistributed collections

Page 13 of this report:

OCSE Did Not Hold State Agencies Accountable for Accurately Reporting Undistributed Collections

(I’m looking for the paragraph that says they couldn’t afford to!)

While OCSE is required to audit some child support data, it does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of data on undistributed collections. OCSE is required to audit the reliability of the performance indicators used as the basis for paying financial incentives to state agencies. Officials told us {{Commonly known as “hearsay”}} they are conducting these audits annually. To ensure the reliability of the data, OCSE selects representative sample cases for a detailed audit and reviews supporting documentation to check for errors.

They just took a partial batch sampling. Imagine if our food were prepared with this level of oversight….after an outbreak of Undistributed e. coli had been discovered. Notice they have to check much more carefully when it comes to financial incentives to repay the state agenices. THIS money, the OCSE seems more alarmed about mistreatment of. But what about what’s going to the kids? It seems no one is responsible.

AND HERE YOU HAVE IT — OCSE CANNOT AFFORD TO ACTUALLY MONITOR THE STATES (BUT it can afford extra fatherhood programming….)

Although OCSE’s general instructions for the collection of data used for its annual report reminds state agencies that they should report reliable and complete information, OCSE officials told us they have only reviewed data on undistributed collections in special circumstances. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services and OCSE conducted at least three special reviews of California’s undistributed collections data since fiscal year 1994 that revealed problems with the accuracy and reliability of the data. According to OCSE officials, the agency does not have the resources to routinely review data on undistributed collections in the way it reviews other program data.

CALIFORNIA had shown mess-ups three times since 1994.

ONE of these was brought to federal attention from Prisoner 1824367C at Men’s Central Jail, although the entire legislature knew about it by then:

RICHARD I. FINE

ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA90012
RichardIFine@gmail.com

September 3, 2010

Honorable Eric Holder

Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20530-0001

Honorable Andre Birotte

U.S. Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

312 North Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Honorable Jerry Brown

Attorney General

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

300 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Honorable Steve Cooley

District Attorney

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000

Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

RE:

Request for Federal and State Grand Jury Investigations and Indictments for
Obstruction of Justice and Other Crimes Caused By and Related to the $300
million of Illegal Payments by Los Angeles County and Other California Counties
to the State Trial Court Judges in LA County and Other Counties.

Gentlemen:

I.

Introduction

This formal complaint seeks grand jury investigations and corresponding federal andstate indictments of judges, county supervisors, attorneys and others who participated in thelargest judicial corruption and bribery scheme and “cover up” in American history.

…

The payments began in the late 1980s and have continued through the present.Neither
LA County nor its attorneys disclosed the payments in any case in which LA County was a party.
The judges receiving the payments from LA County also did not disclose such in the cases in
which they were presiding and in which LA County was a party, nor did they disclose such
payments on their Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest, a mandatory disclosure form.

…

Since the late 1980s, LA County has paid approximately $300 million to the state-elected
trial court judges of the LA Superior Court.These payments have been held to violate Article
VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08.The payments have also been acknowledged
to be criminal in California Senate Bill SBx2-11, effective 5/21/09 (seeinfr a)

NOW he is going to cite several cases in support of his request for a Grand Jury Investigation. The second of these deals with child support: $14 million of it!

Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

September 3, 2010

Page 3

On appeal, LA Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger was appointed to the panel by designation. Neither Judge Czuleger nor LA County disclosed that he was receiving payments from LA County. I did not know such. The judgment was reversed. The taxpayers lost $250 million.

B. Silva v. Garcetti

In the case of Silva v. Garcetti and LA County, LASC Case No. BC 205645, I representedJohn Silva against LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who was illegally withholding $14 millionof child support monies beyond the six-month statutory limit and refusing to distribute such.

Remember the “180 day” ability to hold these monies, that I mentioned above? That’s what he must be referring to. His lawsuit, therefore, is against the County.District Attorneys are paid by the County. So, if the ruling judge was receiving payments from the county that He/She was ruling ON, that’s a biased proceeding; it’s a conflict of interest.

Neither LA County, it lawyers, nor Judge James C. Chalfant disclosed the LA County payments to LA Superior Court Judge Chalfant.

Garcetti’s office admitted that it had the child support money and had not distributed it.

At the end of the trial, Judge Chalfant dismissed the case.

Upon finding out about the payments to Judge Chalfant after the dismissal, I raised the issue in the appeal, App. No. B 150641.

The Appellate Court refused to hear the issue. I then became aware that Justice Kathryn Doi Todd, who had recently been appointed an appellate
justice, had received LA County payments when she was a LA Superior Court judge. Neither
Justice Todd nor LA County or its lawyers disclosed this information in the appeal. I raised the
issue in my Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court (S.Ct. Case No. 105221). The California Supreme Court denied review.

LA County women and children lost $14 million, which they should have timely received.

That’s what my friend is talking about. . . . ..

Mr. Fine also represented a class of plaintiffs which Silva represented, on Civil Rights violations, several counts, around this matter but it appears to be “Silva v. Garcetti” that most irritated the judges and lawmakers, resulting in an illegal incarceration of Mr. Fine, Univ. of Wisconsin, London School of Economics, and as I recall probably Harvard as well. (It’s not your average prisoner that can compose something like this from solitary confinement…) In fact, here are the credentials (obviously jailbait background):

Richard Fine

EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin (B.S., 1961); University of Chicago (Doctor of Law, 1964); University of London, London School of Economics and Political Science (Ph.D., International Law, 1967); Certificate – Hague Academy of International Law, 1965, 1966; Certificate of Comparative Law – International University of Comparative Science, Luxembourg, 1966; Diplome d’Etudes Superieures du Droit Compare (Faculte Internationale pour L’Enseignment du Droit Compare), Strasbourg, 1967.

ADMISSIONS: Illinois 1964; District of Columbia 1972; California 1973, (State Bar #55259); United States Supreme Court 1972; and various U.S. Circuit and District Courts.

AWARDS: Lawyer of the Decades 1976-2006, Awarded by the California Black Republican Women’s Council and the Judea Christian Alliance; Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition “in recognition of outstanding service to the community”; California State Assembly Certificate of Recognition; California State Board of Equalization Resolution “for outstanding dedication and service to the taxpayers of the community“.

Chronology of Events

I didn’t understand the impact of these sets of cases (it took a while) until, one time, I simply read through this spreadsheet chronology of Mr. Fine’s activities in (Southern) California on behalf of taxpayers. Maybe we ought to review them as the cries about how broke our state is come from the mouths of some of the same legislators and judicial mouthpieces:

MORE FROM GAO REPORT:

Page 18:

Many State Agencies Reported Holding More than $1 Million from Joint Tax Refunds and Several Hundred Thousand Dollars in Other Types of Undistributed Collections

I hate to minimize the severe and ever-expanding fatherlessness crisis (which of course must be met in kind by federal prevention efforts, a.k.a. fatherhood media campaigns at every level) — however doesn’t it seem that this MIGHT tend to affect the poverty level of families that actually need that child support? MOreover, as it is the equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle — what goes in, may not come out and is not accounted for — at all — I’m starting to think that this is part of our problem:

MARCH 2004 report on earlier surveys:

In response to our survey, 32 state agencies provided dollar amounts for undistributed collections from joint tax refunds. The median value reported for these collections was $1.8 million. Of these 32 state agencies, 19 reported an amount of $1 million dollars or higher with 3 reporting amounts greater than $10 million dollars. In 15 state agencies this was the largest amount reported for any of the nine types of undistributed collections we listed on the survey. For the 9 state agencies that provided values for all nine types, we determined that undistributed collections from joint tax refunds ranged from 27 to 48 percent of total undistributed collections. Our survey requested data as of June 2003, and OCSE officials explained that the amount of undistributed collections from joint tax refunds is generally higher in March through September.

Many officials cited the potential financial loss as the primary reason they are unwilling to assume the risk of releasing these collections before 180 days.

Naturally they are going to protect their own behinds — because people can sue them otherwise:

State agencies are fully responsible for payments made in error and must either attempt to recover money that has been distributed to custodial parents or suffer the financial loss that comes from reimbursing the Treasury for the “injured spouse” claims. One state agency we visited, Texas, reduced the time it held collections from joint tax refunds from 120 days to 90 days after analysis of its data showed that the benefit of distributing these collections outweighed the financial risk of holding them.

While high values were consistently reported for undistributed collections from joint tax refunds, our analysis also revealed that the median value of four other types of undistributed collections that state agencies reported exceeded $350,000. These undistributed collections included those received before they were due, pending legal resolution, with an invalid address for custodial parents, and with data problems.

24 agencies reported collections withheld “pending legal resolution” (may mean a custody issue….) from Min. $9,700 through UP TO $10.2 MILLION, with a median of $431,000. This represents money that is being held (and probably earning interest for the STate or Counties) while the distressed parents — and children with them — fight it out in court. Encouraging such fights — which, face it, the Access and Visitation legislation DOES — could prolong that for years. Do the math (remembering compound interest…. and the declining value of the $$).

So, here comes the OCSE and takes tax money again to solve some problems that its prior practices helped create:

OCSE funded research and provided technical assistance to state agencies to help them reduce undistributed collections. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2002, OCSE awarded three contracts. The first contract awarded in fiscal year 2000, for about $135,000, funded research to identify approaches for reducing undistributed collections in 11 state agencies with large caseloads or amounts of collections. In addition, this contractor reviewed undistributed collections in two New York counties and identified factors in their business processes and automated systems that prevented them from further reducing these collections. According to OCSE, a second contract was also awarded in fiscal year 2000 for about $112,000 that funded research focused on understanding the extent and causes of undistributed collections across state agencies and highlighting best practices for distributing such collections. Additionally, OCSE officials said that a third contract was awarded in fiscal year 2002 for about $300,000 that funded research to review undistributed collections in 5 state agencies.

“OCSE funded” is a misnomer. OCSE is a public Program office under an “Op(erational)Div(ision) under a Department of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. From small to large:

Program Office (OCSE)

OpDiv (ACF)

Dept. (HHS)

Branch (Executive).

Public funds to correct policies promoted by government employees (i.e., legislators, and appropriations people) that are helping fleece the public. THAT makes a lot of sense….

Meanwhile, others jumped on the bandwagon here, for some press releases on Rep. Walsh:

Mothers And Catholics United Members Call On Rep. Joe Walsh To Honor The Lives Of All Children And Pay Financial Obligations

SATURDAY, 30 JULY 2011 17:42 PRESS RELEASE

Fox Lake, IL–(ENEWSPF)–July 30, 2011. Catholics United members and mothers from the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois gathered in front of Rep. Joe Walsh’s Fox Lake congressional office today to deliver a letter asking the Congressman to act more responsibly when it comes to defaulting on our nation’s financial obligations, especially when doing so adversely affects the lives of children.

However, a recent disclosure of legal documents shows that Congressman Walsh failed to pay child support during a time when he loaned his political campaign $35,000.

“Rep. Walsh claims that he wants to curb federal spending to protect future generations of Americans,said Jeanne Dauray, a mother and member of Catholics United. But this rings hallow in the face of recent disclosures that he’s failed to pay his own child support. Because my father never paid child support, I know firsthand how devastating it can be on families. Joe Walsh should be ashamed.”

In a letter delivered to Rep. Walsh’s office, Catholics United members and mothers from Illinois write:

“As mothers and as people of faith, we know how important responsible fatherhood is to the lives of our children. Therefore it is with great sadness that we ask you to reflect on your past actions and redeem your sense of honor as a father and as a representative.

We ask that you honor the lives of all children, including your own. Do not allow the United States to default on our financial obligations and pay the full child support owed to your family. Failing to do so will only place a greater burden on the lives of children.”

Sure, that should work. The man was vacationing with a girlfriend {great conservative values}, lied to his wife, preached at the President, and when he got a $175K government job, apparently FORGOT this original 3 children, although previously he’d tried to get custody of them by calling his wife (of 15 years) names during the divorce proceedings. Kind of reminds me of appealing to a batterer to think of his kids….

Not to lose an opportunity, “Catholics United” gathered to tell this Dad that “irresponsible fatherhood” was tarnishing the image:

http://www.catholics-united.org/files/CU-protest-letter-signing.jpg (notice the posters)

(CapWiz site)

Residence: McHenry

Marital Status: Married (Helene)

Prev. Occupation: Investment Banker

Prev. Political Exp.: no prior elected office

Education: BA University of Iowa, 1995; MPP University of Chicago, 1991

Birthdate: 12/27/1961

Birthplace: Barrington, IL

Religion: Catholic

Percentage in Last Election: 48%

Major Opponent: Melissa Bean

Surprisingly?, this shows he voted AGAINST the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Bill

H.R.2979 – Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (H.R.2979)

Support

7/19/2011 MSNBC Transcript of Interview with “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews (Sorry, I couldn’t resist — found this at Project VoteSmart. Catch the comment about “households” have to balance their budgets……)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me just ask you three questions. The bill you”re going to vote–you”re going to vote for this bill today, right?

WALSH: Try one at a time, Chris.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I can”t get the first answer.

WALSH: Yes, I”m going to vote–

MATTHEWS: Will you tell me why it doesn”t name the cuts?

WALSH: — for this bill.

MATTHEWS: Why doesn”t it name the cuts?

WALSH: It calls for $111 billion in cuts, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Where?

WALSH: And again, in the bill, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Where are the cuts?

WALSH: In the bill. In non-defense discretionary spending.

MATTHEWS: What”s that?

i.e., WHAT “non-defense discretionary spending”? Walsh doesn’t answer:

WALSH: It”s $111 billion. Chris, you know what that is! Again, you want to
harp on this. I”m telling you for the first time–where”s the president”s plan, Chris Matthews?

MATTHEWS: Right. That”s a great question.

WALSH: Where”s the Democrats” plan?

MATTHEWS: Right.

WALSH: No! But wait a minute!

MATTHEWS: You”ve criticized the president for not having a plan, and you don”t have one. I”m looking at your document. Have you read it?

(Sounds like a Yes/No question to me — left hanging….)

WALSH: I”ll criticize the president for not having a plan. He”s not serious and he”s playing politics.

(Changes the topic when almost boxed in. ….. revealing….!)

MATTHEWS: OK–

WALSH: For the first time in this town, Chris, the House is going to pass a serious plan to get spending in this town under control! And you want to ignore the most important piece of that, which is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And I got to tell you something. The American people are beyond you on this–

MATTHEWS: OK–

WALSH: — and they”re beyond the president.

MATTHEWS: OK, let–

WALSH: They want us to do something dramatic.

MATTHEWS: OK. Your bill doesn”t specify cuts. It calls in 10 years for reduction in government spending to 19.9 percent of the economy. Are you happy with that number, that would reduce it to, basically, $3 trillion from $3.75? It really doesn”t change it much. But my point to you is, do you really think you”re going to get two thirds vote in the House for a balanced budget amendment, a two thirds vote?

WALSH: Hey, Chris, the fiscal situation now–this president–

MATTHEWS: Will you get a–you said you”re going get a two thirds vote.

WALSH: Yes. Yes! Is so severe that we have a great chance this year to pass this out of the House. Look, 80 percent of the American people believe in a balanced budget amendment. Most states have to live according to one.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WALSH: All households do. This is something Americans understand.

Yep, that was Special, reference to American households, when his contribution to his own has been to run up some debt….

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 31, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Posted in Child Support, History of Family Court

Tagged with Child Support, Congressional Indicators of Responsible Fatherhood in private lives, fatherhood, GAO Report 04-377 (March 2004), GAO reports poor OCSE oversight of State Child Support Agencies' Accounting, IL Rep. Joe Walsh Irresponsible Father, Tea Party Practices - vs what is preached

Is OCSE Footloose in Tuscaloosa? (a.k.a., “When Nonprofits Exist JUST to attract Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Child Support Grants”)

with 8 comments

I’ve never been in Alabama. However, a certain grant caught my attention, obviously (see bottom of yesterday’s post).

From the wonderful Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we can see for FY 2011, a BLUE slice of the pie representing “ACF” -under which is the Child Support Enforcement sector (OCSE). (Run it yourself, here; select a year). The pie chart to the right is “RECOVERY” grants.

We can see clearly below that the Administration for Children & Families is the 2nd largest “OPDIV” of this organization, second only to “CMS”

FY 2011 Total Awards By OPDIV (Non-ARRA, left side, enlarged):

OPDIV	Number of Awards by OPDIV	#%	Dollars	$%
ACF	5,326	8.82%	$46,701,050,209	12.86%
AHRQ	438	0.73%	$86,375,812	0.02%
AOA	1,252	2.07%	$1,426,176,372	0.39%
CDC	3,254	5.39%	$1,907,271,773	0.53%
CMS	1,228	2.03%	$287,470,619,870	79.19%
DHHS/OS	305	0.51%	$703,251,936	0.19%
FDA	146	0.24%	$21,778,285	0.01%
HRSA	4,977	8.24%	$5,859,728,607	1.61%
IHS	586	0.97%	$1,470,562,942	0.41%
NIH	40,830	67.62%	$15,046,009,385	4.14%
SAMHSA	2,037	3.37%	$2,323,266,163	0.64%
Total	60,379	100%	$363,016,091,354	100%

“Administration for Children and Families”

ACF includes welfare, medicaid, child support, and of course marriage, fatherhood, abstinence promotions — as well as many wonderful projects supporting hospitals, medical research and other topics relating to our health. So “ACF” is definitely an ‘OPDIV‘ to watch, as to our national budget, particularly as so many of the privately-contracted child support enforcement companies have been caught in defrauding the public (and overbilling the gov’t etc.), which (alas) doesn’t always prevent them from going on to get the next whopping grant somewhere else — in a different state, or for a different purpose, etc.).

Child Support Enforcement is so important it has its own Program Office designation, which is “OCSE.” Under OCSE (I see, when I just ran a report) there are only 4 “CFDA’s” showing up: 93.563 (basic enforcement), 93.564 (“Research”), 93.597 (Grants to states for “Access and Visitation” @ $10 million/yr since 1996), and 93.601 (“Demonstrations and Special Project”)

“CFDA” = “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance”

The ACF funds (2011) child support enforcement — especially as it is evolving and expanding, and seems intertwined with fatherhood promotion, which then-President Bill Clinton, by Executive Memo, said should be intertwined throughout the Executive Branch (which any President is, naturally, the CEO of) — a little harder to track down. Not to mention, the people administering some of the child support at the state level continue to declare that child support enforcement shouldn’t just be about, well, child support enforcement — but (like all the rest of our ruling institutions) — should “EVOLVE” (aka “expand,” infinitely). Add to this an open invitation from then-President George Bush (Junior), also by Executive Order, to the faith-based component, the sky, apparently, is the limit on research and demonstration “Isn’t-that-Special“? [See SNL’s “Church Chat“]projects to transfer money from noncustodial parents (AKA Dads — it’s still basically presumed that mothers are not noncustodial, by and large, and not working, I guess) — to the households on welfare because Dads weren’t paying up.

. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

The problem is when something gets lost in transit (“Undistributable Child Support Collections”) as well as translation. If one thinks of it simply as water — and a plumbing system — it’s clear there are a lot of leaks (unintentional), but then others seem to enjoy tapping into the flow for various purposes, including Family (re)Design.

Of this, it looks like ALABAMA got $5 billion from HHS (of course states get grants from other Departments, notably DOJ, DOE, etc.)

Search Criteria:
Fiscal Year = 2011
State = ALABAMA

State	Awards	Award Actions	CAN Award Amount
ALABAMA	741	1,221	$5,116,252,082
Grand Total	741	1,221	$5,116,252,082

Yesterday I looked at the “CFDA 93.601” (Special Improvement) portion of the OCSE’s approximately $4 billion/year enforcement agency. I was particularly gripped by a certain state — Alabama, which got $100,000 for a Co-Parenting class. Hmmm. That, combined with the words “Family Resource Center” definitely caught my attention, and I spent hours examining nonprofit names, boards of directors (per their tax filings), and a good amount of time on the Alabama Secretary of State’s Business Search Site. Some of the information I emailed to friends/colleagues. Particularly after running across an older blog:

HERE (no years selected) is CFDA 93601 for ALABAMA:

Fiscal Year	OPDIV	Grantee Name	County	Award Number	Award Title	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2010	ACF	Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.	TUSCALOOSA	90FI0108	CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY	08/30/2010	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	TERESA COSTANZO	$100,000
2008	ACF	AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	01/11/2008	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
2007	ACF	AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	12/29/2006	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
2007	ACF	AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	08/20/2007	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$100,000
2006	ACF	AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	08/24/2006	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
2005	ACF	AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	08/30/2005	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
2003	ACF	AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	90FI0047	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	12/20/2002	93601	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DISCRETIONARY	ALICIA LUCKIE	$200,000

Now, yesterday, I was looking up a group in Marshall County, on which a founding incorporator was a judge; and this just also was apparently on a Child Policy Council

The “Child Abuse & Neglect Prevention Board” is tied to “The Children’s Fund” apparently;

http://ctf.state.al.us/Programs.htm

LIST OF PROGRAMS:

PROGRAMS

FATHERHOOD

TRADITIONAL

CBCAP

CHILDREN FIRST

GRANTEE SUPPORT PROGRAM

MCOP MENTORING PROGRAM

JEFFERSON COUNTY PILOT PROJECT

CRIBS FOR KIDS

MENTORING NEW MOMS

PREVENT CHILD ABUSE ALABAMA

For the Program Year 2010-2011, CTF funded approximately 179 community-based child abuse prevention programs across the state. The programs provide services to children and families. The types of programs included: Parent Education and Support, Fatherhood, Home Visitation, Community Awareness, Respite Care, School-based, Non school-based/After School and Mentoring. These programs are supported by State and Federal dollars through four main funding streams.

HISTORY

The Martin-Aldridge Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Act

Alabama’s Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Act, or ACANP, was adopted by the Alabama Legislature in 1983 to address the state’s growing problem of child neglect and maltreatment. While several state agencies already existed to deal with different aspects of child abuse, none of these agencies specifically focused on solving the problem before it occurred. It was clear that Alabama needed to create a state agency with its own board, funding and staff to be dedicated solely to preventing child abuse. To address the problem at it’s origin, instead of merely addressing the symptoms of what could have beenprevented The ACANP Act established The Children’s Trust Fund. These state dollars are intended to provide annual funding of community based prevention programs throughout the state as well as create a self-sustaining pool of funds to provide for funding these programs in the future. As Alabama’s ONLY agency designated to prevent child abuse and neglect, it will be our goal to encourage and support each community in this state in their efforts to find new and effective solutions for preventing child abuse before it occurs, and ultimately strengthening Alabama families to prevent this tragedy in the future.

This includes a “Fatherhood Forum” under the links:

OR, CFDAs under which “visitation” and “Fatherhood” might occur (I chose only 2011 through 2010, Alabama):

Fiscal Year	OPDIV	Grantee Name	County	Award Number	Award Title	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2011	ACF	AL ST ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	MONTGOMERY	1101ALSAVP	FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION	10/08/2010	93597	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	CLOSED-ENDED		$149,264
2010	ACF	AL ST ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	MONTGOMERY	1001ALSAVP	FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION	11/25/2009	93597	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	CLOSED-ENDED		$137,856
2010	ACF	AUBURN UNIVERSITY	LEE	90FE0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1:ALABAMA COMMUNITY HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE (ACHMI)	09/24/2010	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DISCRETIONARY	FRANCESCA ADLER-BAEDER	$1,899,487
2010	ACF	THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP	HOUSTON	90FE0093	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION PRIORITY AREA 3	09/27/2010	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DISCRETIONARY	MARY PALO	$549,976

Well, while I’m here, who else is promoting marriage/fatherhood in AL? At least, with HHS help….

Dr. Francesca-Adler-Baeder: See site linked above. The circle begins to complete. I’ll be back tomorrow… to finish connecting the dots.

THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP (Marketing/PR agency):

The Hive Creative Group (basically an ad/pr agency) — per the Secretary of State Site,

Entity ID

Entity Name

City

Type

Status

224 – 147

The Hive Creative Group, Inc.

DOTHAN, AL

Domestic Corporation

Exists

1

@ 113 North Herring, Dothan, AL Incorporated in ab. 2002 by David McCormick and Mary Palo. Here’s the street address (per map) (photos are approximate location, but it’s a residential neighborhood). The “HIVE” is obviously a reference to BeeHive.… how sweet: Self-described as “over 30 years in marketing, PR, advertising, graphic design and program development..enjoy working with nonprofits . . . . a leader in designing quality literature for abstinence programs… In 2006 they were awarded a “HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE GRANT” through the HHS called “Just the Facts . Straight Talk About Marriage.” Their Products page (check it out) has 6 hyperlinks — the bottom 3 relate to abstinence — exclusively — the top one, delivery (having babies) and the 4th one, I can’t tell, but it’s aimed at high school seniors. The links simply show their media products…. T’shirts, posters, etc. FREEDOM, WHY WAIT, and STATs…

I like to see what other companies various Incorporators create, so here’s a nonprofit started around 2009 by HIVE co-incorporator, Mary Palo:

Entity ID	Entity Name	Officer \| Agent \| Incorporator	Position
224 – 147	The Hive Creative Group, Inc.	PALO, MARY	Incorporator
570 – 827	Healthy You, Inc.	PALO, MARY A	Incorporator
1

Started in December 2009, to “IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE VIA EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES/AWARENESS” and at

112 ADRIS PLACE, DOTHAN, AL 36303, about 5 miles away and right near the SSA building 112 Adris Place also shows up as The Hive’s address, and “Hutchinson Investment Group” (for what it’s worth)…. [Jason Williams The Hive Creative Group 112 Adris Place Dothan, AL 36303, as a board member of

American Advertising Federation….at least in Dothan, AL. Tax Exempt World shows “Healthy You, Inc.” (same address) incorporated about a year ago, 5/2010. It’s EIN (for future reference) is “EIN: 271458281” We are so lucky to catch the start-up of this NONprofit organization run by a marketing professional with abstinence education proclivities and somehow a connection to getting HHS grants.

Mary’s “National Association of Professional Women” profile reads: “My name is Mary Palo and I am the President for The Hive Creative Group, Inc. My company’s principal products and services include Advertising and Marketing. My expertise is Medical and Social Marketing. I received my Associates degree from LaSalle University and my area of study was Interior Design. I am currently involved with Zonta Professional Woman. My hobbies and special interests are Reading. The charity that I am most passionate and drawn to is Black History Museum, Childrens Home and Child Advocacy.”

(Incidentally, the database “NCCCSDataweb.URBAN.org” allows one to look at the nonprofits in an entire county and various other searches, it is very helpful. When 990s have been filed, it also can access them. One of the largest ones in Dothan (which this address is near) appears to be Wiregrass foundation, you can look at the statements (I believe I saw $85million in non-tax-exempt assets), it clearly is supporting a lot of local nonprofits, including several religious groups and a “Ramily Service Center.”

Disgusted with the system

I started out as a proud full time Mother. I’ve become a Family/Child Rights Advocate. Becoming Spiritual has help keep me sane, reading Birth Cards gives me hope! Somewhere in between, I learned more Law and Psychology than I ever thought possible.. feel free to use anything on this page for your own fight.. If you want insight into your life, email me for a Birth Card Report.

Of course I wasn’t looking for people “disgusted with the system” (one need not actually look for such people, they are everywhere) but for information about this Marshall County (Alabama) Family Resource Center closing its doors for lack of funding — and then my having separately discovered that the “Marshall County Visitation and Family Center” (separate nonprofit, EIN#, everything) was still going strong — thanks to Alabama Healthy Marriage (etc.) funding — primarily fatherhood; and a big “?” about why a local judge activist in fatherhood promotion, on the incorporation paperwork of numerous local nonprofits, including this resource center — and the resource center goes belly-up shortly after it was formed, like within about 2 years. Then we have sad articles about how they are lacking funding, and the poor, poor families that won’t get their services any more, such as:

From 2011 January:

Marshall County agencies find new homes after Family Resource Center closes

Posted: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:19 pm

By Malarie Haven |malarie.haven@sandmountainreporter.com |0 comments

Many area organizations have found new homes over the past two months after the Marshall County Family Resource Center closed its doors in November.

The center once housed several different service organizations, including Marshall County Alzheimer’s Services, Care and Assurance for the Aging and Homebound, Marshall County Visitation and Family Center and various satellite offices.

Leaders of the nonprofits said the move has not affected their services, and they are pleased with the locations. …

The Marshall County Visitation and Family Center, which provides parenting classes, fatherhood initiative classes and supervised visitation, moved to 103 South Hambrick St. in Albertville.

“We’re really enjoying the new location,” director Christina Morgan said. “It’s local and next to the courthouse so it’s convenient for court.”

and (note — copied from the blog – I was unable to locate the link to the original article on the “Sand Mountain Reporter” just now, or by web search. Blogspot credits the author and paper, and is I believe “fair use” of the material):

Visitation scales back after losing funds

Published February 12, 2008

GUNTERSVILLE — The Marshall County Visitation and Family Center laid off three employees Friday as officials try to figure out a way to get funding following a grant mix-up.

The Marshall County Commission has paid more than $56,000 of the center’s expenses but cannot afford to pay any more.

The center has been operating without funding since Oct. 1 because a Department of Justice grant — believed to expire Sept. 30, 2008 — actually expired Sept. 30, 2007.

One can see what grants they are getting from their 990s, which are public record, and searchable at http://nccsdataweb.org.

Salaries and other expenditures have been paid by the county for the past four and a half months, officials said.

The center laid off three of its five employees in an attempt to scale back costs.

“It’s a good program,” said Commission Chairman Douglas D. Fleming. “Nobody’s against it. We just don’t have the funds to fund them. Hopefully, they’ll get a grant approved and we can get reimbursed.”

County Administrator Nancy Wilson said the county is not amending the budget just yet because officials are hopeful for some type of grant approval in the future.

“We’re not going to go through all that trouble until we have a definitive answer,” Wilson said.

The nonprofit Visitation and Family Center is a United Way of Marshall County organization and primarily is funded by federal grants. It is governed by a board of directors.

The center is located on Worth Street in Guntersville and provides supervised visitation for noncustodial parents who have had their visitation rights discontinued by a court.

Executive Director Christina Morgan heads up the center.

Commissioners pledged their support of the center during a meeting Monday, saying they will do what they can.

Presiding Circuit Judge Howard Hawk thanked the Commission for its support up to this point and praised the work at the center.

John Young of the District Attorney’s Office said the center’s board plans to meet today.

or, earlier (in 2008), same song:

Mission Statement TOP empowers people to achieve their full potential. We provide resources to promote self-sufficiency, strengthen families, adn prevent child abuse and neglect thus improving the quality of life for all members of our community.

Family Resource Center, Inc. (Tuscaloosa’s One Place [TOP]) Tuscaloosa, AL
“Co-Parenting with Responsibility (CPR)”
“Funding Opportunity: “Family Centered Services”

CPR is a comprehensive program designed to educate and involve both parents in the child support enforcement process as well as coordinate services that promote family strengthening and support. Partners include Tuscaloosa Department of Human Resources, Family Court, Drug Court, Bradford Health Services, Workforce, and others. The project will target low-income, unwed parents who are involved with child support enforcement (CSE) in Tuscaloosa. Participants may enter the program voluntarily or through court order from CSE, family, or drug courts, and will include both custodial (CPs) and noncustodial parents (NCPs). The program also will provide comprehensive services to both parents. The family court judges plan to order both CPs and NCPs to participate in CPR and plan to hold additional dockets requiring participants’ appearance.

TOP will assign a Family Support Specialist who will serve as CSE/court liaison as well as case manager for CPR families. The Program Coordinator will assist with teaching activities, complete all evaluations and help participants get needed services.) All work will focus on improving the consumer’s understanding of the child support process, increasing child support collections, and improving parental involvement and family relationships. TOP will serve 80-100 families per year. Clients will enter the program the beginning of each month and will receive information related to child support, parental rights, basic parenting skills as well as communication and relationship skills. TOP also will provide job search, résumé preparation and will link with the Career Development Center (non-CSE services will be paid from other than grant funds). Referrals to other agencies (such as Alabama Employment Services) will be made for other services not offered by TOP. The project team will meet monthly.

Goals:

Knowledge of CSE will increase by 30%
20% improvement in parent cooperation and commitment to cooperate with CSE
20% increase in CSE collections
25% of participants will find employment
Improved custodial/noncustodial relationships
Mediation services for parents will increase by 20%
50% increase in visitation between NCP and his/her child
Long-term outcome includes strengthening the relationship between CSE and other stakeholders to improve services to families.

Grant Number:90FI0108
For Information, contact: ACFOCSEGrantsinfo@acf.hhs.gov
Project Period:09/01/10 – 08/31/2013

I’ll be back tomorrow… to finish connecting the dots.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 28, 2011 at 8:29 pm

Posted in History of Family Court

OCSE: Child Support Enforcement/Federal Grants to States: Let’s Look at the “TAGGS” HHS Charts (CFDAs 93.563 & 93.564)

with 5 comments

(POST is incomplete — but I’m going to post anyhow for a sample of some of the funding for child support, and how one can look up Who’s Who when a nonprofit exists to take some of that extra-special “child support research and demonstration” (etc.) grant monies, especially when it is combined with other money in fatherhood initiatives to help men with their child support and custody issues (i.e., taking TANF money to promote fatherhood to encourage child support payment in hopes that it will trickle down to less overall TANF $$ == huh?)

I realize that few people are going to get through 20K words of text from my last post. However, it should be clear by now that a lot of child support COLLECTED simply ain’t reaching the customers, although that was the ostensible (as opposed to “evolving”) purpose of child support enforcement, to start with. Today, I am providing some visuals, from the Grants to States for Child Support Enforcement, culled from the “TAGGS.hhs.gov” database I keep yakkin’ about.

2016 update: Database TAGGS.hhs.gov has recently got a “facelift” on its search pages. It generates a re-usable link (“url”) for any report — among the options on the top right of a generated report, you’ll see buttons for “Export to Xl,to pdf, to text, and furthest right, will generate a “tinyurl” link to copy and save. This

CFDA 93.593, “CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT” Grants to States — selected Years 2010 & 2011

These are the columns one can select for any Advanced Search on TAGGS: “OpDiv” would be for example, “ACF,” Program Office — in these cases — would be OCSE, Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Grantee Institution Grantee Address Grantee City Grantee State Grantee Postal Code Grantee Country Grantee County Grantee Type Grantee Class Fiscal Year Operating Division Program Office Grant Title Award Number Award Code Budget Year Action Issue Date Principal Investigator Award Action Type Award Class Award Activity Type CFDA Number CFDA Program Title Award Abstract Text Recovery Act Indicator

I learned yesterday that a Supreme Court Case had verified that a man (or woman) about to be incarcerated for FTP (failure to Pay) child support does NOT have a constitutional right to a public defender — because it’s a “civil” right involved. That’s official now.

Families Lose in Child Support Case

By Joy Moses | June 22, 2011

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Turner v. Rogers Suggests More Work Ahead

There were no winners in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Turner v. Rogers. The Court decided that the appointment of an attorney is not required when parents, who are typically fathers, face jail time for not paying child support. This decision means more fathers will likely end up in jail. The Court required some lesser protections that could help fathers avoid jail time, but more action is needed from outside the courts to help these families. Fathers obviously lose since their freedom is on the line when they’re unable to launch the best possible defense. For many, there is a legitimate defense that they are simply too poor to pay. Half of all child support debtors are the poorest men in society, and 70 percent of past due payments are owed by those making $10,000 or less. Some men are more at risk than others because they have the highest unemployment rates, including those who are black (17.5 percent), Latino (10.1 percent), and/or have limited education and skills (13.7 percent). But mothers lose, too. The Court says {broken link} men can’t be guaranteed attorneys because women may not have them. This is certainly fair—unless you focus on the fact that women may not have attorneys. Equalizing this disadvantage is better than some other options. But what if both parents had the help they needed? . . . Children lose as well. Court and child support systems that are meant to serve their best interests will continue to fail far too many, reaching some issues beyond those that were before the Court. When their dads refuse to pay, punishing them with jail time is helpful. But what about the children with fathers who can’t afford to pay, have difficulty representing themselves, and end up in jail? For them there’s now zero chance that their dad will work and pay support, and it’s much harder to see him behind bars. Importantly, an opportunity is lost to help the child through more family-friendly child support policies that increase the ability to collect via help with employment and fostering father-child connections.

This author has a B.A. from Stanford and a J.D. from Georgetown and is a Senior Policy Analyst at a Progressive organization.

Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity program at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, she was a Children and Youth Staff Attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. The majority of her practice focused on the education rights of homeless students,

Therefore, I allege that, although she has been focusing on different (and quite valid) issues she is smart enough to figure out what’s up with the child support & access visitation grants system (among others), and how fathers are already having grants-funded free legal help to “facilitate” their family connections. It seems she has come to a decision that the Fatherhood Policies are needed, and working — as seen by her other articles, and publishing one with Jacquelyn Boggess, co-founder of CFFPP (search my blog) and also a member of Women in Fatherhood, Inc. (A recent nonprofit profiting from HHS fatherhood grants). . . . . CFFPP, as we may recall, is a nonprofit that changed its name to remove the word “Father” from the title and use instead “Family” to be less obvious about how “fatherhood” they actually are in practice, and focus.

Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves, But Could Use Some Help: Fatherhood Policy and the Well-Being of Low-Income Mothers and Children (2010) by Joy Moses (Center for American Progress), Jacquelyn Boggess, and Jill Groblewski >>

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE ASKS and ANSWERS its own question: The tension between progressive notions about strong independent women and the benefits they get from help with child rearing is just one philosophical question underlying the debate about the relationship between women and fatherhood policy. Others include:

Do policies that promote responsible fatherhood fail to recognize that women also face significant financial hardships and structural barriers on the road to self-sufficiency?

Do all women and families have the same stake in fatherhood responsibility policy without regard to differences associated with socio-economic status and race?

Do discussions about fatherhood amount to attacks on single mothers?

Although the authors understand the underlying concerns giving rise to these questions, we would answer all of them with a “No.” First, we contend that it’s not necessary to pit fatherhood responsibility policies against the interests of women, especially low-income single mothers who rely on federal social services programs. Rather, fatherhood policy is family policy that benefits all family members, including mothers. Suggesting the need for social services programs that encourage and facilitate fathers’ economic and emotional support for their families need not equate to a lack of recognition of the challenges faced by these women or an indictment against single mothers.

I deduce that Ms. Moses has not participated in a custody war against a former abuser and been baptized in the fire of this process, post-1994…. First of all, those questions, while nice philosophically — were not asked here in an open format Notice, the link to the post has no COMMENTS format, typical). The detached tone and generic terms, asserting that Fatherhood Policy benefits all family members — is simply false; TANF funds are diverted to fatherhood projects on the presumption that there is a trickle-down benefit. Abstinence Education (still going on), Marriage promotion, and increasing and expanding the child support enforcement apparatus into “family-friendly” ever-evolving programs DOES help provide jobs — for those administering the programs and evaluating them, that is. I found this site, the other day, chasing down a multi-million $$ organization called “MDRC” (or “Manpower Research Development Corporation”) which puts the giant (as to funding, in the DV prevention arena) “Minnesota Program Development, INc.” (MPDI), a.k.a. the outfit from Duluth which is pushing supervised visitation so hard, and collaborating (or one of its subsidiaries / offshoots, Battered Women’s Justice Project, “BWJP”) with the AFCC (my favorite acronym for this blog, I guess — it comes up nearly every post) — to undermine the language defining crimes as crime, re-characterize individuals as family members, and both responsible for criminal activity by one of them, and so forth The Child Support Enforcement in Kentucky (Family) Courts has a nice little extortion unit for fathers found in arrears — either go (back) to jail, or get a “get out of jail free” pass if they will participate in a court-favorite program Turning It Around (how to be a man, a father, and other things probably aimed at the 6th grade level, although it’s to men who have sired children)….. the kicker in this one being that it probably also gets grant funding — and if Dads participate, there’s an incentive for the states to get supportive grants. “Turning It Around ” works with the “Home Incarceration Program, yes:

“Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support cases. The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting. Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing. Compliance with the program requires making weekly child support payments as well as attending a twelve (12) week class.

It appears that in 1975, Kentucky restructured its courts. This 2002-2003 Report on the courts has a flowchart showing when a Family Court was added, and describing some of its programs, including “Turning It Around”:

In 1975, Kentucky voters supported a constitutional amendment to the Judicial Article that provided for a unified, four-tiered judicial system for operation and administration, called the Court of Justice. Judicial power of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is thus vested in one Court of Justice, which is divided into the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, trial courts of general jurisdiction known as Circuit Courts, and trial courts of limited jurisdiction known as District Courts. In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier. . . . In FY 2002- 2003, the average number of cases heard by family court judges was 1,477 per judge {X 33 judges in this court}, representing cases originally within the jurisdiction of the circuit and the district courts. {And it says approximately half the citizens in the state…?} … the Department has coordinated training for family court judiciary and staff, disseminated information via development of a quarterly newsletter, website, a family court benchbook and various reporting materials. The coordination of legal and social services and the provision and support of many programs, including but not limited to divorce education, Families in Transition, Turning It Around, Domestic Violence Information Sessions and truancy court projects have had a significant impact on the citizens of Kentucky

YES of course it has. This report is actually some good reading, including relating how it was in 1996 that the JURISDICTIONAL basis for Family Court was established in 1996 (odd, funny, how that dates to WELFARE (TANF) REFORM year and the addition of access visitation grants to help support programs such as they mentioned above — divorce (parenting) education, and so forth. This report shows NINE new justice centers being built (mostly in 2000ff) and notes that:

In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier.

{{NOTE: In 2001, then-President George Bush initiated — by Executive Order — the OFFICE of FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY etceteras, aggressively helping put faith-based organizations, including plain old churches — on the federal grants stream and interspersed throughout government, meaning that they could also apply for funds to teach: Parent Education, and “How to be a Man” etc…}}

Family Court. With ratification of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment in all 120 counties, the Kentucky Constitution has seen the most sweeping change in the structure of our court system since we adopted a unified four-tier court system in 1975. This historic moment came during the 2002 general election when more than 75 percent of Kentucky voters approved passage of the Family Court Amendment. This mandate permanently added Family Court to the state’s court system and proved that the people of Kentucky have overwhelmingly embraced the concept of “one family, one judge, one court.” Family Court, which is involved in {{I.E. NOW REGULATING AND AFFECTING..}} the most intimate and complex aspects of human nature and social relations, provides a court devoted exclusively to the needs of families and children. It currently serves 2 million people in 42 counties — nearly half of Kentucky’s population. My goal is to see that within 10 years every family in the state has access to a court that makes families and children the highest priority.

Kentucky’s court pages has one of the most active set of programs for kids, Moms, Dads, of any states that I’ve seen. It was here I found a parenting education class (Kids First) which led directly to a nonprofit (I’ll say it: “Front Group”) in PENNSYLVANIA — of course AFCC in origin and intent. I wonder if some double-billing goes on (and how much) as has been discovered already in other programs around the country, in custody cases. In 2002 also, an “Alternate Dispute Resolution” Department was added (like many others nationwide). While this may be appropriate in many types of situations, this process is unfair and DANGEROUS to parents, I’m referring primarily to mothers, whose custody case stems from violence issues. It dilutes protections, attorney-client confidentiality,and to the extent mediators are court-paid (and/or AFCC-trained, meaning they are going to be hostile towards mothers) it is a bad deal for everyone involved. I obviously am opposed; in what other areas of crime is a victim MANDATED to mediate with the perp, leaving the decisions to be influenced by a person whose very position has a built-in motive to extend the litigation? Here it is:

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert approved the creation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Department in April 2002. The mission of the Department is to promote, facilitate, and maintain the effective use and growth of alternative means of resolving disputes. Initiatives include mediation training for general civil and family mediators, small claims mediation programs, and guidelines for mediators and mediation training. The AOC-sponsored training program is the most thorough alternative dispute resolution initiative to date. Several week-long seminars are designed to train lawyers, judges, educators, mental health and human resource professionals, family court staff, pretrial mediators, and AOC management. The proliferation

FEB, 2011 article by this justice defending himself against a newspaper attack:

n any event, let me set the record straight. In my 10 years as chief justice, I established family courts in Kentucky, and those courts now serve 75 percent of our population. At my request, the General Assembly authorized construction of 50 or more judicial centers, almost all of which are located in rural counties that often get little attention from state government. Those court facilities provided thousands of jobs for Kentuckians who needed work, and they were built with money to be repaid over 25 years borrowed at historically low interest rates. I was also instrumental in establishment of the senior judge program, which has resulted in far greater efficiency than ever before in Kentucky courts. Hardly ever is a court day lost because the judge is unavailable. When judges are ill or must attend to family matters, as in the federal system, a senior judge is available to fill that seat for the day or week of the regular judge’s absence. Jurors, witnesses, and others don’t have their time wasted. I also established nearly statewide drug courts, whereby non-violent offenders are given treatment and are closely supervised by judges and caseworkers. Drug court have been about the only significant progress made in recent years in combating the scourge of drug abuse.

He complained that he was not given (by the senior judge) leave to run for Attorney General while in his position as family judge; this JAN 25, 2011 (blog quoting said )article mentions some of the financial conflicts of interest — and the major court-house construction projects in some detail:

Lambert established guidelines for leaves of absence in 2005, a time when he was rumored to be considering a run for governor in 2007. Minton has not granted any judge a leave from the program. Lambert apparently only granted one, for a judge to complete an advanced degree at Yale University. It comes as no surprise that Lambert’s decision about running for public office is so closely tied to his financial planning. As chief justice, he designed the senior judge program that will provide him, and others, a generous retirement. Lambert also conceived the widely criticized $880 million courthouse construction program and hired the residential architect who designed his own home to oversee it. The firm that sold the bonds on the lion’s share of the courthouse projects employed Lambert’s son for a time. And the construction company that got more than half the courthouse business contributed generously to the judicial campaigns of Lambert’s wife, Debra.

Here’s a nice 2007 Continuing Legal Education Commission schedule, from the Kentucky Bar, giving thanks for contributors:

␣ ABOUT THE HANDBOOKS AND PRESENTATIONS ␣ Handbook materials are the result of the combined efforts of numerous dedicated professionals from around Kentucky, and elsewhere. The KBA gratefully acknowledges the following individuals who graciously contributed to this publication: AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (the link is a Google search, it brings up my posts on the topic as well as of course a course selling information at a discount to AFCC members on how to implement “parenting coordination” (translation — how to steer a family court case against mothers, I kid you not….), how to basically CHANGE courts, and a potpourri of other AFCC agendas They really are a marketing outfit…. Parenting Coordination Task Force (a concept pushed by this group) consisted of: “ The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution [ADR] process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan** by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs,*** and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

3 para. of rant, here, plus come copyediting notes: [**”assists . . . .. to” is a grammar mistake! “Assist” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object. They wrote the sentence without one. It’s “assist in implementing/implementation” or “Help Parents implement.” And these are the perpetual teachers…The task force boasts TWO “M.Ed.”s, a JUDGE, a JD, and a bunch of Ph.D.’s — did they do this on their dissertations?][***”EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT CHILDREN’S NEEDS” already has a cash-supported grants stream dedicated to it, called access and visitation ($10 million/year nationwide, and California, where some of these are, gets about $1 million of that still). Maybe what the parents need, instead, is lower legal bills — and fewer AFCC personnel on their case, particularly the ones that double-bill the grants program, and the parents, and/or are affiliated with the SF court system and Kids Turn (which is trading funds [i.e., a lien!], or was, with the SFTC, Trial Courts, system mysteriously….). Labeling parents “high-conflict” when one parent may or may not be having a “conflict” with the law-breaking, or child-endangering behavior of the others, is a word-trick used by such professionals to place themselves as the supposed “adults” in the matter, reframe what may be some VERY serious issues as “disputes” and sometimes reframe actual domestic violence, threats to kidnap, etc. as “conflict” — squarely blaming both parents for the behavior of ONE. There are very, very few truly neutral individuals in this world — EVERYONE has a viewpoint. However, few parents, particularly mothers, are aware of the influence and viewpoints of this organization and how neutral it is on pedophilia and abuse, and how activist it is in preventing women from leaving such situations with their children safe. I seriously doubt that many people outside some of us mothers who have been diligently blogging this, in recent years (following upon NAFCJ and a VERY few others original exposures of the origins of the AFCC) understand how VERY large a part of the AFCC is #1. Driven by simple greed — the money motive to market their own materials, and have a monopoly on the marketplace; #2. Unbelievably activist, narcisssitically so — they position themselves to, and do, re-write laws (or add new ones), or by PRACTICE simply undermine and reverse existing state codes; #3. Improperly continue to handle CRIMINAL matters in the FAMILY context — pleading caseloads all the time. I have been systematically looking up (researching, if you will) AFCC individuals, task forces, memberships (i.e., who are judges where) nationwide as part of advocacy for noncustodial mothers in shock (including myself, initially) at what happened to our civil rights? The behaviors and patterns of AFCC are very predictable, and their rhetoric uniform — rarely does an actually new IDEA come up — just a new market niche. SImilarly, the nonprofits formed by man of the AFCC-personnel have a few commonalities — namely, they are geared to get court-referred business, they take sometimes grants monies, and they relentlessly conference, publish and collaborate to change the language and practice of law to a direction that this group, in particular, likes. They are inbred with bar associations, the APA and several other groups as well — I know this because I look, closely The success of this organization which began as a SLUSH FUND IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE (from the best I can tell, and others — in articles written about this in the 1990s; don’t take it on my word — go to “the money trail” in Full Disclosure.net which follows Richard Fine’s case and work) depends upon inherent greed and egotism. Parents are perceived as a PROBLEM, and they are the SOLUTION. The success — besides who is positioned where in the judicial and court-referral professions — is also demonstrated by the total silence of domestic violence groups on this one. To take the “veil” off — combine some listening, some reading, and then go check the financials! Ask, how long are adult mothers and fathers supposed to be forced into educational materials designed at the FIFTH GRADE level (I found one today, may blog it tomorrow)??? The people most qualified to help their children, for the MOST part, are the parents — they live with them, they know them! With this court system having been around now for several generations, many of the troubles we are seeing — like familicides, terrorism, fatalities on court-ordered exchanges, and/or kidnappings by parents to avoid payment of child support ! ! – or to get even — are now elements of the difficulties single mothers face. I do not believe that the family court system (which exists primarily because of these individuals — some still practicing — to start with) is reformable, and I DO not believe it is broken — I believe it is doing exactly what it was designed to do — provide steady income growth for an otherwise low-paying field (psychology, absent the Ph.D.s), and a cult-like evangelizing of products (parent education, batterers intervention, supervised visitation, etc.) — which will provide secure retirements for the people who (a) designed and/or (b) parroted and helped affiliate-market them. )

OK, I know that was 3 LONG paragraphs, but at least I kept it to only 3!

Parenting coordination is a quasi-legal, mental health, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management and sometimes decision-making functions.

Correction: It is an all-expenses paid (to the coordinators) method of engaging in dubious QUASI-LEGAL and so-called “MENTAL HYGIENE” processes which BECAUSE OF THIS have ZERO business in OR around the courtroom UNLESS the parents opt for it — BOTH of them, and WITHOUT court coercion. Do they expect, in the cases of impoverished parents, to take some of their fees from the already compromised TANF funding, or what? ALSO — PARENTING COORDINATION is yet another tool of the trade of playing the PARENTAL ALIENATION card in a custody hearing and calling for “intervention” (a la Dick Warshak or Matt Sullivan, Ph.D. & Friends) “reunification.” In other contexts, this would be called deprogramming, a practice which in the 1970s was played on some young adults by their parents, and was criminal — because it involved kidnapping. It’s claiming that brainwashing happened (whether or not it did, and without true discretion) and so justifying coercive, “INTERVENTIONS” “Intervention Strategies for Parenting Coordinators in Parental Alienation Cases” (AFCC author Susan Boyan and probably the other one also) Ms. Ellis’ book, above is Copyright 2000 by the APA, and has of course a chapter on “Parental Alienation Syndrome: A New Challenge for Family Courts (p. 205)” and by the end, p. 267, she gets around to “Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases.” (Note: PAS is real — see chapter title; but Sexual Abuse apparently is not, because it only surfaces next to the word “Allegations” emphasizing doubt (like Sexual abuse just doesn’t happen in families, or in divorcing families?) — and in the context of how to EVALUATE . . . . ALLEGATIONS. Typical AFCC priorities…..”Lead” with PAS, and then — if forced to — say “sexual abuse” but never as if it were truly an issue.) It is a MAJOR issue….. (The Franklin Coverup) Click on the link summary — the material is very disturbing, though…. Now, let’s reconsider why the AFCC, with it UNTRACKED and EVER-EXPANDING FUNDING AND REVAMPING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS emphasizing instead PROGRAMMING activities (endless trainings……) IS SO URGENT TO DESTROY ANY LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION OF THE HORRORS OF THIS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN, AND AGAINST ONE (OR MORE) OF THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. https://events.afccnet.org/store/online_bookstore Susan M. BoyanAnn Marie Termini: The Psychotherapist as Parent Coordinator in High-Conflict Divorce: Strategies and Techniques; December 2004 Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective CO-Parenting August 1999 WELL, this post was to be a little sample — only — of some places that “child support enforcement” monies (grants/which are incentives) are going to the states.

BACK to Ms. Moses’ article though:

To be fair, the Supreme Court decision did include some important protections the Obama administration suggested in its brief to the Court. The Court required safeguards that are alternatives to an appointed attorney such as telling men that they can avoid jail if they can’t afford to pay and providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate that they can’t pay.

The man in question from South Carolina did time for failure to pay amounts less than $60/ week. I’m so glad to know that our country is willing to go after the “real” culprits and thieves in lifes — people who cannot afford defense attorneys — and just SO “uninterested” in actually distributing money garnished (improperly and sometimes, in excess of court orders) from parents amounting to, sometimes, millions of dollars per state. SOME CHARTS: I did a basic search on the CFDA category “93563” which is Child Support Enforcement, plain and simple — and I selected only the years 2011 and 2010. I’d like this to exhibit how in different states (and tribes) different agencies collect, and how much money is spent on this. By publishing the street addresses fo the state (or tribe) designated agency, people can then search on-line for those addresses and see what else is going on at that street address. Although this is more helpful for private companies or nonprofits, it’s a good habit to develop. For Year 2010 only (seeing as we are not through with 2011 yet), this is the report:

FY 2010 Grants to States, Tribes, and D.C. for Child Support Enforcement

CFDA Prog. No.

OPDIV

Popular Title

Number of Awards

Number of Award Actions

CAN Award Amount

93.563

ACF

Child Support Enforcement (CSE)

180

1,037

$3,604,010,339

Page Total

180

1,037

$3,604,010,339

Report Total

180

1,037

$3,604,010,339

Same category, FY 2011:

CFDA Prog. No.	OPDIV	Popular Title	Number of Awards	Number of Award Actions	CAN Award Amount
93.563	ACF	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	170	713	$3,258,225,288
Page Total			170	713	$3,258,225,288
Report Total			170	713	$3,258,225,288

(So, one can see where I got my “$6.8” billion figure from by adding the totals, there). USASPENDING.gov (year, 2010, same code) shows:

Total Dollars:$3,604,010,339 (probably includes some contracts, not just grants….)

NOTE: these are GRANTS only — for contracts, plus grants, plus loans, plus (etc.) one would have to hop on over to another database, such as USASPENDING.gov. however (the thing is) with both of those, the amounts are provided from the agencies themselves; there might be a better way to actually see what went out (like the individual state grants received documents, etc.) There are also SPECIAL PROJECTS for Child Support — CFDA 93601…

CFDA Prog. No.	OPDIV	Popular Title	Number of Awards	Number of Award Actions	CAN Award Amount “2010”
93.601	ACF	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	118	257	$17,306,652
93.601	CDC	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	1	1	$601,234
Page Total			119	258	$17,907,886
Report Total			119	258	$17,907,886

NOW, what exactly are those projects? I decided to take a look (FY 2010) and recognize quite a few names – especially the first one here:

Program Office	Grantee Name {Yr “2010”}	City	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions	Award Abstract
OCSE	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	93601	JESSICA PEARSON	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	93601	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Circuit Court for Baltimore County	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	93601	PETER J LALLY	-$1,215	View Abstract
OCSE	Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	KENT K SMITH	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	BEN LEVEK	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	BEN LEVEK	$24,300	View Abstract
OCSE	Florida State University	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0107	USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES	1	93601	KAREN OEHME	$100,000	View Abstract
OCSE	IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	JOE FINNEGAN	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	2	93601	JANET NELSON	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	93601	JOY LYNGAR	-$1,203	View Abstract
OCSE	NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	93601	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	93601	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	93601	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170	View Abstract
OCSE	STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	DAVID P POPOVICH	$22,816	View Abstract
OCSE	Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	93601	RALPH MILLER	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	93601	RALPH MILLER	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency	AKRON	OH	90FI0109	OCSE DEMONSTRATION	1	93601	JENNIFER BHEAM	$83,330	View Abstract
OCSE	TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	93601	MICHAEL HAYES	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	93601	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$50,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.	TUSCALOOSA	AL	90FI0108	CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY	1	93601	TERESA COSTANZO	$100,000	View Abstract
OCSE	UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$48,995	View Abstract
OCSE	URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	SANDI CRAWFORD	$33,052	View Abstract

I’ll look up a few (that I know less about, for example, Karen Oehme in FL is a known position….): MICHAEL MAGNANI in NY (apparently relates to a Drug Court): Michael Magnani Director Division of Grants and Program Development New York State Unified Court System 25 Beaver Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-428-2109 Fax: 212-428-2129 Email: mmagnani@courts.state.ny.usFor example:

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. EIN#63-12904,

I looked this one up at NCSSDATAWEB.org — revenues showing over $2 million. 990 nonprofit purpose:

“TO EMPOWER FAMILIES BY PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES THAT DEVELOP SKILLS AND RESOURCES TO IMPROVE THE FAMILY’S QUALITY OF LIFE, PREPARE THEIR CHILDREN FOR SUCCESS IN A COMPETITIVE SOCIETY, AND ALLOW EACH INDIVIDUAL TO REALIZE HIS OR HER POTENTIAL FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY”

With this nonprofit purpose, I shoulda been a nonprofit as a mere parent — this is what parents generally do! They basically want to be some other family’s “family.” So at what point is this outsourced to nonprofit organizations instead, supported by federal grants? ‘Howsabout’ empowering parents by consistently refusing to violate their fundamental rights as individuals and help keep YOUR local neck of government honest and accountable for its use of OUR money (via IRS, or wage-garnishments in child support programs, or sales taxes, etc.) and your officials, accountable for its use of all program funds? Their 2010 IRS filed Form 990 shows program income revenues ZERO; contributions and grants, $2,082,707 — considerably higher than last year (which was $1,917,454) of which $2,5K (roughly — and lower than last year’s which was over $6K) INVESTMENT income. There are 17 officers and directors… Part III, #4, they are required to report have a ‘Statement of Program Service Accomplishments” (with expenses and revenues — and this section is blank.! This is th section that justifies the tax-exempt purpose. Instead, they simply re-stated their purpose (not what they actually DID)… and claimed that doing (whatever) cost “$1,968, 563” “All Other Achievements Description” — (after a number of blank pages of the form — and this is a statement, not an “achievement”) reads: FORM 990, PAGE PART I,LINE4D (the part I just noted was blank, but shouldn’t have been……)

“CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND OF ALABAMA AND DHHS GRANT AND FAMILY RESOURCE PROGRAM GRANT USED TO PAY SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF DHR CASE CONTRACTS FOR THE COUNTY AND CITY OF TUSCALOOSA AND TO PAY TFRC SALARIES AND EXPENSES RELATED TO CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS” “Organization’s process to review Form 990″: ” NO REVIEW WAS OR WILL BE CONDUCTED” (that seems obvious. AFter all, it’s only $2 million, right?) “GOVERNING DOCUMENTS DISCLOSURE EXPLANATION FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 19 NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC” Here are a bunch of directors: “

TONYA ADAMS-NELSON DIRECTOR
CARLA BAILEY DIRECTOR
AVANTI BAKER DIRECTOR
ELIZABETH BEEMER DIRECTOR
MARY BETH CAVERT DIRECTOR
ROBERT WHALLI JR DIRECTOR
HELENE HIBBARD DIRECTOR
ALISON HUDNAIL DIRECTOR
TOM LEDBETTER DIRECTOR
AMANDA MULKEY DIRECTOR
SANDRA RAY DIRECTOR
MIKE RUSSELL DIRECTOR
TAMMY YAGER DIRECTOR
KIM THOMA BAILEY PRESIDENT
DEBRA NELSON -GARDELL VICE-PRES
STEVEN K CASE TREASURER
LESLIE GUY SECRETARY

(Alabama has been dealing with tornado damages…) solicitation (same address) from a group dealing with youth homelessness:There’s a blog and this shows a history — of TOP spot Family Resource Center. It began (like many nonprofits) with someone formerly in government social service work, and a grant of $80,000 — not bad for a startup:

What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been

In 1999, a group of concerned community members came together to create the East Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. The goal was to create a place where underserved members of the Tuscaloosa community could come to gain access to services that were already available in other parts of town. The board of directors hired as the agency’s first executive director Teresa Costanzo, a social worker with management experience as the director of the Hale County Department of Human Resources. The budget in that initial year was $80,000; there were three employees.

Teresa’s Vision:

Very soon, Teresa’s vision began to exceed the limits of east Tuscaloosa, so, in 2001, the board of directors decided to drop the “East” from the name, making it the Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. The agency [TECHNICALLY, it’s a “nonprofit” not an agency] continued to grow, as did the array of services provided. Soon, the community began to think of the agency as a “one-stop-shop” for a wide array of family needs. In an effort to reflect this perception of the agency, the board decided to begin operations under the business name Tuscaloosa’s One Place, a Family Resource Center.

{{More likely, this was a phrase promoted by the management, similar to the One-Stop-Justice-Centers started on the West Coast and encouraged in part by faith-based grants funding availability}}

Through the years, many of our services have changed. We now offer many school-based programs, several career-development programs, an on-site adult education program, an English-as-a-second-language program, healthy relationship programs, a juvenile detention alternative initiative, a Hispanic outreach program, and home visitation programs, to name a few of our services. We press approximately 800 volunteers, from all walks of life, into service for our community every year, and that number is growing. Our budget for the most recent fiscal year was approximately $1.5 million; we now have approximately 25 full-time employees and 80 temporary or part-time employees. To say that we’ve changed would be an understatement.Through all these changes, though, the agency’s constant has been its executive director. Teresa continues to be at the forefront of everything TOP does. Her oversight has been and still is the key factor in the agency’s place in the community.

And she got $100K of “Child Support Special Resource & Demonstration” project funds. Recently. ALABAMA UNDISTRIBUTED CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS(posted in an Iowa Fathers’ group), 2005:

ALABAMA

$11,765,750

$8,271,986

70.3%

$3,493,764

29.7%

(Columns: NET, PENDING & % of NET (cols. 2&3) Unresolved & % of NET(last 2) Fatherhood Groups tend to be up on Where is the Money Going? — as here (but as we look below, TANF money IS being diverted to Fatherhood programs, at $30 to $50K a pop; and I have a 2011 list) In that link, I see the group complaining that money was given to the Administrative Office of the Courts, and not “promoting responsible fatherhood” (??the courts are where that promotion would be most likely to take effect!) MEANWHILE, this appears to be an outfit offering MARRIAGE CLASSES with a “Focus on the Family” (very strong) emphasis = NOT good. See:

Marriage Classes/Curriculum 1. Classes Offered by Tuscaloosa’s One Place. http://www.etfrc.org, P.O. Box 40764, 870 Redmont Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35404 (205) 462- 1000 (Contact Wanda Martin, wmartin@etfrc.org Relationship/ Marriage Educator, Family Support Specialist; or D’Undray Peterson,

www.etfrc.org They have the solicitation part of the website all nicely set up:

We also accept monetary donations to support our programs. Because we are a non-profit social service agency, all donations are tax deductible. Please mail or deliver monetary donations to our offices, conveniently located in Alberta City or click below. Become a fan on Facebook!!

There’s the “Home visitation” services under “Parenting” and here is the “Let’s Help Dad with His Custody Case” (reduced or free legal fees) segment. Dads who are not actually getting legal results from these grants should complain to their local legislator, because that’s the purpose (also, for each State to conduct social experimentation at the direction of the Secretary of HHS, as 45 CFR 303.109declares): Apart from trouble with using the word “assist” or “assisting” correctly, this segment appears to have been part of the “special demonstration” funded program, above? Tax-funded, so noncustodial MOTHERS can know that their tax dollars, if they are employed, are going to the good cause of a nonprofit organization taking advantage of its tax-exempt status to help connect the fathers with REDUCED-FEE OR FREE LEGAL SERVICES, no doubt to also help them with custody matters as well.

D.A.D.S. Program (Dads Are Dynamite)

The DADS program is designed to assist non-custodial fathers comply {{“in complying”}} with child support obligations. Participants in this program will receive job search assistance as well as learn skills to strengthen their relationship with their child and his or her primary caregiver. DADS participants receive individualized case management services, which includes assisting those fathers who are underemployed become {{“in becoming”}} gainfully employed.

One night per week, fathers will participate in a class/support session to discuss issues unique to non-custodial fathers. ** Legal services are also available to fathers at either a free or reduced fee. Fathers interested in voluntarily participating in this program should contact Tuscaloosa’s One Place to schedule an initial intake. Call David De Shazo at (205) 462-1000 to sign up.

**if these are unique to noncustodial fathers, they do not apply to noncustodial mothers. They are family court &/or child support matters.

HOPEFULLY no one providing such services has any inappropriate relationships with (a) any family court judges or (b) program disbursement authorities in any of the grants being used to assist the fathers, such as we found (1999) in the Karen Anderson, Amadaor County (CA) case, where her ex-husband’s attorney just so happened to also have authority over the A/V funds, and just-so happened to also be in business? with a little nonprofit outfit receiving those funds…..

$1,500 of Tuscaloosa’s 2011 proposed Community Developmt Block Grant going to this DADS program

However “DADs are DYNAMITE” got $50,000 — from TANF funds — in The CHildren’s Trust Fund in this (Alabama Dept of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention )

THE LINK above IS LOADED WITH FATHERHOOD FUNDING (DESIGNATED “TANF” ON THE RIGHT COLUMN AS WELL) — PLS. BROWSE. Clearly the way to reduce childhood abuse and neglect is to dedicate public funds to fatherhood policies, including some that will provide legal help (reduce/low-fee) in their child support and most likely child custody/visitation cases — which the mothers do NOT have a source of legal help for, for the most part. How does that work out when the reason for separation (or not cohabiting) was abuse to start with?

Other groups that received from this fund (dated March, 2011) include:

Grantee / Program / Source / $$

Baldwin County Fatherhood Initiative, Inc./ (same)- TANF funding – $50K [for-profit, inc. 2004]
Alfred Saliba Family Services Center / Saliba Center Fatherhood – TANF funding – $40K
Autauga County Family Support Center / “DADS” / TANF – $40K
Family Guidance Center of Alabama / Fatherhood Program / TANF – $5oK
Family Services Center of Coffee County / Coffee County Fatherhood Initiative / TANF – $35K [Non-profit, reg. 1998, but no reports since 1999 and where is the EIN#? Cotter R. Rainer, III, purpose “assist families in need of prevention” at 203 EAST LEE STREET

ENTERPRISE, AL (currently an attorney’s office, Tindol- M. Chad & Cotter- R. Rainer- III Attorney) ACTUALLY — here is a Youtube 41second blurbon this one (date?) — I think it’s being offered at the courthouse, a judge announced:

The judge says the program will help the non-custodial parent pay his child support and have a relationship with his child.

Coffee County District Court Judge Paul Sherling says the state court system has awarded grant money to the county for a fatherhood initiative. He says that when a person charged with nonpayment appears in court and says he can’t afford to pay, he’ll have an alternative.

The program will direct the parent to a 12-week seminar program designed to help him find ways to earn income and pay for his child. The fatherhood initiative will be offered through the Coffee County Family Services Center.

This “eprise” site is interesting — because along with this article, are several others involving, for example, child abuse, murder, and complaints that the courts are short of money: this site states who helped get this money.

County gets almost $45,000 for fatherhood program

A new program designed to help fathers help their children has received a financial boost. District Judge Paul Sherling announced that Coffee County has been awarded nearly $45,000 from the state court system to fund a fatherhood initiative.
08/27/2010 6:00 AM

|0 Comme

An Enterprise man was sentenced to 90 years in prison on six charges involving sexual abuse of three minor children.District Judge Paul Sherling sentenced Jack Ellis Hockemeyer, 54, to serve 15 years in state prison on each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently, meaning he will serve a maximum of 15 years.Sherling imposed the sentence Tuesday afternoon following Hockemeyer’s guilty plea on one count of sexual abuse of child under age 12 and five counts of second-degree sodomy involving minors over age 12, but under age 16ENTERPRISE, Ala. — The 12th Circuit District Attorney Office’s recent child support roundup was its most successful to date, collecting more than $25,000 for Coffee County families. Assistant District Attorney Chris Kaminski said, as of Friday, the office has collected $25,573.69. Five more people remained in the Coffee County Jail on cash bonds, which will increase the total, he added. Kaminski said Friday’s total was “by far the best we’ve had.” From late March until April 8, the DA’s office allowed anyone behind on child support payments to catch up or arrange a plan without a penalty. Twelfth Circuit District Attorney Tom Anderson said about 80 percent of this year’s collections were obtained during that period.

Former Elba lawman {stepfather} charged with torture, willful abuse of child

(and let out on $5K bail after THIS:)

A 3-year-old child is now in the custody of the Coffee County Department of Human Resources after his stepfather was arrested and charged with torture/willful abuse of a child. {{WHERE WAS MOM!??!}} Coffee County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Ronnie Whitworth said the child’s grandfather reported the incident to law enforcement authorities. Jeffery Hayes Fuller, 28, of County Road 349, Elba, was arrested and charged with the Class C felony Dec. 22. Fuller is reportedly a former Elba police officer and a former firefighter. Whitworth said the baby was found badly bruised in the buttocks region with blood coming from the wounds. Fuller reportedly confessed to paddling the child with a hand-gripped paddle, then placing the child on a hot pad and then rubbing peroxide on the wounds. Fuller was released from the Coffee County Jail on a $5,000 bond and ordered by Judge Paul Sherling to have no contact with the child. Whitworth said the case remains under investigation. (SORRY about all those extra hyperlinks)…..

REPEAT THE MANTRA: Fatherhood training will reduce child abuse and prevent it…… Here’s a 30 yr old Army Sgt caught with 18 videos of child porn (same judge, which is how it came up) – he’s in jail. . . . . “The child pornography evidence against Hogan includes 18 videos and pictures of him sexually assaulting 2 out-of-state girls, ages 8 and 10. Authorities arrested Hogan Jan. 28 on charges of second-degree possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony possession of a controlled substance.”

THIS “family services center” appears to be not just a regular nonprofit, but one of the many situations that appear to be a public/private project involving an actual building; it was dedicated in 1998, per this article (and also articles of incorporation):

Coffee County Family Services Center receives 2010-2011 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding

Check presented in the amount of $103,400

Linda HodgeThursday, Dec 02,2010

Elected officials, officials from the Alabama Department of Abuse and Neglect Prevention and the board of directors of the Coffee County Family Services Center all gathered Tuesday morning, Nov. 30, in Enterprise, Ala. for the announcement of the 2010-11 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding. Coffee County Family Services Center received $103,400 from the Children’s Trust Fund to be used for child abuse and neglect prevention programs. “I can not tell you how much we appreciate this money and their (Alabama Dept. of Abuse and Neglect Prevention) support of our programs,” said Judy Crowley, executive director of the Coffee County Family Services Center.

The Coffee County Family Services Center opened its doors in 1998, and Crowley said that also was the first year the local organization received grant funding from the Children’s Trust Fund for assessment referral, which remains a number one priority today as the programs most highly utilized area. In regards to the 2010-11 grant funding announced Tuesday morning, Crowley said the monies will be used also to assist with all child abuse and neglect prevention programs, as well as, the Building Blocks program and the new Fatherhood Initiative program.

This is a listed nonprofit (Here’s the 2009 “990 “filing from NCCSDATA.org — though mostly blank, it confirms that it gets about $265K grants/contributions per yr and Judith Crowley earns only around $40K. There is no description of services provided . . . . . it does have an EIN# (721374603 ) Heritage Training and Career Center, Inc / Faithful Fathers Fatherhood Program / TANF – $30K (THERE are 11 pages of this, and I don’t feel like going through all – -most pages have several, not just one or two, fatherhood programs on them) Any of these can be looked up (for example, the last one shows at the Alabama Secretary of STate site as existing, yes, as of 2007 — and as a nonprofit, but I don’t see any filings yet. ”

Entity ID	Entity Name	City	Type	Status
565 – 632	Heritage Training and Career Center	MONTGOMERY, AL	Domestic Non-Profit Corporation	Exists

This group (under a “Cynthia Brown”) when I looked up the street address, is a “New or Rejoined Nonprofit” member of the Montgomery chamber of commerce:

A “Billy W. Jarrett Construction Co., Inc.” at this address apparently got a contract (for a North Carolina Military project) …. There are also 5 entities, some LLC’s incorporated (or registered agent) by a “Cynthia Brown,”(without middle initial) not that this isn’t a common name…

EVERY/ANY one of these organizations (in whichever state) can be looked up as to: Incorporation (Secretary of State) and any related dbas (other names it does business as), if nonprofit, the NCCSDATAWEB.org or other site showing some of the 990 filings for these groups; their websites, their directors, and other LLCs they form. SOMETIMES these are front groups that exist ONLY to catch the fundings.

EVERY organization (for example) that is taking TANF funds in particular, can and should be looked up and checked up (especially for any Alabama residents with access to internet) — again there is a LOT of fatherhood funding showing up here: http://www.ctf.alabama.gov/Grantees%202010-2011/2010%202011%20Grantees%20Funded%20as%20of%20March%2029%202011.pdf

AND, of course the “Healthy Marriage” part as well, right underneath help to enroll in Food Stamps. (If you are Title IV-A, your Child Support qualifies for Title IV-D, and as such a diversion into marriage promotion will of course help establish the steady payments of fathers). (A LINK from the TUSCOLOOSA ONE-STOP group)

Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative

AGAIN, here is the child support funding for “Regular” (not “research and special demonstration”) child support. In each State, County — your county — what does this translate to, and who is watching? Who is profiting — are the children subject to the child support order profiting, and is this consistently effective in reducing TANF expenditures?

CFDA 93.593, “CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT” Grants to States — selected Years 2010 & 2011

Also for scope, the chart should show how which agency gets this varies from state to state. The “activity type” is at all times described as “SOCIAL SERVICES” and note that the grants type is either NEW, or Administrative Supplement/Discretionary — meaning, they asked for more… I left blank the column Private Investigator — because it’s agencies getting the monies. Keep in mind also that some states farm out the responsibilities to private contractors, some of whom I have been researching, and the large ones of which have been in several cases caught in major money-laundering or fraud. This is good to keep in mind when considering how quickly one state (South Carolina) is to contribute (further) to the racial inequality in the US prison system by jailing low-income black males for nonpayment of child support — and then going to the public and complaining that the child support system is unfair to low-income black males (although the literature saying this typically calls the males “fathers” and the mothers’ households, “female-headed households” as if they were domesticated breeding stock (which, viewed in certain lights, they are…. being treated as). FOR A SAMPLE of this chart:

Grantee Name

Grantee Address

City

State

County

Grantee Type

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

Action Issue Date

CFDA Number

Award Action Type

Sum of Actions

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804AK4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$217,656

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904AK4004

2009 OCSE

12/07/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$471,245

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904AK4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$154,695

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,435,990

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,971,304

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$873,529

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,370,981

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$113,038

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,857,781

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,527

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,558,010

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$522,227

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$2,394,674

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$666,335

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,766,654

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$807,328

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,424,624

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,270,146

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,564,608

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0804AL4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$443,330

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904AL4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,870,128

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904AL4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,563,098

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,878,920

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,738,775

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,666,800

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$270,313

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,294,300

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$609,699

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,197,264

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$384,262

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$12,437,200

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$17,670

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,295,520

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,975

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,514,100

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$816,471

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,712,928

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

0804AR4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$606,262

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

0904AR4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$882,220

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,081,749

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,336,191

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$954,627

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,324,393

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$781,215

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,779,830

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,503,484

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,637,460

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$75,008

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$9,824,903

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,897,250

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,537,998

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,644,995

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,733,689

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,761,165

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,481,843

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

0804AZ4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$424,427

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

0904AZ4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$687,232

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$7,236,581

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,991,382

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,324,572

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,682,219

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,350,417

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,093,961

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,748,400

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,547,956

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$10,840,894

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,085,910

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,450,246

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,402,213

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,570,129

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,960,501

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,249,743

BLACKFEET TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TRIBAL OFFICE

BROWNING

GLACIER

Educational Department

10IBMT4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$296,873

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

0804CA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,520,413

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

0904CA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,981,714

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$20,049,309

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$145,968,345

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$38,513,768

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$129,832,458

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$10,597,780

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$62,305,239

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$107,984,151

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$125,931,992

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,448,771

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$122,438,508

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$20,997,400

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$129,166,305

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,142,721

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$94,719,355

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10ICOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$695,218

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10ICOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$579,348

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10TCOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

NEW

$463,479

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10TCOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$463,478

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$634,920

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,281

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$659,158

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$549,298

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$136,183

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$336,160

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$476,612

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

03/31/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$97,022

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$608,870

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$194,631

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,193

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,192

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$129,754

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$208,457

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$138,971

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

0804CO4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$271,490

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

0904CO4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$713,994

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,963,471

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,858,500

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$792,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,057,020

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$918,244

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,702,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,404,043

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,696,534

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,224,106

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$9,840,330

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$911,350

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,499,260

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$286,137

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,561,620

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$689,647

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,398,700

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

01/13/2010

93563

NEW

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$152,137

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$221,058

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$147,372

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$397,415

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$264,942

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWA4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$460,212

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWA4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$383,510

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$134,424

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$112,021

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,314

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,440

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$159,310

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$165,209

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$132,758

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$73,755

CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES

P.O. BOX 278

PABLO

LAKE

Indian Tribal Council

11IDMT4004

2011 OCSET

12/01/2010

93563

NEW

$238,765

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$143,989

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$95,994

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$147,185

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,983

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$127,804

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

0804CT4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,790,720

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

0904CT4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$609,139

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,193,136

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,637,365

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,408,041

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,266,669

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,895,077

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$367,943

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,326,324

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,200,208

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$11,887,422

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,270,701

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,778,199

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$37,738

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,966,424

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$953,656

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,278,236

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0804DC4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$83,962

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0904DC4004

2009 OCSE

10/08/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$802,300

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0904DC4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$136,662

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,593,280

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,241,838

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,604,840

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,217,637

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,100,520

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$971,680

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,123,940

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$563,656

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$4,032,033

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$301,643

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,597,460

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$961,498

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,479,620

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$69,798

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,672,240

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

0804DE4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$58,246

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

0904DE4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$276,175

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$4,373,359

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,935,571

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$201,342

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,532,156

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,306,420

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,179,132

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,635,337

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,889,253

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,432,595

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$7,499,212

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,070,262

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,503,364

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,450,993

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,230,650

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,116,225

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,056,512

EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 538

FORT WASHAKIE

FREMONT

Indian Tribal Council

08IBWY4004

2008 OCSET

10/19/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$401,375

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

0804FL4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,789,799

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

0904FL4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,159,234

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$22,719,061

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$56,042,541

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,179,266

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$53,033,364

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,227,388

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$38,803,054

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$17,299

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$48,079,001

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

07/30/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,556,024

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$56,287,376

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,588,919

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$52,482,981

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,808,111

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

03/17/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,677,187

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$46,465,236

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,538,373

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$51,635,458

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$165,653

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$171,413

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$143,054

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$92,097

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/19/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$21,440

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10TCWI4004

2010 OCSET

06/05/2010

93563

NEW

$59,393

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10TCWI4004

2010 OCSET

08/30/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$567,600

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$179,039

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,359

FT BELKNAP COMMUNITY COUNCIL

FT BELKNAP AGENCY

HARLEM

BLAINE

Indian Tribal Council

09ICMT4004

2009 OCSET

09/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$283,281

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

0804GA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$370,916

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

0904GA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,857,146

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$15,500,754

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,978,898

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$999,477

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$738,535

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,026

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,246,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,015,821

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$20,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$7,174,590

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,008,830

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,049,097

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$24,496,254

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0804GU4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$41,400

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904GU4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$115,246

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$345,101

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$300,126

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

12/09/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,436

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$66,329

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$554,629

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,190

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$156

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$710,340

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$317,016

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$759,911

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$66,203

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$727,644

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$318,769

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

02/09/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$604,521

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$274,696

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$675,165

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804HI4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,504

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904HI4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$346,576

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$382,743

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,942,600

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,895,080

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$242,655

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,798,060

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,994,191

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,236,960

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$525,251

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

09/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$982,476

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$3,090,400

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$948,371

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,962,200

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,092,179

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,530,200

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$713,234

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,001,440

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

0804IA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,034,154

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

0904IA4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,750

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

0904IA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,535,162

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$9,033,996

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,519,024

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,688,235

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,723,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,814,802

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,063,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,992,298

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,357

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,376,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,392,854

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$11,526,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,266,820

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,076,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,690,379

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,213,200

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,496,825

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,776,500

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

0804ID4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$227,639

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

0904ID4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$207,448

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,282,527

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,403,756

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,956

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,987,028

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$471,286

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,325,460

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,925,578

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,861,854

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,715,774

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$4,235,706

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$954,759

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,504,043

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$679,903

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,467,225

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,180,751

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,684,935

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0804IL4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,048,070

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0904IL4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$87,230

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0904IL4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,727,004

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$30,172,273

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,235,953

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$31,611,964

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,853,722

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$34,984,718

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,780,679

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$34,504,934

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,040,629

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$28,644,219

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,935,737

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$28,382,830

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,077,767

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$37,210,017

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,258,566

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$33,507,714

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0804IN4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,046,221

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0804INHMHR

2008 HMHR

10/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$198,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0904IN4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$164,556

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0904IN4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,868,855

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,487,923

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,041,143

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,324,023

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,952,413

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,629,715

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,602

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,137,408

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,314,548

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

09/13/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,242,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$13,396,113

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,293,314

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,961,368

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,942,425

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,775,367

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,624,634

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,090,305

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$102,908

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$68,604

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GIOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

NEW

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GIOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/12/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GTOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/12/2011

93563

NEW

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$109,717

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,431

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,431

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$78,498

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$65,415

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,606

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$42,261

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11AIMI4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

NEW

$16,660

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$78,904

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,035

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$75,727

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$105,494

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,912

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,653

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$63,551

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$160,536

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$107,025

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 70

MCLOUD

POTTAWATOMIE

Indian Tribal Council

09IIOK4004

2009 OCSET

06/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$263,587

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$95,783

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$63,854

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$104,487

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$69,658

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0804KS4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$279,439

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0904KS4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$72,200

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0904KS4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$698,875

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$5,270,236

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,631,555

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,803,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,943,573

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$296,186

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,036,770

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,517,041

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,540

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,130,248

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$952,911

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$8,480,533

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$676,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,938,255

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,652,115

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,600,934

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$907,503

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,238,308

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0804KY4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$782,208

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0904KY4004

2009 OCSE

05/11/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,296,286

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0904KY4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,127,059

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$7,394,829

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,256,316

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,047,054

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$896,494

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,485,158

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,579,378

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,267,103

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,038,706

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$5,458,820

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,439,672

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,864,886

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$836,980

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,112,680

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,379,228

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,229,773

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

0804LA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$681,486

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

0904LA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,929,044

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$8,336,935

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$15,790,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,964,952

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,915,563

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,040,488

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,164,782

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,715,603

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,778,349

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,436,578

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$14,405,038

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,573,946

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,881,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,164,059

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,933,756

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$102,845

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,370,140

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE

113394 W. Trepania Road

HAYWARD

SAWYER

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/13/2010

93563

NEW

$242,207

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE

113394 W. Trepania Road

HAYWARD

SAWYER

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWI4004

2011 OCSET

07/12/2011

93563

NEW

$257,793

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$97,241

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$64,828

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$106,825

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,215

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

09IDMN4004

2009 OCSET

03/25/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$223,202

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

11ICMN4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

NEW

$81,077

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

11ICMN4004

2011 OCSET

06/10/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$62,328

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$265,452

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$176,967

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$256,619

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$171,080

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804MA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$917,199

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904MA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,032,452

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$3,734,789

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,308,292

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$781,695

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,023,485

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,261,339

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,746,540

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,413,634

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,883,799

This is 500 names (at least, the search results were sorted to show 500 names at a time) of approximately 1,308 names. I’m not sure why several years displayed, i.e., why a 2009 date would show up. However, the point is to get an idea of where & how much money is hitting is inbound, at least the state level. As this is PUBLIC money, anyone has a right to find out what is the local public payroll, how grants are being spent, who is allocating them to whom (Subgrants). Some of this can be looked up on-line and some can be formed in a FOIA letter, which by law, has to be responded to in a certain time frame. It may not be, but it is a legal right to request public information. AT ANY POINT — it’s appropriate to ask what are these grants being used for They are Smaller, but they are in positions of influence, including some courts. ALSO notice the ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT / DISCRETIONARY BLOCK category seems the main category (sometimes being adjusted downward). If I looked only at “NEW” grants for (YRS — “All”, i.e., database goes back to 1995). Notice how active Center for Policy Research is — hardly surprising: JEssica Pearson was a co-founder of AFCC (Per Liz Richards) and this Denve

Grantee Name	City	St	Award	Award Title	Budgt Yr	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0047	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALICIA LUCKIE	$200,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	1	08/30/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	2	12/29/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	3	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	3	01/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
Allegheny County Court of Commons Pleas	PITTSBURGH	PA	90FI0065	COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PATRICK QUINN	$99,978
BALTIMORE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES SVCS	TOWSON	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	06/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PETER J LALLY	$150,815
CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	SACRAMENTO	CA	90FI0008	CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE IMAGING SYSTEM AND DATABASE FOR VOLUNTARY PATERNITY DECLARA	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$180,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0059	EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT	1	06/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR JESSICA PEARSON	$99,926
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/31/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$100,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/25/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$24,730
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	09/03/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$198,664
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$124,820
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	02/22/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	06/26/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/04/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$124,829
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	02/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR NANCY THOENNES	$124,863
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	03/31/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	06/20/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$99,908
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	10/23/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	09/18/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	08/02/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	09/25/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	1	08/30/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	1	09/21/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	-$1
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	2	12/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$0
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	3	09/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CANDACE COWLING	$199,323
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CANDACE COWLING	$124,898
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	03/17/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CANDACE COWLING	$0
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CANDACE COWLING	$124,674
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	08/29/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KARROL MCKAY	$124,938
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	DENVER	CO	90FI0044	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$100,000
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES	NESPELEM	WA	90FI0006	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARLA BIG BOY	$32,800
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC	ALLENTOWN	PA	90FI0048	SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PATRICIA W LEVIN	$177,374
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC	ALLENTOWN	PA	90FI0048	SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	05/04/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	PATRICIA W LEVIN	$99,227
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/25/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHERYL BREAUX	$100,000
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHERYL BREAUX	$50,000
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	01/24/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHERYL BREAUX	$0
Christian Family Gathering	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0038	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADVOCACY INTERVENTION TRAINING – SIPS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIA J JENKINS	$99,895
Circuit Court for Baltimore County	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	04/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PETER J LALLY	-$1,215
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	FRANCINE B GOLDBERG	$100,000
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/13/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	FRANCINE B GOLDBERG	$25,000
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KENT K SMITH	$0
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KENT K SMITH	$25,000
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BEN LEVEK	$99,800
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BEN LEVEK	$24,300
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	11/18/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	06/06/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/02/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BEN LEVEK	$24,300
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/16/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
ECUMENICAL CHILD CARE NETWORK	CHICAGO	IL	90FI0026	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA -1	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DEBRA HAMPTON	$50,000
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT	LAS VEGAS	NV	90FI0030	CHILD SUPPORT & DRUG COURT PROGRAM	1	06/27/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KENDIS STAKE	$50,000
Episcopal Social Services, Inc.	WICHITA	KS	90FI0079	RELIABLE INCOME FOR KIDS COALITION (PRIORITY AREA 1)	1	08/29/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR GAYLORD DOLD	$193,600
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	NANCY LUJA	$79,495
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0009	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$25,864
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	03/28/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	NANCY LUJA	-$29,753
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	NANCY LUJA	-$280
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$200,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	3	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	4	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	1	08/09/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	3	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Florida State University	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0107	USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	KAREN OEHME	$100,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	1	08/19/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$100,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$25,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	2	12/18/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$0
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH	PITTSBURGH	PA	90FI0080	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/01/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ERIC YENERALL	$200,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/24/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIE THEISEN	$100,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0045	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 4	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MELINDA ROMAN	$99,090
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0066	CONNECTING CHILD SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SECURE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR CHILDR	1	06/22/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAREN FROHWEIN	$100,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	10/26/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOE FINNEGAN	$0
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000
IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES	SPRINGFIELD	IL	90FI0007	IMPROVEMENT GRANT	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARTIN D SUTHERLAND	$149,686
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program	EL CENTRO	CA	90FI0051	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARY N CAMACHO	$141,858
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JUAN VEGAS	$100,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/28/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PHYLLIS NANCE	$100,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/18/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
LA ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0015	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GORDON HOOD	$50,000
LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MYRNA MAIER	$170,244
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	2	08/04/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MYRNA MAIER	$248,972
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	2	08/08/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MYRNA MAIER	$0
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	3	08/27/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MYRNA MAIER	$249,781
LIVINGSTONE COLLEGE	SALISBURY	NC	90FI0025	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	01/03/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WALTER ELLIS	$49,668
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL	BELLINGHAM	WA	90FI0019	LIBC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DAVID BUNTON	$129,181
Louisiana Family Council	METAIRIE	LA	90FI0060	LOUISIANA FAMILY COUNCIL	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GAIL TATE	$100,000
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	09/14/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DIANA OBBARD	$544,500
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	07/21/2000	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DIANA OBBARD	-$469,500
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DIANA OBBARD	-$38,000
MARRIAGE COALITION (THE)	CLEVELAND HEIGHTS	OH	90FI0054	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SANDRA G BENDER	$199,994
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0010	PATERNITY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GINA HIGGINBOTHAM	$100,312
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0052	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN LANGROCK	$200,000
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0052	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1	1	08/19/2003	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOHN LANGROCK	-$200,000
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/18/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JANE ALEXANDER	$99,792
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JANE ALEXANDER	$24,805
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	09/21/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TANYA LOWERS	$0
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0032	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	06/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	NANCY CHRIST	$187,550
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$37,500
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	11/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$0
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/22/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RICHARD BRANDT	$98,364
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN SHIRER	$99,996
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	05/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DAWN CONTRERAS	$0
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAWN CONTRERAS	$99,952
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT	LANSING	MI	90FI0064	OCSE’S SPECIAL IMROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BILL J BARTELS	$100,000
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	1	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JANET NELSON	$100,000
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	2	09/28/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JANET NELSON	$25,000
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	ST PAUL	MN	90FI0041	INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH LOW INCOME NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS – SIP	1	02/01/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LAURA KADWELL	$300,000
MONTANA SCHOOL DISTRICT	HELENA	MT	90FI0049	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 3	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BARBARA DELANEY	$149,464
MONTEREY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT	SALINAS	CA	90FI0078	MOBILE CUSTOMER SUPPORT	1	09/02/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JAMES HANSEN	$200,000
MUSKEGON COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BOARD	MESKEGON	MI	90FI0050	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BRAIN P MATTSON	$199,772
Massachusetts Probate and Family Court	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	03/23/2011	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$0
Milwaukee County Dept. of Administration Fiscal Affairs	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	1	11/17/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	JANET NELSON	$0
NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION	BOULDER	CO	90FI0055	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 5	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VINCENT L KNIGHT	$199,887
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS	WILLIAMSBURG	VA	90FI0034	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAY FARLEY	$40,000
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0017	NATIONAL CERTIFICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOEL K BANKES	$48,548
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	02/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$74,900
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	11/06/2002	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	THERESA MOASSER	-$20,982
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	09/21/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	THERESA MOASSER	$0
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0012	JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOY ASHTON	$36,125
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0012	JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT	1	03/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOY ASHTON	-$9,605
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	1	08/19/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOY D ASHTON	$150,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	08/29/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOY D ASHTON	$37,500
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	10/01/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOY LYNGAR	$0
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	03/31/2010	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOY LYNGAR	-$1,203
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0023	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOAN ENTMACHER	$50,000
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0029	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	06/06/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOAN ENTMACHER	$50,000
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0029	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	11/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOAN ENTMACHER	-$50,000
NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0099	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KRISTIN RUTH	$78,842
NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0099	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	03/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KRISTIN RUTH	-$78,842
NC ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0046	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BARRY MILLER	$200,000
NJ ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE	TRENTON	NJ	90FI0028	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	06/12/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALISHA GRIFFIN	$50,000
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$99,830
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	08/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$24,325
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	03/03/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$24,997
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	10/23/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
New York State Unified Court System	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	11/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
New York State Unified Court System	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	12/21/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KATHERINE MCRAE	$100,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	08/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	12/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	04/07/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	08/20/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	04/14/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER	FREDONIA	WI	90FI0067	PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	06/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA	$100,000
OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER	FREDONIA	WI	90FI0067	PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	03/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA	-$100,000
OR ST DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	SALEM	OR	90FI0104	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BECKY L HUMMER	$88,371
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RYLANDA WILSON	$100,000
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	10/14/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	RYLANDA WILSON	-$47,438
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RYLANDA WILSON	$50,000
PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE	TACOMA	WA	90FI0001	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILLIAM VELIZ	$69,531
PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE	TACOMA	WA	90FI0001	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	03/31/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	WILLIAM VELIZ	$69,531
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe	KINGSTON	WA	90FI0018	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DALLAS I DEGUIRE	$50,400
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0002	DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LIEN REGISTRY FOR RHODE ISLAND AND REGION 1	1	09/18/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$149,820
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JACK MURPHY	$149,380
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	2	06/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JACK MURPHY	$41,472
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	3	09/19/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JACK MURPHY	$40,840
SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY MAYOR’S OFFICE	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	90FI0063	INCREASE PARENTAL PARTICIPATION IN ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT AND PATERNITY JUDGEM	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MILTON M HYAMS	$200,000
SAN MATEO CTY DEPT OF HEALTH SCVS	SAN MATEO	CA	90FI0011	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ILIANA M RODRIQUEZ	$97,437
SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RALPH MILLER	$100,000
SC ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0043	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A 4	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	THOMAS L CHRISTMUS	$414,574
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DEB DUNITHAN	$99,896
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/28/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DEB DUNITHAN	$49,934
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/29/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DEB DUNITHAN	$24,991
SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL	AGENCY VILLAGE	SD	90FI0020	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	B. J JONES	$50,000
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/31/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CAROLYN A MYER	$99,703
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	09/05/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN A MYER	$99,962
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN A MYER	$0
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	09/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN A MYER	$98,962
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	06/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN A MYER	$0
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHRIS P NELSON	$59,176
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	12/02/1998	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CHRIS P NELSON	$13,711
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	CHRIS P NELSON	-$48,235
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	03/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VIVIAN L LEES	$78,843
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	VIVIAN L LEES	$60,082
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAVID P POPOVICH	$22,816
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	10/15/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DAVID P POPOVICH	$0
STRIVE DC, INC.	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0035	ASSIST EX-OFFENDERS OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT, COMPLY WITH THEIR CHILD SUPP	1	02/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$75,000
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	07/25/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR ALAN W DOWD	$83,498
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/15/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL	$24,995
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR JAY F HEIN	$24,995
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RALPH MILLER	$25,000
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	01/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	RALPH MILLER	$0
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	08/20/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RALPH MILLER	$25,000
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch	HARTFORD	CT	90FI0068	STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARISSE S HUTTON	$100,000
Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency	AKRON	OH	90FI0109	OCSE DEMONSTRATION	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	JENNIFER BHEAM	$83,330
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	1	08/10/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$145,950
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	NASHVILLE	TN	90FI0058	TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	06/22/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SCOTT SMITH	$123,870
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	01/18/2000	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SCOTT SMITH	$30,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	04/04/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	SCOTT SMITH	-$18,242
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0033	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GARY CASWELL	$196,600
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0033	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1	1	04/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JAMES MOODY	-$90,218
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0056	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 7	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HARRY MONCK	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	1	09/01/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	NOELITA L LUGO	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	2	12/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	NOELITA L LUGO	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ANITA STUCKEY	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	08/08/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	12/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	06/14/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/10/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	1	08/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MRS PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$90,429
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	09/27/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$50,000
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	11/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$0
Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.	TUSCALOOSA	AL	90FI0108	CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	TERESA COSTANZO	$100,000
UNITED MIGRANT OPPORTUNITY SERVICES, INC	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0037	LATINO/HISPANIC COMMUNITY CHILD SUPPORT OUTREACH PROJECT – SIPS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHERYL COBB	$142,626
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHRISTINE YURGELUN	$99,581
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/31/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$48,995
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	DURHAM	NH	90FI0016	CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR. WALTER ELLIS	$49,668
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	DURHAM	NH	90FI0016	CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	01/03/2000	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DR. WALTER ELLIS	-$49,668
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0061	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 6	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LAUDAN ARON-TURNHAM	$100,000
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RENEE HENDLEY	$68,355
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SANDI CRAWFORD	$48,881
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/25/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SANDI CRAWFORD	$33,052
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/29/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SANDI CRAWFORD	$0
VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES	WATERBURY	VT	90FI0062	PROJECT WEB-MED SUPPORT	1	06/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBERT B BUTTS	$100,000
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0005	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ART HAYASHI	$17,171
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0040	OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF	1	02/15/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS	$150,000
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0040	OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF	1	03/12/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS	-$2,013
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0042	NEW APPROACHES TO ENGAGE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OFFENDERS JOB PROG AND PAYMENT OF	1	02/08/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	FRAN FERRY	$175,000
WV ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES	CHARLESTON	WV	90FI0027	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SUSAN HARRAH	$25,597
WY ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION	CHEYENNE	WY	90FI0021	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DAVE SCHAAD	$140,000
WY ST DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES	CHEYENNE	WY	90FI0021	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	2	08/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAVE SCHAAD	$140,000
Womens Education & Legal Fund (CWEALF)	HARTFORD	CT	90FI0036	LOCAL NETWORKS – LATINO COMMUNITY – SPECIAL INITIATIVES PROJECT	1	02/02/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALICE PRITCHARD	$183,313

r-based organization is often working the Child Support Field. The for-profit arm is Policy Studies, Inc. — CPR is the smaller, leaner, nonprofit…This table has 224 rows; I will also upload it here, for easier viewing: ///

66% to 34%, “Undistributable Child Support Collections,” and why HHS/OAS is more concerned about its share, than kids getting theirs….

with 5 comments

It’s been one of those nonstop write & read days, so I give you about 20,000 words herein, including “Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless” (Dawin Deason, jet-sitting psychotic yacht-owning pot-smoking, multi-divorced corporate bully responsible for, er, collecting child support (etc)) and a little more Maximus/PWORA background, plus exposing how little the OCSE actually seems to care about how poorly welfare reform (and child support collections) are indeed working — so long as they get their cut. Which is “the lion’s share.” Roarrr!

A little review of this PROWA — “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Acts” — I am seeing how radical a shift this was. FOR THE RECORD, it was a Republican push, and President Clinton, at the time, would’ve had some political risk to veto welfare reform a 3rd time:

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Bill Clinton signing welfare reform legislation.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R -FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.^[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaignpromise to “end welfare as we know it”.^[2]

PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which had been in effect since 1935 and also supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program of 1988. The law was heralded as a “reassertion of America’s work ethic” by the US Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill’s workfarecomponent. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

and (still, Wikipedia):

Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.^[10]

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton^[11], Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government’s responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.^[12]

As I have been showing, by Federal Incentives to the States, and other strong-arm tactics surrounding threats to withdraw TANF payments, a network of single-agencies for distribution of child support, parent locator sources, and more “stuff” has been forced onto the states, relating to this legislation. It took a few years for the hammer to come down (about 1998, 1999ff) — but the result has been MORE types of families being (through court agencies as well) forced ONTO welfare — as people mistaking child support enforcement for actually “child support enforcement” are confronting a different agenda in Washington — which is to stop divorce in its tracks, involve more faith institutions, and what appears to be continue the EXPANSION (not contraction) of the welfare state. . . . . .

As with any large bureacuracies, there are larger-than-life loopholes, which I am discussing these days — places were millions of $$ and the interest from them, appears to be, er, disappearing after it has been extracted from one parent (or, if the state got the kids somehow, possibly both).

It DID actually end “welfare as we know it” — although not the expanding welfare state. It just changed its character…..

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party’s vote counts and persuaded more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.^[11]

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.^[11] As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act “gives us a chance we haven’t had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.”^[13]

(Actually, the Wikipedia article is not a bad introduction, overall)….

FOr example, through increased “privatization” and the need for expanding IT (technical, data collection, etc.) services, companies like Maximus, with a history of fraud embezzlement racism, sexism, etc., at unprecedented levels, can now do business directly with states, to allegedly, get the citizens back to work. Like in Wisconsin:

RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Jan. 20, 2004–MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS) has been awarded a two-year, $37.1 million contract from the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development to provide comprehensive Wisconsin Works (W-2) program services including eligibility, assessment, soft skills workshops, job placement, and job retention follow-up services.

W-2 is the state welfare-to-work program in which MAXIMUS serves Milwaukee County in assisting its citizens become self sufficient through gainful employment. Under this new contract, MAXIMUS has been awarded an additional region in the county and will be serving approximately 5,700 cases. The new caseload level for the two regions is a substantial increase over the previous MAXIMUS contract with the state.

“We have enjoyed our long-standing relationship with the State of Wisconsin helping them achieve national prominence in welfare-to-work. It is a distinct honor to have been selected to continue our relationship”

MAXIMUS has been a partner with the state of Wisconsin in their nationally-recognized W-2 program since its inception in 1997. This competitive re-award of the W-2 contract demonstrates the high-level of confidence the State of Wisconsin places with MAXIMUS to provide quality services in a cost-effective manner.

“We have enjoyed our long-standing relationship with the State of Wisconsin helping them achieve national prominence in welfare-to-work. It is a distinct honor to have been selected to continue our relationship,” commented Dr. David V. Mastran, MAXIUS CEO.

YEP. Prospecting among the poor is sure profitable….

Here’s a dissertation (2010) on this period, with evaluation from women who lived through the transition:

January 01, 2010

‘Wisconsin works’?: race, gender and accountability in the workfare era

Bridgette Baldwin Northeastern University

Morality tales about laziness and dependency have become popular catchall narratives in the continual reconstruction of welfare policy development and implementation. The American public is overburdened by the lavish lifestyle of the Black ―welfare queen.‖5 She drives around in her nice new Cadillac, never going really anywhere in particular, unless off to pick up her welfare checks (which by the way she had gotten rich on) or to dine on steak and lobster. However, she usually stays at home watching soap operas like ―Days of our Lives‖ generating more income by producing baby after baby. She is cunning, yet shiftless. She is clever in her manipulation of the system, yet uneducated. And, she is quite active in attaining immediate desires and wants, yet lazy in her work ethic, while betraying the ethos of delayed gratification.

All hail the ―welfare queen.‖ It is this image of the ―welfare queen‖that became so prevalent during the ―welfare debates‖ of the 1980s and persisted as a driving force in all out demands for reform of the welfare system. Debates over welfare reform have been so saturated with this image that little attention has been paid to the actual realities or needs of welfare recipients or most explicitly, the conditions in which they live and navigate under policy reform.

5 Nancy J. Hirschmann, ―A Question of Freedom, a Question of Rights? Women and Welfare,‖ in Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in the United States and Europe, eds. Nancy J. Hirschmann and Ulrike Liebert (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001).

My dissertation will offer an evaluative analysis of the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program as the model initiative within national welfare reform strategies

It looks like good reading.

here are some Brits talking about it as well, in 2001:

The Impact Of Reform

The Act provoked a storm of protest. President Clinton’s decision to sign the Republican bill that became PRWORA was famously condemned by one of his former aides, Peter Edelman as ‘the worst thing Bill Clinton has done’.4 Similarly, the doyen of commentators on poverty Daniel P. Moynihan lamented that ‘the premise of this legislation is that the behaviour of certain adults can be changed by making the lives of their children as wretched as possible’. The result, he predicted, would be to ‘substantially increase poverty and destitution’.5 Equally forthright was the Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow. It would be imposs- ible, he argued for the labour market to absorb a sudden influx of unskilled and inexperienced women workers, and the result would be a sharp rise in unemployment and a drop in wage rates.6 Perhaps the most significant critic, however, was David Ellwood, who had done more than anyone to legitimise the idea of time limits and who had been the chief architect of Clinton’s earlier welfare reform plan. He condemned the 1996 Act as ‘appalling’. It offered claimants not ‘two years and you work’ but two years ‘followed by nothing—no welfare, no jobs, no support’. Even worse, the Act would initiate a ‘race to the bottom’ since those states which did want to promote work-based reform ‘may find it too costly if nearby states threaten to dump their poor by simply cutting benefits’.7

And House Ways & Means Testimony boasting about it in 1998:

This groundbreaking legislation, based in large part on Wisconsin’s experience and recommendations, gives each state the tools it needs to design a work-focused program responsive to the unique needs of its population. Wisconsin Works (W-2), our Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, is paving the way for a world without Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Jesus: “The poor you always have with you.”

Republicans: “Poverty is an attitude problem, but we have ways to fix that…”

Of course it’s possible to get rid of AFDC by renaming it (which this has done) or by bringing on the corrupt private contractors, which Maximus certainly proved to be, and still is, and is still working for the US government and other ones.

Then — as this post shows — it’s also possible to actually get rid of AID to Families with Dependent Children by setting up a Federal/STate incentive system that bills the middle class to let policy makers run demonstration projects on the poor –OR, as we see here, developing strong-arm and far-reaching ways to collect child support — and then just fail to distribute it, either because the parent has disappeared OR there is a pending legal dispute, which is another great excuse to sit on millions while they collect interest, to be split 2:1 between Fed & State and nothing for the children.

Being a leader in welfare reform for ten years, there is no doubt that Wisconsin had a head start addressing the problem of welfare dependence and the poverty that it creates. In fact, Wisconsin’s welfare legacy began in 1987, when Governor Thompson made welfare reform one of his top priorities upon taking office. At the time, Wisconsin’s AFDC caseload had swelled to over 98,000 cases.

Governor Thompson had little confidence that the Family Support Act of 1988 would do much more than continue the status quo. As a result, Wisconsin pioneered the way for states to receive waivers from the federal government to run welfare demonstrations. Wisconsin’s first waiver, called Learnfare, changed the direction of welfare by connecting, for the first time, the receipt of welfare to personal responsibility. Learnfare, which has since been folded into W-2, requires students to attend school or face a reduction in the family’s cash benefit.

Hmm. Here’s a fairly positive report on Maximus, showing that its founder had previously worked in government, HEW, in addition to his military experience. It also shows that prior to Maximus, it was Ross Perot’s “EDS” applied to the paperwork behind Medicare legislation (1965), thereby enriching him enough to twice run for U.S. President. . …

Since welfare reform legislation passed in 1996, MAXIMUS has dramatically increased its revenues, but not without generating a good deal of controversy. The company received unwanted publicity in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and especially in New York City, providing ready ammunition for critics who not only question how MAXIMUS does business but attack the very principles that the company espouses.

The founder of MAXIMUS, David V. Mastran, earned an undergraduate degree from West Point in 1965, followed a year later by a master’s degree in industrial engineering from Stanford University. He then spent seven years in the air force, including a one-year tour in Vietnam, before returning to school to earn a doctorate in operations research from George Washington University in 1973. He briefly worked at the Pentagon as an air force researcher, then transferred his skills to the old federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He managed contracts and grants and essentially tried to impose discipline on social welfare programs.

The first work for MAXIMUS was a $3,000 contract to assist in the processing of military health-care claims, followed by a $15,000 job in New Hampshire to create statistical profiles of fraudulent Medicaid recipients, but MAXIMUS soon had difficulty with one of its early contracts. Hired by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to increase payments by deadbeat parents, MAXIMUS developed a system that would target people with high incomes. The agency, however, maintained that the law did not allow for such selectivity and opted not to renew the contract. {{interesting…}}

Generally MAXIMUS maintained a low profile as it began to collect bigger fees and add employees to handle its mounting workload. In 1984 the company received an important contract from New York City, when it was hired to help reduce welfare fraud. Appalled by the condition of the welfare centers he visited, Mastran began a motivational campaign to improve the morale of welfare workers, awarding cake and trophies to those who were successful at reducing fraud. He said that the experience confirmed his view that a private company was better suited to motivate employees than the government. “Government workers are not paid on the basis of performance,” he was quoted as saying. “I can reward performance; government can’t do that.”

In 1988 MAXIMUS signed a major five-year, $49 million contract with Los Angeles County to run its portion of a state welfare-to-work program called GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence), the first attempt to privatize a welfare system. Rather than just serving in a support capacity, MAXIMUS was essentially replacing government. The company determined whether someone was eligible for welfare, prompting a lawsuit by the Service Employees International Union that contended that only civil service employees had the legal right to make such decisions. Social critics also questioned the inherent conflict of a for-profit company engaged in public work: Would MAXIMUS focus its efforts on the clients that could be more easily placed in jobs, thus padding its success rate at the expense of the people who needed their help the most?
Read more: MAXIMUS, Inc. – Company Profile, Information, Business Description, History, Background Information on MAXIMUS, Inc.http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/29/MAXIMUS-Inc.html#ixzz1St3v58cp

As I’m pretty sure I already posted, Maximus was quickly in trouble for sexism (paying women lower than men for the same jobs), questionable expenses in Wisconsin ($466,000) and in general, getting people off the welfare lists — not out of poverty; this caused trouble in NY as well:

Federal Agency Finds Workfare Contractor Violated Wage Law (Sept. 1, 2000)

By NINA BERNSTEIN

The nation’s largest operator of welfare-to-work programs violated federal law by paying lower wages to women than to men placed in the same jobs in a Milwaukee warehouse, according to a decision made public yesterday by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The company, Maximus Inc., has been under mounting criticism for its business practices in recent months. A state judge in Manhattan has held up the Giuliani administration’s plans to award Maximus more than $100 million in contracts to help welfare recipients find work. And state auditors in Wisconsin recently found that the company had billed the state for $466,000 in improper or questionable expenses.

The federal commission’s ruling found that a woman placed in warehouse jobs by MaxStaff, the company’s temporary employment agency, was paid $7.01 an hour while five male co-workers got $8.13 …. ……

”The goal was not to remove women from poverty, but simply from the welfare rolls,” she said. ”Consequently, any job was good enough.”

Ms. Jones, now 33, said she had asked a MaxStaff supervisor a year ago why she, the only woman, was being paid less than all the men. The supervisor told her that she was mistaken, and later warned workers that they could be fired if they discussed wages. At that point, the commission said in its ruling, the company began hiring males at a lower rate of pay — apparently in an effort to cover up sex discrimination.

But Ms. Jones privately challenged male employees to prove their earnings and collected pay stubs that she took to the commission. Eight days later, she was fired.

This NYTimes article has many more in the series — almost immediately after welfare reform 1996, the privateers were running into trouble

HELPING AMERICA”s CHILDREN — SITTING ON MONEY COLLECTED FROM ONE PARENT WITHOUT SENDING IT TO THE OTHER: Administrative Bill, give or take $5 billion/year.

COMPILED from forms submitted to the OCSE on “Undistributed Child Support”

OCSE site — motto: “Giving Hope and Support** for America’s Children”

(**except these amounts)

Table P-32: Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2009
STATES	*Net UDC	Pending UDC		Unresolved UDC
STATES	*Net UDC	Amount	As a Percent of Net UDC	Amount	As a Percent of Net UDC
ALABAMA	$15,513,725	$9,819,075	63.3%	$5,694,650	36.7%
ALASKA	2,725,702	1,908,063	70.0	817,639	30.0
ARIZONA	9,672,557	7,041,823	72.8	2,630,734	27.2
ARKANSAS	2,881,919	1,412,953	49.0	1,468,966	51.0
CALIFORNIA	62,279,494	54,437,329	87.4	7,842,165	12.6
COLORADO	2,777,312	2,391,693	86.1	385,619	13.9
CONNECTICUT	3,674,286	3,454,239	94.0	220,047	6.0
DELAWARE	5,017,020	2,608,851	52.0	2,408,169	48.0
DIST. OF COL.	1,232,740	196,685	16.0	1,036,055	84.0
FLORIDA	45,094,156	22,220,435	49.3	22,873,721	50.7
GEORGIA	4,897,121	3,890,098	79.4	1,007,023	20.6
GUAM	4,443,637	367,074	8.3	4,076,563	91.7
HAWAII	7,270,327	5,757,125	79.2	1,513,202	20.8
IDAHO	1,258,036	1,141,667	90.7	116,369	9.3
ILLINOIS	17,838,705	9,753,202	54.7	8,085,503	45.3
INDIANA	9,229,247	2,069,145	22.4	7,160,102	77.6
IOWA	3,810,982	3,123,513	82.0	687,469	18.0
KANSAS	3,954,679	2,247,801	56.8	1,706,878	43.2
KENTUCKY	9,849,484	5,793,613	58.8	4,055,871	41.2
LOUISIANA	4,043,603	3,631,297	89.8	412,306	10.2
MAINE	1,663,737	1,021,675	61.4	642,062	38.6
MARYLAND	9,753,346	4,524,421	46.4	5,228,925	53.6
MASSACHUSETTS	10,204,504	8,858,264	86.8	1,346,240	13.2
MICHIGAN	42,416,592	34,780,861	82.0	7,635,731	18.0
MINNESOTA	7,863,922	7,702,387	97.9	161,535	2.1
MISSISSIPPI	11,318,268	9,549,135	84.4	1,769,133	15.6
MISSOURI	11,120,017	10,328,364	92.9	791,653	7.1
MONTANA	305,201	122,608	40.2	182,593	59.8
NEBRASKA	2,455,050	1,946,773	79.3	508,277	20.7
NEVADA	2,603,935	2,077,769	79.8	526,166	20.2
NEW HAMPSHIRE	951,292	540,557	56.8	410,735	43.2
NEW JERSEY	14,280,590	NA	NA	NA	NA
NEW MEXICO	3,208,444	1,703,361	53.1	1,505,083	46.9
NEW YORK	97,236,334	NA	NA	NA	NA
NORTH CAROLINA	12,678,621	9,265,605	73.1	3,413,016	26.9
NORTH DAKOTA	2,577,581	1,749,323	67.9	828,258	32.1
OHIO	26,412,221	21,011,756	79.6	5,400,465	20.4
OKLAHOMA	6,072,829	5,693,119	93.7	379,710	6.3
OREGON	3,470,923	2,530,705	72.9	940,218	27.1
PENNSYLVANIA	12,688,205	10,207,799	80.5	2,480,406	19.5
PUERTO RICO	13,952,836	NA	NA	NA	NA
RHODE ISLAND	2,469,889	478,651	19.4	1,991,238	80.6
SOUTH CAROLINA	8,628,219	2,794,306	32.4	5,833,913	67.6
SOUTH DAKOTA	1,162,182	1,150,667	99.0	11,515	1.0
TENNESSEE	14,108,239	11,153,511	79.1	2,954,728	20.9
TEXAS	20,163,471	10,706,501	53.1	9,456,970	46.9
UTAH	2,782,396	2,578,060	92.7	204,336	7.3
VERMONT	781,008	667,022	85.4	113,986	14.6
VIRGIN ISLANDS	501,609	112,809	22.5	388,800	77.5
VIRGINIA	7,250,388	6,798,907	93.8	451,481	6.2
WASHINGTON	5,857,359	4,306,901	73.5	1,550,458	26.5
WEST VIRGINIA	4,033,922	3,953,506	98.0	80,416	2.0
WISCONSIN	8,396,881	NA	NA	NA	NA
WYOMING	1,685,676	1,198,043	71.1	487,633	28.9
TOTALS	$588,520,419	$322,779,047	71.0%	$131,874,731	29.0%
Source: Form OCSE-34A	Part 1, line 9b	Part 2, line 2		Part 2, line 8
*Nets out undistributable collections.
Note: Pending UDC plus Unresolved UDC equals total Net UDC. All data are from the fourth quarter.
NA – Not Available.

Table P-32
Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2010
STATES	*Net UDC	Pending UDC		Unresolved UDC
STATES	*Net UDC	Amount	As a Percent of Net UDC	Amount	As a Percent of Net UDC
ALABAMA	$16,283,994	$10,162,914	62.4%	$6,121,080	37.6%
ALASKA	2,540,313	1,845,082	72.6	695,231	27.4
ARIZONA	8,050,495	6,088,812	75.6	1,961,683	24.4
ARKANSAS	2,738,092	1,405,745	51.3	1,332,347	48.7
CALIFORNIA	61,953,147	53,863,014	86.9	8,090,133	13.1
COLORADO	3,147,874	2,684,230	85.3	463,644	14.7
CONNECTICUT	4,048,068	3,636,004	89.8	412,064	10.2
DELAWARE	4,689,833	2,208,774	47.1	2,481,059	52.9
DIST. OF COL.	890,797	210,423	23.6	680,374	76.4
FLORIDA	37,820,845	20,289,591	53.6	17,531,254	46.4
GEORGIA	5,061,317	3,114,118	61.5	1,947,199	38.5
GUAM	5,288,947	287,148	5.4	5,001,799	94.6
HAWAII	7,472,497	5,932,236	79.4	1,540,261	20.6
IDAHO	1,298,553	1,202,222	92.6	96,331	7.4
ILLINOIS	16,297,021	7,899,734	48.5	8,397,287	51.5
INDIANA	8,452,134	4,036,024	47.8	4,416,110	52.2
IOWA	4,150,261	3,432,731	82.7	717,530	17.3
KANSAS	3,441,981	1,579,071	45.9	1,862,910	54.1
KENTUCKY	11,715,986	5,842,102	49.9	5,873,884	50.1
LOUISIANA	4,057,300	3,599,220	88.7	458,080	11.3
MAINE	1,636,864	976,259	59.6	660,605	40.4
MARYLAND	8,671,676	4,843,503	55.9	3,828,173	44.1
MASSACHUSETTS	11,480,713	10,097,172	87.9	1,383,541	12.1
MICHIGAN	32,915,478	26,160,772	79.5	6,754,706	20.5
MINNESOTA	8,373,327	8,188,234	97.8	185,093	2.2
MISSISSIPPI	12,638,267	10,778,762	85.3	1,859,505	14.7
MISSOURI	11,879,792	11,011,325	92.7	868,467	7.3
MONTANA	225,806	143,827	63.7	81,979	36.3
NEBRASKA	2,367,888	2,004,444	84.7	363,444	15.3
NEVADA	2,630,921	2,077,185	79.0	553,736	21.0
NEW HAMPSHIRE	1,194,368	803,439	67.3	390,929	32.7
NEW JERSEY	19,190,538	16,774,020	87.4	2,416,518	12.6
NEW MEXICO	3,164,051	1,721,474	54.4	1,442,577	45.6
NEW YORK	84,946,388	44,484,466	52.4	40,461,922	47.6
NORTH CAROLINA	13,056,068	9,389,470	71.9	3,666,598	28.1
NORTH DAKOTA	2,762,026	1,845,580	66.8	916,446	33.2
OHIO	31,091,183	26,111,589	84.0	4,979,594	16.0
OKLAHOMA	5,324,362	5,063,689	95.1	260,673	4.9
OREGON	3,518,242	2,596,605	73.8	921,637	26.2
PENNSYLVANIA	10,654,748	8,741,372	82.0	1,913,376	18.0
PUERTO RICO	10,621,359	1,614,807	15.2	9,006,502	84.8
RHODE ISLAND	2,394,247	525,902	22.0	1,868,345	78.0
SOUTH CAROLINA	9,382,292	2,738,292	29.2	6,644,000	70.8
SOUTH DAKOTA	1,335,117	1,327,016	99.4	8,101	0.6
TENNESSEE	11,894,864	3,715,282	31.2	8,179,582	68.8
TEXAS	22,050,037	8,924,915	40.5	13,125,122	59.5
UTAH	3,290,906	3,143,906	95.5	147,000	4.5
VERMONT	993,073	812,028	81.8	181,045	18.2
VIRGIN ISLANDS	541,564	78,472	14.5	463,092	85.5
VIRGINIA	7,592,934	7,159,816	94.3	433,118	5.7
WASHINGTON	5,686,598	3,993,341	70.2	1,693,257	29.8
WEST VIRGINIA	4,874,294	4,811,128	98.7	63,166	1.3
WISCONSIN	8,590,737	8,004,761	93.2	585,976	6.8
WYOMING	1,688,598	1,173,193	69.5	515,405	30.5
TOTALS	$568,058,781	$381,155,241	67.1%	$175,022,390	30.8%

(LInk to a “preliminary” for 2010, same report):

“CHILD SUPPORT IS WELFARE link” points out that the primary part of welfare is Title IV-A — and that the other parts (B, C, IV-D=child support, E=adoption, etc.) are primarily to recoup expenditures from A)

The Social Security Act is made up of 21 “Titles”, each numbered in sequence using Roman numerals:

The fourth “Title” (Title IV) covers “grants to states for aid and services to needy families with children and for child-welfare services”: Therefore, Title IV creates and generally covers what most Americans refer to as the public “welfare” system.

Title IV currently has four parts (A, B, D, and E), with each part serving a particular function within the overall “welfare” system.

Part A—BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
Part B—CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Subpart 1—Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
Subpart 2—Promoting Safe and Stable Families
[Part C—Repealed.]
Part D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity

Sec. 451. [42 U.S.C. 651] For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State program funded under part A) for whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part.

Commentary from “Child Support is Welfare”

Originally, Title IV-D was created to reimburse taxpayers (the government) for what was being spent on providing Title IV-A/welfare/public assistance services. This was accomplished through the collection of “child support” from an absent/abandoning parent (who was believed to be the cause of the need for public assistance). This “child support” was then solely used to help repay welfare expenditures.

However, this is not the case today. The child support program has “evolved,” according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and now “child support is no longer primarily a welfare reimbursement, revenue-producing device for the Federal and State governments…”, as taken from Page 1 of the following OCSE publication:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2010/reports/preliminary_report_fy2009/#boxscores

A page full of bar charts, graphs and pies — but yes, it does verify that a lot of child support collection has NOTHING to do with welfare… This chart shows Administrative expenses 2005-2009. Please note the vertical axis is in Billions.

The data for figure 8 is after this graphic

The Federal share of total administrative expenditures increased by 5.4% in FY 2009, while the State share of total administrative expenditures decreased by 9.0%.

How many children are in these programs?

The data for figure 10 is after this graphic

While I”m in the vicinity, notice that in 2009 UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS were:

As we can see from the top chart, the children’s lives are going to be primarily affected by who puts more money into (at least “administrative support”) of the child support system, overall — the federal government is putting in the larger share, and so is in reality the “controlling” interest — although as we can see, it’s not exerting that much control when it comes to how much ends up in slush funds, black holes, kickbacks, or unaccounted for….. Millions are being collected, and not going to parents.

Parts of me wonder whether (like I eventually got to the point) custodial parents realized what kind of hell they might go through if, being somehow Title IV-D, they actually attempted to enforce a child support order — they’d be subjected to prolonged custody litigation, funded in part by these incentives…. The opposing side would be getting legal help — and the opposing side also might be a father who didn’t even WANT custody, but had to choose between extortion-level child support, and going along with the program at hand. As well as simply men who are not motivated like Good Dads would be — which is, they wouldn’t need the strong arm of the law to care about their kids. I think this happens more than we realize….

ALSO note:

According to OCSE statistics, almost half (43%) of the current national child support program caseload is made up of those who NEVER received public assistance, as taken from Figure 1 of this preliminary report for 2009:

Further, that same report indicates that only 14% of the current caseload are actually receiving public assistance.

Annually, taxpayers spend a total of $5.8 BILLION on just the administrative expenditures of collecting child support (Figure 8 of the same report), with an additional $504 Million in incentive funding as well.

This means that BILLIONS of our tax dollars are being spent on paying for a government agency to collect money for people who could otherwise collect that money on their own.

Imagine what our country could do with just 43% of $6.3B ($2.7B) if we as a nation decided that taxpayers shouldn’t be responsible for the bad choices that rich people make, and kicked the middle/upper class out of the child support/welfare system…

ACTUALLY, the “we as a nation” needs to continue understanding that they are being stolen from in multiple initiatives that have one result: to FORCE what would otherwise be middle class people able to handle their lives a little better (for how rich people handle their lives, see articles on “ACS” and Darwin Deason, below) was there not a system to force many of them onto welfare, while justifying this as reducing welfare.

I’m going to take a risk here, and summarize a private conversation about how come the HHS “Office of Audit Services” (OAS) seems rather lax on actually auditing a huge restructuring (nationwide) of the US Child Support Enforcement system based on a 1996 huge restructuring (nationwide) of welfare called PROWRA. This was expressed by a friend of mine who has been involved in some “forensic accounting” around US Courts and individual cases, including from what I can stand her own — as opposed to attending White House vigils and pleading for mercy and/or attention and press coverage of a personal plight or anecdote, which seems to bring out the worst in the AFCC-run courthouses:

[family court cases can get sand-bagged] initially by magistrates, friends of the court, and commissioners who are county employees paid to create collaborative programs with county agencies like CPS and DCSS. {{meaning, Child Support agencies}} The county recieves $2 from HHS for every $1 of child support that it collects. If the state does not disburse child support after 3 years, the state and the feds split the support plus interest 66/34. The state recieves a bonus from HHS every time the open or enforce a child support case. The states are financially rewarded for opening TANF cases.

Yes, they are — see incentives law.

That’s odd, because most of the programs were sold as stopping welfare. For example, fatherhood rhetoric almost says “welfare queen,” i.e., going after nonpaying fathers to help the mothers get off welfare. Because fatherlessness causes abuse — don’t we all except this yet? — then the obvious solution to “abuse” is fatherhood promotion.

Actually, the primary abuse is perhaps of privilege, and authority….

There is no incentive to disburse child support, they are not tracking the money, and the reports show that even if states do get caught, the feds dont care about anything except whether the 66% share was correctly calculated. Stealing from children is encouraged and rewarded, and while they starve and are put on the welfare, parents are wrongly prosecuted and the money goes to the general funds and handed to crooked people.

“Expenditures. Total administrative expenditures were $5.8 billion in FY 2009, a 0.4 percent decrease over those in the previous year (Table P-3). This is the first reduction in total administrative expenditures in the history of the Child Support Program. The Federal share of expenditures was $3.9 billion, and the State share was $2.0 billion (Table P-1).”

This chart shows “Never assistance” (meaning, NON-welfare cases….); compare to the other categories:

Nationwide Boxscores
Nationwide Boxscores		% change from FY 08
Collections Distributed	$26,385,592,827	-0.7%
– Current Assistance

$978 million$978,127,0900.0%

– Former Assistance

$9.3 billion$9,293,931,882-6.5%

– Never Assistance

$close to 12 Billion$11,936,424,5420.1%

– Medicaid Assistance$4,177,109,31312.2%Total Expenditures$5,849,699,175-0.4%Cost Effectiveness ($ Change)$4.78-$0.02Paternities & Acknowledgements1,810,5640.7%Orders Established1,267,4376.3%Full Time Equivalent Staff58,516-2.5%Total Caseload15,797,7680.8%- Current Assistance2,179,6526.4%- Former Assistance6,872,007-2.8%- Never Assistance6,746,1092.9%Net Undistributed Collections$588,520,419-16.4%Arrears Amounts Due$107,638,651,6772.0%

CSE Highlights:
In 2007, 92 percent of child support collections have gone to families. Welfare recipients now make up just 14 percent of our caseload; the largest group of clients is families who no longer need public assistance, in large part because of child support collections. Preliminary data indicate that, in FY 2007:”

This is exactly what the OAS audit reports state. They show no concern about the fact that millions are sitting undistributed.

Fathers (from whom a lot of this money comes — though not ONLY from them, I must point out) are a little quicker to report this — as mothers are busy being taught to talk about who hurt them and how, and are in many cases legitimately pre-occupied with this, i.e., there are criminal matters being handled in the family court system too often. But even so, mothers should be smart enough to start paying attention to what fathers are reporting IN ADDITION to the psychological dramas.

DadsAmerica.org

Undistributed child support that has been collected from Fathers

States report an undistributed funds pool of over $634 million at the end of 2000 in
collected but undistributed child support. Most states cannot explain the existence
of the fund pools nor do they know to whom the money rightfully belongs. For
example, in California, there is an unexplainable $192 million or so that is
reported to the Federal Office of Child Support as net undistributed funds, but only
$45 million in actual cash. The other approximately $148 million cannot be accounted
for. It is quite possible that money has been diverted to general fund accounts. In
Michigan, the amount of undistributed funds doubled from about $20 million in 2000
to $40 million in 2001 and Tennessee has the highest rate/case of undistributed 
funds at $71 million at the end of 2001. (See Chart 2)

NEW YORK COMPTROLLER caught on to some of this back in 2004:

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

Undistributed Child Support (Follow-Up Review)

Certain payments for child support are not paid directly to the custodial parent, such as payments intended for public assistance recipients and payments withheld from paychecks or tax refunds. In New York State, such child support payments are collected by the local social services districts (57 counties and New York City), and the local districts are expected to forward the payments to the custodial parents. However, in some instances, such as when a custodial parent cannot be located, payments cannot be forwarded and remain undistributed. In our initial audit report 2001-S-32, we examined the actions taken by the local districts and the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the districts, in attempting to minimize the amount of undistributed child support payments. We found that these actions varied in different local districts and were often labor-intensive. We recommended that OTDA monitor the local districts more closely to identify best practices and districts in need of assistance. We also recommended that OTDA make certain improvements in the automated information system used by the districts to maintain information about child support cases. In our follow-up review, we found that progress had been made in implementing our audit recommendations.

For a complete copy of Report 2004-F-25 click here.
For a copy of the 90-day response click here.

From Report 2004-F-25:

“The amount of undistributed child support payments in New York State at the time of our initial audit exceeded $70 million.

Before I give more examples, let’s look at this GAO report in 2004. Note: After reading several HHS/OAS audits (in some alarm), I began simply searching the term “Undistributable” (Or Undistributed) Child Support Collections” and reading. That’s how I found this one:

U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) report 04-377

Child Support Enforcement: Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed

GAO-04-377 March 19, 2004

[$657 Million Undistributed from 2002, UP from $545 in 1999 — maybe — we don’t know for sure]

Summary

Congress established the child support enforcement program in 1975 to ensure that parents financially supported their children. State agencies administer the program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services oversees it. ***

*** no mention here that as of 1996, Welfare overhaul by legislation forced most states to centralize distribution units and made a concerted effort to call all child support cases, in fact, welfare cases (even when they weren’t). See bottom of about 2 posts ago, where I found this policy right in the Texas law on the Centralizing of the State Distribution Unit. I just picked up that this Federal-level report is saying, it’s the States’ responsibility (although if they don’t behave, of course the government could technically enforce by refusing to fund TANF the next year….)….. It IS the state’s responsibility, but the Federal Level has co-opted and is intent to oversee it.

In 2002, state agencies collected over $20 billion in child support, but $657 million in collections from 2002 and previous years were undistributed–funds that were delayed or never reached families. One method used to collect child support, intercepting federal tax refunds, involves all state agencies, OCSE, and two Department of the Treasury agencies–the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Financial Management Service (FMS). GAO was asked to address (1) how the total amount of undistributed collections changed over the years, (2) the causes of undistributed collections, (3) states’ efforts to reduce these funds, and (4) OCSE’s efforts to assist states. GAO analyzed OCSE data, administered a survey, visited 6 state agencies and interviewed officials.

We have 50 states — 6 states were visited (probably not the counties within the states…).

OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.

OK, let’s get this straight: The “Office of Child Support Enforcement” (Budget — give or take how many billion/year, not including $10 million for access & visitation, also poorly monitored, if that)?) – – – provided the GAO with information that “may not be accurate.” . . .. and the OCSE HAS NO PROCESS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS DATA. (This, almost 10 years after welfare reform and 4 years after they deadline given the states to centralize or be excommunicated from receiving welfare, period.).

Perhaps this is because so long as OCSE KEEPS GETTING FEDERAL FUNDING/APPROPRIATIONS & THE 66% KICKBACK FROM MUCH OF IT, THAT”S OK IF A LOT GOES DOWN A BLACK HOLE OF “WE DON’T KNOW WHERE IT IS.”

Based on state agencies’ survey responses, GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000. (EACH, PROBABLY….) — that’s in just about 1/10th of the states — because only 6 agencies were visited.

…

OCSE has provided some assistance to help state agencies reduce their undistributed collections. However, the Department of the Treasury has not provided OCSE information that would allow state agencies to distribute collections from joint tax refunds to families sooner. Further, OCSE’s efforts to obtain this information have been minimal.

OCSE, in other words, wasn’t trying too hard either…. Perhaps they were more focused on engaging fathers in early childhood learning and finding media coverage to promote the concept — (I’m remember Nicholas Soppa, an OCSE employee, head of “Project Save Our Children” which relates to enforcement efforts — and he was allegedly spending weekends in jail for nonsupport in his own case. During the week he was released to come out and lecture other fathers to pay up, in his government job at OCSE. I don’t have the date on this (possibly 2/28/2001, last updated), but we see David Gray Ross signed the letter, and see acknowledgements:

Involving Non-Resident Fathers In Children’s Learning

Foreword and Acknowledgements

[ Main Page of Report | Table of Contents ]

Foreword

Children need and deserve financial and emotional support from both their parents. You will see from this publication how important it can be to have dad’s involvement in children’s education. The positive effects of father involvement have been a fairly consistent finding in studies of two-parent families. Now a growing body of research is showing that financial support and the positive involvement of a father, including cooperation between parents, increase positive outcomes for children who do not live with both of their parents.

Moreover, research that separates father involvement from mother involvement is telling us that fathers have an independent effect on child well-being. For example, the father’s parenting style, level of closeness, monitoring, and other family processes affect the child’s development.

In the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, we continue to work with our partners in seeking innovative ways to engage fathers as active participants in their children’s lives. This publication is one example. Another example is our recent partnership with states and the Advertising Council, Inc. We developed a national multi-media campaign to create an awareness of the responsibilities of fathers and of the importance of a non-resident father to his children.

This is obviously higher priority than respecting the Dad’s time (and the legislative intent in setting up the child support agency to start with) by actually getting child support garnished from his (or sometimes, a Mom’s) paycheck and tax rebates TO the children, thereby positively impacting their household’s (as opposed to program operatives and state/federal government’s) bottom line>

We know that most fathers want to be good parents to their children and do the right thing by them. With a tag line of “They’re Your Kids, Be Their Dad,” the public service announcements bring into sharp focus the importance of fathers to their children.

Other projects we support will test approaches that serve young, never-married, non-resident parents who do not have a child support court order in place and may face obstacles to employment. Activities will include fatherhood and parenting workshops, transportation assistance, educational and career planning services, financial planning, skill education, the voluntary establishment of paternity, and other services.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the following people and organizations who were instrumental in developing and producing these materials:

Principal authors of the report: Ken Canfield, National Center for Fathering, and Lisa A. Gilmore, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Contributors: We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Father-to-Father, a national effort to unite men in the task of being a strong and positive force in their children’s lives, whose members generously provided their ideas, experiences, and expertise. In addition, we express our sincere thanks to Grantmakers for Children, Youth and Families for allowing us to reprint the entire section on Research and Practice-Focused Resources on Fathers and Families, published in the April 2000 issue of GCYF Insight.

Artwork: Original cover and interior illustrations by Rene Sterling, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Special thanks for the support of our colleagues:

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Kevin Thurm, Deputy Secretary and chair of the HHS Fatherhood Initiative; David Gray Ross, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF); Frank Fuentes, Associate Commissioner, OCSE; David H. Siegel, Phil Sharman, Nicholas Soppa, Harold Staten, and Andrew Williams, OCSE

. . . .There are many more, but I”l just skip forward to the last few acknowledgements:

From the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education (PFIE): We also would like to acknowledge each of the following organizations and their representatives who participate as family-school members of PFIE: Sue Ferguson, National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education; Darla Strouse, Maryland State Department of Education; Justine Handelman, MARC Associates; Ken Canfield, National Center for Fathering; Neil Tift, National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, Inc.; Jim Levine, Families and Work Institute/The Fatherhood Project; Frank Kwan, Los Angeles County Office of Education; and David Hirsch, Illinois Fatherhood Initiative.

Acknowledgment is also due to the Office of the Vice President for its leadership role and support for the initial teleconference “Fathers Matter!” which aired on October 28, 1999.

Meanwhile, RandiJames July 2009 commentary on Mr. Soppa’s unique work arrangement for nonpayment of his own support is here:

They’re Your Kids, Be Their Dad and Pay Up: Child Support Head, Nicholas Soppa, Not Paying~~Child~~ “Family” Support

However, OCSE has morphed and extended its original interests. The child support collections aren’t so much about the children as they are a means for the states to secure extra income for custody litigation and building supervised visitation centers for parents with violent, criminal histories.

Who is running these agencies? First, we have the lovely David Gray Ross of Maryland. Then, we have Nicholas Soppa…interestingly also of Maryland.

For information about the national Project Save Our Children task force, contact Nick Soppa at 202-401-4677 or nicholas.soppa@acf.hhs.gov project manager

Our ~~elected~~ appointed officials are running game in our government offices. I know that’s of no news to many of you, but agenda is bleeding all over the place…in the name of “saving our children.”

How is Nicholas Soppa saving our children?

I’m glad you asked.

Nicholas Soppa is on work-release and is spending his weekends in a Calvert County jail for…um…how do I tell you this?…~~FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT~~ UNDISCLOSED REASONS (edited by moderator))!!!

Courtesy of the Calvert County Circuit Court, case #04C08001101

Defendant/Respondent Information

Party Type: Defendant
Party No.:1
Name: Soppa, Nicholas Henry

That blog also has a good post on ‘David Gray Ross? Obama, You got to be shittin’ me,’ also revealing him on the Board of CRC (Children’s Rights Council) and it’s a good read. she’s protesting Obama’s appoint of this man to an HHS transition team….

He has received awards from:

National Practioner’s Network For Fathers and Families

Increase Access and Visitation Services for Non-custodial Parents. As more non- custodial fathers benefit from the services and supports received from participation in responsible fatherhood programs, become able to pay regular child support, and re- enter the mainstream of community life, they are also increasing their willingness and desire to be active and engaged parents, to see their children regularly, and to be involved in their children’s activities—such as school and recreation. In many instances, their desire to be involved parents is met with resistance from the mothers of their children and other adults and agencies that may prevent fathers from connecting with their children. States need to have additional guidance and resources to enhance access and visitation services that will reduce the barriers to father involvement. NPNFF recommends that provisions be added to pending TANF reauthorization to increase the Federal government’s investment in encouraging states to increase access and visitation services for non-custodial parents. Improving fathers’ access to their children can reduce conflict and strengthen relationships between parents, thereby leading to healthier family environments for children.

National Child Support Enforcement Association

NCSEA serves child support professionals, agencies, and strategic partners worldwide through professional development, communications, public awareness, and advocacy to enhance the financial, medical, and emotional support that parents provide for their children.

Children’s Rights Council

Unlike many other organizations with some of the same concerns, CRC is genderless; we are not a women’s group nor a men’s group. Rather, we advocate what we believe to be in the best interests of children.

For the child’s benefit, CRC:

* advocates a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting in divorce custody orders
* believes in balanced and comprehensive child support: financial, emotional, and physical
* works to transform the typical adversarial divorce process into one of conciliation and mediation
* favors parenting education and school-based programs for children at risk
* believes two parents and the kinship network are the best first line of defense

It should not be surprising that 85% of the men in prison today come from fatherless homes. Teenage girls who grow up with single parents are also more likely to engage in promiscuous sex or turn to prostitution.

If David Gray Ross believed this as a judge, what kind of judge was he, then? (In addition to, we heard, also behind in his own child support case).

…..

Ohio child support collection agency sued

On behalf of Ralph A. Kerns & Associates posted in Child Support on Thursday, May 19, 2011

Ten years ago, the state of Ohio was sued by a group of parents who claimed that the state was withholding child support money. As a result, the state paid millions of dollars to custodial parents who were not distributed the correct amount of child support.

But earlier this month, another legal claim was filed against the state of Ohio and the state’s Department of Job and Family Services. Allegations are that the agency has been over-collecting child support and failing to inform parents of the actual status of their payments. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of parents who need the child support to provide for their children.

The lawsuit claims that the Ohio agency knew that parents were paying more child support than necessary and not seeing those payments go to the custodial parent. The state has said that the problem originates from computer glitches, but some believe it could be a bigger problem. In fact, an example was given of a father who had to pay the state child support even though the child was in his custody.

In addition, a parent in Ohio who fails to make child support payments can go to prison for falling behind. But if there are computer glitches, are some parents going to jail even though they have actually made timely payments?

Right now, there are millions of dollars in undistributed child support in Ohio alone. How many families are unable to provide for their children because of this undistributed money? National concern has been sparked over this issue as more child support collection agencies across the nation are being accused of deceptive practices.

At this point, it is not certain whether Ohio agencies are intentionally withholding child support or simply dealing with some technological difficulties. Regardless, custodial parents rely on child support to provide food, clothes, and shelter for their children. Going without that financial support can make things more difficult for all.

Source: The Sacramento Bee online, “Child Support Overpayments: Lawsuit Alleges State Withholds Too Much Money, Unfairly Charging Parents and U.S. Taxpayers,” 10 May 2011 [That link is broken…]

Further lookups on “Undistributable Child Support” show an Ohio Divorce? attorney’s blog, indicating that the issue of child support triggered a man PUNCHING his wife in front of a judge on the issue, in chambers! Oh — and the judge “hadn’t realized” he was violent, although the wife had tried previously (and been rejected) for restraining orders. Both husband and wife were Marines:

THIS HHS/OAS report on (a small section!) of Colorado, reveals the changeover from 1994 through 2000, and how when TITLE IV-D is NOT involved (i.e., one parent pays the other one DIRECTLY (meaning, no wage garnishments, I gather), then the clerks of court handled it, but with the rest, it’s centrally disbursed, with a certain “ACS” agency being the contractor. See “Executive Summary.” (This ‘scribd” link would most likely also be available on the main HHS/OIG site I have link to on these pages — under “ACF Archived Documents” as to reports).

Report 07-07-04106, Nov 2007 (review of periods 1998 through 2005)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The Child Support Enforcement program is a Federal, State, and local partnership, established in
1975 under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, to collect child support payments for
distribution to custodial parents. Within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
provides Federal oversight.

OCSE requires States to offset Child Support Enforcement program costs by recognizing and
reporting program income from Title IV-D undistributable child support collections and interest
earned on child support collections.

It only makes sense to do this with the truly “undistributable” collections (other than to stop collecting funds that can’t be sent right on to the kids’ households!) — because after all, each year, the state is going to want MORE enforcement funds.

Specifically, the instructions for Federal forms OCSE-34A, “OCSE Child Support Enforcement Program Quarterly Report of Collections,” and OCSE-396A, “Child Support Enforcement Program Financial Report,” used to report undistributable
collections and program income, respectively, require States to report program income for
undistributable collections when State law considers them abandoned.

In Colorado, the Department of Human Services (State agency) administers the federally
mandated program through the Office of Self Sufficiency.The State agency uses the Automated
Child Support Enforcement System (ACSES) as a tool to help locate absent parents, establish
paternity, establish and monitor child and medical support, enforce child and medical support,
monitor collection and distribution of support payments, and to interface and cooperate with
Federal and other State systems.

Before 1994, the Clerk of the District Court offices for each county in Colorado processed child
support collections.

In 1994, the Family Support Registry was established, and the State of Colorado contracted with

Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) to process all child support
collections and disbursements.By July 2000, all child support payments in Colorado, except
those paid by the non-custodial parent directly to the custodial parent,** were to be processed
through the Family Support Registry.

**these could not be Title IV-D, because parent receiving help through Title IV-A would have to sign over collection rights to the state (or is it, county).

Therefore, the state, county, and federal government make no real profit (or have no incentive) to work on enforcing where parents have their own support orders.

As the county Clerk of the District Court offices stopped processing child support collections,they generally transferred the remaining undistributable child support collections to either theFamily Support Registry or the State Treasurer as abandoned property.Although the FamilySupport Registry processes all child support collections, the Clerk of the District Court officescontinued to hold undistributable child support collections they collected before July 2000.

It says right above, that even after 2000, if the parents paid each other directly, payments did NOT come through this Family Support Registry. I don’t see why the clerks couldn’t have continued to handle these, if they wanted to. What OCSE is really upset about is the failure to transfer balances to them to help IT look better (balance budget) and/or get that 66%.

Pursuant to the Colorado statutes, undistributable child support collections are considered abandoned if the owner has not claimed them within one year. (PRETTY FAST!)

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine whether the State agency appropriately recognized and reported program income for undistributable child support collections and interest earned on child support collections.

I”m getting a little off the beaten path, however, ACS is another giant company. Remember how I keep saying, the safest place to work in an economy like ours is FOR the government in some facet of oppressing poor people, or people who got snared somehow into a governmental institution? ACS is hiring:

Affiliated Computer Services plans to hire 600 people in Colorado Springs

Comments 25

June 29, 2009 5:10 PM

WAYNE HEILMAN

THE GAZETTE

The struggling Colorado Springs economy got a much-needed shot in the arm Monday when a Dallas-based outsourcing giant announced plans to hire 600 people by the end of August for a customer service center it is opening.

The center, planned by Affiliated Computer Services Inc., is the biggest local business relocation or expansion announced since T. Rowe Price Group Inc. announced plans in June 2006 to expand a local customer service center and add 650 employees. The project also includes the most hiring by any company coming to the Springs since ICT Group Inc. opened a customer service center in 2003 with plans to employ more than 1,000. That center closed last year.

The Affiliated Computer Services announcement comes as more than 25,000 Colorado Springs area residents were out of work and the area’s unemployment rate was at 8.1 percent in May, the most recent available data and the highest seasonally adjusted rate in more than a decade. The announcement is the eighth this year by companies that, combined, say they plan to hire 1,395 people within five years; those gains have been partly offset by 842 layoffs by 16 local employers.

Well that’s efficient. Just imagine — some poor slob gets behind on his child support payments (OR, pays them — and it’s sitting in some undistributable pool, not reaching his kids) — but he can make up for lost times by working for ACS to help garnish someone else’s wages — and then possibly get his garnished too, if they catch up with him. That way the public can pay for all this by paying the IRS< and that’s 650 fewer jobs not out-sourced at least to India, the Philippines, etc.

“This is excellent news for a large number of our work force and our city,” said Mike Kazmierski, president and chief executive of the Colorado Springs Regional Economic Development Corp., which helped bring Affiliated to the Springs.

Fred Crowley, senior economist for the Southern Colorado Economic Forum, estimated that spending by Affiliated’s employees will generate another 350-400 jobs during the next year in the local economy at grocery stores, auto dealers and other businesses.
Affiliated, which employs 74,000 at more than 500 locations worldwide, will open the 34,000-square-foot center in the space it is leasing in the Verizon Communications Inc. complex at 2424 Garden of the Gods Road.

Read more: http://www.gazette.com/news/computer-57539-services-affiliated.html#ixzz1SrzKzXr3

I read a few of the comments; one reader from Oregon and another from Arizona talk about how corrupt it is, they felt used:

I suggest that people read the comments about this company from former employees that was linked to by a previous poster. Amazing stuff what they pull on their employees:

http://www.indeed.com/forum/cmp/Affiliated-Computer-Services/Affiliated-Computer-Services-Salaries-Bonuses-Benefits/t8199

” Do not work for ACS. I currently work for them and have for 3-4 years. I have submitted about 50+ resumes to various companies as have MANY of the employees here, and nobody will hire us because of our affiliation with ACS. The engagement that I work for used to be owned by Enron, which was Arthur Anderson. ACS bought that engagement but kept all the management staff on. Stay away from this company, it is extremely corrupt, from top to bottom.”

”

s johnson in Raleigh, North Carolina said: DO NOT apply to ACS. It is a horrible company in every way. Scratch this company COMPLETELY off your list!!!

only if you are desparate should you even consider working at acs. by desparate i mean homeless, no money, nothing!!!! this place is the worst place i have ever been involved with. first of all the management sucks! the only reason they are there is no one else would hire them. they change their minds constantly. we never know what we are making salarywise. some of the long time employees actually took pay cuts. we have been told we will no longer get raises. there is so much verbal abuse coming from management’s mouths. you constantly hear public humiliation coming out of their mouths. they hire young kids to be supervisors, kids with no experience beyond acs or burger king. the reason is that way when acs gets in trouble, they can blame the entry level sups who know nothing and will do anything they are told. our human resource director recently left. now we have to contact an hr call center if we want to get any advice, and some of those people don’t even speak english as their first language! they must be outsourced to mexico or someplace else. one woman i work with recently was told by her supervisor that he forbids her to call the hr call center (like he can stop her!). apparently she filed a complaint against this supervisor and he had to talk his way out of the mess. many of us are just waiting for the day that acs in gresham oregon shuts the doors for good. eventually this will all catch up with them. one other thing, if you have a sprint phone, chances are you speak to an acs employee if you phone customer service. my suggestion is to get rid of sprint cell service asap! they aren’t doing too great, and they lie, lie, lie!” (ETC, pretty much along the same lines!)

Anonymous in Tualatin, Oregon said: …I would have been making 10.25 but the entire quality department was eliminated without notice from the site and state for that matter and moved to Juarez,Tx/Mx. where they pay at a lower pay scale. I was in an mid level acting position for an unsaid amount of time and found out after 6 months that I was 2 days from being permeneant when a vicious rumor of my unprofessional behavior would have me removed. My theory….after being ridiculed by HR about my attitude, which no direct quote or statement could be provided to me just that I was being removed and they have the right to do that. So no fact on the basis of their complaint…thats when I got the attitude to be honest. I was offered 38,000 annual salary to perform a mid level management position that was pulled from underneath me after all my hard efforts, not to mention cleaning up an entire department, to have the position given to …(NOW CATCH THIS)a lower paid and already salaried employee who is still working for the same pay…

I remember you fondly and the facts that (1) you did an EXCELLENT job and (2)cared about providing an excellent service. I, too, was accused of something that (in NO way) I could not possibly have done. I couldn’t “prove” my innocence (this was not possible for someone in my position, but I do know who the actual perpetrator is) and was terminated. I wish you luck and know you’ll get a reward some day, if not in this life, certainly in the next. I would hire you.

if you look at our paychecks, you will see that some of us are actually getting dollars taken out (we see a minus when we review what we were supposed to be getting). i was told it’s not up to me to understand it. others were told that they didn’t meet certain stat goals. that is horse pucky! we are promised a certain wage and they cannot take that away from us. when one woman questioned her supervisor, the reply was “we checked on it and it is legal.” if they had checked with the bureau of labor they would have found out the opposite. several of us have filed complaints with the bureau of labor here in oregon, some still work there, some don’t. believe me, they will be surprised when they found out that some of their former loyal employees are going after them, people that never made any waves. several of us are waiting for the day that the site is shut down. we just hope we will last that long, as we want to hold the door open for the gm, ops mgrs, etc. as they are escorted out, as they will never be able to get a cushy job like they have now, as they have no morales and are really not skilled. the only way they could have gotten their jobs is by selling the souls to the devil!

…I worked for ACS for 6 months. From the start I was made fun of due to my age and military record by their young supervisor, who had absolutely no training or leadership knowledge. 2nd level supervisors did not help in the situation. I filed a grievance with the company only to have everyone concerned lie through their teeth. ACS Ombudsman rejected my grievance because they “could not substantiate my allegations”. Having been an area supervisor for the FAA, with many management training courses under my hat, I resigned my position considering this extremely insulting. I await the Civil Rights investigation to conlude as I filed an age discrimination grievance at the federal level; something ACS cannot rig to their advantage.

///

he ACS location in Lexington,KY on Fortune Drive is a joke — the General Manager has a high school education, college drop out after 1 year — has no previous Call Center experience and makes more than $100K per year. She will fire anyone at the drop of a hat – without explanation. She has set up dozens of people to be fired – she thrives on gossip and drama – she has taken numerous employees out on her drinking binges, even in the middle of the work day, and then fires them for drinking on the job – yet she bought the alcohol herself!
She will throw her own mother under the bus just to get one step forward.
The GM in Lexington approves of Supervisors dialing into the Sprint monitoring system in order to ‘bill’ out the Supervisors salaries, and then the Sups lay the phone down and don’t take calls while dialed in.
The Sprint Manager onsite allows this to happen because he will not deal with issues.
The GM lies daily, keeps constant turmoil going, has her own ‘personal parties’ at her home with her ‘girls’ on a weekly basis – and the Sprint Manager does nothing.
One supervisor after another has affairs with their own employees, and the GM and Sprint Onsite Manager does nothing.
The site is losing money by the day, and the executives could not care less.
Why does ACS have such a bad reputation as an employer? Because all ACS’s are the same. They lie, they abuse their employees, they offer nothing for benefits and the promise a good life. Sure, for those high-school educated, college drop outs who lie on their resume and get hired because no one else will hire them! One of the CEO’s of ACS lives in Lexington, drives a $100K car – and they will not provide health insurance that their $10/hour employees can afford.
HYPOCRIT – THY NAME IS ACS ON FORTUNE DRIVE!

– Was this comment helpful? Yes (18) / No (1)Reply – Report abuse

WOW — and I didn’t even get through the comments list: Usernames such as “RUNfromACS” and “God No!!!” are there. People say they felt slimed by the experience; and here’s someone involved with the new Colorado Call Center:

Hello. Here is my opinion, and experience, on ACS. They have a new call center opening up in Colorado Springs, so I applied in July. During my interview with them, I was told that I would be making 9.00 hr to start during training and then the pay would go up after the three week training. However, in training they told us a completely different pay scale. The ABC scale, which meant that maybe we would only be making minimum wage depending on our performance. Then later in training we were told ANOTHER pay scale would be used, which was based on attendance, AHT, and quality. Training was lousy, the trainers were still learning everything we were, we had barely any hands on experience. The phones weren’t hooked up by the time we were done with training, so they gave us an extra two weeks in which we still barely had any hands on training, they drilled quality into our heads though, and had it not been for the phone delay, we would all have gone out to the floor blind to what quality expected from us, and blind to a plethora of other issues we did not learn in training. Now, here’s the big part of my point. They fired my room mate, because she was sick during training, even though they said not to worry and just come back on that Friday. It took them a month to send out her final check, and that was only after she bugged them repeatedly. According to the law, an employer has 48 hours to cut someone their final check. Now they are doing the same thing to me. My last day was about two weeks ago, I worked one week into the pay period. Today is payday. I still haven’t seen my check. I called Payroll to get some info on it, and he had no clue to the whereabouts of my check, and that he would get back to me in 24 hours. It’s Friday, so that means in three days. These people contract through other places, and so they feel that they can work around the system. They are a horrible company to work for, and I do not recommend it to anybody!

! ! !

ACS is a Texas Fortune 500 company? Here’s Corporation Wiki:
And here’s a plain old “Wiki” including that it’s under SEC investigation for executives backdating stock options for the periods 1994-2005 (hmm, see above):

Affiliated Computer Services Inc. (ACS) provides information technology services as well as business process outsourcingsolutions to businesses, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. ACS is based in Dallas, Texas and the current CEO is Lynn Blodgett. ACS is ranked at number 341 on the 2010 Fortune 500 list.^[3] Founded in 1988, by Darwin Deason, ACS now operates in nearly 100 countries, generating over $6 billion annually. As of September 2009, ACS employs approximately 74,000 people.^[4]

On September 28, 2009, Xerox Corporation announced plans to acquire ACS in a $6.4 billion transaction.^[5] The deal closed on February 8, 2010.^[6]

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) was founded by Darwin Deason in 1988. Initially created as a data services provider to the financial services industry, Deason led ACS’ expansion into the communications, education, financial services, government, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, retail, and travel and transportation industries.[4]

ACS expanded beyond banking BPO services when it signed a 10-year data processing outsourcing contract with Southland Corp. (7-Eleven). In 1995 ACS became a public company and divested bank data processing. By FY1996 ACS became the fourth largest commercial outsourcer in the U.S.[5]

AND GET THIS — is this who we want collecting child support and tracking it? Sounds like a bunch of crooks who got caught!

SEC Investigation

In 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified ACS that they are conducting an informal investigation into certain stock option grants made by the Company from October 1998 through March 2005.^[7] This was due to the improper and unethical practice of back-dating stock options to specific low points in the stock value. ACS said the executives improperly backdated the price of options grants during a period from 1994 to 2005. During that time, ACS said the executives deliberately chose days on which ACS’s stock took a dip as the effective date for the options, making them more valuable when exercised. Rich, King, and Edwards “used hindsight to select favorable grant dates,” ACS said in a statement.^[8] CEO Mark King and CFO Warren Edwards, both implicated in the wrongdoing, resigned immediately. The former CEO Jeff Rich retired in the beginning of the year, taking an $18.4 million buyout of his backdated options. The $18.4 million buyout of his backdated options resulted in no bonuses to be handed out to the entire company. Also, Jeff Rich announced his intention to resign in September of 2005 because of growing personal problems and the fear of being caught for backdating stock options. He received councel to resign from his Young Presidents Organization. ^[9]

He literally took the money ($18.4 million in backdated options) — and ran!

During the internal probe, which was conducted on behalf of ACS by former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, investigators sifted through more than 2 million pages of hard copy and e-mails. Electronic documents created prior to 2000 weren’t searchable because they lacked the necessary metadata, ACS said.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York are continuing to investigate options dating at ACS. The company in a statement said that it is cooperating with the investigators. Calls to ACS officials were not immediately returned.

ACS said it estimates the practice cost the company $51 million in unrecorded expenses.

If that’s not “reassuring” enough, here’s a 2007 article that has become all too familiar in these fields of outsourced child support collections (although this is perhaps another branch of ACF’s operations):

ACS To Pay $2.6 Million To Settle Federal Fraud Charges

Jul 9, 2007Under contract with a local government agency in Dallas, ACS was tasked with enrolling individuals in benefits programs funded by the federal agencies. By Paul McDougall InformationWeek July 6, 2007 Outsourcer Affiliated Computer (ACS) Services has agreed to pay more than $2.6 million to settle charges it over billed the federal government

Outsourcer Affiliated Computer (ACS) Services has agreed to pay more than $2.6 million to settle charges it over billed the federal government for business services. Under a deal disclosed earlier this week by the office of U.S. Attorney Richard Roper, ACS will pay $2.65 million to the U.S. government to resolve charges under the False Claims Act.

The federal government alleged that ACS employees submitted a number of fake claims for payment from 2002 to 2005 for work related to outsourcing contracts funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Under contract with a local government agency in Dallas, ACS was tasked with enrolling individuals in benefits programs funded by the federal agencies. ACS’ compensation was based partly on the number of individuals enrolled.

In the statement, Roper, who represents the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas, said ACS fully cooperated with the subsequent federal investigation into the misconduct. Wednesday’s edition of the Dallas Morning News reported that four ACS employees were terminated as a result of their participation in the scheme.

ACS is the nation’s third-largest, pure-play outsourcing provider. Earlier this year, company founder and chairman Darwin Deason disclosed an effort to take the publicly traded company private in partnership with a private equity group. In June, ACS said it planned to solicit buyout offers from other parties in addition to Deason’s group.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=200900796

Tags: Affiliated Computer Services, Darwin Deason

WARNING — THIS article — about ACS cameras on Maryland helping him fight SEC charges — contains offensive language, probably because the writer is offended at ACS… Then again, some citizens were offended by the speed cameras proliferating in their area, with (it says) 40% of the fine going to ACS. One customer “mooned” (see article) the cameras, others apparently read aloud Orwell’s 1984 in a meeting. It gets the point across:

Darwin Deason Needs a New Yacht!
Speed Camera Bribes Attract Legislators Statewide.
Senate Revives Bill to Allow Use of Camera Scam Beyond Montgomery.

By SUDSY RAGABOND
The Assassinated Press
4/4/09

Darwin Deason needs a new yacht. And you know what that means–more speed camera tickets for you. His current yacht (pictured here) is just not lavish enough for the founder of Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) the company with speed trap contracts in Montgomery County. Every time one of Deason’s rigged cameras click he gets over 40% of the fine collected. Sweet.

The Apogee–all 205 feet of her.

Now, he needs a new yacht. The Apogee is just too humble to host the lavish parties that Deason throws with Maryland taxpayer money.

“Citizens have spray-painted the cameras and fired paintball pellets at them. One motorist addressed a letter of complaint about them to the “Extortion Enforcement Unit” apparently unaware that no Montgomery County employee ever sees its own citizens’ complaints. Those letters go to low level Deason employees who promptly add them to their circular file.

A passenger in a car on Georgia Avenue expressed himself by pushing his bare backside out an opened hatchback as the camera clicked. More-polite critics say they are creepy and intrusive and even Deason admits he likes to watch them as much as porn.

“But, shit, in the two years since Montgomery County became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to install my speed cameras, they have helped make me richer and I’ve used that money to fight SEC complaints against my company and break the law elsewhere,” Deason says. The cameras have generated more than 500,000 citations, at $40 a pop, netting more than $20 million much of that going to Deason for his new yacht. Apparently, one contract with Deason covers the percentage of the ticket ACS gets while another contract is for administration of the program. I bet all you dumb fucks who support this bullshit thought that this was a County program. Well, assholes, its not. It’s a private program that the County has outsourced to Deason and ACS.

And yesterday the legislature in Annapolis took a big step toward buying Deason that new yacht by allowing the cameras throughout Maryland.

Inbetween all the language and characterizations, the writer gets some budget in there, including how much the cameras are bringing in to the county, and how alleged “effectiveness” may be more related to people figuring out better neighborhoods to go “crash and shop” in, than one where they can get tickets.

As Deason’s legal bills mount and his docking fees go up ,the roadside cameras have proliferated across the country since the first were installed in Arizona two decades ago, according to Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which supports the cameras as long as their makers keep contributing to his Institute. They were installed in the District in 2001 and have reduced incomes dramatically giving out thousands of bogus tickets and reducing commerce in the city as people prefer to stay away rather than get a fraudulent ticket, police said. Virginia has resisted their use because of civil liberties concerns.

It is utter bullshit to say that the county and four municipalities — Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg, Rockville and Takoma Park — operate the cameras in Montgomery. Deason and ACS operate the cameras and the journalist who wrote this garbage ought to be fired. The county pays Deason to rig the largest number, 54 cameras. At seven locations studied, speeds decreased an average of 22 percent while rear end accidents rose 297% after cameras were installed, according to county police.

“We’ve been out there for 80-plus years trying to enforce speed limits the democratic way,” said Capt. John Damskey, head of the county police traffic section. “Speed cameras are an authoritarian technology that is proven to work and effect change, not all for the good mind you, but change nonetheless, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Besides Deason has invited me on his new yacht to party with some of his Dallas high rollers friends and their whores.”

In Chevy Chase, Deason installed cameras on a heavily traveled stretch of Connecticut Avenue, and the number of motorists roaring through the 30 mph zone at 25 to 29 mph fell by 73 percent, officials said. The number of crashes also fell, from 67 in the year before the cameras were installed to 44 in the year after as people went elsewhere to crash and shop. Businesses in the area reported a 68% down turn which the County has attributed to the economy in general not the fear of getting an arbitrary ticket from a camera operated by a documented confidence man….

The village of Chevy Chase cleared $1.6 million after Deason’s cut from Deason’s four speed cameras in 2008, a sum equal to a third of its annual budget while failing to take into account the money largely came from its already existing tax base and Deason got the lion’s share of it.

I couldn’t stand to read more than about a half page of this — but it does give insight into who runs the companies that collect child support:

Deason, and “Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless (2003)

FindArticles / Reference / D Magazine / Jun 01, 2003

by Rogers, Tim

ACCOUNTS DIFFER AS TO WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED ABOARD THE Cartoush II during its pleasure cruise in the Bahamas in September 2001. Darwin Deason denies that he threatened to kill the chef. Others claim he did. “There certainly was a threat of getting a gun and doing something,” says one person intimately acquainted with the details of the incident. As for the chef, he isn’t saying much.

The 118-foot luxury yacht ostensibly belonged to Deason, founder and chairman of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services, or ACS. Deason himself had overseen a major refit of the boat the year before, which entailed reinforcing the upper deck so that it could support a massive hot tub. Playing host to his friends on the boat, Deason liked to smoke marijuana and drink the unthinkable concoction of Diet Coke and Kahlua out of a large brandy snifter. The passengers on that particular voyage, besides the captain and crew of four, included former Cowboys punter Mike Saxon and his wife Suzanne; Dallasite CarterAbercrombie and his wife Angie; and Deason. He was 61 at the time. Having recently divorced his fourth wife, he was traveling without a companion.

The Cartoush was sailing the waters off the Exuma chain of islands when the trouble started. It was in the early afternoon, and Deason, for one reason or another, flew into a rage. “The guy was definitely having a psychotic episode,” says a source. He began yelling at the chef, Vinny Feola, who locked himself in his quarters. As the standoff dragged on for hours, the ship’s captain, Don Hopkins, worked the satellite phone, frantically trying to reach someone back in Dallas who could mollify Deason. Another source says that Deason pulled Saxon and Abercrombie aside and asked them, “Would you guys be willing to beat the shit out of the chef for me if I asked you to?”

. . .

Eventually Feola was put off the boat at tiny Staniel Cay, about 80 miles southeast of Nassau, where he was stuck for several days because all flights had been grounded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. “I really kind of don’t like to talk about it,” Feola says now. “For whatever reason, I wanted to get off the boat. I have nothing bad to say about anybody, and I never will say anything bad about anybody, because I believe in karma.”

Deason, now worth about $500 million, dismisses the entire incident as little more than a boisterous disagreement. Not every parting of ways ends with hugs and kisses (as any number of former Cartoush crewmembers could tell you, including three who summarily disembarked the day Deason came aboard for that Bahamian cruise). Assuming, then, that every story has two sides and the truth lies somewhere in between, we’re not really talking here about the commission of any crimes-except for the heinous cocktail of Diet Coke and Kahlua. But more on that later.

Rather, the serious matter-the one that may yet hold repercussions for Deason and for the Fortune 500 company still under his sway-isn’t what happened aboard the Cartoush. It turns out to be the Cartoush itself. In papers filed earlier this year in federal court, it is claimed that Deason, as the chairman and controlling stockholder of ACS, set up a complex scheme of off-balance-sheet corporations that, in essence, provided him free use of not only the Cartoush II and its predecessor, but also a squadron of private jets-all at the expense of taxpayers and the companies he controlled. The charges may interest the SEC and the IRS.

…Flip forward a few pages. Deason moves to Dallas and winds up, at age 39, launching Texas’ first ATM network. (Trivia buffs: it was called MPact, and it was late 1979.) From Deason’s 22nd-floor downtown office, the president and CEO of MTech grows his company 600 percent in less than five years, making it the largest bank-data processor in the country.

Which brings us to the three-day retirement. In 1988, with banks failing all over Texas, MTech’s majority owner, MCorp (holding company of once-an-icon Mercantile Bank), begins to slide toward Chapter 11. Reading the tea leaves, Deason puts together a $360 million management buyout of his firm. At the last second, though, Plano-based EDS raises its hand and shouts, “Four hundred and sixty-five million!” MTech is sold to the highest bidder. Deason is furious. He resigns some 90 minutes into his employment with EDS, apparently walking out before anyone can get him to sign a noncompete agreement. (WELL etc.)

I’ll stop here except to say, this article is worth reading;

“Holly says that the yacht-the Cartoush I-cost approximately $1.3 million and required a crew of five to maintain and operate. The boat never produced any revenue. Holly says Deason used it exclusively for personal pleasure throughout 2000 and into 2001. It was eventually sold at a substantial loss, Deason used up almost $4 million of the credit line extended to DDH-again, according to Holly-toward the purchase of a second yacht, the Cartoush II.

Again: even if true, there would be no earthshaking legal consequences solely from such corporate tomfoolery. Deason’s supposed grandiose living on the DDH expense account would only indirectly impact his own pocketbook and, to a lesser extent, those of his fellow stockholders.

However, Holly’s lawsuit alleges that DDH spent more than $5 million bankrolling Deason’s maritime hedonism, which amount, if it were never reimbursed, should have been recognized by Deason as taxable income in the form of non-cash compensation. At topend income tax rates, the plot outlined by Holly’s counterclaim regarding Deason’s misappropriation of the naval armada may have disguised up to $2 million that he would have had to pay.

“DDH” represents 3 men (Deason Debo, & Holly) who met — and one was a corporate pilot; hence this company DDH. Described here:

… he (Deason) began assembling what was reportedly the most expensive penthouse in all of Miami, eventually putting $5 million into the unfinished space. “I’ve always wanted a beach house,” Deason told the Miami Herald in 1997. He said his daughter, who was attending the University of Miami, introduced him to South Beach. “I absolutely fell in love with it. … Talk about bodies. You know, on the French Riviera, I always say, eight out of 10 women are topless, and only one should be. On South Beach, eight out of 10 are topless, and eight out of 10 should be.”

Darwin was living large: a man with golf to play on the West Coast, a company and a restaurant to run in Dallas, and 16 out of 20 breasts to appreciate on the East Coast. Enter Robert Holly, a man who knew how to buy and sell planes. The two were introduced by a mutual friend named Dennis Debo, who was a corporate jet pilot.

Together the three men started DDH Aviation, which took its name from their initials. For a time, DDH prospered. But last year, the endeavor began to unravel, DDH sued Holly and about a dozen other domestic and international parties, alleging that Holly was guilty of racketeering. Holly filed his answer to the allegations in March, but he didn’t stop there. He made counterclaims against DDH and brought in other partiesincluding Deason himself. If these claims are successful, they could have dire implications for Deason and his continuing relationship with ACS, the company of his creation.

(While Deason did answer certain personal questions for this article, neither his attorneys nor Holly’s would allow their clients to comment on the record about their respective lawsuits.)

ACS to the Rescue

Although not absolutely clear, it appears highly possible that by July of 2002-during which time Holly insists that DDH had become financially distressed as a result of Deason’s spendthrift ways-ACS may have advanced to DDH as prepayments cash to the tune of $9.5 million without requiring anything in return. A study of the public filings of ACS reveals no precedent for this type of transaction.

What rationale would motivate ACS to extend such terms to another company?

And why would ACS purchase $1 million of prepaid flight services from DDH Aviation when that amount exceeded the prior year’s bill with DDH and when ACS was expecting the imminent delivery of its own very expensive Challenger 600 jet?

WHATEVER Mr. Deason is about, I do believe that getting child support to needy children is not primary…

2007 — this appears to be an insider’s discussion of Darwin Deason’s attempt to take the company private, with his own private equity (?) company, Cereberus Capital Management. In 2 long, detailed posts called “Is Darwin Deason a Crook?” the writer points out that while Deason held 40% of voting shares, he held only 10% of the actual shares, and that others also needed to consider what was good for the other shareholders (fiduciary duties, in other words). Apparently he tried to bulldoze through considering alternate options (for going private), and on facing opposition, forced independent directors to resign, on the spot; it also mentions conflict of interest:

“Is Darwin Deason a Crook?”

Posted in the ACS – Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Forum

{{Dated November 2, 2o07 – NOTE: THIS WAS AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT THAT ACS WAS PAYING $2.6 +MILLION SETTLEMENT ON FRAUD CHARGES WITH THE US GOV’T FOR OVER-BILLING.}}

Dear Darwin:

From the first day that you and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. made a proposal to acquire ACS, the independent directors have acted appropriately and in a manner designed to safeguard the best interests of the company and all of its shareholders. We immediately began a process designed to consider your offer in a fair and balanced manner and to protect the company’s minority shareholders. Although you control in excess of 40% of the voting power of ACS, you represent less than 10% of the outstanding shares. We must look after the minority shareholders – even if it means you cannot get the deal that is most advantageous to you personally. From the outset, you have attempted to subvert the process in order to prevent superior alternatives to your proposal from being consummated.

On March 20, 2007, when you and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. publicly disclosed your proposal to acquire ACS, we first learned of the Exclusivity Agreement that you had previously entered into with Cerberus. On March 21, 2007, after lengthy discussion, the Board of Directors of ACS, through its lead director, advised you that the Board was concerned with the Exclusivity Agreement between you and Cerberus and requested that the agreement be voided so that the Board would have the ability to deal with all parties (including you and Cerberus) who might be interested in a transaction involving the company. You refused. The Special Committee (which was formed to consider all strategic alternatives available to ACS, including your proposal), after extensive discussions with Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, its independent financial advisor, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, its independent legal advisor, also concluded that, with the Exclusivity Agreement in place, it could not effectively consider all of the company’s strategic alternatives, including a transaction involving a third party other than Cerberus. Also, the Special Committee and its advisors were not comfortable with a “go-shop” here given the terms of your employment agreement, your voting power and the fact that potentially interested parties would be deterred given your partnership with Cerberus.

As a result, the Special Committee insisted that the Exclusivity Agreement be voided. Unfortunately, for almost three months until June 10, 2007, you and Cerberus refused to in any way modify the Exclusivity Agreement in response to the Special Committee’s concerns. Your self-serving conduct had a material adverse impact on the process of considering strategic alternatives, including your own offer.(Several parties who had expressed an interest in a transaction with ACS were not willing to proceed with the Exclusivity Agreement in place.)

As we can see, it looks like Mr. Deason had pre-planned that only his chosen company would get teh offer, through an Exclusivity Agreement (which the rest were not informed of in time) which would per se drive off other potential buyers. This being shady dealing, they met, sought outside counsel, rejected it, and persisted. Deason (who did start the company, let’s not forget, in 1988) persisted, and finally:

Your carefully choreographed power play Tuesday evening to coerce the independent directors of ACS into resigning on the spot is consistent with your continuing refusal to understand that the Board’s fiduciary duties are to all shareholders – not just to you. Your ultimatum: resign in one hour or I will go to the press and smear your reputations – was a remarkable piece of bullying and thuggery, and it almost worked. We also find it curious that your counsel in connection with your proposal, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, is now serving as the company’s outside counsel. In this capacity, Cravath, your personal counsel, is taking a lead role in removing the very directors who refused to go along with your proposal. We cannot understand how you and ACS management could become comfortable with this blatant conflict.

IF THAT ISN’T ENOUGH, HERE’S A NICE SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE “ACS” ISSUES —

Charges Plague Affiliated Computer Services (ACS)Allegations against the company founded by Darwin Deason range from bribery to stock option fraud, breach of contract and breaching the identities of millions of people.

Troubling Stories About Affiliated Computer Services, Inc (ACS)

“October 2006: ACS announced that personal information on as many as 1.4 million Coloradoans may be in the hands of thieves after someone stole a computer from the company’s Colorado office. The computer contained child support payment information and information on newly hired employees of the Colorado Dept. of Human Services.”

ACS Named Among Top Companies Shipping US Records Overseas
CalPERS Asks ACS to Investigate Stock Option Issues
Cities may owe millions for vendor collected tickets
Cops Face Charges They Took ACS Bribes {{THIS IS IN CANADA AND RELATES TO THE RED-LIGHT CAMERAS, I.E., TRAFFIC}}
Down the River with Darwin Deason
Darwin Deason, I have a confession …
Title Examiner Discovers Documents Missing from Online Database

THE “COPS/Bribes” article:

Two high-ranking police officers in Edmonton Canada face charges of accepting bribes from red light camera supplier Affiliated Computer Services (ACS). The charges allege Staff Sgt. Kerry Nisbet, 51, and Detective Thomas Bell, 49 accepted bribes from the Dallas based company to recommend the company’s system for a 20-year photo radar and red light camera contract worth $90 million.he allegations are Bell and Nisbet received unauthorized perks, including free travel, from Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), a red light camera and photo radar firm they touted to city council as the only one able to do the job.

The charges stem from a 19-month Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation. The preliminary hearing which began Tuesday will determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. The Canadian government will call twenty nine witnesses against the officers during the hearing which is estimated to take four weeks.

If convicted, the officers could face maximum sentences of 5 years on each charge of breach of trust and accepting a bribe.

DOUBLE-BILLING IN SANTA MONICA – -one employee discovered it:

Cities may owe millions for vendor collected tickets

Santa Monica will anti up $950,000 for their part

September, 25, 2006

Cities across America may owe millions of dollars for citations their corporate partners double billed.

Towns and cities may be gobbling up millions in fees that are not theirs, because many people were paying the same ticket twice after receiving a second notice mailed before payment was received.

Santa Monica officials have decided to act proactively to refund fees that should never have been collected.

In the past three years, 18,000 people – nearly 80 percent of them from outside Santa Monica — paid nearly $1 million too much to Santa Monica for parking violations, City Manager Lamont Ewell revealed at a special press conference last Wednesday.

He announced the City’s intentions to return the nearly $950,000 accrued over three years to the rightful owners. The city discovered the problem during an internal audit but Ewell said said the problem may apply to other cities across the country.

Identifying people who have paid twice was something neither Santa Monica nor its Dallas-based collection vendor, Affiliated Computer Services, has been doing with accuracy for many years – an oversight that has angered consumer advocates.

California law states that government agencies must identify multiple or duplicate deposits of bail or parking penalties and issue refunds within 30 days of identification.

Doug Heller, executive director the non-profit Foundation for Consumers and Taxpayers’ Rights warned, “This may not just be millions, but tens of millions, owed and may end up being a scandal of much larger proportions.”

Part of the reason for the mismanagement may be the use of a third party vendor, he said.

“The problem with outsourcing government is that they are less tethered to the public,” said Heller.

A complicated and prolonged appeals process and lack of access to human operators may also frustrate any person calling the vendor to contest the double payment, he said.

Despite the criticism, officials from Applied Computer Services, a multi-national Fortune 500 company that operates 100 call centers around the world, said they are only following orders.

MORE on “UNDISTRIBUTABLES:”

States reported an undistributed funds pool of over $734 million at the end of 2004 in collected but undistributed child support payments. Many States have a policy, some state lawmakers find it disturbing, that money collected from parents by the state on behalf of children could instead be spent on prisons, roads or legislative staff.

Unclaimed child-support funds that do go into the state treasury can later be claimed and paid for the intended children, officials point out. But the practice of sending undisbursed money to the treasury after just one year is still a point of outrage for many.

Let us help you find that money. Our databases and resources from numerous jurisdictions and sources will assist you in locating any unclaimed child support payments rightfully due.

FLORIDA, 2009:

Special report

April 20, 2009|By Mary Shanklin, Sentinel Staff Writer

At a time when Florida families increasingly struggle to pay bills, the state is sitting on $28 million in child-support payments that it has not distributed — largely because it [allegedly] can’t find the parents who are owed the money.

Florida’s stockpile of undistributed child-support payments has more than doubled since 2007, partly because federal tax rebates paid to parents who are delinquent on child support have been intercepted by the state. The state’s fund of undistributed child-support money is now so large that it could provide an extra $80 for each of the 347,000 families awaiting back support payments. More than $5 million has been undistributed for five or more years.

…

When parents are divorced in Florida and a judge orders a parent to pay child support, the state’s Department of Revenue is legally required to collect the support — through garnished wages, credit cards or checks — and distribute it to the parent who has custody. But in Florida, only 54 cents of every dollar of support is collected and distributed the month it is due. The average among states is 60 cents of every dollar, according to the most recent federal measures.

Parents looking for the payments may contact the state only to encounter a department that doesn’t always take a mother’s word when she reports a new address and a bureaucracy that points to computer glitches as a chief reason that it can’t process the payments.

…

State and federal overseers have continually chided the Department of Revenue for failing to comply with state laws that dictate how undistributed money should be processed. {{OH? I’d like to see their communications..See below — HHS is barely auditing its own handiwork.}} In a report released last year, for example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cited the department for “significant delays” in implementing legislation that had been passed five years earlier.

The law called for the state to determine at what point the money simply cannot be distributed. It also outlined steps for dealing with the money: If the parent who made the payment owes support for other children, for example, the money should go to those offspring. The next step is for the undistributed money to be returned to the parent who made the payment, if that person can be located. If there are no other options, it can be divided between the state and federal governments.

The report sounds as though the nice governments, state and federal both, would rather do ANYTHING than split the proceeds. I don’t buy it… if so, how come with all the budget items on the chopping block, fatherhood promotion,marriage promotion is still going strong, better than courts, schools, police services, etc.

After Silva v. Garcetti we ALL should understand that Counties & States (and in general, goverment) exists to expand itself and likes to hold onto money it already has, even though there’s at least two forcible collection systems around, called the IRS and (parallel in force?) the Child Support System. Child Support Enforcement activities apparently could range from wage garnishment orders, seizing bank accounts or tax refunds, insurance settlements, or physically siezing noncompliant PEOPLE (via bench warrants for arrest) and throwing them into jail, to be housed, fed ,and supervised at public expense. . . . . . OR almost any activity remotely connected with the word “family” “Marriage” or “Child” – activities such as abstinence education, Marriage/Fatherhood promotion, parenting classes, or you name it “research and demonstration.”

Here’s a Missouri State Audit on “Undistributed Child Support Collections” covering, I think, 1997 – 2004:

Parents wait for child support payments while state holds money and does not use all available resources to find parents

This audit reviewed why state officials held child support money owed to custodial and non-custodial parents and did not distribute it as soon as possible. As of February 2005, the state was still holding $2.5 million in payments collected over a 7-year-period ending in 2004. This report is the third audit on how well state officials collect and distribute child support. The following highlights the findings of the most recent audit work.

State releases thousands to parents after audit tests

$1.7 million held for missing addresses

State officials released $34,000 in child support due to parents after auditors showed no reason for the state to continue to hold it. Auditors reviewed 106 cases in which the state held child support payments for several reasons including: missing or expired addresses, intercepted tax refunds or payments received before they were due. (See page 5)

Auditors found state officials did not take appropriate actions to release payments on $116,000 held in 40 child support cases. On $14,000, state officials did not use all available resources to find correct addresses for custodial parents before closing the cases. On another $12,000 in open cases, state officials did not search for new custodial parent addresses. And on $7,000, state officials only searched for new addresses for a month before closing the cases. On a number of other cases, errors in case management were made or state officials had searched for new addresses for a while, but then closed the cases with monies still on hold. (See page 10)

This report is an eyeopener — in fact, simply search the term “Undistributable Child Support Collections” and jump in. It’s a page-turner…. WHY are those funds sitting somewhere accruing interest, while somewhere else, another family went homeless, stayed homeless, or custodial parent sat in some welfare line, welfare office, or in line at a soup kitchen or food bank? Among other reasons — they simply weren’t TRYING hard enough!

Undistributed Collections Not Always a High Priority:

With the exception of two special projects, the division has not placed a high priority on the assessment and management of undistributed collections. The division also has not implemented federal oversight agency recommendations designed to reduce and manage undistributed collections. Instead, the division has established policy to close cases when possible, and plans to rely on automation to reduce the growth of undistributed collections.

Historically, the division has devoted minimal resources to addressing the problem of undistributed collections. According to the Compliance Deputy Director, after the division converted case records and management activity to the MACSS system in late 1998, the division focused on getting support orders established and providing enforcement services. Undistributed collections were not a priorityuntil the Governor’s Missouri Results Initiative project in 2001. As part of the project, a division work group devised various reports which are now used in limited undistributed collections work done by central office personnel. Before the project, the division did not generate management reports of held payments for monitoring or tracking, according to the Financial Resolutions Section Assistant Deputy Director.

and,

No sustained efforts to release held funds:

Although the division has conducted two special projects, which resulted in some reduced child support held, no sustained effort to resolve and release undistributed collections has occurred. The division’s Central Locate Unit conducted a special project to find addresses for custodial parents where the state held child support. From August 2001 to April 2003, about five employees worked to manually locate custodial parent addresses. The division did not track the amount of support paid to families during this project, but in fiscal year 2003 the Central Locate Unit located such addresses for an average of 438 families each month. When addresses are located and verified as valid, held child support is paid out. In contrast, held child support paid to families dropped significantly after this special project ended. With usually only one employee assigned to look for new addresses for custodial parents, the Central Locate Unit found addresses for an average of 85 families each month in fiscal year 2004, an 81 percent decrease from fiscal year 2003.

Closing Cases Benefits the State:

Division officials told us closing [CHILD SUPPORT] cases to further IV-D services benefits the state because the division does not have to report child support held on closed cases to the federal oversight agency. In other words, closing cases benefits the state for reporting purposes, even though held payments had not been paid to families. In addition, keeping cases open when enforcement is not taking place could adversely impact the amount of federal incentive payments the state receives, according to the Compliance Deputy Director.

HOWEVER, many times they actually do collect money. Minor problem – it gets diverted, rerouted, or just plain old HELD…to accrue interest, to pay ???, and to incentivize further citizen abuses, either parent and taxpayers. Child support held long enough can be categorized as “undistributable.”

An example from Tennessee….

This should distress, alarm and cause shocked outrage — to the public, although it took me (even with my “Show me the Money” attitude, and looking at expenditures for some years) someone else’s reference to see these audits at http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/oas/acf_archive.asp

We actually have a right to know what’s politicians (etc.) are doing with our money:

Pursuant to the principles ofthe Freedom of Information Act {{“FOIA”}} ,,55U..S..C..§552,,as amended by Public Law 104-231, OIG reports generally are made available to the public to the extent the Public Law 104-231, OIG reports generally are made available to the public to the extent the information is not subject to exemptions in the Act (45 CFR par 5). Accordingly, this report will be posted on the Internet at http://oig.hhs.gov.

What the “OAS” (Office of Audit Services) does:

Office of Audit Services

The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS.

For example, here’s TENNESSEE:

Audit (A-04-08-03521)

02-09-2009

Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Tennessee From October 1, 1998, Through December 31, 2007

Executive Summary

We found that from October 1998 through December 2007, Tennessee did not recognize and report as program income $8.7 million ($5.8 million Federal share) in undistributable child support collections that met the State’s definition of abandoned property. In addition, the State reported incorrect amounts for undistributed collections. Within the Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) oversees the Child Support Enforcement program. OCSE requires States to offset program costs by recognizing and reporting income from undistributable child support collections. Undistributable collections result when States receive child support payments but cannot identify or locate the custodial parents or return the funds to the noncustodial parents.

We recommended that the State report as program income undistributable child support collections totaling $8.7 million ($5.8 million Federal share), ensure future compliance with State laws regarding abandoned property, and correct reporting errors on the next quarterly Federal filing. The State said that it would implement our recommendations.

Where’s the paragraph on “we recommend that the State examine its practices to make sure that in the future child support money collected actually reaches the intended children and their caretakers — after all $8,700,000 represents a lot of meals, rental support, and school backpacks to the children!”

In 2003, the Tennessee Comptroller reported on the (State) Dept of Health and Human Services, including on its TANF, Child Support (including UDC — UnDistributed Collections) and had this to say:– and was reported to the Governor, the “General Assembly” and the Dept of Human Services Commissioner”

This report addresses reportable conditions in internal control and noncompliance issues found at the Department of Human Services during our annual audit of the state’s financial statements and major federal programs. The scope of our audit procedures at the Department of Human Services was limited. During the audit for the year ended June 30, 2003, our work at the Department of Human Services focused on five major federal programs: Food Stamps, State Administrative Matching Grants for Food Stamp Program, Rehabilitation Services-Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Child Support Enforcement. We audited these federally funded programs to determine whether the department complied with certain federal requirements and whether the department had an adequate system of internal control over the programs to ensure compliance. Management’s response is included following each finding.

…

Our objective was to obtain reasonable assurance about

whether the State of Tennessee’s financial statements were free of material misstatement.

FINDING 1 — it violated HIPPA privacy in 14 out of 224 business agreeements

FINDING 2 — The department did not reconcile the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards or the related federal reports to the state’s grant’s accounting records

This is somewhat similar to balancing one’s own checkbook — and would seem a priority! Any business has to reconcile accounts sooner or later! The Department simply didn’t do that! “

n addition, the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, Subpart C-Post Award Requirements, Sec._20 Standards for Financial Management Systems, require that fiscal control and accounting procedures be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports and the tracing of funds to an adequate level to ensure that they have been used properly.”

FINDING 4

The Department of Human Services did not reduce Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for participants who failed to cooperate with child support requirements. Federal regulations require the state to reduce benefits not less than 25%. Twelve of 28 cases tested (43%) did not have benefits reduced appropriately. This was a finding in the prior two audits.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) administers the TANF program in Tennessee under the name Families First. One of the important features of this program is the requirement that the head of the household must cooperate with child support enforcement efforts. Those recipients who do not cooperate are subject to having their benefits reduced.

Management concurred with the prior audit finding and stated that the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System (TCSES) was not sending an alert to the Automated Client Certification and Eligibility Network of Tennessee (ACCENT) when it was determined that a TANF recipient was not cooperating with child support enforcement efforts…. {{I wonder if TN has a DV exception when this might prove dangerous. However, there is also a solicitation of establishing child support orders, obviously…..}}

In passing on the pressure to produce child support orders, the STate is protecting its right to TANF funds. LIke I keep saying, the states are now more and more subject to the Fed. Gov’t mandates, even when they don’t comply properly: ”

“Failure to properly apply the prescribed penalty for non-cooperation is a violation of program requirements and could result in a reduction of federal funding for the TANF program.”

FINDING 5

The department has not completed its reconciliation of undistributed child support collections. At June 30, 2003, the balance of undistributed collections in the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System was $13,690,301; the balance in the State of Tennessee Accounting and Reporting System was $26,068,404; and the balance on the federal quarterly report was $14,278,567.This was a finding in the prior three audits.

Details:

As noted in the three prior audit reports, the amount of undistributed child support collections reported in the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System (TCSES) does not reconcile to the State of Tennessee Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) or to the related federal Office of Child Support Enforcement quarterly report. At June 30, 2003, the balance of undistributed collections in TCSES was $13,690,301; the balance in STARS was $26,068,404; and the balance on the federal quarterly report was $14,278,567.

TCSES is maintained by the maintenance contractor Accenture. However, due to problems with TCSES and Accenture personnel {??} , data obtained from TCSES have been found to be inaccurate.

Another reason for the lack of a reconciliation is that the contingent revenue account in STARS** that is used to account for undistributed collections also contained interest earnings, administrative fees paid by non-custodial parents, and federal incentive funds. Management concurred with the prior audit finding which was released in May 2003 and stated that the reconciliation between the amount of undistributed child support collections reported in TCSES is now reconciled to the quarterly collection report. The balance in TCSES was agreed to the quarterly report that was due September 30, 2003. Management also stated that they expected to complete the reconciliation of TCSES to STARS during calendar year 2003; however, this reconciliation still has not been completed.

If the department cannot reconcile the state’s accounting records to the applicable federal reports, the state could be required to repay some of the grant funds that it has received.

**STARS = “State of TN Accounting & Reporting System” SOunds like it was co-mingling different types of fundings. Note” Interest earnings” Note, the concern that they would lose federal grant funds. If there is so much undistributed, what are those grants being used for, instead?

FINDING 6

Child Support Enforcement program contract terms have not always been followed, resulting in an overpayment exceeding $421,000 to the contractor. The contractor calculated its fee using an estimate of collections instead of using actual collections as required by the agreement. Also, the department did not perform a reconciliation between the amount the contractor was actually paid and the amount the contractor should have been paid.

NOW this gets interesting — and relates to our friend, “Maximus, Inc.” In short, the state wasn’t doing its job, pretty much, to check up on its own contractor:

Finding

The Department of Human Services did not always pay a Child Support Enforcement program contractor based on actual collections.

So, it’s an old dog that can’t learn new tricks? Was that an excuse of some sort? If the contract says, paid on actual collections, then obviously someone needs to verify actual collections in order to pay — at least if payments are to be supported and valid. Would any parent pay a babysitter that slept through the job and kids showed up without diaper change, not put to bed, or fed — and do this month after month?

The department contracted with Maximus, Incorporated, a for-profit corporation located in McLean, Va., to provide child support enforcement services in Davidson County. The contract states that Maximus, Incorporated, would be paid nine percent of child support collections, which would be reduced or increased by penalties or incentives.

A pressure I’m sure they, like ACS (see this post) would be only too glad to pass on to the customers….

The contract also states that Maximus, Incorporated, would submit a monthly invoice to the department which would, at a minimum, include the amount of child support collections during the period and the total amount due the contractor for the period invoiced. However, the contractor’s monthly billings were based on an estimate of the annual child support collections rather than actual collections. Management was not aware of the fact Maximus, Inc., was being paid based on an estimate until the state auditor brought this to their attention during fieldwork.

What kind of management is that? Just rubberstamping invoices that come across the desk?

Based on departmental records, Davidson County child support collections during the year ended June 30, 2003, were $46,056,870.57. Nine percent of these collections is $4,145,118.35; however, Maximus, Incorporated, billed and was paid $4,566,690.00. Without regard to adjustments for penalties and incentives, as of December 15, 2003, Maximus, Inc., was apparently overpaid $421,571.65, of which $278,237.41 was federal funds.

Mathematically challenging process (My kids could do it, given the data!):

1. Verify collections for the month (one would think there’d be a database with the figures, so this would consist of reading an on-line number. Alternately, someone could tabulate what comes in: Add up receipts!.
2. Multiply by 9% (which my kids also know is by “0.09.” They could probably do this mentally — take 10% (move a decimal), subtract 1% (move a decimal, mental math, no paper needed).
3. Compare result to Maximus’ invoice BEFORE signing it!

But paid management staff (whoever they were) didn’t or couldn’t……

This contract also states that the Department of Human Services will monitor contractor performance through monthly on-site visits; however, the department was unable to present evidence that on-site visits were performed. If the department does not monitor Maximus, Inc., it is not complying with the terms of the contract, nor has it obtained assurance that the contractor is fulfilling the requirements of the contract.

In other words, the paper (or electronic file) the contract was signed on was just for show….meaningless, really….

Interesting (above) that “Accenture” — an IRISH firm that broke off from Anderson Consulting prior to Enron scandal — is working in Tennessee, and also with the California Pension system (CalPERS), description about state automation problems, here: Accenture “was in the news for dropping its sponsorship of golfer Tiger Woods, hit by a serial marital infidelity scandal.” Accenture, with headquarters in Ireland, has about 211,000 employees in 53 countries.

Accenture self-description is – as aren’t they all? — All about Supporting Children and Families:

Supporting Better Outcomes for Children and Families

Child support enforcement agencies are focusing on practical solutions to help realize critical outcomes for children and families. Now more than ever, these agencies need strategies and technologies that will help maximize program performance.

Accenture brings a full gamut of capabilities, from designing and implementing new systems, to providing training, production support and ongoing maintenance after a system is launched. We also bring deep experience:

In the early 1990s, we delivered one of the first child support systems in Texas.

Accenture created a child support enforcement Public Service Value framework that targets improved program performance and constituent benefits. As a result of the framework, our child support clients reflect the most improved child support programs in the nation.

More than 30 percent of the US population’s child support collections are managed by systems that Accenture built.

We have successfully implemented more federally certified child support systems for US states than any other integrator.

Our team currently maintains child support applications for California and Michigan—each project collects more than $1 billion in child support annually, and together, represent 4 million cases serving more than 10 million citizens.

CONSIDER THE SCOPE OF ELECTRONIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO MANAGE STATEWIDE SYSTEMS LIKE THIS:

(website is from CGI — whoever they are)

Department of Child Support Services

Working in partnership with the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), IBM (prime), Accenture and CGI designed, built and implemented the largest automated statewide child support system in existence today. The (California Child Support Automation System – CCSAS) Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system serves approximately 1.8 million children and families. Within this vast and complex initiative spanning seven years, CGI, in collaboration with DCSS, led the transition of 10,000 users in 58 local agencies*** to the new system. CGI successfully converted county data with a 99.999 percent success rate, led the change management activities with county users, provided on-site user support and ensured little interruption to daily activity. The federal government certified the system, saving the State over $200 million annually in penalties and securing a federal rebate of over $190 million.*** The CCSAS project received the American Society for Public Administration’s 2009 Intergovernmental Cooperation Award from the Sacramento Chapter. What’s more, the new system’s performance indicators will greatly assist California with obtaining additional federal funding for future projects.

Yep, Child Support Enforcement is a major industry — these users weren’t the parents, these were the staff support, including I’m sure attorneys. 10,000 salaries in a broke state. *** It’s my understanding that California was slow to get this done, and was the largest outsourcer (to private contractors) of any state. One of the component elements in this system is apparently “Bank of America” — which has made headlines in a $410 million class settlement suit on overcharging its clients. I tend to wonder if this includes government clients as well. Their policies “disproportionately targeted low-income clients.”

In 2003, “MAXIMUS” got a 5-year contract for about $7 million to do child support enforcement in Tennessee (alone):

News Release

MAXIMUS Awarded $7.3 Million in Tennessee Child Support Contract

RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–June 11, 2003–The State of Tennessee Department of Human Services has awarded MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS) a five-year, $7.3 million contract to operate a full service child support program in the State’s 25th Judicial District.This new contract in West Tennessee will provide child support services to the counties of Fayette, Hardeman, Lauderdale, McNairy, and Tipton. These services were previously provided by the District Attorney General of the 25th Judicial District. Under this contract, the Company will provide intake case processing, location of non-paying, non-custodial parents, establishment of paternity for children born outside of marriage, and establishment of court ordered child support obligations and court orders to provide medical support. MAXIMUS will also monitor payment compliance, take administrative and judicial action to enforce support compliance, and modify child support orders as necessary.{{SO NICE TO KNOW THAT OUR JUDICIAL COURT SUPPORT ORDERS JUST GOT PRIVATIZED PARTICULARLY WITH THIS COMPANY….}}Over the five-year life span of this contract, MAXIMUS will effect collections of more than $94 million in child support for families in the five counties.”We are dedicated to continuing to provide the highest quality child support services to the families of Tennessee. Our record of success helping families in Tennessee is a testament to our long-term commitment to the children in the State,” Dr. David V. Mastran, CEO of MAXIMUS.There are 31 judicial districts providing child support services to families in Tennessee. Ten of these are operated by private contractors, and the remainder of the districts are operated by government agencies. MAXIMUS currently operates four of the ten privately-operated child support programs in Tennessee. MAXIMUS also operates the statewide customer service center and the statewide new hire reporting system for Tennessee.

Maximus’ site describes:

The project provides full-service child support operations for the 11th Judicial District in Tennessee. MAXIMUS works with a number of community based-organizations dedicated to employment, food, housing, medical, transportation, and legal assistance to help parents provide for themselves and their children.

Here’s an interesting discussion — date, 2009 from “The Commercial Appeal,” Memphis– on how in Shelby County, TN & Memphis, the Juvenile Court LOST the child support enforcement contract to Maximus, Inc.:

On July 1, Juvenile Court’s 40-plus-year reign over child support cases in Shelby County will end.

The coming change is leaving a trail of questions and concerns among county officials, court employees and families who will be affected by the Tennessee Department of Human Services’ decision to end its longstanding contract with the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County. …

Will custodial parents seeking support payments encounter procedural snags during the transition? Will people paying child support be unreasonably hounded by a private firm, whose main mission is to bring in more money?

How many of Juvenile Court’s 242 workers in the Child Support Division, including 26 attorneys, will be hired by Maximus Inc., the Virginia company that recently won the state contract to provide child support enforcement services in Shelby County?

Why the change?

DHS, dissatisfied with the cost-versus-collection ratio of child support collected by Juvenile Court, decided in January not to renew its child support collection and enforcement contract with Juvenile Court beyond June 30. The state agency instead opened the contract to a competitive bid process.

Maximus, a multifaceted company based in Reston, Va., was selected in mid-February after offering the lowest bid of four entities — including Juvenile Court — that competed for the $11.8 million performance-based contract.

Maximus signed a contract with DHS on Tuesday, sealing the five-year deal.

DHS, which also has performance-based child support enforcement contracts with private companies in Davidson, Knox and Hamilton counties, believes that contracting with a private firm will help the state serve the greatest number of children and families for the lowest cost to Tennessee’s taxpayers.

The maximum amount that Maximus will be paid in the first year of the contract is $11.8 million, if the company meets all performance goals. Juvenile Court’s contract with DHS was for $14.8 million.

It came down to this: Juvenile Court collects $8.29 in child support payments for every $1 it spends on collection efforts. Private contractors collecting in Davidson (Nashville), Knox (Knoxville) and Hamilton (Chattanooga) counties get $13.52 per dollar spent. District attorneys general, whose offices handle the task throughout most of the rest of the state, collect $12.64 per dollar spent, according to DHS.

The D.A. took back child support enforcement from Maximus in a DIFFERENT Contract (guess that 5-year $7 million contract had been completed…):

Last summer, Dist. Atty. Gen. Michael Dunavant of the 25th Judicial District took control of enforcing child support in Tipton, Fayette, Lauderdale, Hardeman and McNairy counties.

The work previously had been handled by Maximus, whose five-year, $7.3 million contract with the Department of Human Services ended on July 1 last year.

In a recent interview, Dunavant said Maximus’ performance levels in his district were unsatisfactory and he felt his office could do a better job.

He said the general perception was that Maximus was lacking in customer service, in getting timely court dates for child support orders, and in working with clients and defendants.

Dunavant’s office has 13,000 to 14,000 active child support cases.

Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County has about 115,000 active cases and receives about 1,200 new cases each month.

…

Dunavant, the West Tennessee district attorney general who took over enforcement for his judicial district, thought he could do better than Maximus. He’ll find out, at least for the first year, when his fiscal year ends July 30.

The bigger question here for DHS and Maximus is whether the company can squeeze more child support money out of noncustodial parents in a city and county where about 19 percent of the population lives in poverty. …

And let’s not forget what everybody involved in this says they want — that children get every dime of child support to which they’re entitled.

Jerome Wright is citizens editor for The Commercial Appeal

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/07/verdict-out-on-private-collection/

As Larry Hollander posted, a former private employee of a private child support enforcement agency (in TN) was caught selling private information obtained:

Friday, April 3. 2009

Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested! Selling Confidential Records.

I have to commend WZTV in Nashville Tennessee for bringing this story forward. Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested (Source: Former child support services employee arrested; www.wztv.com; April 02, 2009) That’s right, another child support services employee arrested for allegedly stealing AND selling confidential child support records.

I guess the going rate for stolen names, social security numbers, and what ever else private information is located in these child support enforcement program computer systems are just under a $1.50 per name. But how much damage has really been done, especially since we are dealing with a largely unaccountable group of state, county, and private agencies that are being granted wide-spread access to extremely personal information with very little safeguards implemented?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A Nashville man is facing charges that he tried to sell 1,600 stolen names, Social Security numbers and bank account numbers.
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agents arrested 27-year-old Steven K. Gilmore on Wednesday after he sold the information to an undercover TBI agent for $2,800.

This wasn’t the first time this individual has allegedly sold confidential information from the Child Support Enforcement databases, and certainly not the first story of corruption on the State Child Support Enforcement programs.

Gilmore had access to the information through his former employer, a private company that contracts with the state Department of Human Services to provide child support services. A federal criminal complaint against Gilmore says the U.S. Secret Service and TBI are investigating Gilmore and that he has sold such information before.

(DNK if this one was Maximus) — but again, here’s this company that paid $30 million in settlement on issues of (as I recall), fraud/embezzlement (etc.) — getting ANOTHER $49 million contract for Tennessee:

Thursday, May 28. 2009

Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal

Your private information may have just gotten more vulnerable in state of Tennessee. In a deal that is qualified as the largest state privatization deal up to this point has been awarded to “Government Health Services Provider Maximus, Inc.” to provide services that the state is paid to provide to its residents under a federally mandated social security program known as Title IV-D. (42 USC 651). The contract details, we are working on, but Maximus, Inc. will be doing the government’s job in locating absent parents, establishing paternity, carrying out support orders and medical support orders, processing interstate cases, and providing customer service. This comes as a surprise because just last month there was a Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested in Tennessee for selling confidential records.

In 2009, they got the largest child support enforcement contract in the nation — $49 million! (so I guess dropping a cool $30 million here and there in lawsuit settlements is no big deal):

May 28, 2009 06:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time

MAXIMUS Awarded $49 Million Child Support Operations Contract in Tennessee

-Largest Child Support Privatization Contract in the U.S.-

RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS), a leading provider of government services, announced today that its Human Services North America Division recently won a new, five-year, $49 million contract to provide full-service child support operations with the Tennessee Department of Human Services for the 30th Judicial District in Shelby County.

The effort is the largest privatization contract for child support enforcement services in the nation. MAXIMUS will provide a broad range of child support enforcement services including location and establishment of paternity, support orders, medical support orders, interstate case processing services, and customer service.

Virginia T. Lodge, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services commented, “Our primary goal continues to be that children of Memphis and Shelby County and throughout our state receive the support to which they are entitled.”

For over thirty years, MAXIMUS has operated full-service and specialized-service child support projects throughout North America, helping child support programs improve operations and maximize their resources. To ensure that all children receive support from both parents, child support enforcement agencies partner with MAXIMUS to locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity and support orders, and enforce support payments to families.

And again here is the disclaimer we are finding at the bottom of articles promoting Maximus:

Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about the Company’s confidence and strategies and the Company’s expectations about revenues, results of operations, profitability, future contracts, market opportunities, market demand or acceptance of the Company’s products are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.These uncertainties could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements and include reliance on government clients; risks associated with government contracting; risks involved in managing government projects; legislative changes and political developments; opposition from government unions; challenges resulting from growth; adverse publicity; and legal, economic, and other risks detailed in Exhibit 99.1 to the Company’s most recent Quarterly Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, found on www.maximus.com.

Yep… Here’s how “MotherCluckerBlogger” responded to this news, April 2011 post:

Maximus CEO Richard Montoni puts his two-cents into the article, but only to brag about the fact that by signing this contract with Tennessee, it allows Maximus to “build upon its portfolio”. His statements almost made me lose my lunch, since he mentioned nothing about the importance of collections, and only talked about the building of their portfolio and gaining a “market-leading position” in child support collections. This article proves my point about Maximus and their contracts. They are only in this business to gain contracts. After all, 49 million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to put back into the “market”. This simply proves that Maximus could care less about the collections of child support, once they have that contract, they already have THEIR MONEY. Why would they give a rats behind whether or not some poor single mom, or dad, in a town in Tennessee gets their child support payments?

And (related post on privatization) this person notes that, when the government screws up, people can respond with their VOTES, pointing out that Maximus is close to a monopoly, there:

People who are for privatization within the public sector argue that “privatization” is more efficient at delivering services, or goods, than governments, due to free market competition. Wikipedia defines a “free market” as “a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce taxes, private contracts, and the ownership of property.”

Those of us who have dealt with Maximus Child Support and their shenanigans can now say that the argument for privatization is absolutely asinine. How can this argument be supported, in the case of Maximus Child Support, when Maximus has practically created a monopoly in obtaining child support contracts? In the case of Maximus, there isn’t any “free market competition”, since they are so aggressive at obtaining these privatization contracts.

TO GO BACK TO THE OIG AUDIT STATEMENT (note timeframe):

We found that from October 1998 through December 2007, Tennessee did not recognize and report as program income $8.7 million ($5.8 million Federal share) in undistributable child support collections that met the State’s definition of abandoned property. In addition, the State reported incorrect amounts for undistributed collections…

. . . The State agency did not recognize and report program income for undistributable child support collections primarily because it had not developed and implemented adequate policies and procedures to comply with State and Federal requirements for treatment of undistributable collections. The State agency’s quarterly report was not accurate because the state agency had not (1) adjusted its recordkeeping and support documentation to account for ACF’s recent

(1) adjusted its recordkeeping and support documentation to account for ACF’s recent modifications to the Form OCSE-34A or (2) properly accounted for child support payments collected on behalf of children in the Statte’s’sFoosstteerrCaarreepprroogrraam..

The State agency appropriately recognized and reported program income for interest earned on child support collections.

The state’s “quarterly report” ??? There a 9 years and one quarter covered in this audit: 9 X 4 = 36 + 1 = 37 quarterly reports, plural!

Also from this report:

Child Support Collections Not Recognized as Abandoned and Not Reported as Program Income:

…From October 1, 1998, through December 31, 2007, the State agency did not recognize and report as program income $8,739,762 ($5,768,243 Federal share) in undistributable child support collections that met the State’s definition of abandoned property, nor did the State agency transfer those funds to the State treasurer as required by State law. Of the $5,768,243 Federal share, $5,742,699 was subject to the Unclaimed Property Act’s 1-year holding period, and the remaining $25,544 was subject to the Unclaimed Property Act’s 5-year holding period.

The State agency did not recognize and report program income for undistributable child support collections primarily because it did not have adequate policies and procedures to comply with State and Federal requirements for treatment of undistributable collections. In addition, the State agency said that it preferred to retain undistributable child support collections beyond the Unclaimed Property Act’s holding period in hopes of identifying the appropriate payee. {{{NOT TO MENTION IT IS EARNING INTEREST DURING THIS TIME< TO BE SPLIT $2 fed for every $1 state (66%/34%) between federal and state}}}

Undistributed Child Support Collections Not Reported Accurately

The State agency’s Form OCSE-34A and its attachment, the “Itemized Undistributed Collections” (UDC), for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, were inaccurate. On the Form OCSE-34A, five of the nine lines in sections A and B were incorrect. For example, section A, line 1, “Balance Remaining Undistributed From Previous Quarter,” was reported as $10,628,588 but should have been reported as $15,967,079, and section B, line 9b, “Net Undistributed Collections,” was reported as $6,432,235 but should have been reported as $12,685,451. Nineteen of the twenty lines on the UDC were incorrect.

That level of inaccuracy would not graduate one from 8th grade: $10 MILLION was supposed to be $15 MILLION (i.e., 50% higher) and $6 MILLION was supposed to be $12 MILLION (i.e., roughly 100% higher).

The quarterly report was inaccurate because the State agency had not (1) adjusted its recordkeeping to account for ACF’s recent modifications to the Form OCSE-34A or (2) properly accounted for child support payments that were collected on behalf of children in the State’s Foster Care program.

You mean the entire state of TN’s leadership “forgot” that it was collecting child support for foster care kids? What’s the interest accrued on the extra approximately $11 million meanwhile?

WELL — is that enough information for one day? Because it gets more and more fascinating — how values from the mid-1900s (and fear of cultural shifts) translated into a major governmental paradigm shift, including increased centralization and outsourcing of government functions it probably shouldn’t be engaged in, anyhow.

Add to this the coming of the internet (and lack of privacy), plus computers’ ability to tabulate and categorize unfathomable amounts of information about people — all kinds of people, labeled according to income,ethnicity gender, age, household status (fatherless or not….), religion, fertility, (I kid us not), and (expand ad infinitum) — — is going to naturally support the people management fields. It also has transformed finances of course.

Understanding more of this has helped me understand our messed-up courts, so that at least I can advise my children what to expect — or more specifically, NOT to expect — from law enforcement, judges, and about anything else promising protection or help in any form.

Interesting though, isn’t it?

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 22, 2011 at 8:15 pm

Posted in Child Support, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

“The Expanding Administrative Presidency” and both the Bachmanns = Lord, Help Us!

Disclaimer:

I drafted this earlier, posted separately on the Bachmanns (as I recall — I don’t go reviewing my own material much after it’s published!) and then decided to put up the draft. Currently, I am researching a different topic, how the Federal Government HHS/OCSE took control of the States via Welfare Reform of 1996, and forced all? of them to individually create a single, centralized “SDU” (“Statewide Distribution Unit”) for child support by the late 1990s or, basically, forfeit the federal grants to the states FOR welfare. This expansionist activity, though supposedly for the great cause of reducing welfare (HAS it?) — has resulted in state after state of pools of “undistributable” (so-called, probably true in some cases) millions which then earn interest for the states some of which I posted just recently.

In Auditing SOME of the counties in SOME of the states approximately ONCE per incident — the concern of the HHS/OIG/OAS (Office of Inspector General / Office of Audit Services) showed (expressed) no distress, alarm, or shocked outrage at the dishonesty of the states — particularly California & Texas — or ANY concern for the children who didn’t receive their child support — but EXCLUSIVELY reminded the states that, by not reporting right, they had failed to fork over the appropriate 66% of their take to the Feds.

How, apart from the weaponry, is that not basic “Mafia”?

(see next post — which looks at Tennessee, just for example…..)

CHILD SUPPORT UNDISTRIBUTABLE COLLECTIONS / CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CONTRACTS:

I’m gradually concluding that this is a fathomless, bottomless that is, black hole of $$ extorted or garnished from parents, and diverted to the county, state and federal institutions (and/or privateers in the child support industry). WHO KNOWS how much went down there unless the reporting is validated, and examined? Not only did the OIG/OAS apparently wait YEARS to audit the effects of their new, major revamp of the child support systems in ALL United States (all 50 and I’m sure territories) — even though the states are to report quarterly! on two specific forms — but the OAS apparently hasn’t got the teeth, hasn’t followed up (that we can tell, so far) on what happened to big states like California, or Texas (let alone the rest of the counties in those states) that were caught red-handed but not red-faced.

That’s what happens when it’s “hirelings” guarding the goods — and not people whose money it actually is……

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SO, just because I think the information should be posted — here’s some more Bachmann information, in part for seeing what happens when you put religious zealots in government positions. I’m not reviewing it, just posting the draft forma here. I put some Bible in there for insight into how the religious mind justifies (this and that); if there’s something worse than abusing a person because of gender (or because it’s possible), it would be doing so and attempting to systematize and justify it in the name of one’s God, while practicing hypocrisy in personal life.

(Written earlier):

I wish I could retreat into books, or some new or former profession and not deal with these topics. However, I fear that we are about to (or have already) entered a seriously dark ages. This is no joke!

Why we must pay attention to government’s FORM — to restrict rampant religiosity.

BOTH THE BACHMANNS:

OK, Enough is totally Enough!

I’m not a Michelle Bachmann media junkie, although when I do hear, it’s disturbing in an Anne Coulter sort of way. However, when I heard her husband was running a Christian Counseling center, and that she’d voiced how women must be submissive to their husbands, I had to dedicate a post to this.

In part, because I know the significance from personal experience and a WIDE exposure to this mentality in evangelistic Christians immune to criticism or, say, correcting misstatement of historical fact.

One has to ask — who, then, will be running assuming (“God forbid,” given her stance) she won? The U.S. is not ready for a female President — not at least until the E.R.A. is passed — but if it were, would us choosing one that says “wives” (including herself?) must be submissive to their husbands — suppose her husband is a whacked-out zealot that suggests we go start a war on the infidels, as defined by his religion? Or other inane policies… Would she submit if her wisdom said, No?

MEET THE BACHMANNs…

“Michelle Bachmann Women Submit” (That’s the google search — take your pick!):

Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values (Washington Post)

By Jason Horowitz, Published: July 5

LAKE ELMO, Minn. — In an interview last year with a Christian-radio talk show, Marcus Bachmann, a therapist who runs a faith-infused counseling center here, compared homosexuals to “barbarians” who “need to be educated, need to be disciplined.”

Dr. Bachmann’s strong anti-gay views would hardly be noteworthy outside of the suburban towns marked with water towers in the St. Croix Valley, except that his wife, Rep. Michele Bachmann, is suddenly the hottest commodity in the Republican presidential field. She has staffed up with professional consultants, but her husband of 32 years plays a central role. Dr. Bachmann, who recently called himself his wife’s “strategist,” has acted as her media planner, traveling assistant and even personal shopper. They share a bond born of a mutual religious awakening in high school and college, a deep faith in an especially conservative form of Lutheranism, and a common abhorrence of homosexuality.

“Their career in politics has always been about pursuing a social conservative agenda,” Larry Jacobs, a political scientist and longtime Bachmann watcher at the University of Minnesota, said of the couple. He said that Michele Bachmann’s initial race for the state Senate, in which she ousted a more moderate Republican, was “broadly over gay rights.”

Then we hear from THIS Michelle that the African American family was better off under slavery than under Obama. (Perhaps she should consult with the current First Lady Michelle for a 2nd opinion….)

Bachmann pledge: Black families were better off during slavery than they are under Obama

By Mike Mullen Fri., Jul. 8 2011 at 3:19 PM Comments (15) (that’s not enough comments!!)

Michele Bachmann thinks that black families were better off during slavery than they are now.The pledge from Iowa’s conservative FAMiLY LEADER group that Bachmann signed yesterday is full of all kinds of wacky stuff — Shariah law! Porn! Protect soldiers from showering with gays! — but nothing more absurd than the clause about black family life.Not only is the statement that black families were more stable during slavery than today ridiculous and insulting on its face, it’s also already been proved inaccurate.In a section of the pledge meant to show that marriage is in a “crisis,” the first bullet point reads:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

Even for Bachmann, this is shockingly ignorant. Let’s parse.

“African-American families”? As in the families that were broken up and sold to different slave owners?

“Two-parent”? Like the female slave and the white master who raped her?

“Household”? Do you mean the wood shacks out back where slaves lived?

It’s also not even true. The statement is footnoted to an academic paper called “The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review.”

Nate Silver actually went and read the paper, and then tweeted:

The “source” for the dubious statistic in pledge Bachmann signed comes from here. It refers to 1880-1910, not slavery.http://t.co/l5iR8WA

Oops. So, the pledge Bachmann signed was hugely insensitive, culturally ignorant and provably wrong. Yeah that sounds about right.Download and read the whole crazy pledge request by clicking here.

(note — the Logo: “The FAMiLY Leader” subtitle relates to federal grants streams: “Strengthening Families….” It’s out of Des Moines, Iowa. The Pledge is to not commit adultery, support the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA, i.e., oppose same-sex marriage), oppose ‘anti-women Sharia” (is there a PRO-women type of Sharia? Typical ignorance. Or, is it a pledge to oppose all sharia and in fact all other religions except Christianity (conservative….) in the public square?)

“The FAMiLY Leader” CEO is Bob Vander Plaats:

Homosexuality as “second-hand smoke.” and a public health risk.

Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum sign Bob Vander Plaats’ pledge

The State Column | Staff | Saturday, July 09, 2011

Republicans presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann announced Friday they would sign a controversial pledge s in support of traditional marriage sought by the Family Leader and it’s leader Bob Vander Plaats.

The pledge, which was offered to each Republican presidential candidate, is entitled, “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family.”

(Guess they knew better than to try this on Democrats….)

My opinion: People who cannot be faithful to their (wives) cannot be — or less likely to be — faithful to their oaths of office. Both entail vows, at times. Stop voting to Promote Marriage if you Can’t Practice it yourself, I say. But that doesn’t change my opposition to the Bachmanns….

“A DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE UPON MARRIAGE AND FAMILY” — is a reversal of the sentiments in the Declaration of Independence, which is just used as a springboard to this PERSONAL agenda. It’s an outrage….It’s ludicrous. Unfortunately, such people don’t think so.

An aide to Ms. Bachmann said the congresswoman, who was the first Republican to sign the pledge, supported calls from the Family Leader, a group promoting conservative values. “She has been married for over 30 years and has a strong marriage and faith,” the aide told Politico.

Meanwhile, Mr. Plaats held a press conference touting his organization’s pledge.

If you are looking at being a leader of our great country….we would like to have you pledge personal fidelity to your own spouse and a respect for the marital bonds of others,” Mr. Plaats said Friday.

The Iowa Republican, who is quickly solidifying his reputation as one of the leading Republicans in Iowa, has already attempted to increase his presence within the Republican presidential primary race. Mr. Plaats sponsored a Republican presidential debate in Iowa earlier this year. Mr. Plaats said the signing of the pledge will be a requirement for future endorsement by the organization.

Earlier this year, Mr. Plaats raised eyebrows with his comments comparing homosexuality to second-hand smoke, saying that being gay was a “public health risk.”

Meanwhile, Ms. Bachmann and Mr. Santorum announced support for the pledge Friday, a number of additional Republican presidential candidates said they are considering whether to sign the pledge. Texas Rep. Ron Paul said he is considering signing the pledge, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty were noncommittal. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman’s spokesman Tim Miller told Politico the campaign has a policy of not signing any pledges. “He has been a clear supporter of traditonal marriage and will let his record speak for itself.

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/vander-plaats-peldge-sign-bachmann/#ixzz1RkEOzlUk

Gary Johnson, Republican candidate from New Mexico, claims they are giving Republicans a bad name. They are. Worse, Michelle is giving WOMEN a bad name, although I believe many of us will be able to distance ourself from her representations. Talk about turning the next round of primaries into a circus. ….Perhaps they are believing that all PR is good PR, even making a fool of onesself in public. But behind the religious fundamentalism is a sinister momentum, gaining ground.

Gary Johnson: Family Leader pledge gives Republicans a bad name

JENNIFER JACOBS

7:05 AM, Jul 10, 2011

We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the ‘public’s pocket book.’

This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

THE HISTORICAL PARALLEL MIGHT BE CROMWELL // Puritan England, practicing genocide on the dirty, Papist Irish Catholics, and sending them off into slavery, 1600s. Hate talk precedes (and justifies) hate actions.

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.

The Republican Party cannot afford to have a Presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country. If we nominate such a candidate, we will never capture the White House in 2012.

Who is Vander Plaats? Well — a “rightwingwatch” site gives a few indicators — the Governor of Texas is reaching out to him; he has sponsored prior presidential candidate debates,…after failing a run for governor of Iowa, he ran a campaign to get 3 Iowa judges kicked out on the basis of their position on homosexuality (?); funding by the AFA — American Family Association:

The Family Leader

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Perry Reaches Out To Vander Plaats For Iowa Advice

Submitted by Brian Tashman on June 21, 2011 – 12:33pm

As Governor Rick Perry ponders a run for the presidency, it is already clear that he doesn’t mind working with the most radical of anti-gay leaders. Perry’s The Response prayer rally is hosted by the American Family Association, whose spokesman Bryan Fischer wants to see homosexuality criminalized, and former activists with The Call, a prayer rally that defended Uganda’s ‘kill-the-gays’ bill. Other individuals working with The Response include militantly anti-gay leaders Jim Garlow, Cindy Jacobs, David Bartonand David Welch.

Now, the Des Moines Register reports that Perry aides are reaching out to Bob Vander Plaats, the head of The Family Leader. Vander Plaats led the successful campaign to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices who backed marriage equality and is closely linked to (and funded by) the AFA. Vander Plaats is also tied to an effort that likened being gay to being a cigarette smoker and once said that allowing equal marriage rights for gay couples threatened the system of private property and gun-ownership right s. One former adviser said that Vander Plaats is “obsessed with the gay marriage issue.”

Since Vander Plaats is a powerful Religious Right figure who has hosted presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain, it is no surprise that Perry is in touch with him:

A supporter of possible presidential candidate Rick Perry of Texas telephoned an Iowa conservative leader today, inquiring about the political scene in Iowa.

“They were asking questions, asking my take on Iowa, how things are lining up and also making sure I know they like Rick Perry,” said Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative advocacy group that’s hosting a presidential lecture series.

(this article has plenty of links, including to one stating that it was “thrice-married adulterer Newt Gingrich” that helped steer $150,000 to the campaign to oust the 3 Iowa judges who showed liberality on the marriage issue:

Gingrich also helped steer $150,000 to American Family Association Action to help defeat three Iowa State Supreme Court justices that ruled in favor of marriage equality. Along with ReAL, which is led by anti-gay activist Jim Garlow, and his support for the AFA, Gingrich has made overtures to other Religious Right groups and leaders including John Hagee, Bryan Fischer, Janet Porter, Liberty University,Liberty Counsel, The Family Leader and the Minnesota Family Council.

But will Gingrich’s financial influence, religious documentaries and appeals to prominent Religious Right figures translate to real support from activists who might be wary of backing a thrice-married adulterer? Fischer remains a skeptic, but Iowa’s Bob Vander Plaats, who coordinated the anti-judge campaign, is still grateful for Gingrich’s significant monetary aid:

Looking up corporate filings of ‘The Family Leader,” it shows 3 prior names? and a 1997 origin:

Searched: The Family Leader

Results 1 – 1 of 1

Corp No.	Name	Status	Type
213229	THE FAMILY LEADER, INC.	Active	Legal

Other businesses at this address, 1107 North Hickory, Pleasant Hill, IA (i.e., address lookup):

FAMILY POLICY COUNCILs (i.e., this is one) contain a reference to Focus on the Family — not EXACTLY aligned with them (at least, don’t ‘fess up to it):

(Focus on the Family is shockingly weak when it comes to domestic violence; it’s made mention in books on the issue….)

Since 1988, business and community leaders from across the nation have formed state-level organizations to invest in the future of America’s families. Each Family Policy Council conducts policy analysis, promotes responsible and informed citizenship, facilitates strategic leadership involvement, and influences public opinion. Many of these councils also perform community and statewide work to foster a movement to affirm families.

These councils are independent entities with no corporate or financial relationship to each other or to Focus on the Family. However, they have a uniform purpose: serving as a voice for the family and assisting advocates for family ideals who aim to recapture the moral and intellectual high ground in the public arena.

To find contact information for the Family Policy Council in your state, click the map below. To view the entire list of state family policy councils, simply scroll down the page.

I’d SAVE this link — it gives the (focus on the family-aligned — but not corporately identified with — groups in many states, perhaps all 50, I didn’t check) Might as well know who one is dealing with, should it come up:

http://www.redeemfamily.org/family_policy_council.html

The goal of this group (see banner) of which “The FAMiLY Leadership” (Michelle Bachmann being the first republican to sign onto its pledge) is “CHrist Only” (cf. Bush, “The Family”‘s “Jesus and nothing else.” philosophy, which has accommodations with dictatorships and murderers, tyrants, etc. as part f the authority needed to, well get “Jesus” at the center). What they are about is usurping the forms and places of authority in a country, or region — by whatever means — but for the noble goal of pushing (their) religion on the rest of us, because it’s obviously good for everyone. And heresies (such as the Declaration of Independence might tolerate) are bad for us.

OUR MISSION

1.) To share Christian based principles to youth and family that will liberate them from the cycle of destructive behaviors, abuse, conflicts, violence, and victimization;

2.) To offer spiritual guidance and hope by providing compassionate Christ-centered informations that is essential for their long-term personal transformation;

Notice the order. Actual, tangible “social services,” including crisis services — are 3rd & 4th, not 1st & 2nd. To qualify for federal grants (where it applies), they can’t just share the gospel directly, but in a transformative way, i.e., Christian-based principles, or “spiritual guidance . .. Christ-centered informations” essential for their long-termpersonal transformation.

3.) To provide them access to immediate help and supportive resources when they are in crisis through the cooperation of different agencies available within their community.

4.) To foster collaborations and partnerships with churches, government agencies and non-profit organizations within the community in order to make available social services the youth and family can utilize for their urgent needs;

The web-based platform enables this; yes, the web has transformed society and how it organizes itself, and weakened governmental protections (to individuals) while extending its reach (into individual lives).

5.) To distribute basic goods that will help assist their living conditions and alleviate their sufferings.

And, they are Trinitarians:

DOCTRINAL BELIEF

1.) We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

2.) We believe in the eternal deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Virgin Birth, in His sinless life, in His substitutionary death on Calvary for our sins, in His triumphant bodily resurrection from the grave, in His exaltation as Lord of all, and in His indwelling victorious life within His Body, the Church.

3.) We believe that all are lost apart from the saving grace of Jesus Christ and that salvation is by faith alone through the shed blood and regenerating Spirit of Jesus Christ.

4.) We believe that the true Church in composed of all those who have been born again through Him.

5.) We believe the Bible to be the verbally inspired and infallible Word of God to all mankind, the rule (canon) of all our faith and moral conduct.

They would approve of the Old Testament kill the gays and stone the adulterous (women, that is) — if they could get away with it. They FORGOT their own Jesus Christ treatment of the woman in their own gospel of John, saying, “whosoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” They may “believe” this about the Bible (no law against that), but let’s see the practice then, and a little humility!

This is impossible if they can’t read it straight. There is no “spirit of Jesus Christ,” — the word “Christ” as used refers to the anointing, or spirit in or on someone. (link to Phil 1:19, only place I could find the phrase; here’s the search; This is relevant because apparently this type of mentality (which the founders were not of — they were more Deists, as I posted recently — as were likely Tyndale, who translated most of the Bible into English, which these are not literate enough to read straight apparently; as was John Locke, on whose writings our Constitution had a strong influence, neither was Joseph Priestley, a researcher and discoverer who lost his laboratory and fled England because of his religious beliefs). Forgetting this, and forgetting the principles of Independence (in fact, mocking them) the FAMiLY and FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (and fatherhood, etc.) promoters in our century, are as inaccurate with their own theology as they are with OUR laws and governmental principles. They lack discretion and understanding — through lack of the habit of open discourse in their churches as well as we can see in idiotic public statements, in the context of personal hypocrisy (i.e., Michelle Bachmann rails on federal subsidies — EXCEPT to her own family’s business and her districts.

7.) We believe in carrying out the Great Commission of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to evangelize the lost and to lift the burden from the poor, the afflicted, and the needy.

Then where are their miracles? How are they lifting those burdens? Are they doing what their great God did — or even told them to do?

But funding is coming from somewhere: Under “News”:

Post No. 1: Riverside County is launching a new and proven intervention program entitled Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). The purpose ofthis comprehensive program is to provide well-structured and multi-faceted intervention for youth within the trained foster care instead of spending their adolescence within the confines of group care and/or incarceration. Free in-house support and a monthly compensation of up to $2,000 is given monthly. Call Jennifer Vasquez (951)358-7144 or (951)358-6858. Mention referred by Emmanuel Youth and Family Mission Services, Inc.

Apparently “MFTC” was developed by the “Oregon Social Learning Center” and field-tested outside the United States; this mentions a Swedish study:

What more could confirm MTFC’s effectiveness? Although MTFC has been implemented in a large number of sites outside of the United States, where it was developed by researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Centre, it has not been subject to a randomized evaluation in these countries. This Swedish study is the first such trial to be published outside of the US.

The community-based treatment program works with specialized foster parents to provide antisocial young people with a structured therapeutic living environment. The treatment brings together the young person’s parents, school and social services. In Sweden, a social worker and the MTFC treatment team screened the young people for eligibility. The children had to meet a clinical diagnosis for conduct disorder and be at immediate risk for out-of-home placement.

Put forth by TFC Consultants, Inc., I’ll bet a nonprofit:

“Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: An evidence-based solution for youth with behavioral problems, their famlies and their communities.”

Mission
Founded in 2002, TFC Consultants, Inc., is dedicated to the implementation of community-based programs that are cost-effective and achieve positive outcomes for children, youth, and families. TFC Consultants, Inc., fulfills its mission by providing training, consultation and technical assistance to agencies, government entities and communities aiming to implement model-adherent Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) programs, by providing consultation and technical assistance to existing MTFC programs and by helping service providers, policy makers, and community leaders resolve issues related to the implementation of evidence-based practices.

(same terms we have become used to. History: The MTFC program model is rooted in studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s by Gerald Patterson and John Reid at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC).** Social learning theory and its principles form the basis for the MTFC model. Numerous research studies have been funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) at OSLC and elsewhere to identify key predictors of child and adolescent conduct problems, antisocial behavior, and mental health problems. More than 20 years of research in these areas led to the development of the MTFC model…..”Over the years, the original program model has been expanded to fit the needs of youngsters in all of the major publicly-funded child service systems (juvenile justice, mental health, and child welfare). MTFC programs are now funded by multiple public agencies and organizations around the United States and in Europe. .)

**OSLC

Oregon Social Learning Center — I was here before, tracking a certain individual’s grants. Sounds entirely compatible with AFCC purpose — get people into group settings, and work on the transformations:

Utopia Airways

A History of the Oregon Social Learning Center

The Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) was started by a small group of researchers and clinicians interested in solving a major social problem, child antisocial behavior. For the past 30 years, two psychologists have formed the nucleus of the group: Gerald R. Patterson and John B. Reid. The individual and joint efforts of Patterson and Reid and their close colleagues set the foundation for what OSLC is today.

Click here for a BRIEF TIMELINE

The Development of Parent Training: The 1960’s (sounding familiar yet? AFCC pushing “parent education“) .

Patterson had been trained in traditional clinical methods such as projective testing and play therapy, but these did not seem to assist much in helping children with aggressive behavior problems. In contrast, the results of the marble box studies suggested that behavior modification had great promise for changing child aggressive behavior, and several professors at the University of Oregon (UO) guided Patterson in learning and applying behavioral analysis procedures.

In the early 1960’s, the new “social learning” group began a series of clinical studies with children, parents, and teachers. It was soon clear that parents and their day-to-day parenting behaviors were better targets for changing child aggressive behavior than direct clinical intervention with children, and the development of effective “parent training” techniques became the focus of the work.

Oregon Research Institute:

While the social learning group was getting off the ground, a new non-profit research center was incorporated in Eugene, the Oregon Research Institute (ORI). ORI was the brainchild of Paul Hoffman, an assistant professor from the UO psychology department who had been inspired by “think tanks” in the San Francisco area.

By the mid-1960’s, Patterson was disenchanted with the university world, and he left the psychology department and took his clinical research program to ORI. At ORI, work continued on the development of parent training methods as well as the development of measures of intervention outcome, such as child and family observational coding systems.

…At the social learning group’s newly opened clinic and research center, work continued on the development of interventions for a widening set of problems, including children who steal and parents who abuse their children. …

(Hang in here, keep reading, because this is leading to the local Marriage and Family Therapist territory):

A Multi-Disciplinary Research Center is Hatched: The 1980’s

Scientists Lew Bank, Patti Chamberlain, Kate Kavanagh and John Reid with Project Coordinators Irma August and Becky Higgins.

After several years as an affiliate organization of the Wright Institute in Berkeley, California, and then as the Evaluation Research Group (ERG; a name inherited from Dick Jones), the group incorporated in 1983 as the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC).

What “The Wright Institute” does: (see link) — it is a path to employment in, among other places, the family court system, and other treatment outlets — it leads to a Psy.D.

The Wright Institute has been educating doctoral students in clinical psychology for over 40 years.

Our master’s program is designed for students who want a high-quality graduate education and prefer to attend classes on weekends only.

Whether you are already employed—in or out of a human service setting—or just beginning to re-enter the job market, our program will provide the necessary educational background and pre-graduate supervised experience for you to become a licensed marriage and family therapist (MFT) in California.

So, what are interlinked “Family Policy Centers,” including the “EYFMS” one above which advertised this post — doing trying to get into the Behavioral Modification and Parent Training fields? Those fields are straight clinical/forensic psychology in basis, and which do NOT have a Christian basis. The Christian worldview and premise are entirely different as to motivation, belief and practice. So what are so-called Christian groups doing in these behavioral modification based on experimentation fields?

In fact, the social learning theory is totally different from the evangelistic being transformed (or, “used” ) by the Holy Spirit (a personality of the Triune God, the other one having been born from the Virgin Mary, and the entire God-Family being noticeably absent any feminine members whatsoever) resulting in a radical ethical, behavioral change which a 3rd party (this Holy Spirit) is really responsible for — not the individual.?

THUS, THESE “Family Policy Organizations” organizations are not psychology-based in origin– they are “Focus on the Family” aligned (though careful to avoid “corporate or financial” ties). So what are they doing getting so involved in the social services arena (Now that Bush let more of them in?) Is from a genuine desire to provide the social services proceeding out of a love of humanity?

I’m going to say, NO. Based on the order of priority in their mission (not to mention practices) — the main purpose is to gain access to populations, sure, yeah, help them — but moreso, to “transform” them into Christ-centered Trinitarians and serve the same Great God Our Savior. They are simply utilizing pre-existing networks, and creating some more of their own, enabled by the laxity between proselytizing and social services that a former US President enabled — by Executive Order, not popular vote — in creating the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, to which President Obama has now given an additional goal (one of 4) of Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.

There is a fundamental illiteracy at the heart of so much of this. Maybe not in all areas of life, but when it comes to one of the critical ones: REASON — and HONESTY. What they believe, the Bible does not validate, or even mention by name; no textual or extreme literary skills are necessary to read things like this:

I Timothy 2: (EXHortation to pray for kings and those in authority)… 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 who willeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times; 7 whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

A mediator has to be positioned between two. Christ Jesus — a man, and the mediator between man and God. The mediator is not standing in the same position as God — that would defeat the entire monotheism central to the Jewish people that Jesus came from. Galatians 5:20 “20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one but God is one (Interlinear)

(SIMILARLY– in the Family Court Situation — the mediators SHOULD be neutral. However, they aren’t — and often, when subsidized by federal grants, and/or paid by the local County; they are going to go with the purpose of the federal grants, which is to increase noncustodial (Fathers!) parenting time — not to “resolve difficulties” but to produce an outcome with a pre-stated (i.e., pre-Judicial) end — not revealed to the custodial mother. Those court mediators are not functioning as mediators should, but as emissaries of the will of those who run the place — and that will is not stated in the courthouse, but in Federal Law relating to Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Access & Visitation)

In other words, I am issuing a warning, from both some texts (which others might not bother with) and from personal awareness, and I believe in the “Independence +3” post last week (sic), I made a good case, from historical context of our own country’s beginnings — that this TYPE of mentality will twist both the Bible, and the Constitution, and do so with a straight face. It is not a discursive reasoning process except on the surface; on the inside is no different than any other fundamentalist religion — whether Islam, or this version of Christianity, or Catholicism — any other territorial and aggressive group — it’s a surface-level commitment to the words, but an underneath clear intent to run with whatever the underlying agenda is.

Possibly what they have in common with the government programs is this subterranean (though not too far underground) intent to run things by gaining access to certain populations, in a power-based relationship, i.e., the “helping” function is actually a “power” function….

And this agenda will never be favorable or fair to EITHER women OR Gays/Lesbians, or the least bit apologetic that in illegal aggressions and suppressions of both, it’s OK to trample the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, or (see Bob Vander Plaats) get some financing to throw out three State Supreme Court judges who disagree with you, and tell the others to resign also.

(and, The Bachmanns, AND, the Family Leader of Bob Vander Plaats — AND the politicians clustering around this politico-theologico movement)

That’s enough!
A teenager in NJ has challenged her sent an open letter challenging Mrs. Bachmann to a civics debate:

Let’s check their businesses: a blog (or section) called “MINNPOTUS”

MinnPost Logo

Her husband’s therapy business is on the dole as the wife complains about Medicaid payments “swelling the welfare roles..”

NBC News: Bachmann’s husband gets big Medicaid payments

By Joe Kimball | Published Wed, Jun 29 2011 9:29 am

NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff has a story noting that while Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has “forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the ‘welfare rolls,’ the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005.”

According to the story, Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by her husband, Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, is:

“based in Lake Elmo, Minn., [and] describes itself on its website as offering ‘quality Christian counseling’ for a large number of mental health problems ranging from ‘anger management’ to addictions and eating disorders.”

Said the story:

“[T]he payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband’s clinic appear to contradict some of Michele Bachmann’s public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid.

The payments may be entirely legit. But then the wife ought to quit the hypocrisy. Also the family farm in the next-door state apparently is also subsidized:

Bachmann’s had her share of government aid

The fiscal conservative from Minnesota and 2012 presidential contender has benefited personally from federal funds and federal farm subsidies.

(photo caption: “Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) speaks at a conference in Minneapolis. Republican strategists warn that she needs to square her fiscal record with her public pronouncements. (Hannah Foslien, AP / June 26, 2011)”)

Reporting from Washington—

Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.But theMinnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state ofMinnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

And she has sought to keep federal money flowing to her constituents. After publicly criticizing the Obama administration’s stimulus program, Bachmann requested stimulus funds to support projects in her district. Although she has been a fierce critic of earmarks — calling them “part of the root problem with Washington’s spending addiction” — the congresswoman nonetheless argued recently that transportation projects should not be considered congressional pork.

Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received “one penny” from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.Publicly, Bachmann has objected strongly to federal farm payments.When she voted against the 2008 farm bill, a $307-billion package that would govern federal agriculture policy for five years, Bachmann declared that it was “loaded with unbelievably outrageous pork and subsidies for agricultural business and ethanol growers.” She was one of two nays cast by Minnesota’s eight-member delegation.Just a year later, however, Bachmann wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, praising the federal government for helping prop up the prices of pig products and dairy by directly buying the commodities, a move that benefited her constituents.

co. 2011 Los Angeles Times…

The LA Times does some good investigative reporting….

I know and still believe there are terrific men (single, married, or divorced) around, and I’d LIKE to believe there are Christian men who do not need religion to prop up ego, justify economically pimping their wives; who feed no need to force them to disappear as an individual into the family, and slap them down or around when they get uppity if these women disagree because that’s simply unwise and unfair.

When logic, or reason fails, certain men just fall back to the Adam/Eve relationship to justify their headship, not that they get this straight in context. Allow me, please . . . . .

Male and Female human beings together– Genesis 1:

How we got females (not including the male & female animals which had already been created….) — there being two accounts of creation: Genesis 1 details the 6 days of creation — man was made on the 6th day, “man” was made in plural, male and female together, and it doesn’t say from what, in which order, or From what. Then God took a well-earned rest. It is focusing on God’s speaking, and the setting in order of the world. This first version focuses on the 7 days of creation; “man” is more generic here, and no specific subordinate role assigned to women yet.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

And, they were vegetarians: ” 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, whichis upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

NO INFERIORITY MENTIONED:

“31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Male and Female become Adam & Eve, “The Taming of the Femine” — Genesis 2:

(I find this easier to digest if one imagines the scene in which this was told, or recited — as oral history…. regardless of one’s faith or lack thereof in the book. Don’t just go blowing it off — because we live among religious people. To live meaningfully requires a viewpoint (see Viktor Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning” if you disagree. He survived concentration camps). Man is a religious animal; he seeks to assemble enough coherent meaning in the world to survive in it. Religion ain’t going anywhere soon. So might as well get a grasp on the outlook from both sides of the coin . . . . .

The 2nd account of creation has a different emphasis:

The chapters and verses weren’t added until the “Geneva Bible” — centuries after the originals; so we have this irrational division of Chapter 1 before the end of the subject, and Chapter 2 might more logically begin here:

Genesis 2:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. . 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

[or see alternate rendering of the verse 4, generations, possibly “THIS is the account” (implying perhaps some alternate account was offered, but this is the official one….). A little more graphic detail on how things happened…..

“This the account [birth, generation — i.e., as in, generate] of the heavens and the earth. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” nice and symmetrical at least…. A B B A form (heavens & earth….earth and heavens) AND (that the LORD God made) every plant of the field and every herb of the field before it grew.(or, sprouted)… Verse 5, Hebrew

Sounds like the Creative Force wasn’t going to get those plants sprouted before there was a gardener — man — to till the ground. And no rain yet. (OK…..)

The lead-in is going to describe how God made man. Put yourself around a fire, or in a circle, listening to the account from the authority figure… Because, here comes WOMAN. Eventually….

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Michelangelo, by contrast, has man at arm’s length, a fingertip away – the written account sounds more like, mouth to mouth resuscitation! The written account also sounds like God was down on earth, getting the job done; in fact a bit later (3:8) it described the Lord as close enough they had to hide from him: “(they) heard the voice of the Lord walking in the garden in the cool of the evening.” Evidently by Michelangelo’s time, God was not so approachable. Not to mention that ceiling was pretty high, also. (understandable, when one considers the pomp and ecclesiastical layers that had developed over the years, a great distance from Pope to Peasants.. with the Popes closest to God of course, and interpreting Him for the masses..)

http://kristenwishon.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/art-appetizer-the-creation-of-adam-by-michelangelo/

WordPress blogger notes: “In 1990, physician Frank Lynn Meshberger noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association “that the background figures and shapes portrayed behind the figure of God appeared to be an anatomically accurate picture of the human brain.”

Wow — yes, they do….(look at the outline). Is there a message in that? (The creative force that brought Adam to life emanates from the human brain?)..

No plural here, and so far, no females. Just one man. Now God had his gardner, it seems he was ready to make the stuff in the ground start growing, and two specific trees as well — and the stage is set for some ethics, I suppose — see?

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Where’s Mom? Where’s the Female? Where’s the woman? God did all that preparation for just the man? A whole lot of activity — the first woman just missed out on — Gd planted a garden, and put the an in it (who hasn’t done similar things as children; making an environment and sticking figurine/s in there, playing, imagining….) the trees started growing, especially those two that were’ going to hear more of…

Adam was awake; he’d received his work assignment, the first recorded words God spoke to humans (er — to Adam….), and it was, you may freely eat of every tree of the garden EXCEPT a certain one, and the day you do (if you do), you will surely die. ….So, here Adam is conscious, rational, capable of making choices, and given a fairly wide range of action — you’re free just don’t eat of that tree which will kill you — the same day you eat from it:

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

OK, Adam has purpose, has boundaries, and has an active relationship with his creator.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him

Forgive the irreverence, but this reminded me suddenly of someone adjusting a garment they’d just created. Step back, look at it — no, the hem is too long,something isn’t right. Was God not smart enough to figure this out up front? Or, having created man from the ground and feng shui’d the place, oops — something’s missing… It’s just plants and Adam. He needs to have other living, ambulatory creatures around for company….

Then (?) God figures out, his Adam shouldn’t be alone, so he brings by the various animals, which Adam gets to name. Adam actually gets to take initiative on his own. Eve didn’t get to help name the animals because she wasn’t around yet, evidently…

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;

For some unexplained reason, the LORD God tried out a bunch of animals to help his creation, Adam. Then He decides to make a woman, like this:

Genesis 2: 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Naming is power:

(by the way, that links to a Carole King/Celine Dionne/Shania Twain song on the topic):

Naming decides what characteristics will identify the named people/animals/situations — and which details will be ignored. It decides how to categorize; for example, we already say that Animals came before women when it came to companionship for them. God didn’t even consider making the woman (in this version) til various animals had been looked at and rejected as “help meet” for God’s first man….

Propaganda:

“Bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, stirred men and women to outstanding accomplishments, sent others to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen. They have been and are applied to other people, groups, gangs, tribes, colleges, political parties, neighborhoods, states, sections of the country, nations, and races.” (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938)

“The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.”

Next, Adam is going to call woman a name. And guess what — pretty much that has gone on to date. Across the globe, it’s primarily men in government, in religion, at the head of the central banks (right?), I can’t speak for the UN, but in the USA, Congress is mostly men — and women were the last to get the vote, after freed male slaves, and there has been no “equal rights amendment.” In Saudi Arabia (last I heard) women couldn’t drive by themselves.

NAMING things represents power. This account (Genesis 2nd) of the heavens and the earth show clearly the subordination of women.

Over the years, and adding plenty of experiences, I have begun to believe that the subordination of woman’s status is the main purpose of this account of Genesis, the genesis of the world. Telling the story . . . . well here it comes — from “NAME” which is a healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood grantee:

Men Are from Dirt, Women Are from Men – Curriculum & Study Guide

Churches around the world {{yeah, like Uganda, where “NAME” was helping with the anti-gay, in fact, kill-the-gay campaigns}} are realizing that there is an answer to a serious problem—the breakdown of the family. Homes are being reunited, marriages are being restored, and childraasdfasden [(yes, the website does read “childreaasdfasden” — guess like me, they didn’t have a copyeditor or proofreader in the budget)] are being spared the terrible ravages of divorce.

NAME Centers are springing up all over the nation to fill this huge need created by broke[n] homes and generational vices. Churches implementing NAME Centers train couples to mentor other couples. This is done utilizing NAME’s unique training and certification system to prepare couples to biblically counsel other couples. These couples become the core of the local NAME Center.

As a result, churches are experiencing a decrease in divorce rates, less burden on the pastor for counseling, and strong, faithful families committed to the ministries of the local church.

Wait a minute! !!! This group is a federal grantee of Responsible Fatherhood funds, and it’s taking that money and helping recruit and train people to support the local CHURCHES? It was my impression this nonprofit was formed in order to receive the federal funding — not because it was around, and then, “oh my! — here comes that grants series”

So they are going to Biblically Counsel Men are from Dirt (ha, ha), but WOMEN (to this day) are from Men. Don’t mess with that, or you mess with God’s order…

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 22, 2011 at 9:40 am

Posted in History of Family Court

Time to look up how Statewide, Centralized “SDU”s Child Support Distribution & Enforcement (all CSE) became subject to Title IV-D/IV-A standard and control

with one comment

WORK-IN-PROCESS:

#1 — Exploring other WordPress themes or domains that could present the information better. I hate in particular the “quote” function and may indicate begin/end quotes differently this time…. Til then, “mea culpa, mea culpa”

#2 — Compiling a state-by-state set of links to address and explain some of these issues, where the Child Support Enforcement becomes an arm of the Federal Government’s welfare law — and controlled by it.

At the bottom of the last post (published today) I happened to run across Texas Legislation creating the centralized state child support enforcement (bureaucracy) and the language stating that IF ANY COUNTY had a Title IV-D contract going, ANY NEW (CHILD SUPPORT) CASES — AND potentially all EXISTING CASES (unless an obligee specifically declined) COULD BE CONSIDERED TITLE IV-D.

No parent receiving public assistance, that i’m aware of, has any right to decline signing over child support to the local county to collect. That parent loses a significant right in the process, and probably unaware of the implications. We are living under the old mythology that these are the good guys, and will go collect child support while you take care of your children and seek more work as a single parent, typically. Nope….

Here’s a little background on how we got “CENTRALIZED STATE DISTRIBUTION UNITS” for child support, from the Congressional Research Service. It dates back to 1996 welfare reform, and in short, the states either complied, or lost their welfare (TANF) funding block grant. most didn’t want to, so they complied, automating and computerizing where we work, what we earn, and transfer of wealth (income, at least) between families at the federal level. Considering how recent the entire computer age is, this is amazingly fast transformation of government and managing the “poor” (real and alleged) through an invasive and pervasive technolgy reporting where people live, work and how much they earn (although the IRS supposedly already has this information ,when people report):

“P.L.” stands for “Public Law”:

P.L. 104-193 requires state Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies to operate
a centralized automated unit for collection and disbursement of payments on two
categories of child support orders:

(1) those enforced by the CSE agency and

(2) those issued or modified on or after January 1, 1994, which are not enforced by the state CSE
agency but for which the noncustodial parent’s income is subject to withholding. The
state disbursement unit generally must use automated procedures, electronic processes,
and computer-driven technology to collect and disburse support payments, to keep an
accurate identification of payments, to promptly disburse money to custodial parents or
other states, and to furnish parents with a record of the current status of support
payments. The collection and disbursement unit provisions went into effect on October
1, 1998; except that states that processed the receipt of child support payments through
local courts could continue to process those payments through such courts until
September 30, 1999. All of the jurisdictions with the October 1, 1998 deadline, with the
exception of California, are now operating state disbursement units. Information is not
yet officially available with regard to states with the October 1, 1999 deadline. (States
have until December 31, 1999 to notify the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) as to whether or not they have a centralized disbursement unit.) HHS expects
that California, Nebraska, Ohio and perhaps five or six other states will not meet the
October 1, 1999 deadline. Because of the total loss of CSE funding plus possible loss
of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funding for states that
are not in compliance with the state disbursement unit requirements, Congress has passed
legislation (H.R. 3194) that would impose a lesser alternative penalty for these states.

On November 18, 1999, the House passed H.R. 3194, an omnibus appropriations bill,
that contains a provision that would lessen the penalty for states that are not in
compliance with the centralized state disbursement unit requirement. On November 19,
1999, the Senate passed H.R. 3194. This bill was signed into law (P.L. 106-113) on
November 29, 1999. This report will not be updated.

GET THIS:

The state disbursement unit must be operated directly by the state CSE agency, by
two or more state CSE agencies in different states under a regional cooperative agreement,
or by a contractor responsible directly to the state CSE agency.

The disbursement unit must disburse to custodial parents all amounts payable within 2 business days after receiving the money
from the employer. The disbursement unit may retain arrearages in the case of appeals
until they are resolved.

Uh-hmmm. So, if appeals are encouraged, then it holds onto those arrearages (and accrued interest) which it supposedly/theoretically then accounts for (only many states simply don’t and as I showed last post, HHS isn’t exactly monitoring that too closely, or spanking anyone (at all) if they don’t. What this tells me (now over 10 years later into these systems) is that there must be plenty of wiggle room between federal and state, or the federal would probably be MUCH more concerned about fraud, waste, and improper reporting, right? I suspect that a lot of funds get “lost” to various parts of the bureaucracy by mutual consent and tacit understanding that not too much is going to happen. Consider what, by contrast, would happen to states that didn’t bow the knee to Washington if they didn’t computerize, centralize and work closer with the HHS — they would simply lose their welfare funding!

Hmm….

Costs. If the state is incorporating the collection and disbursement unit into its
statewide automated CSE system, those costs are eligible for 80% federal matching funds.
After the state’s share of that enhanced funding is reached, the state can receive the regular 66% federal reimbursement for the costs of the state disbursement unit.

66% of the costs are supported by the “feds.” So, who are we really serving in these matters then? Are the public servants int he courts most likely to be driven by the best interests of the children, or a state’s need to keep helping its poor get their welfare and prevent local riots, looting, (or mass starvation) if they don’t?

SOCIAL SECURITY LAW –Section 454 [42 U.S.C 654] — This is just a running start. The numbers (1) (2) etc. go up to (34) . . . . .

STATE PLAN FOR CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Sec. 454. [42 U.S.C. 654] A State plan for child and spousal support must—

(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State;

(2) provide for financial participation by the State;

(3) provide for the establishment or designation of a single and separate organizational unit, which meets such staffing and organizational requirements as the Secretary {i.e., of HHS} may by regulation prescribe, within the State to administer the plan;

(4) provide that the State will—

(A) provide services relating to the establishment of paternityor the establishment, modification, or enforcement of child support obligations, as appropriate, under the plan with respect to—

(i) each child for whom (I) assistance is provided under the State program funded under part A of this title{{That means, I believe, welfare, i.e. Title IV-A}}, (II) benefits or services for foster care maintenance are provided under the State program funded under part E of this title, (III) medical assistance is provided under the State plan approved under title XIX, or (IV) cooperation is required pursuant to section 6(l)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(l)(1))^[136], unless, in accordance with paragraph (29), good cause or other exceptions exist;

(ii) any other child, if an individual applies for such services with respect to the child; and

(i) basically means, any child receiving some kind of state benefits, whether welfare, or in foster care, or on Title XIX medical assistance, or (barring certain exceptions) receiving “food stamps” and (ii) means, anyone else whose parent(s) want in on this….

(B) enforce any support obligation established with respect to—

(i) a child with respect to whom the State provides services under the plan; or

(ii) the custodial parent of such a child;

The State is to enforce the child support obligation regarding the child, and the custodial parent of the child. (Child & Spousal support, i.e.)

(5) provide that (A) in any case in which support payments are collected for an individual with respect to whom an assignment pursuant to section 408(a)(3) is effective, such payments shall be made to the State for distribution pursuant to section 457 and shall not be paid directly to the family, and the individual will be notified on a monthly basis (or on a quarterly basis for so long as the Secretary determines with respect to a State that requiring such notice on a monthly basis would impose an unreasonable administrative burden) of the amount of the support payments collected, and (B) in any case in which support payments are collected for an individual pursuant to the assignment made under section 1912, such payments shall be made to the State for distribution pursuant to section 1912, except that this clause shall not apply to such payments for any month after the month in which the individual ceases to be eligible for medical assistance;

Section 408(a)(3) means — if the state helps you with (cash aid or food stamps, possibly medical costs?) — you MUST assign child support collection rights to the state. They don’t want to help you if the father or other parent is already paying you — you might be a crook,, lying, or defrauding the government, right? So, to protect this system — the first thing a person receiving FOOD to keep (her) kids fed after, say, leaving a bad situation — or having an absent father or not establishing a financial relationship with the father of the parent if, for example, that wouldn’t be wise — is to give up some rights. Give it up — Big Brother will go after the child support (or not, or compromise it, or . . .. etc.) but you don’t get to both collect child support (however small) AND receive food stamp aid. Here’s the section it links to:

(3)[50] No assistance for families not assigning certain support rights to the state.—A State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall require, as a condition of paying assistance to a family under the State program funded under this part, that a member of the family assign to the State any right the family member may have (on behalf of the family member or of any other person for whom the family member has applied for or is receiving such assistance) to support from any other person, not exceeding the total amount of assistance so paid to the family, which accrues during the period that the family receives assistance under the program.

In practice, I think that these cases continue to be called “Title IV-D” long after any family may be no longer receiving state assistance. Perhaps some families don’t know to in writing terminate the status…..

There is an exception if a person has been battered — but the state must limit this to no more than 20% of the people seeking such TANF help, even if (as has been reported elsewhere) up to 45% of the families would meet this criteria — as physical and economic abuse often go together where there is cohabitation/marriage. There is a Hardship Exemption for assigning rights to the states so it can go after the fathers (or mothers, but this is aimed at fathers; see “paternity” clauses):

(7) No assistance for more than 5 years. {“(whether or not consecutive)”}— (A), (B),
(C) Hardship exception.—

(i) In general.—The State may exempt a family from the application of subparagraph (A) by reason of hardship or if the family includes an individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.

(ii) Limitation.—The average monthly number of families with respect to which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the average monthly number of families to which assistance is provided under the State program funded under this part during the fiscal year or the immediately preceding fiscal year (but not both), as the State may elect.

There are quota limits on being subjected to extreme cruelty or battering. Make sure one does not apply for help when the previous year, too many others did, relative to the entire welfare population….

(iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.—For purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been subjected to—

(I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result in, physical injury to the individual;

(II) sexual abuse;

(III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;

(IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent child to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities;

(V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;

(VI) mental abuse; or

(VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.

This gets kind of interesting — but it represents the nationwide centralization of child support units to a SINGLE state distribution agency, the establishment of incentive payments to the states (I don’t know the previous arrangement, but this one apparently began at 80% for states complying wholesale (i.e., states that actually wanted to continue having the U.S. Government continue to pay welfare & medicaid help to their populations, which is basically ALL states, from what i can tell) — and then was reducted to approximately 66% of costs. When you have a Federal 66% and State 34% relationship (to costs), this means in a local state anyone whose child support order really comes under these programs (i.e., wage assignments or welfare is at all involved, or people who get innocently sucked into the concept that the Child SUpport Enforcement apparatus exists primarily for — Child SUpport Enforcement) — is going to be REALLY dealing with FEDERAL policies (at the rate of $2 to every $1 state — right? (See %s). . . ..

I was shocked to discover this initially. I got to a COUNTY level superior court, learn its rules, learn my state codes. But I was unaware — entirely unaware — that the FEDERAL policy and take on anyone asking for a little help immediately after a very abusive relationship — OR anyone walking into a local child support agency for enforcement help, rather than hiring a private attorney instead — is going to basically be dealing with the welfare-based system run at the HHS level.

And this level has been re-tooled to accommodate fatherhood and blames abuse poverty, and basically all social “sin” (cf. “Eve” in the Bible) on the lack of a biological father in the family home! In order to function at a local level, one has to become HHS-wise. How many hours are available in the average single parent’s home who has a divorce and is trying to provide the best things possible (according to whatever budget) for her kids, hopefully entrance to a college education and/or a solvent, safe future?

Here’s another factoid, oir rather 3 of them (22- 25) from this US Code Section 454:

(22) in order for the State to be eligible to receive any incentive payments under section 458, *** provide that, if one or more political subdivisions of the State participate in the costs of carrying out activities under the State plan during any period, each such subdivision shall be entitled to receive an appropriate share (as determined by the State) of any such incentive payments made to the State for such period, taking into account the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities carried out under the State plan by such political subdivision;

The State cannot be mean and hog or hoard all the incentive payments, but actually distribute them to the various (counties) (“political subdivisions”) which go along with the plan, here. However if the State determines (or feels) that these have not been GOOD boys and girls (counties) as ot child support enforcement and etc. practices, it may choose NOT to pass on the incentive payments. Hmmm…

(***More on Section 458, below (after #25) — it’s relevant we might as well go over the material now)>

(23) provide that the State will regularly and frequently publicize, through public service announcements, the availability of child support enforcement services under the plan and otherwise, {{and otherwise??}} including information as to any application fees for such services and a telephone number or postal address at which further information may be obtained and will publicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support by means the State deems appropriate;

Basically, the Federal Government has become the controlling interest at the Superior Court level when it comes to child support, and is going to solicit more business for itself in this manner. As the Federal Government is to be “of, by and for the people” (yeah, sure) I find this odd that the people are coming increasingly under distant control of their daily lives…. I have seen plenty of this advertising over the years –and it is definitely (in our area at least) aimed at NONcustodial parents, which I found interesting. Alternately, the states could just say goodbye to welfare assistance….

(24) provide that the State will have in effect an automated data processing and information retrieval system—

(A) by October 1, 1997, which meets all requirements of this part which were enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988,

(B) by October 1, 2000, which meets all requirements of this part enacted on or before the date of the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996^[142], except that such deadline shall be extended by 1 day for each day (if any) by which the Secretary fails to meet the deadline imposed by section 344(a)(3) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996;

(25) provide that if a family with respect to which services are provided under the plan ceases to receive assistance under the State program funded under part A, the State shall provide appropriate notice to the family and continue to provide such services, subject to the same conditions and on the same basis as in the case of other individuals to whom services are furnished under the plan, except that an application or other request to continue services shall not be required of such a family and paragraph (6)(B) {which relates to fees….} shall not apply to the family

I know this is a lot to handle (it is for me too, incidentally)…..

INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES (SECTION 458 — see (22), just above, which refers to this)

(SIT DOWN, this one takes a little computation..and has some new jargon:..)

Sec. 458. [42 U.S.C. 658a](a) In General.—In addition to any other payment under this part, the Secretary {{of HHS, who else?}} shall, subject to subsection (f), make an incentive payment to each State for each fiscal year in an amount determined under subsection (b).

(b) Amount of Incentive Payment.—

(1) In general.—The incentive payment for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the fiscal year.

INCENTIVE PAYMENT (IP, let me call it “IP$” which it represents) = Incentive Payment Pool, as legislated into $$ figures, below, for that fiscal year (IPP — meaning the NATIONWIDE Pool) X Incentive Payment Share (IPS, or basically %). The states are thereby competing with each other for some water from this pool...

IP$ = IPP for the USA X Your State’s IP%.

(2) Incentive payment pool.— (What I called “IPP”)

(A) In general.—In paragraph (1), the term “incentive payment pool” means—

(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO MILLION

(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE MILLION = +7

(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY MILION = +21 (3-fold increase, i.e. 7X3)

(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE MILLION + 11 million (less of an increase)

(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; FOUR HUNRED FIFTY-FOUR MILLION (a decrease… huh…) – 7 million

(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-SIX MILLION (another decrease) – 8 million

(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION (an unexplained increase) +12 million. You tell me why — I’m clueless what’s so special about the year 2006…..

(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE MILLION (highest yet) + 13 million

(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE MILLION (ditto). + only 12 million again.

(x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the second preceding fiscal year.

OK, about here, my attention (or desire to figure this out) just flagged. After all, it’s government prophetic economics 102.

(B) CPI.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term “Consumer Price Index” means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.

(3) State incentive payment share.—In paragraph (1), the term “State incentive payment share” means, with respect to a fiscal year—

(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the fiscal year; divided by

(B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year.

BASE AMOUNTs per state lead to a series of charts for determining how good the SDU has been, or rather, the States have been, with these federally-set goals from Social Security Administration law:

What is an “INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT”? Basically, another thing that TITLE IV-D & IV-A are going to judge the State by, kind of reminds me of elementary school….

(4) Incentive base amount.—In paragraph (3), the term “incentive base amount” means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State performance for the fiscal year:

(A) The paternity establishment performance level.

(B) The support order performance level.

(C) The current payment performance level.

(D) The arrearage payment performance level.

(E) The cost–effectiveness performance level.

IN SHORT, these are things that the Federal Government, in administering welfare and regulating Child Support (as part of PRWORA, aimed at eliminating welfare) has determined IT cares about.

While a decent parent cares about how their children are doing, including do they get to eat, attend decent schools, have reasonably healthy values — and violence towards other human beings or attempt to control micro-manage one’s partner as if one’s partner were an infant, or incompetent, or simply a bad person is definitely NOT a healthy value — this bureaucracy obviously mistrusts the common man, and the States, in particular anyone receiving state assistance (although a serious attempt is made here to make ALL child support cases in to welfare-style cases) — so IT is concerned about A, B, C, D, & E, above.

I’m NOT quite sure I understand this right, but it seems to me that of the total cases approved under this plan (regardless of the year?) the “applicable percentage” (that could increase or decrease $$ to your individual STate), the MORE CHILD SUPPORT CASES OPEN THIS YEAR< THE MORE INCENTIVE PAYMENT TO THE STATES: THERE IS AN INCENTIVE TO ESTABLISH CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS – UNDER THIS WELFARE-BASED SYSTEM:

(B) Establishment of child support orders.—

(i) Determination of support order performance level.—The support order performance level for a State for a fiscal year is the percentage of the total number of cases under the State plan approved under this part in which there is a support order during the fiscal year.

(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.—The applicable percentage with respect to a State’s support order performance level is as follows:

If the support order performance level is: The applicable percentage is:

At least: But less than:

80% 100

79% 80% 98

78% 79% 96

77% 78% 94

76% 77% 92

75% 76% 90

74% 75% 88

73% 74% 86

72% 73% 84

71% 72% 82

70% 71% 80

69% 70% 79

68% 69% 78

67% 68% 77

66% 67% 76

65% 66% 75

64% 65% 74

63% 64% 73

62% 63% 72

61% 62% 71

60% 61% 70

59% 60% 69

58% 59% 68

57% 58% 67

56% 57% 66

55% 56% 65

54% 55% 64

53% 54% 63

52% 53% 62

51% 52% 61

50% 51% 60

0% 50% 0.

If the support order performance level is:	The applicable percentage is:
80%		100
79%	80%	98
78%	79%	96
77%	78%	94
76%	77%	92
75%	76%	90
74%	75%	88
73%	74%	86
72%	73%	84
71%	72%	82
70%	71%	80
69%	70%	79
68%	69%	78
67%	68%	77
66%	67%	76
65%	66%	75
64%	65%	74
63%	64%	73
62%	63%	72
61%	62%	71
60%	61%	70
59%	60%	69
58%	59%	68
57%	58%	67
56%	57%	66
55%	56%	65
54%	55%	64
53%	54%	63
52%	53%	62
51%	52%	61
50%	51%	60
0%	50%	0.

LOOK AT THIS INCENTIVE CHARTS (THERE ARE OTHERS, I JUST PICKED TWO): —

INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO ARTIFICIALLY TINKER WITH (I.E. “COMPROMISE OR REDUCE”) ARREARAGES

(D) Collections on child support arrearages.—

(i) Determination of arrearage payment performance level.—The arrearage payment performance level for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the total number of cases under the State plan approved under this part in which payments of past–due child support were received during the fiscal year and part or all of the payments were distributed to the family to whom the past–due child support was owed (or, if all past–due child support owed to the family was, at the time of receipt, subject to an assignment to the State, part or all of the payments were retained by the State) divided by the total number of cases under the State plan in which there is past–due child support, expressed as a percentage.

(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.—The applicable percentage with respect to a State’s arrearage payment performance level is as follows:

If the support order performance level is: The applicable percentage is:

At least: But less than:

80% 100

79% 80% 98

78% 79% 96

77% 78% 94

76% 77% 92

75% 76% 90

74% 75% 88

73% 74% 86

72% 73% 84

71% 72% 82

70% 71% 80

69% 70% 79

68% 69% 78

67% 68% 77

66% 67% 76

65% 66% 75

64% 65% 74

63% 64% 73

62% 63% 72

61% 62% 71

60% 61% 70

59% 60% 69

58% 59% 68

57% 58% 67

56% 57% 66

55% 56% 65

54% 55% 64

53% 54% 63

52% 53% 62

51% 52% 61

50% 51% 60

49% 50% 59

48% 49% 58

47% 48% 57

46% 47% 56

45% 46% 55

44% 45% 54

43% 44% 53

42% 43% 52

41% 42% 51

40% 41% 50

0% 40% 0.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the arrearage payment performance level of a State for a fiscal year is less than 40 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage points the arrearage payment performance level of the State for the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the applicable percentage with respect to the State’s arrearage payment performance level is 50 percent.

If the support order performance level is:	The applicable percentage is:
80%		100
79%	80%	98
78%	79%	96
77%	78%	94
76%	77%	92
75%	76%	90
74%	75%	88
73%	74%	86
72%	73%	84
71%	72%	82
70%	71%	80
69%	70%	79
68%	69%	78
67%	68%	77
66%	67%	76
65%	66%	75
64%	65%	74
63%	64%	73
62%	63%	72
61%	62%	71
60%	61%	70
59%	60%	69
58%	59%	68
57%	58%	67
56%	57%	66
55%	56%	65
54%	55%	64
53%	54%	63
52%	53%	62
51%	52%	61
50%	51%	60
49%	50%	59
48%	49%	58
47%	48%	57
46%	47%	56
45%	46%	55
44%	45%	54
43%	44%	53
42%	43%	52
41%	42%	51
40%	41%	50
0%	40%	0.

HOW THIS CAN WORK IN PRACTICE: A little birdie (i.e., acquaintance) told me of a case where the visitation was 60/40 one parent to the other (not too bad an arrangement right?) with the mother being custodial 60% and receiving some child support payments, not too much I gather. The case was then switched — 100% custody to the father, his child support case closed (he’s 100% custodial now, right) and a NEW ONE opened where she pays.

This increases that state’s % favorably — they just established a “new” child support order. I’m sure it wasn’t an isolated case.

Or, if an arrears is exceptionally high AND a custody switch AND compromise of arrears (which maybe were unreasonably high to start with) can be made — that’s a double-delight: new child support case, and greater % of arrears paid, right? (of course the AMOUNT of arrears was lowered to up the %, but hey … it’s all in how one allocates it on the books)….

Imagine who this might (and trust me — does!) play out with a totally naive parent, who doesn’t know about the incentive payment system factor, and actually hopes that the Child SupportEnforcement system is focused on the children — and not gyrating to the frequency of these parameters –she (most likely) will have probablyo adjusted lifestyle as possible to accommodate an existing child support order, whether or not it’s being complied with — and suddenly (in the middle of a school year, a rental lease period, or any carefully balanced arrangement of her work schedule, children’s school and or after school activities, living situation, transportation, etc. — that takes a lot of planning and juggling — and suddenly the “system” determines it’s better to switch custody, bill her for child support (after she loses in court, probably running into some of the access-visitation enabled personnel) – and the children, and associated others, are exposed to this chaos — while they go into court and Mom is insulted for protesting, i.e., being a “high-conflict” family per AFCC standards.

Just even not knowing the various elements at play make it a Russian Roulette situation..

And, to cap it all off — the HHS is apparently not paying very close attention to what states are doing with their advances, or their undistributable collections, anyhow. Do we really want the entire nations’ workforce on this child support grid? (consider the “New Hire” information — any employer just might happen to be hiring a deadbeat parent, so they must report ALL new hires not just as part of their Tax filings, but also to the state Distribution Unit — although this unit is almost totally ineffective at the underground economy which received a major boost, I’m sure, resulting directly from its oppressive presence!)

END OF SECTION ON “INCENTIVE PAYMENTS”, below here is miscellaneous commentary on the SDU _- Statewide Distribution Unit — overall.

The state wants to continue as if the family is Title IV-A (receiving assistance) when in fact, it is not. Title IV-D (this act, basically) cases are flagged and handled differently IN THE COURTS — specifically BECAUSE so many other related court programs (and their funding) can be called into play, making the landscape a virtual set of land mines and hidden trenches…

CHILD SUPPORT in most states is now centrally disbursed. As California’s website affirms:

Today child support payments are collected and processed by a single entity – the California State Disbursement Unit (SDU). Required by federal law, the SDU processes 100% of child support payments that used to be handled at the Local Child Support Agencies.

Alongside this SDU site sometimes is helpfully posted how to get one’s child support arrears “compromised” _- which I wish I’d known about a few years ago; this one is from El Dorado County, CA. Shouldn’t the primary caretaking parent (where there is one) be informed of this at the local facilitator’s office, where I guarantee some of them are found from time to time seeking help of one sort or another surrounding custody matters?

Compromise of Arrears Program

If you owe child support arrears to the state, you may qualify for the Compromise of Arrears Program. In order to be eligible for this program you must meet the following criteria:

You must complete the necessary application forms.

You do not have the ability to pay all the child support arrears and interest you owe within the next three years ** without a compromise.

You have the ability to pay a reduced arrears amount, plus any support and arrears owed to the custodial party within three years.

If you owe current child support, you must pay the current support.

You have not been convicted, nor had a contempt finding for failure to pay child support in the last six months.

Consider: Any TANF cases would have to prosecute (file a contempt order) themselves, if the local agency simply declines to do this, which it frequently does…. How many people legitimately on TANF can afford private attorneys to prosecute child support contempts, or know how to do it themselves, including ferreting out income, filing subpoenas, showing up in court in one piece, etc.?

You must owe the government {{note: not the other parent…}} at least $501.00 in child support arrears. (which is almost nothing!)

You have not stopped paying child support in anticipation of this program.

You do not conceal or misrepresent your income and/or assets.
You have not had an agreement denied in the last year.

You have not had an agreement rescinded in the last two years.

State Compromise of Arrears Program

I’m not sure this is current — and just posting it as a “clue” – it appears to predate the Y2K scare, but indeed, 2000 was the year in California the system began to switch from the District Attorney’s offices (for enforcement) to a separate agency. I’ll just bold interesting terms:

CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE:

10080. (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(1) The failure of the Statewide Automated Child Support System (SACSS) has left California without a statewide automated child support system as required by federal law and subjects the state to significant federal penalties.

The federal stick…..

(2) Statewide uniformity of child support enforcement practices and procedures is essential to an effective child support enforcement
program.

Probably true, at least to be fair — face it, divorcing separating parents don’t always hang around in the same counties, for good reasons…
(3) A single statewide automated child support system promotes uniformity and supports a child support collection system that keeps
children out of poverty and reduces welfare costs. Successful implementation of a single statewide child support system is critical
to the welfare of California and its children.

{{Seeing as some District Attorneys have been caught cheating parents of collected funds already……}}
(4) The federal government has informed the state that the proposed consortia-based alternative system configuration submitted
by the state for approval does not meet the criteria required by federal law.

(5) The federal government has informed the state that it intendsto disapprove the state’s child support (Title IV-D) plan because the
state has failed to timely implement a State Disbursement Unit as required by federal law. Disapproval of the state IV-D plan may
result in the state’s ineligibility for a federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant under Title IV-A of
the Social Security Act jeopardizing the receipt of billions of dollars of federal funds.

I THINK IT”S PRETTY CLEAR WHO’S HOLDING THE TRUMP CARD IN THIS SITUATION . . .. AND IT”S NOT CALIFORNIA….

(b) It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature to:
(1) Establish a single statewide automated child support system
that complies with all federal certification requirements, federal
and state laws and policies, meets Year 2000 requirements, and
ensures child support collections will continue to increase.
(2) Ensure that all counties will have an automation system that
will allow them to continue their child support services while a
single statewide automated child support system is developed and
implemented.
(3) Designate the Franchise Tax Board, as an agent for the
department, as the entity responsible for the procurement,
development, implementation, and maintenance of the single statewide
automated system in accordance with the state’s child support (Title
IV-D) plan.
(4) Ensure that the single statewide automated system project will
be completed successfully and in the most expeditious manner
possible through the cooperation of all affected state agencies.

(5) Ensure county participation and compliance with the single
statewide automated system by providing for the sharing of federal
penalties.

{{i.e., “Pass It On” applies to the federal-to-state pressure….}}
(6) Avoid the repetition of the practices that led to the failure of the SACSS system and to require the department to ensure that
procedures are in place to prevent the repetition of those practices.

AND SO FORTH . . . .

Found some notes in North Dakota, 1998, that showed a nonprofit called “R-KIDS” (Fargo Chapter of MN-based nonprofit) was in hearings about child support switching to the SDU model:

http://www.rkids.org/TITLE_IV-D___Child_Suppo.html

”

R-KIDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating law makers, family law professionals and the public with regard to family law and social services and their effects on children, families, and the consequences to the taxpayer.

Our main concern is for our community of children of divorced, separated, or unwed families. We believe that children need, want and deserve the love, support and involvement of both parents regardless of marital status.

Founded in 1985, our membership is comprised of both moms and dads, custodial and non-custodial parents, grandparents, stepparents, and professionals such as social workers, doctors, attorneys, and family law practitioners.

It is the objective of R-KIDS to develop equitable family law legislation in an effort to improve the lives of all Minnesota children.

“ALL CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS AND ALL GRANDPARENTS IN THEIR LIVES”

Unless those affected by the current family law system voice an opinion and demand positive change, we and our children will continue to suffer. This change will not occur without your help! Legislators and family law professionals need to hear from; parents, grandparents, and constituents. Until they do, things will not change.

This definitely sounds like a fathers-oriented group, although it’s incorporating grandparents:

R-KIDS Issues and Concerns

The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.**

The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.

Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.**

Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.

The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.

Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well. **

The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.

Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.

Accountability for the use of child support.

The impact of the no-fault divorce system on families with children and the need for effective education for parents considering marriage, separation, or divorce.

**That’s not particularly true when the cause of the divorce was child abuse or domestic violence, or habitual drug use, or any other criminal behavior! I don’t know this group, but here they are, participating in a hearing (long ago) about the centralized child support system. The second families comment is typical of a remarried father’s concern…. as is use of child support; I know plenty of mothers paying child support, and not one has indicated a concern about the usage, even through the relationship had prior abuse issues. Guess the abuse is more of a concern….

We can see from this site that 3 representatives from R-KIDS (which is based on MN, but has a ND chapter, or did in 1998) are in on the Legislative meeting from North Dakota on implementing the statewide distribution system:

NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Minutes of the CHILD SUPPORT COMMITTEE

Monday, June 22, 1998
Roughrider Room, State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota

Representative Eliot Glassheim, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Members present: Representatives Eliot Glassheim, Wesley R. Belter, William R. Devlin, April Fairfield, George Keiser, Amy N. Kliniske, Sally Sandvig; Senators Dwight C. Cook, Joel C. Heitkamp, Donna L. Nalewaja, John T. Traynor

Members absent: Representatives Linda Christenson, Dale L. Henegar, Jim Torgerson

Others present: Daniel Biesheuvel, R-KIDS, Bismarck
Bill Kerzmann, Bismarck
Arnie Fleck, Wheeler Wolf Law Firm, Bismarck
Susan Beehler, R-KIDS, Mandan
Bonnie Palecek, Bismarck
Sherry Moore, Bismarck
Bill Strate, Department of Human Services, Bismarck
Philip Papineau, R-KIDS, Fargo

. . . STUDY OF THE PROVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Chairman Glassheim called on Mr. Bill Strate, Director, Child Support Enforcement, Department of Human Services, for comments regarding the status of the implementation of the child support state disbursement unit and the proposed content of child support annual summaries.

Mr. Strate said in order to take full advantage of economies of scale and to ensure a timely turnaround of payments, automation is the key to child support. He said conversion of IV-D child support cases to the fully automated child support enforcement system (FACSES) has been under way since January 1998 and is over 90 percent complete. The child support distribution changes and the design and planning necessary for implementation of the state disbursement unit, he said, have been under way since 1997 and are projected to be completed and tested by late summer 1998, at which time the conversion from the clerks of court to the state disbursement unit can begin.

It sounds like they were asking some intelligent question. I am wondering where was anyone involved in women’s issues or mother’s issues at this meeting: surely the group has some DV outfits, right?

Mr. Strate said the annual report an obligee receives from the state disbursement unit will differ from the annual report an obligor receives. He said a child support obligee will receive a monthly report anytime a child support payment is retained by the state. This report, he said, will provide a breakdown of collections for the month and show how the collections were distributed, and this report will serve as the basis for the annual report each obligee will receive.

Mr. Strate said child support obligors who are not under income withholding will receive a monthly billing statement. He said the information from this statement will serve as a basis for the annual report each obligor will receive.

…

In response to a question from Senator Traynor, Mr. Strate said new hire reporting went into effect October 1, 1997. He said although specific statistics are not yet available regarding the effectiveness of the employer new hire reporting, child support enforcement collections indicate a 17 percent increase since the new hire requirements went into effect. Employers have been very cooperative, and new hire reporting outreach is being performed, he said, in the form of fliers included in state agency mailings to employers. He said approximately 55 percent of the employers report via facsimile, 20 percent via on-line communication, and 25 percent via the United States mail. Mr. Strate said he is not certain whether federal money will be available for future maintenance of the state disbursement unit system.

In response to questions from Senator Nalewaja, Mr. Strate said child support collection from obligors who are self-employed or underemployed raises unique problems that are difficult to address

It seems obvious that SOME parents divorcing or separating my fun businesses, or function as contractors; it’s a no-brainer if someone intends to dodge paying support, to avoid situations where one’s wages might be garnished. Funny how these situations seem so “exceptional” (to this date)…..As they were also switching from one model to another of ASSESSING child support (I don’t fully understand these differences, but they are income shares model vs. obligor model.” Note that the system was not prepared to accommodate this, either:

Chairman Glassheim called on Mr. Strate for comments regarding the costs associated with changing to an income shares child support guidelines model. Mr. Strate reviewed the written testimony he provided to the committee on February 10, 1998, and said the cost to the child support enforcement program of a change to an income shares model would be between $168,750 and $187,500 per year. He said the majority of this amount would be incurred by the counties due to an increase in the work associated with establishing and reviewing orders. He said it is difficult to estimate the cost upon the judiciary and private litigants, although the short-term impact would likely be significant because the transition would result in an increase in child support litigation because one party would perceive an advantage under the new model. Mr. Strate provided written testimony, a copy of which is on file in the Legislative Council office.

In response to a question from Representative Belter, Mr. Strate said only one case comparison was prepared for this meeting; however, at previous meetings multiple hypotheticals were presented using the Utah child support guidelines which illustrate a variety of income situations.

In response to a question from Senator Heitkamp, Mr. Strate said both the obligor model and the income shares model may have problems in dealing equitably with exceptional cases. (ETC.)

Here’s a PDF from “FIRSTDATA.com” (who is one of the coordinators of the SDU apparently) describing the situation:

THE CHALLENGE

In August 1996, the federal Personal responsibility and Work opportunity reconciliation Act (PrWorA) was signed into law. the sweeping legislation included a mandate that each state was to create a centralized location to process all child support payments by october 1, 1998.

By 2004, California had yet to meet PrWorA’s requirement for centralized payment processing, nor had it met the Family support Act of 1988 requirement for a statewide case management system. As a result, the state had accumulated nearly $1 billion in federal fines. California needed to come into compliance—quickly.

That’s my California, the “Golden State.” ……

THE SOLUTION

When California selected Bank of America to head up its compliance initiative, First Data was brought in as a primary project partner. in this role, First Data helped to build and manage the California state Disbursement unit (CA sDu), a key component of the California Child support Automated system (CCsAs) implemented by the Department of Child support services. the solution was to be comprehensive. unlike some other states, California chose to outsource nearly every component of the child support payment process. CA sDu became part of the largest state IT outsourcing project in the history of California. And from collections, suspense, reconciliation, disbursements and reporting to the call center, interactive Voice response (iVr) system, Web site and client outreach, First Data helped create and manage every component of CA sDu.

HEre’s another California’s county’s description of how various Child Support Cases are covered under the “SDU” system:

PAYMENTS ARE CREDITED AS OF THE DATE THE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED AT THE SDU. If the payment is not received by the SDU by the last day of the month, interest will accrue on the unpaid balance. ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE SDU.

The centralization of payment processing offers direct deposit of disbursements from the SDU and electronic transfer of payments to the SDU. The SDU has an electronic help desk to provide assistance to custodial parties, non-custodial parents, employers and other states using electronic processes to make or receive payments. For more information about electronic transfer of payments, please contact the SDU Electronic Help Desk at 1-866-325-1010 or visit the SDU website.

All child support payments must be sent to and disbursed by the SDU. This includes ALL payments currently paid by wage assignment and sent by employers directly to custodial parties (known as NON-IV-D cases, these are cases which are NOT currently open in a local child support office). Payments received by the SDU will be allocated between all of a non-custodial parent’s obligations, which will include IV-D cases (cases open in a local child support office) as well as non-IV-D child support cases.

Any such monopoly resents competition from parents who can work out their own difficulties….

Employers who may have wanted to send direct to custodial parents (not that I’d think many would wish the burden) aren’t allowed to do so anyhow. This unit is invading their territory as well and affecting, possibly, how disgruntled a particular employee (father) may be in the workplace too. I imagine it may have some workplace safety side-effects….

So — the key is “wage assignment.” If child support is paid VOLUNTARILY and ON TIME by the father (or mother) and has not required force/enforcement through wage garnishment, then this incentivized system (I believe) can be avoided. If not, then

The SDU allocates child support payments to all of a non-custodial parent’s cases. If a non-custodial parent has more than one child support case, any payment received may be divided among all the cases. How the payment is allocated between the cases depends on many things, such as whether or not the payment is for current support or for past-due child support, the amount of child support owed, the payment source, and the amount of the payment.

How sweet. If your baby’s Dad has participated in “Multiple-partner fertility activities” — the state will prioritize her/their children’s well-being with yours by some formula probably only known to them.

I actually had some money disappear “electronically” — the father sent in the full amount. The CS agency said that, in a previous month (without my knowledge) it had wrongfully allocated part of someone else’s to me? However, when I came into the office about this, I was told (in their jargon) that the system had to corrects its own virtual/electronic/allocation error by taking REAL money the REAL father REALLY submitted to pay child support our REAL kids — and not much I could do about it, without a tape recorder on in the office. And if I’d had that tape recorder on, I probably wouldn’t have learned that much. ….. The person I spoke to and I seemed to comprehend that both of us were, indeed, speaking different languages — however as her office had the money, that language prevailed, not reason, i.e., this time Dad sent the whole amount — and you split it up without warning and re-allocated it to someone else, a stranger?

Then again, who knows – maybe it was a kickback….

Information about your case is confidential. Confidentiality and privacy laws restrict child support workers from providing information to anyone who is not a participant in a case. Your child support office can provide information to you ONLY about YOUR CASE. We cannot provide any information to you about any other individual’s case nor can we provide anyone else information about your case.

IS it? Are these laws complied with (some reports say no — privateers, private contractors enforcing child support — compromise privacy, and guess what – the entire US is already under U.S. Patriot law, so if someone is snooping, you wouldn’t be informed anyhow).

DEBIT CARD OR NO DEBIT CARD? FOR PAYMENTS?

Here’s “choice,” Child SUpport Style (in my state):

IF YOU RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS:

Custodial parties have three ways to receive payments. Payments may be received as checks sent through the mail, as a direct deposit to an existing checking or savings account, or as funds transferred to an electronic payment card (known as EPC). Electronic payment cards work as debit cards and can be used at ATMs and for point-of-sale transactions.

If you receive payment through the mail, the check will be printed on green check stock. The envelope and the return address will be from the SDU. To avoid delays, please be sure to provide any change of address to Alameda County DCSS promptly. If your address has changed, please e-mail us your current mailing address. Please include your ACDCSS case number or participant ID and the new address in the “Comments” section of the e-mail form below:

Checks = delays, more trips to the bank. Direct Deposit — some like, some do not. Some banks don’t take direct deposit unless account holder is in traditional workforce. People involved in custody litigation, the drawn-out kind, often are subject to job instability as well, meaning, they may not qualify. Then there is the handy/dandy debit card where, if one is a custodial parent, the state can also track exactly what the money goes for — not that the father is likely to get this information. It’s just the innate, instinctive desire to collect data about everything on as many people as possible.

TEXAS FAMILY CODE CHAPTER 234: ; “State Case Registry, Disbursement Unit and Directory of New Hires“

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 19, 2011 at 8:23 pm

Posted in History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support

Mothers in Custody Cases: Please read! Unaudited State Incentives (Title IV-A, IV-D) affect Family Court Decisions (posted 7/19/2011)

with 14 comments

[This post received another comment in 2016, so I went through and added some formatting around the quotes, as well as supplemented (some updates) a short section on “ACES” a nonprofit organization found to go after child support enforcement, by a divorced mother of 2 (Geraldine Jensen) , long ago (1984). Note — this was 12 years before 1996 Welfare Reform… In looking for the tax returns, I found that organization’s administrative assistant was accused of fraud (embezzlement), not long after they testified before Congress as to Ohio’s (it was based in Ohio) systematic withholding of “undistributable child support.”

re-aces-founder-divorced-mother-of-2-see-also-“public-service”-ohio-fatherhood-commission-etc-heinz-award-winner-geraldine-jensen-author-of-how-to-collect-child-support-3rd-edition-2pp-v

(This two-pager “pdf” still has active links. I notice from page 2 that the “FamiliesOnline” where I found her book being sold and the Heinz award (named after the late (d. 1991) Senator John Heinz, who was indeed heir to the famous Heinz fortunes (as in — tomatoes — you’ve hear of it, right?), was also founded by Ms. Jensen:

Public Service Component from the image shown below:

Public Service

U. S. Commission on Interstate Child Support.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Child Support Advisory Committee

Ohio’s Joint Legislative Domestic Relations Task Force and Ohio Commission on Fatherhood, Ohio Child Support Enforcement Commission

Child Support Enforcement in 1984 is NOTHING like Child Support Enforcement this century, although one thing I notice that seems still in common, when it comes to mothers going after absent fathers for child support — we are still often told, if we’re serious about it, go get it ourselves.

re-aces-founder-divorced-mother-of-2-see-also-%22public-service%22-ohio-fatherhood-commission-etc-heinz-award-winner-geraldine-jensen-author-of-how-to-collect-child-support-3rd-edition-2pp-v

As has happened to me years ago also. Question: If “Enforcement” means — go hire a private lawyer (with WHAT funds?) and do it yourself, then why have a $4Billion-dollar-a-year enforcement program to start with?

And SINCE (not “IF”) it’s possible for counties and states to withhold distribution (whether simply by delaying it a few days — or weeks — each month, or NEVER distributing it) to accumulate profits (interest, or potentially dividends if the withhold millions were pooled with other investment funds within a state) — and SINCE (not “IF”) clearly the HHS/OIG, even if it DID keep good track (which it didn’t for several years after the major switchover enforced upon states (if they wanted federal welfare assistance for their poor families), if it has no real enforcement power, then what’s the point?

Possibly the point is other kinds of dirty business, and making sure as many people as possible are on public-supported SYSTEMS, as are their employers. Got to have a planned economy, right?

Anyhow, if you see a box around some quotes, that’s new (I didn’t know how to in 2011) and the section of similar color to this intro below, is also added. Other than that, this is a minor cleanup. A better use of your time might be to read more recent posts, and benefit from what I’ve learned since, not only as to how the systems work, but as to how to communicate how they work. Thanks again for taking some time to read the blogs, and thanks in advance for any clicks on the “Donate” button on sidebar! Generally speaking, except for the occasional clicks on that button (which are infrequent) I am not paid to do all this!

Read Page 2 (relating to the image above) for more information on activities involving criminalization of non-payment of child support, and more Ms. Jensen was involved in over the years. More on “ACES” in a similar-background section, below in this post.

//LGH 10/28/2016.]

The Child Support Enforcement mechanism seeks to monopolize the relationship between parents whether it’s done through welfare enrollment (to initiate a support order) or not — it seems. It is a total-control structure with few limits and controls on itself (upcoming posts on how poorly audited “undistributable” child support — sitting in various place accruing “unreported interest” for the states/counties entities — not for the kids — will show this.

I was stunned to realize that the last time the HHS/OIG apparently ran such (partial) audits — without teeth — covers approximately up to the year 2005 or 2006; and only a sample of counties in a sample of states (and only Title IV-D monies) were being investigated.

For example, this person “Crystal Ray” writes:

Paying Child Support in the State of Indiana

A State of Confusion

Crystal Ray, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Apr 27, 2006 “

A Very Costly Mistake

Parents in the state of Indiana who want to bypass the courts and pay child support directly to the other parent could be in for a rude awakening. According to the Indiana Child Support Division, any child support money paid to the custodial parent that does not go through the court first is considered a gift. The term “gift” means the child support paid is considered free. That means, even if you paid child support by check, or went so far as to obtain receipts from the custodial parent, the child support you paid did not legally count. The custodial parent is legally entitled to keep that child support money, and you are still obligated to pay the full amount of child support determined by the court in the state of Indiana. This seems very unfair, especially if the non-custodial parent paying child support holds receipts, but this is the rule set by the court. If you paid the custodial parent directly, in the eyes of the court you did not pay a dime.

The fact that an entity wishes to monopolize and exclude money transfer between private individuals that it didn’t process tells us it is a for-profit business run by the US Government, even if profits are failing to be in the red — someone is getting paid. If it were truly altruistic, and both parents actually worked this out – -then there would be no need to FORCE people to enter child support orders in separation. Moreover, the system is capricious and riddled with fraud and other bad things in the administration, anyhow!

Indiana is famous (to me, at least) for having a direct connection from its Child Services Dept. (under which Child Support is collected) to Fathers and Families (check site); Indiana would seem to be as fatherhood-friendly as almost any state — however this indicates that Dads who don’t play according to its rules (and Moms) could still get screwed financially while supporting their children properly and keeping records of payments.

Ideally — stay out of family court, and stay off welfare. It’s not welfare for your FAMILY!

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 19, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Child Support, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court

Tagged with undistributable child support collections

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)

with 18 comments

(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.

Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.

This blog discusses

“Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From: “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010 / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit. The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare, against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty. Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed. That’s the game, folks. Promise protection, then fail to deliver. Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit. What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit. To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems. These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, Context of Custody Switch, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Child Support, custody, Due process, HHS-TAGGS grants database, incest, Intimate partner violence, Kids' Turn, men's rights, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

From Bush to Obama: “Expanding the Administrative Presidency” into “faith-based” groups leaves women (in particular) on the horns of a dilemma

with 3 comments

I figured its time to spoon-feed the public some of this material.

This report dated 2004 is a little closer to the 2001 Initiative by Former President George W. Bush to help faith-based institutions get more involved in federal grants system. Just a little reminder — the money being collecting comes from (among other places) working Americans whose wages are often withheld for income tax.

This report is by:

By Anne Farris, Richard P. Nathan and David J. Wright The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy

August 2004

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy

www.ReligionandSocialPolicy.org (518) 443-5014

The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government

State University of New York 411 State Street Albany, NY 12203

The Expanding Administrative Presidency: George W. Bush and the Faith-Based Initiative examines the steps taken to promote and implement the Faith-Based Initiative since it was first introduced by President Bush in January 2001. The report details changes in federal rules, bureaucracies, funding, and public outreach advanced by the Bush Administration to increase partnerships with faith-based groups to provide a vast array of human services. Religious organizations are now involved in government-encouraged activities ranging from building strip malls for economic improvement to promoting child car seats to distributing Medicare prescription cards.

While supporters hail these moves as a way of ending the exclusion of certain religious groups from public programs and widening the choice of providers, critics question whether efforts to remove barriers facing faith-based organizations have also weakened longstanding walls banning religious groups from mixing spiritual activities with their secular services.

Among the report’s findings:

o In the absence of new legislative authority, the President has aggressively advanced the Faith-Based Initiative through executive orders, rule changes, managerial realignment in federal agencies, and other innovative uses of the prerogatives of his office.

o Among those innovations is the creation of a high-profile special office in the White House, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,** connected to mini- offices in ten government agencies, each with a carefully selected director and staff, empowered to articulate, advance and oversee coordinated efforts to win more financial support for faith- based social services.

These ten agencies include: the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Agency for International Development and the Small Business Administration. A similar office has also been created within the Corporation for National and Community Service. In addition, the Initiative has been promoted in a myriad of other government offices overseeing programs ranging from homeownership and business development to energy conservation. Efforts associated with these key priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and the 11 Agency Centers for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, as well as the Strategic Advisor at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

**If you search this term, you will mostly find the newer office (try it), renamed by a Democratic President.

Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

This (current) version’s “Policy Goals” are:

Policy Goals – Key Priorities

for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

In addition to its daily work, President Obama has asked the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to focus on four special priorities. These priorities are:

Strengthening the Role of Community Organizations in the Economic Recovery

Reducing Unintended Pregnancies, Supporting Maternal and Child Health, and Reducing the Need for Abortion

(In this, Secretary of HHS Sebelius introduces “Apps Against Abuse” technology… Under the next heading, the grants that will divert wealth away from child support (which is for the children) into solving the alleged BioDadInTheHome-shortage which allegedly causes abuse).

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities

There is already a “Fatherhood.gov” and “National Resource Center on Responsible Fatherhood” and (etc.) — however, obviously something must not be working right, because our President wants MORE “fatherhood” programs — as if the engagement of the church “fathers’ were not enough in this area.

For these reasons, President Obama has started a National Conversation on Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities and made the issue of fatherhood and at-risk youth one of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships’ four key priorities. The Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships is helping to coordinate the Federal Government’s fatherhood policy, and has launched a national fatherhood tour to hear directly from local communities about how we can come together to encourage personal responsibility and strengthen our nation’s families.Additonal resources:

Fatherhood.gov

Federal Resource Site for Fatherhood Program

Listing of relevant Federal websites

Promoting Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation

The fact that our government is actively seeking to engage faith-based groups in promoting “Fatherhood” (itself primarily a faith-based idea; can we Puh-leez acknowledge at least the Abrahamic religions endorse this concept, not to mention Catholicism, which calls every priest “Father so and so” and of course the one in Rome is the father over us all, not including God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (allegedly) — no feminine in there….) -and then has the nerve to say it’s upholding the american value of barriers between church and state ???

Preserving Our Constitutional Commitments and Values

The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another – or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state. This work is important, because whether it’s a secular group advising families facing foreclosure or faith-based groups providing job-training to those who need work, few are closer to what’s happening on our streets and in our neighborhoods than these organizations. People trust them. *** Communities rely on them. And we will help them.

–President Barack Obama

Well, may I apply “ye shall know them by their fruits” to this office — and not just “take it on faith”?

This “we” President Obama is talking about, speaking for the United States — refers to funding and administrative support. United States is trillions of $$ in debt, and last I heard, Social Security checks may not go out in August; there are cities filing bankruptcy, and our government has been bailing out all kinds of institutions. Now, it wants to help the non-profit faith-based institutions? that have been oppressing women and children (boys and girls) for generations, and centuries — on the basis of the privately funded religion called “fatherhood” and lack of fathers = presence of abuse (and as most homicides are committed by men, whether against each other, or against women, or against children). This “we” does not include the women of the United States — because this is not in our best interest, although we are just barely over the majority of the population.

When looking at what this office was — originally with then-President George Bush, later with Pres. Barack Obama — it has to be viewed in the real context of what faith-based organizations have been doing and preaching towards women, and their children, for generations — and for centuries.

I am qualified to speak on this at least from my perspective — because the domestic violence in my marriage was “bible-justified” and “church-tolerated” and if anyone should’ve been able to overcome all odds, I should’ve been. However, the non-religious sectors weren’t much better informed either, as a result of which the family went through years more abuse than should’ve been necessary. And I know that what I suffered was nothing close to what women who are braver and have risked more and written more, compared to had I been born in, say, Somalia, or Egypt, or like Phyllis Chesler, temporarily stuck in Afghanistan, or another young mother from Arizona, stranded in Bahrain — these are NOT stories from the distant past– they are OUR generations. And in OUR generation, we have stood by and allowed this OFFICE to exist and continue to spread its doctrine (in essence, a form of state religion) in a country allegedly under a Constitution and with an Amendment to that Constitution (#1 of the Bill of Rights) that Congress is NOT to make any law to establish a religion.

Just a little reminder from Nonie Darwish:

Joys of Muslim Women
by Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion. The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World (America) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Not only are several faiths very intolerant of rights (as in, citizenship) rights for women, there is also intolerance for other religions. Nonie writes:

er father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law – what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one’s children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It’s hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

She is backed up in the assessment by another writer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who warns of the politically-correct “multi-culti” view of all religions as basically good. That view is not informed by a history of many religion’s treatments of dissidents, let alone of women….

The Caged Virgin

Holland’s shameful treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

By Christopher Hitchens (see Wikipedia description of author) Posted Monday, May 8, 2006, at 3:44 PM ET

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Three years ago, at a conference in Sweden, I was introduced to a Dutch member of parliament named Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Originally born in Somalia, she had been a refugee in several African countries and eventually a refugee from her own family, which had decided to “give” her in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met. Thinking to escape from such confines by moving to the Netherlands, she was appalled to find that radical Islam had followed her there—or in fact preceded her there—and was proselytizing among Turkish and Moroccan and Indonesian immigrants. In ancient towns like Rotterdam and Amsterdam, where once the refugees from Catholic France and inquisitional Spain had sought refuge, and where Baruch Spinoza had been excommunicated and anathematized for his opposition to Jewish fundamentalism, there were districts where Muslim women were subjected to genital mutilation and where the Dutch police were afraid to set foot

Entering politics to try to alert the European left to this danger, she was first elected as a deputy for the Labor Party, but after 9/11 she changed her allegiance to the Liberals. This, she explained, was because many Labor spokesmen preferred to think of immigrants as possessing “group rights.” They had become so infatuated by their own “multi-culti” style that they had ignored the rights of individuals—especially women and girls—who were imprisoned within their own ghetto. (That, by the way, was precisely Spinoza’s problem as well. The Dutch rabbis cursed him and condemned him in their own sectarian “court,” of which the Christian authorities approved because it took care of dangerous secularism among Jews.)

At the Swedish event, Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke calmly and rationally about the problem. I never know whether or not it’s right to mention, with female public figures, the fact of arresting and hypnotizing beauty, but I notice that I seem to have done so. Shall I just say that she was a charismatic figure in Dutch politics, mainly because of the calm and reason to which I just alluded? She was the ideal choice of collaborator for the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (a distant descendant of the anguished painter) on Submission, a film about the ignored problem of enslaved and oppressed women in Holland. Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote the screenplay and provided the movie’s voice-over.

ou probably remember what happened next: Van Gogh was bicycling to work one morning in 2004 in the capital city of one of Europe’s most peaceful and civilized countries when he was shot down in the street and then mutilated in a ritual fashion by an Islamist fanatic. The murderer (who had expected to become a martyr but who was only wounded in the leg by the gentle Dutch cops) left a long “martyr’s letter” pinned to van Gogh’s corpse by an equally long knife. In it, he warned Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she was the next target, and he gave a long and detailed account of all the offenses that would condemn her to an eternity in hell. (I noticed, reading this appalling screed when it was first published, that he obsessively referred to her as “Mrs. Hirshi Ali,” as if trying to make her sound like a Jew. Other references to Jews in the text were even less tasteful.)
…

But here is the grave and sad news. After being forced into hiding by fascist killers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali found that the Dutch government and people were slightly embarrassed to have such a prominent “Third World” spokeswoman in their midst. She was first kept as a virtual prisoner, which made it almost impossible for her to do her job as an elected representative. When she complained in the press, she was eventually found an apartment in a protected building. Then the other residents of the block filed suit and complained that her presence exposed them to risk. In spite of testimony from the Dutch police, who assured the court that the building was now one of the safest in all Holland, a court has upheld the demand from her neighbors and fellow citizens that she be evicted from her home. In these circumstances, she is considering resigning from parliament and perhaps leaving her adopted country altogether.

(Which, as we now know, she has done)…..

In this case, Surely a US President knew that he couldn’t vote in his version of religion — so it went in the back door, by Executive Order. The National Fatherhood Initiative Grant and the transformation of the HHS/ACF into a “lean, mean, marriage & fatherhood-promoting machine” happened by conflicts of interest with an HHS leader who steered a grant to ONE organization in 1994 — and the door was open, and the sluice-gates opened to more grants, more similar activities. In 1996, welfare was rewritten to further promote fatherhood and marriage. KEY, and parallel to this trend was the “Office of Faith-Based”. . . . . .

Here’s a reference I just found the other day, of an attorney (and his wife) attempting to handle the scope of personal exploitation of women by pastors (meaning, sexually) and the excommunication and awful treatment of those brave enough to report…..

(1) Confronting Abusive Pastors, Part 1:[of 4] My Personal Angst

May 23, 2011 in abuse, abusive pastor, church, confession, faith, healing, judgment, leader, pastor,predatory, repentance, sin, wounded

Much to my dismay, God keeps bringing people to my door who have been abused by a pastor or other trusted church leader.

Over the last year, I’ve taken on three cases against abusive pastors. Two involve significant embezzlement and fraud by pastors in different churches. A third involves extensive sexual abuse and misconduct by half a dozen men on the pastoral and ministerial staff in yet another local church.

Although I’ve never sought such cases, more keep queuing up and demanding my attention.

My Personal Angst

This isn’t what I planned for my law practice. Even though I do lots of other kinds of legal work, these are the kind of cases I personally hate to handle. That’s because I am not an attorney who can just go through the motions. I only take on new clients if I personally care about their plight and believe I can help. Because I care, pastoral abuse cases can be personally crushing.

As an attorney helping women who’ve been sexual exploited by a trusted pastor, there’s no way I can remain clinically and dispassionately detached and still be effective. To help them, I have to be their strength. I have to take on and bear the weight of the sins and the hurts they’ve suffered, while letting them know that someone with authority finally cares enough to listen to them, believe in them, and stand firm on their behalf against the evil they’ve suffered.

For them to tell me what happened means that they must open up the hurt, shame and sense of violation they are carrying, and it is often more than they can bear alone. To help them, they must trust me with their stories. That trust only arises as I am sincere and transparent in my empathy, and resolute and caring in my strength. Time and again, I’ve seen how healing it is for them to find someone who will finally listen and help them find the voice and dignity their own churches stole from them.

For me, however, the evil and the abuse they suffered – at the hands of unrepentant but respected pastors – is almost too much to bear.

It is crushing. Almost daily as I work on such cases, I break down weeping after hearing from a new victim, or learning of yet another man who is preying on women in his church.

Some of those abusive men, it turns out, had been my friends. And so I mourn – for the women and also for the carnage caused by men I too respected, trusted and called friends.

c) Copyright 2010, Fulcrum Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

A woman comments in this post (Part 2), says the pastor was fired, and the church hates her for causing it to lose its pastor; no attorney will take her case…I put in my two bits there also, about why aren’t the congregations being taught the law of the land, and being required to abide by it?

Engaging faith institutions in promoting “responsible fatherhood” is an insult and outrage to both the women of faith who have suffered and been injured, threatened, deprived of their economic rights, deprived of contact with their children improperly, abused by pastors, having had kids abused or molested by spiritual leaders, and been subjected to more restrictive regimes, by force, than their status as citizens (when they are, and even worse infringements when they are not are possible) in the U.S. allows them. I personally went almost a full decade without ONE single referral from ONE pastor of any sort to any legal reference or suggestion that these assaults / attacks / threats might result in arrest. In the decade since then, I have had exposure to many different organizations in several counties (due to work, lawsuits, geography, community, etc.) — and things are NOT better; if more there is particularly among Protestants a real “fear” of women in leadership in many circles. I have seen little pamphlets here and there about abuse — and they are laughable. They imply it is a spiritual problem that the average churchgoer might handle. They do NOT cite any law, or state with absolute clarity that it’s illegal in this country to physically assault, physically batter another person, related to oneself or not.

The hierarchy of many of these church groups is such that the men are expected to keep their women in line. Where progressive or liberal churches go about to ordain women, or to ordain lesbians or homosexuals, it almost always causes a protest, and a church split. . . . . This isn’t even dealing with the Muslim or Jewish communities, either. In such a context — 2000s, USA — to put more power in the hands of faith-based organizations and actually SOLICIT their help in promoting “responsible” fatherhood (as opposed to the kind they are already promoting) is to put ammunition in the weapons that are already arrayed against women who break rank by saying STOP! and reporting abuse of any sort, or abuse of their kids.

The Obama Administration has a firm commitment to encourage and facilitate partnerships between government and non-profit organizations, including faith-based and neighborhood organizations. Because of the trust that government agencies and clients place in these organizations, these partnerships must be characterized by their ability to uphold both the free exercise of religion and forbid the establishment of religion.

Here’s an article “RECOVERING FROM SPIRITUAL ABUSE” — while kind of basic (generalized) it has a point:

(2) The Effects of Spiritual Abuse on Women, by Richard Damiani

When women are trapped in an abusive church the effects are profound and deep. Single women may never marry since they can never quite measure up to the leader’s expectations. This, plus the general immaturity of many single men who are kept in a dependent state by the pastor or elders gives them very little choice in a spouse. Both single and married women are told to submit without question to their husbands, the leadership, and sometimes to men in general. Cults generally have a strict “chain of command theology.” God is the head, then the pastor who is God’s anointed under shepherd, then the husband, then women, followed by children, who are to be totally obedient and submissive.

Women are generally told that their place is in the home, that their identity is found in being a wife and mother only, that they are to be keepers at home primarily except when there is an emergency that the leader deems proper. In some groups there is no excuse for working outside the home, even if financial ruin is the option. Some churches preach a code of dress much like Amish or Mennonites as the only type of dress a truly spiritual woman would ever wear. Wanting makeup, stylish dress, jewelry, etc. are signs of worldliness, and are condemned. Women are good for marriage, sex – whatever type of sex her husband demands or the leader teaches is proper – motherhood, and not much else.

Women are kept from any meaningful ministry in the church. They are to be quiet, reserved, and even totally silent. The man is the head in all things, and his wife is to be subject to him. Single women, too, are to be subject to men, especially the leadership. A single woman is considered an oddity since marriage is the natural state of all women.

Spirituality is measured by dress style and length. Pants suits, slacks, etc. are sinful in some churches, since they are men’s clothing. Some cults demand long dresses only, much like the Muslim Fundamentalists. Indeed, there is much similarity between cultic teaching on women and radical Muslim teaching. Anything that flatters a woman’s figure in any way is considered sinful, as if Satan was the creator of a woman’s shape and not God.

All this, plus much more that many others could add leads to many ills. Women become unnaturally reserved, not expressing their individual personalities as God gave them. Women slow down or stop developing as independent persons who bear the image of God. Rather than growing toward a full maturity and individuality in Christ, women in cults are told any identity apart from men is sinful. An unnatural dependence on men and husbands is the result of this false teaching.

Instead of expressing the individual tastes and personalities that God gives to everyone, women in cults end up looking the same, acting the same, having the same interests, wearing the same type of clothing, hair styles, and lack those womanly things that make women’s femininity beautiful. A false femininity is preached which is identified as submission, housekeeping, mothering, and in some cults natural foods only, making one’s own clothing only, home schooling only, raising one’s own food only, and many other “back to earth” teachings as tests of spirituality.
Please understand that these things are not wrong as preferences, but they do not make anyone more or less spiritual than anyone else; they are just preferences. When they become marks of following Christ and being holy, they become abusive.

The web — and if one engages in life conversationally, with people in one’s communities — and LIFE — is full of people recovering from spiritual abuse, not just women, but “faith” leaders abusing their flocks, particularly in this era of the mega-churches. Here’s another one (I don’t know them individually, just making the point):

(3) SPIRITUAL ABUSE SANCTUARY

A SAFE PLACE FOR THOSE COMING OUT OF SPIRITUAL ABUSIVE EXPERIENCES. CREATED FOR YOU TO COMMENT, SHARE YOUR PERSONAL STORY, AND HELP OTHERS TO RECOGNIZE AND ESCAPE THE BONDAGE OF SPIRITUAL ABUSE AND TOXIC CHURCHES

Presenter: Jeff VanVonderen

Lecture 1 of 3: Healthy and Abusive Spiritual Dynamics

These presentations are part of a 10-part course entitled “Breaking the Silence on Spiritual Abuse”. The series includes presentations by Dave Johnson and Lynn Heitritter. …

(on a separate page:)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2010

Terry Hornbuckle-The Reverend Freak

The Terry Hornbuckle case should be a warning to both men and women of any church congregation that begins holding a pastor/mentor in such high regard that they begin listening to what he says, and not keeping an eye on what he does.

In spite of Hornbuckle’s conviction on rape charges, many of his adoring flock continue to support him on the basis that all should “forgive” him for what was his deliberate misuse of the gospel, the money that flowed into his lifestyle, and his rape and abuse of women in the church, not to mention his drug use. Forgiving may be one thing, but to continue to support such a ministry should be out of the question to any bible believing, obedient Christian.

Beware of such abuses, and beware of “pastor’s” and ministries that live beyond their means, as well as pastors that make advances toward female members of the congregation.

Misogyny in Religion:

FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2010

Misogyny in Religion

Misogyny is hatred or strong prejudice against women. The word comes from the Greek words μίσος (misos, “hatred”) + γυνη (gunê, “woman”). Compared with anti-woman sexism or misandry (hatred, strong prejudice against men), misogyny is termed by most feminist theories as a political ideology like racism and antisemitism that justifies and maintains the subordination of women to men. …

…Misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist’s attitude towards each individual woman. The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent them from having positive relationships with some wome

From the same blog, but as this is a Bill Berkowitz article dealing with a prominent group, I’m quoting it as:

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2010

(4) Are high-profile evangelical leaders endangering victims of domestic violence”

?

Bill BerkowitzJuly 23, 2007″Dr. James Dobson and Dr. John MacArthur, two influential evangelical family counselors, ‘blame’ battered women for their plight, says Christian evangelical author Jocelyn Andersen.

While domestic violence — also known as intimate partner violence — is in no way limited to any particular race, religion, ethnic group, class or sexual preference, author Jocelyn Andersen maintains that for far too long too many evangelical pastors have tried to sweep the problem under the rug. According to Andersen, the problem of physical, as well as emotional and spiritual abuse, is being exacerbated by the outdated teachings of several high-profile conservative Christian pastors.In the introduction to her new book “Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence” (One Way Cafe Press, 2007), Andersen points out that “The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is … rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower.”Andersen maintains that domestic violence in Christian families “often creates a cruel Catch-22 as many Christians and church leaders view recommending separation or divorce as unscriptural, but then silently view the battered woman, who chooses not to leave, with contempt for staying and tolerating the abuse. Victims quickly pick up on this hypocritical attitude and either leave the church altogether — or begin hiding the abuse. Either way they are giving up the spiritual guidance, and emotional support, they desperately need.”

http://spiritualabusesanctuary.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-high-profile-evangelical-leaders.html

(either that or somewhere to go, and a way to keep their kids safe, too):

the problem is exacerbated by misguided advice and use of outdated information in the writing of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Dr. John MacArthur, a pastor-teacher at the Sun Valley, California-based Grace Community Church. “We do see some very big-name evangelical leaders blaming the battered woman for the abuse,” Andersen explained. “You know, talking about how she may provoke her husband into doing it; or that her poor, non-communicative husband can’t handle maybe what she’s trying to communicate to him and he lashes out and hits her — [that] shifts the blame right off him and to her.”

Via several emails, Anderson told Media Transparency that the work of Dobson and MacArthur perpetuate the problem of domestic violence among evangelical Christians.

She chose to look closely at their work because of the “scope of influence” they wield “within the Christian Community.” Both men are “prolific writers with best-selling books,” and the both “have large listening audiences for their radio broadcasts,” which “have been staples of Moody Christian Radio for years.” Millions of people listen to the broadcasts weekly, she said.

“Both Dobson and MacArthur are high-profile evangelical leaders with enough influence and ability to make a positive contribution to the plight of battered women which would result in lives being saved.” Instead, “their words are often used to send Christian women back into the danger zone with counsel that encourages them to try and change violent husbands or return to violent homes as soon as the ‘heat is off.’ The last time I looked, assault was a crime, but Christian women are generally not encouraged to report that crime.”

In her book, Andersen cites an incident in which a battered wife wrote to Dobson telling him that “the violence within her marriage was escalating in both frequency and intensity and that she feared for her life.” Dobson “replied that her goal should be to change her husband’s behavior–not to get a divorce (‘Love Must Be Tough,’ (1996) [this is the edition that was being sold as of March 2007]).

“The secular medical world has had to reach in to advise and help women from the church see the truth of their situations, get shelter, and inform religious leaders about the need to accept medical and clinical facts about physical and mental abuse,” OneNewsNow.com — a news service of the American Family Association — reported in late June.

He did suggest leaving as a temporary solution, but only as a way of manipulating the husband’s behavior. I found it inexcusable that not one note of real concern for this woman’s immediate physical safety was sounded in his response–in spite of the fact that she clearly stated she was in fear for her life.”
“Dobson counseled her to precipitate a crisis in her marriage by choosing the most absurd demand her husband made, then refusing to consent to it. This was not only absurd advice in a domestic violence situation, but life-threateningly dangerous as well, and very telling of the fact that, in spite of over 1,000 deaths per year due to wife-beating, the wife beater is not generally viewed as a real threat to his wife’s life or safety. “

I DECIDED TO POST a July 2007 article (by Bill Berkowitz, again) showing the influence Dobson held with President Bush at this time, and a bit of the extent of his “empire.” Keep in mind, this is the person who recommends that battered women only leave their husbands long enough to bring him to repentance — and not permanently if he doesn’t — because divorce is wrong (is that a LEGAL position to hold in the US?) . . . . .

Bill Berkowitz
June 8, 2007

Dobson’s dilemma

Will dismissing GOP frontrunners Giuliani and McCain as unacceptable presidential candidates and getting involved in a series of squabbles with fellow conservative evangelicals diminish the power of Focus on the Family founder?

With the Rev. Jerry Falwell gone; Coral Ridge Ministries’ D. James Kennedy seriously ill, the Rev. Pat Robertson in a perpetual state of hoof-and-mouth disease — although still raking in handsome amounts of dough — Ralph Reed tainted by the Abramoff Scandal, and Pastor Ted Haggard just plain tainted, it appears that the time is ripe for Focus on the Familyfounder and Christian radio psychologist Dr. James Dobson, to crank up what blogger Richard Rothstein has termed his “vast bigotry-based political machine” and seize the religious right’s center stage. Or has Dobson, who has gotten himself embroiled in a series of conflicts with fellow evangelicals, missed his moment?

Over the past few months Dobson has been a whirling dervish of activity: he’s met with President Bush to discuss Iran and other matters related to national security and the so-called war on terrorism; devoted a full week of his radio program — which reaches more than 200 million people in 164 countries — to “the threat of radical Islam”; dissed two of the Republican Party’s frontrunners for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination; hosted — and appeared to approve of — former House Speaker Newt Gingrich‘s on-the-air confessional; got into a medium-sized kerfluffle when he said that Fred Thompson wasn’t Christian enough, and then denied having said it, and then blamed it all on the liberal media; continued to oppose evangelicals initiatives to make climate change part of the Christian right’s agenda; and got blasted by a coalition of right-to-lifers in a full-page ad placed in Dobson’s hometown newspaper.

In “The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War” (St. Martin’s Press, 2007), a new book by Dan Gilgoff, senior editor at U.S.News & World Report, Dobson is seen as the Christian Right’s “new standard bearer.” Gilgoff maintains that Dobson is “more powerful” than either the Rev. Jerry Falwell (the book was written prior to his death) or the Rev. Pat Robertson ever was.

And, in his review of Gilgoff’s book for the New York Times, Jacob Heilbrunn outlined the nuts and bolts of Dobson’s empire: “[It] is based at an 88-acre campus in Colorado Springs, with some 1,300 employees and a 75,000-square-foot warehouse filled with DVDs, CDs, pamphlets and books that disseminate Dobson’s advice on matters like how to stop bed-wetting or confront a teenager about drug use, not to mention admonitions against gay rights and judicial activism. …

Dobson’s political power emanates not only from his Colorado Springs, Colorado-based Focus on the Family realm and the recent addition of Focus on the Family Action, a political lobbying arm, it also comes from the fact that Dobson founded and essentially controls the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council ***– the premiere “traditional values” lobbying organization in the nation’s capital — and a host of state-level groups called Family Policy Councils.

Yet despite the kingdom and the power, Dobson’s ship is listing on several fronts.

***[FRC was a division of James Dobson‘s Focus on the Family from 1988 until October 1992, when IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an amicable administrative separation.]

Now you tell me — honestly — how likely is it that our President Obama (as of 2008) didn’t know about Focus on the Family’s exceptionally soft stance on violence against women (among Christian husbands), and aggressive anti-gay, anti-choice stances as well, when he took office?

Here: Focus on the Family — “Helping Families Thrive” – under “Life Challenges” — there is an “Abuse and Addiction” — as we can see, the words “domestic violence” do not occur, and this only mentions (as to hyperlinks, subject headings) — Emotional Abuse.

There is a heading” Talking to your Kids about Sexual Abuse” by Jon Holsten. Though this person says he has witnessed some of these despicable crimes, the story glosses over HOW the person was arrested and cites to no law; it says nothing about mandatory reporting, and it is not addressed for someone in such a situation got get help — it is addressed to parents warning their children to beware of sexual abuse.

In this example (I note) — it wasn’t the biological father (although in real life, it often is) — but a stepfather:

He was the last person she ever suspected, but the evidence against her new husband was undeniable.

The young mother of two little girls sobbed uncontrollably as her story unraveled. The man she thought was a loving husband and stepfather was now in jail – accused of repeatedly molesting one of her daughters.

As a police officer and major crimes detective, I have investigated numerous murders, suicides, accidental deaths, and brutal assaults. In my opinion, the physical, emotional, and sexual victimization of children is among the most despicable crimes.

However, one of the questions posted (anonymously) asks a theological question about dealing with a pastor father who molested her sister, at the end of his life:

Updated 02/01/2010 04:45 PM

My father sexually molested one of my sisters during her childhood. Am I obligated to honor my dad now that he’s nearing the end of his life?

QUESTION:

My father was a pastor when I was a kid. As an adult, I learned that he had sexually molested one of my sisters for several years during her childhood. Since then, pedophilia has surfaced as a generational problem in our family. Am I obligated to honor my dad now that he’s in a rest home and nearing the end of his life? Is our family under some kind of a curse?

(the family has a generational problem with pedophilia, including a pastor….. and s/he is still asking advice of a religious nature, interesting….)

Here’s another one: — it’s 1995, and somehow the 1994 “Violence Against Women Act” hasn’t trickled down to the church level of awareness…. The article is being published in 2004 — and STILL no references. (“Originally published in: Today’s Christian Woman, 2004, September/October, Vol. 26, Issue 5, Page 68″)

It wasn’t until Brenda realized his comments weren’t true that she approached him. And that’s when he picked up a chair and hit her with it. Brenda knew she had to do something, so she went to her pastor. Unfortunately he wasn’t equipped to handle domestic abuse; his suggestions about submitting to her husband only made her home life more difficult. “Our church didn’t know what to do with us,” Brenda says. “They just wanted the problem to go away.”

Brenda got the help she needed by forming a support group with another domestic-violence victim. Then in 1995 she cofounded Focus Ministries, one of the few Christian organizations devoted to helping victims of domestic violence while also training churches on how they can assist members who are being abused.

You don’t deserve what’s happening to you. God doesn’t approve of any man who beats, controls, or retaliates against his wife.

According to Detective Sgt. Don Stewart, a retired police officer who handled domestic violence cases for 25 years, one out of every four Christian couples experiences at least one episode of physical abuse within their marriage. In fact, battering is the single largest cause of injury to women—more than auto accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that 3 to 4 million women are beaten in their homes every year. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, approximately 2,000 women are murdered every year by an intimate partner.

“Domestic violence has become an epidemic,” says Brenda, who is no longer married to her husband. The enormity of the problem, combined with the fact law enforcement officials and church leaders often lack the skills to address it, led Don to author Refuge (New Hope), a book helping victims understand and flee from violence in their homes.

I’ve read that book. It’s a good one. He also talked about police responses to having been told to take domestic violence training….

BUT NOTE — does this website provide any instructions as to WHICH laws domestic violence battery is violating — whether misdemeanor or felony, whether family code or criminal code, or both? NO! Why not?

it’s 2008 – here is a write-in question, what is the wife to do when the husband is becoming increasingly violent and has injured her four times?

Dr. Bill Maher advises her to get professional help, see a therapist, call 911 perhaps, and make a safety plan.

As difficult as it may be to admit, you are a victim of domestic abuse, and your husband is a chronic abuser.

Without professional intervention, there is a good chance that things will only go downhill from here. Men who have abused their wives in the past are likely to abuse again, and next time you may suffer more serious injuries.

The first thing you need to do is break the silence on this issue. You need to let others know about the abuse. Talk to a female friend whom you trust and let her know what’s been going on. If you have a healthy relationship with your parents, I believe it would also be wise to tell them about your husband’s abusive behavior.

…

You also need to have a safety plan in place in the event that your husband threatens to harm you again. At the first sign of anger, leave the house and go a prearranged place where you will be safe. That could be a friend’s home or a local women’s shelter. It’s also a good idea to have some extra clothing and toiletries in the trunk of your car. If your husband threatens you as you leave, call 9-1-1 when you get to the safe place and file a police report.

Find a supportive counselor who can help you develop a plan to confront the abuse and protect yourself. Our counseling department at Focus on the Family can refer you to a licensed Christian therapist in your community who has experience in dealing with domestic abuse.

Depending on your situation, the therapist may recommend a formal “intervention” involving friends, family members and perhaps even your pastor. During this meeting, this group of individuals will back you up you as you confront your husband about his abusive behavior.

This group of individuals, in a typical church, is NOT likely to back her up, moreover, they may be put at risk if they do so, depending on the situation. In any situation, it shouldn’t be the woman confronting him, but others; and the fact is, there is likely to be severe retaliation for reporting. Nowhere in this letter does it mention that women have died, that it could turn lethal, or that such abuse is a criminal. There is zero reference to any laws that could be enforced. There is also no mention (in this incident) about children, but general advice should take that into account also.

In addition, I’d recommend you order the book Love Must Be Tough by my colleague, Dr. James Dobson. You can learn more about the book by visiting our online Resource Center.

Copyright © 2008, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

! ! !

Now let me go back to THIS administration’s “Preserving Our Constitutional Commitments and Values”

What is a “Constitutional value”? How about running things past the Congress, and not ruling by Executive Orders? How about not bringing abusive faith institutions in and then expecting them to turn colors into nice, sweet, helpful in violence prevention outfits? Almost all the articles (events) above I quoted were from pre-2008, or thereabouts. Did Obama not know any better than Bush which end is up, or did he not care?

EXPANDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRESIDENCY — 2004 ARTICLE (above):

• The federal government now allows federally-funded faith-based groups to consider religion when employing staff.

The Department of Justice now permits religious organizations to convert government-forfeited property to religious purposes after five years, replacing the previous policy prohibiting such conversions.

• The federal government now allows federally-funded faith-based groups to build and renovate structures used for both social services and religious worship.

• The Veterans Administration no longer requires faith-based social service providers to certify that they exert “no religious influence.”

• The Department of Labor now allows students to use federal job-training vouchers to receive religious training leading to employment at a church, synagogue, or other faith-based organization.

For instance, during Fiscal Year 2003, the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported that grants to faith-based groups increased 41 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Overall, the Bush Administration claims that five federal agencies provided competitive non-formula grants of $1.17 billion to such organizations – a total of eight percent of the $14.5 billion awarded.

The common perception is that President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative has been stalled by a reluctant Congress. But as this report illustrates, the Bush Administration has made concerted use of its executive powers and has moved aggressively through new regulation, funding, political appointees and active public outreach efforts to expand the federal government’s partnerships with faith-based social service providers in ways that don’t require Congressional approval.

INTRODUCTION

“(A)s President, I have an authority I intend to use. Many acts of discrimination against faith-based groups are committed by Executive Branch agencies. And, as the leader of the Executive Branch, I’m going to make some changes.”

President George W. Bush speaking to religious leaders in Philadelphia, December 2002

INSERTING SPIRITUAL ACTIVITIES INTO SECULAR SERVICES – – UNCHARTED WATERS:

…These provisions have opened new and uncharted territory, raising questions and concerns about their legal status and constitutionality.

Government partnerships with religious groups have a long history in America. Faith-based organizations have received federal funds for generations – either directly from federal agencies or funneled through state government – to provide an array of social services. However, to maintain the distinction between church and state, the federal government has typically required such groups to create separately incorporated entities to receive such funds, and to use them to pursue only secular activities.

But where some saw the Establishment Clause of the Constitution as requiring a separation between church and state protecting both, the President and his advisors perceived discrimination in requirements that faith groups become more secular to receive public funding. The Bush Administration has sought to remove barriers to participation by faith-based organizations, but in so doing, may also have weakened longstanding walls preventing religious groups from inserting spiritual activities into secular services.

What apparently concerns this roundtable is not that there is an activist President, but that the ways and means to enable his activism are set in place:

The Bush Administration has complemented these policy changes with a new layer of bureaucracy designed to promote and facilitate partnerships with religious groups throughout the federal government. . . .

President Bush was not the first chief executive to create an office within the White House or to appoint cabinet and sub-cabinet level staff in the federal agencies committed to carrying out his initiatives. Activities like these, and the use of executive orders and budgetary powers, are hallmarks of activist presidents, from FDR to Reagan.

But these efforts, in the words of Hugh Heclo, typically lack local cells that provide the feet and hands needed to organize and implement presidential initiatives. The innovation in the Bush Faith-Based Initiative is the creation of a high-profile special office in the White House, connected to mini-offices in ten government agencies, each with a carefully selected director and staff, and empowered to articulate, advance and oversee coordinated efforts to win more financial support for faith-based groups as publicly-aided providers of domestic public services.

How and how well these organizational and appointive steps achieved their goal – to penetrate agency operations – is described in this report. …

…

the character and scale of the Bush Faith-Based Initiative – because it has been carried out so methodically and across the whole federal establishment – must be regarded as a notable innovation in executive action. How all this will play out in the future – in the three-cornered bargaining processes typical of American government with its “balance of powers” – depends on the outcome of the 2004 election, what the Congress and the courts do in the future, and the extent to which a new Bush, or John Kerry {: (: Administration pursues this objective in the future.

That’s enough for this post, but I will continue…. Keep in mind that this document is now seven (7) years old, and the methodical, coordinated, expansion of religious groups, penetrating many levels of government ,has been going on. Next, the document considers the 1996 “Sweeping overhaul” of welfare, based in part on a religious awakening then-Texas-Governor George Bush had in the 1990s…

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Posted in History of Family Court

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	sandwich near Detroi… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…

If the support order performance level is:		The applicable percentage is:
At least:	But less than:	The applicable percentage is:
80%		100
79%	80%	98
78%	79%	96
77%	78%	94
76%	77%	92
75%	76%	90
74%	75%	88
73%	74%	86
72%	73%	84
71%	72%	82
70%	71%	80
69%	70%	79
68%	69%	78
67%	68%	77
66%	67%	76
65%	66%	75
64%	65%	74
63%	64%	73
62%	63%	72
61%	62%	71
60%	61%	70
59%	60%	69
58%	59%	68
57%	58%	67
56%	57%	66
55%	56%	65
54%	55%	64
53%	54%	63
52%	53%	62
51%	52%	61
50%	51%	60
0%	50%	0.

Archive for July 2011

The source is an “AV Hi Desert Forum” under “Judges Lose LA County Payments.”

{BEGINQUOTE:}

{CONTINUED QUOTE : 3/8/2009 FullDisclosure.net}

Ohio child support collection agency sued

{BACK TO RICHARD FINE INTERVIEW, and SILVA case, referring to (@2009) events a decade earlier. IN other words (see above), not much has changed in the interim. you want your money? sue the State agency {or whoever is responsible} for it. Before then, figure out who the county is paying….}

SPEAKING OF, MIXING SPECIAL TAXES (AND UNFAIR PROFITS FROM UNFAIR RATES) INTO GENERAL FUNDS, TO BE USED “AT-WILL” BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

{{Speaking of water, here it is — 2006 article. I’ve posted it before, so no commentary):

(2) NO TEARS FOR L.A. – May, 2007

(Keep this in mind as crocodile tears over the budget keep showing up in various public official’s faces, nowadays)

(3) “A GORILLA WALKS INTO A (SNACK) BAR”:

— overpriced water = fees slosh into the general funds, Loophole found to Prop. 218…)

BACK TO FULLDISCLOSURE.NET 2009 INTERVIEW and trying to cut off attorneys’ fees after they got $11 million into a special fund, where it belonged….

Tags:

SHARE THIS POST on...

RE: My last post, Footloose in Tuscaloosa:

I am still sorting out which judges, legislators, and government employees are on which “Help the Children” or “Fatherhood” nonprofits in Alabama; more to come. Meanwhile, I’m hardly going to pass up an opportunity like this:

WHEN IT COMES TO THE OCSE’s ROLE:

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

OCSE Reported Millions in Undistributed Collections, but Data Were Unreliable

Some State Agencies Reported Inaccurate Amounts of Undistributed Collections

OCSE Did Not Hold State Agencies Accountable for Accurately Reporting Undistributed Collections

B. Silva v. Garcetti

LA County women and children lost $14 million, which they should have timely received.

Many State Agencies Reported Holding More than $1 Million from Joint Tax Refunds and Several Hundred Thousand Dollars in Other Types of Undistributed Collections

SHARE THIS POST on...

Well, while I’m here, who else is promoting marriage/fatherhood in AL? At least, with HHS help….

Visitation scales back after losing funds

I’ll be back tomorrow… to finish connecting the dots.

SHARE THIS POST on...

These are the columns one can select for any Advanced Search on TAGGS: “OpDiv” would be for example, “ACF,” Program Office — in these cases — would be OCSE, Office of Child Support Enforcement.

By Joy Moses | June 22, 2011

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Turner v. Rogers Suggests More Work Ahead

BACK to Ms. Moses’ article though:

FY 2010 Grants to States, Tribes, and D.C. for Child Support Enforcement

Same category, FY 2011:

Total Dollars:$3,604,010,339 (probably includes some contracts, not just grants….)

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. EIN#63-12904,

www.etfrc.org They have the solicitation part of the website all nicely set up:

D.A.D.S. Program (Dads Are Dynamite)

Former Elba lawman {stepfather} charged with torture, willful abuse of child

Coffee County Family Services Center receives 2010-2011 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding

Check presented in the amount of $103,400

Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative

SHARE THIS POST on...

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

Federal Agency Finds Workfare Contractor Violated Wage Law (Sept. 1, 2000)

By NINA BERNSTEIN

The nation’s largest operator of welfare-to-work programs violated federal law by paying lower wages to women than to men placed in the same jobs in a Milwaukee warehouse, according to a decision made public yesterday by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

HELPING AMERICA”s CHILDREN — SITTING ON MONEY COLLECTED FROM ONE PARENT WITHOUT SENDING IT TO THE OTHER: Administrative Bill, give or take $5 billion/year.

Undistributed child support that has been collected from Fathers

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

Undistributed Child Support (Follow-Up Review)

“The amount of undistributed child support payments in New York State at the time of our initial audit exceeded $70 million.

Child Support Enforcement: Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed

GAO-04-377 March 19, 2004

Foreword and Acknowledgements

Foreword

Acknowledgements

They’re Your Kids, Be Their Dad and Pay Up: Child Support Head, Nicholas Soppa, Not PayingChild “Family” Support

Ohio child support collection agency sued

SEC Investigation

MORE on “UNDISTRIBUTABLES:”

Here’s a Missouri State Audit on “Undistributed Child Support Collections” covering, I think, 1997 – 2004:

No sustained efforts to release held funds:

Closing Cases Benefits the State:

Audit (A-04-08-03521)

02-09-2009

Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Tennessee From October 1, 1998, Through December 31, 2007

Executive Summary

News Release

Friday, April 3. 2009

This wasn’t the first time this individual has allegedly sold confidential information from the Child Support Enforcement databases, and certainly not the first story of corruption on the State Child Support Enforcement programs.

Thursday, May 28. 2009

The state’s “quarterly report” ??? There a 9 years and one quarter covered in this audit: 9 X 4 = 36 + 1 = 37 quarterly reports, plural!

SHARE THIS POST on...

Disclaimer:

How, apart from the weaponry, is that not basic “Mafia”?

(see next post — which looks at Tennessee, just for example…..)

BOTH THE BACHMANNS: