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.”
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…)
(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.
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.
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.
.
SHARE THIS POST on...
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
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, 1998Organizations:
Member, Americans for Limited Government
Member, Fabretto Childrens Foundation
Member, Legislative Education Action Drive
Member, Milton & Rose Friedman FoundationCaucuses/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 |
Y | 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:
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.
…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OCSE Reported Millions in Undistributed Collections, but Data Were Unreliable
Page 11 of this report:
Some State Agencies Reported Inaccurate Amounts of Undistributed Collections
Local agencies in California used forms that did not always include the federal data elements used by the state agency to report undistributed collections
OCSE Did Not Hold State Agencies Accountable for Accurately Reporting Undistributed Collections
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.
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.
ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA90012
RichardIFine@gmail.comSeptember 3, 2010Honorable Eric HolderAttorney GeneralU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington D.C. 20530-0001Honorable Andre BirotteU.S. Attorney GeneralU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE312 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012Honorable Jerry BrownAttorney GeneralCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE300 South Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012Honorable Steve CooleyDistrict AttorneyLOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210RE: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.IntroductionThis 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)
Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney GeneralU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICESeptember 3, 2010Page 3On 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.
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):
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“.
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
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)
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
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?
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?
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Is OCSE Footloose in Tuscaloosa? (a.k.a., “When Nonprofits Exist JUST to attract Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Child Support Grants”)
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 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 |
$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,
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:
|
PALO, MARY |
Incorporator |
||
|
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.
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
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.
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.
This author has a B.A. from Stanford and a J.D. from Georgetown and is a Senior Policy Analyst at a Progressive organization.
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.
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:
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”:
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:
{{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…}}
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:
FEB, 2011 article by this justice defending himself against a newspaper attack:
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:
Here’s a nice 2007 Continuing Legal Education Commission schedule, from the Kentucky Bar, giving thanks for contributors:
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!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:
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
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:
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……)
(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:
Teresa’s Vision:
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:
(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:
www.etfrc.org They have the solicitation part of the website all nicely set up:
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.
**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 / $$
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:
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):
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. ”
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
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
0804AK4004
2008 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
0904AK4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
0904AK4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
09/23/2009
93563
NEW
-$1,435,990
AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION
550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR
ANCHORAGE
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1004AK4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$2,394,674
AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION
550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR
ANCHORAGE
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AK
ANCHORAGE
Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )
1104AK4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
0804AL4004
2008 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
0904AL4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
0904AL4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1004AL4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$12,437,200
AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B
MONTGOMERY
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AL
MONTGOMERY
Planning & Administrative Organizations
1104AL4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
0804AR4004
2008 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
0904AR4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
09/23/2009
93563
NEW
-$1,081,749
AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM
PO BOX 1272
LITTLE ROCK
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1004AR4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$9,824,903
AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM
PO BOX 1272
LITTLE ROCK
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AR
PULASKI
Other Social Services Organization
1104AR4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
0804AZ4004
2008 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
0904AZ4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
09/23/2009
93563
NEW
-$7,236,581
AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA
POST OFFICE BOX 6123
PHOENIX
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1004AZ4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$10,840,894
AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA
POST OFFICE BOX 6123
PHOENIX
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
AZ
MARICOPA
Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )
1104AZ4004
2011 OCSE
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$11,249,743
BLACKFEET TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TRIBAL OFFICE
BROWNING
MT
GLACIER
Educational Department
10IBMT4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$296,873
CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72
SACRAMENTO
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
0804CA4004
2008 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
0904CA4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
09/23/2009
93563
NEW
-$20,049,309
CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72
SACRAMENTO
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1004CA4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$125,931,992
CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72
SACRAMENTO
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CA
SACRAMENTO
Welfare Department
1104CA4004
2011 OCSE
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$94,719,355
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
10ICOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$695,218
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
10ICOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$579,348
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
10TCOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
04/01/2010
93563
NEW
$463,479
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
10TCOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$463,478
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
11ICOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$634,920
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
11ICOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$529,100
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
11ICOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$529,100
CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA
POST OFFICE BOX 948
TAHLEQUAH
OK
CHEROKEE
Indian Tribal Council
11ICOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$423,281
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
10IAOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$659,158
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
10IAOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$549,298
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
10IAOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$136,183
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
10IAOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$336,160
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
11IAOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$476,612
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
11IAOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$397,177
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
11IAOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
03/31/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$97,022
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
11IAOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$397,177
CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 1548
ADA
OK
PONTOTOC
Other Social Services Organization
11IAOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$608,870
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
10IAMT4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$194,631
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
10IAMT4004
2010 OCSET
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$162,193
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
10IAMT4004
2010 OCSET
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$162,192
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
10IAMT4004
2010 OCSET
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$129,754
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
11IAMT4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$208,457
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
11IAMT4004
2011 OCSET
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$173,714
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
11IAMT4004
2011 OCSET
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$173,714
CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
ROCKY BOY ROUTE
BOX ELDER
MT
HILL
Indian Tribal Council
11IAMT4004
2011 OCSET
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$138,971
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
0804CO4004
2008 OCSE
1
12/17/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$271,490
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
0904CO4004
2009 OCSE
1
12/21/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$713,994
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
09/23/2009
93563
NEW
-$1,963,471
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
10/01/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$11,858,500
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
11/23/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$792,000
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$12,057,020
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
03/05/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
-$918,244
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$10,702,000
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
04/29/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$2,404,043
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$10,696,534
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1004CO4004
2010 OCSE
1
08/06/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
-$1,224,106
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$9,840,330
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
12/09/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$911,350
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$11,499,260
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
01/24/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
-$286,137
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$10,561,620
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
04/26/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$689,647
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
1575 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER
CO
DENVER
Welfare Department
1104CO4004
2011 OCSE
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$10,398,700
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
10IAID4004
2010 OCSET
1
01/13/2010
93563
NEW
$177,492
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
10IAID4004
2010 OCSET
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$177,492
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
10IAID4004
2010 OCSET
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$152,137
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
11IAID4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$221,058
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
11IAID4004
2011 OCSET
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$184,215
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
11IAID4004
2011 OCSET
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$184,215
COEUR DALENE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 408
PLUMMER
ID
BENEWAH
Indian Tribal Council
11IAID4004
2011 OCSET
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$147,372
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
P.O. BOX 150
NESPELEM
WA
OKANOGAN
Indian Tribal Council
10IEWA4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$397,415
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
P.O. BOX 150
NESPELEM
WA
OKANOGAN
Indian Tribal Council
10IEWA4004
2010 OCSET
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$331,179
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
P.O. BOX 150
NESPELEM
WA
OKANOGAN
Indian Tribal Council
10IEWA4004
2010 OCSET
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$331,179
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
P.O. BOX 150
NESPELEM
WA
OKANOGAN
Indian Tribal Council
10IEWA4004
2010 OCSET
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$264,942
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
P.O. BOX 150
NESPELEM
WA
OKANOGAN
Indian Tribal Council
11IEWA4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$460,212
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
P.O. BOX 150
NESPELEM
WA
OKANOGAN
Indian Tribal Council
11IEWA4004
2011 OCSET
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$383,510
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
10IFOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$134,424
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
10IFOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$112,021
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
10IFOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$119,314
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
10IFOK4004
2010 OCSET
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$91,440
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
11IFOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$159,310
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
11IFOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$165,209
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
11IFOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$132,758
COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
P.O. BOX 908
LAWTON
OK
COMANCHE
Indian Tribal Council
11IFOK4004
2011 OCSET
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$73,755
CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES
P.O. BOX 278
PABLO
MT
LAKE
Indian Tribal Council
11IDMT4004
2011 OCSET
1
12/01/2010
93563
NEW
$238,765
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION
P.O. BOX 638
PENDLETON
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
10IAOR4004
2010 OCSET
1
10/01/2009
93563
NEW
$143,989
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION
P.O. BOX 638
PENDLETON
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
10IAOR4004
2010 OCSET
1
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
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
10IAOR4004
2010 OCSET
1
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
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
10IAOR4004
2010 OCSET
1
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
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
11IAOR4004
2011 OCSET
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$147,185
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION
P.O. BOX 638
PENDLETON
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
11IAOR4004
2011 OCSET
1
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
OR
UMATILLA
Indian Tribal Council
11IAOR4004
2011 OCSET
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
0804CT4004
2008 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
0904CT4004
2009 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1004CT4004
2010 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$11,887,422
CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT
25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR
HARTFORD
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
CT
HARTFORD
Welfare Department
1104CT4004
2011 OCSE
1
07/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$10,278,236
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
0804DC4004
2008 OCSE
1
12/17/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$83,962
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
0904DC4004
2009 OCSE
1
10/08/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$802,300
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
0904DC4004
2009 OCSE
1
12/21/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$136,662
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
10/01/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$3,593,280
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
11/23/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$1,241,838
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
01/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$3,604,840
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
03/05/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$1,217,637
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
04/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$4,100,520
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
04/29/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$971,680
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
07/01/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$4,123,940
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1004DC4004
2010 OCSE
1
08/06/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
-$563,656
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
10/01/2010
93563
NEW
$4,032,033
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
12/09/2010
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$301,643
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
01/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$3,597,460
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
01/24/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
-$961,498
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
04/01/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$3,479,620
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
04/26/2011
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
-$69,798
DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
441 4th street, nw
WASHINGTON
DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Welfare Department
1104DC4004
2011 OCSE
1
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
DE
NEW CASTLE
Health Department
0804DE4004
2008 OCSE
1
12/17/2009
93563
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)
$58,246
DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES