Wade previously served as the commissioner for Children, Youth and Families and as chief of the Children’s Bureau within DHHS. He transitioned from that role to serve as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative – an organization dedicated to improving the well-being of children by increasing the number of children growing up with involved, committed and responsible fathers.
Wade has a doctorate in clinical psychology from Southern Illinois University and has served as associate director of Michigan State University’s Psychological Clinic. He also has held the position of director of outpatient psychological services at Children’s Hospital National Medical Center and associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University.
This man has background in the world’s easiest major, which many still challenge as even being a legitimate science, and rightly so. It is a field with an unusually high # of criminals attracted to it, who if they are prosecuted, then skip to other states and set up shop again. I have blogged him before; he is no friend to women with children (Where is Mrs. Horn? One never hears about her).
This next Deloitte Consulting LLP article shows that as poverty and the need for aid increase (not in small part because groups like — or trained by — National Fatherhood Initiative, with its very religious thesis about what causes poverty, crime, abuse, even sexual abuse, promiscuity etc (and it’s of course fatherlessness) – profits to Deloitte, in particular increase, through technology, which (along with psychology) is their field:
The recession means many states are seeing dramatic increases in the number of citizens applying for aid. States that have implemented self-service systems within the last several years are finding they are not only able to better handle rapidly increasing caseloads, but they are also better positioned to meet looming advanced benefit delivery needs.
Sundhar Sekhar, principal and HHS practice leader with Deloitte Consulting LLP, and Dr. Wade Horn, HHS director, Deloitte Consulting LLP, recently wrote an article for the American Public Human Services Association’s (APHSA) Policy & Practice magazine. The article discusses how states like Wisconsin, New York, Georgia, Massachusetts and New Mexico have used self-service portals to improve both how they do business and how they serve citizens
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP (ALONE; IT’S HARDLY THE ONLY DELOITTE AROUND)) IS IN MANY DIFFERENt FIELDS (YOU CAN LOOK IT UP) INCLUDING AEROSPACE & DEFENSE:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/index.htm AND BANKING & SECURITIES:
this same firm was also a vendor for the highly political (and scandalized) CALIFORNIA COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CCMS) WHICH THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND TRIAL COURTS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING ABOUT. I see from a March 2012 meeting that delays caused by Deloitte cost Californians, and it elected to pay us back $16 million. Apparently profits are good as it’s able to do this. There was a whistleblower involved (re: overbilling) on this, who was then fired, who quit, heads are rolling, and in short — it’s a major scandal. In addition to this I personally have issues with a company who’s got a man on it (Wade Horn) responsible in part for seeking to restructure the statewide (throughout the country) family court system to become an out-based (increased noncustodial parenting, a.k.a. abusive fathers) process and incentivize judges to do this. for one, it is getting families killed, and is unfair to the custodial parents in that they are often not even told about the grants system. For another, besides it’s simply unethical — it is utilizing federal money designed to alleviate poverty — not to speculate on marriage theory and test that theory nationwide on kids and their parents. This is the legacy in part of welfare reform, which legacy needs to be changed anyhow.
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher AB 1208 (Calderon) – Administrative Office of the Courts Thursday, February 1, 2012
Assemblyman Fletcher: “I rise in support of reforming the Administrative Office of the Courts. It is a failed institution that is failing the trial courts that it’s entrusted to protect. For years now we have seen the mismanagement, we’ve seen disregard for taxpayer funds, we’ve seen an unwillingness to change and reform, a bloated staff, a disastrous computer system, unrealistic construction and maintenance costs; all too often that’s just another day at the office for the Administrative Office of the Courts.”
“And at a time when local governments are struggling, when local courts are struggling to keep their courts open, the AOC has shifted billions of dollars away from ensuring justice, with programs riddled with delays, ballooning price tags and management failures.I want to highlight just quickly, and I know the debate has been long, but a couple specifics of what we’re talking about.”
- Initial estimates had put the cost of CCMS at $206 million, but as of June 2010, the program has already spent $407 million and is projected to cost $2.5 billion to finish developing and training courtemployees and justice partners how to use the system,” said Alejo in criticizing the Administrative Officeof the Courts, generally referred to by its acronym AOC. “Moreover, because of failures by the AOC toproperly structure its contract with the vendor, the contract now costs $310 million, nearly 10 times theinitial estimate.
- “Additionally, the AOC did not structure its contract with Deloitte Consulting LLP (development vendor), the firm that has assisted in developing CCMS, to ensure that the AOC could adequately control the total cost and size of the contract. Over the course of seven years, the AOC entered into 102 amendments to develop, deploy, and support the civil system; to deploy and support the criminal system; and to develop CCMS. As a result, the cost of the contract has increased significantly—growing from $33 million to $310 million—and the AOC has become increasingly dependent on the development vendor’s knowledge and expertise.”Howle, Elaine. “Administrative Office of the Courts: The Statewide Case Management Project Faces Significant Challenges Due to Poor Project Management”
But here’s more info on this very live, 2012, issue. California eventually (in part because the courts budget was slashed) to scrap or otherwise reutilize this $333 million project, etc.
March 27, 2012
Judicial Council Votes to Stop Deployment of Statewide Case Management System
Cites fiscal crisis, high cost of CCMS V4
We have to develop a new vision for our branch technology infrastructure given our fiscal climate,” said Judge James E. Herman, chair of the committee. “We are committed to implementing a cost-effective, efficient technology that serves the public, litigants, attorneys, and trial courts.”
According to a report by the independent auditing firm of Grant Thornton, LLP, estimates for deployment of CCMS V4 to 11 courts would be $343 million for one-time and supporting costs through fiscal year 2020-2021. To date, $333.3 million has been spent on the V3 and V4 software product the Judicial Council now owns.
In the current fiscal year, state funding of the trial courts was slashed by $350 million and another $310 million was swept from the courthouse construction fund to help balance the state’s General Fund. Since 2008-2009, state funding of the judicial branch has been cut by $653 million, leading to closures of courtrooms, reduced hours, and employee layoffs.
Originally conceived in 2001, CCMS was designed to provide the trial courts with a single, statewide case management system to replace 70 individual case systems in use among the California courts. The concept was to improve public safety and business efficiencies by enabling trial courts to exchange information with each other as well as other justice system partners, such as law enforcement and to improve service to attorneys and the public.
Interim systems provided case management for criminal and traffic cases (V2) followed by civil, small claims, probate and mental health cases (V3). V4 could handle all case types, provide for data exchange, and provide public access to cases across the state
McKinsey & Company The washington, D.C. McKinsey & Company (never heard of ’em) is a NY consulting firm founded in 1926:
McKinsey & Company is one of the world’s top management consulting firms. With roughly 90 offices in more than 50 countries around the globe, it serves three of the world’s five largest companies and about two-thirds of the FORTUNE 1000. The company advises corporate enterprises, as well as government agencies, institutions, and foundations on a number of business practices. They include business technology, corporate finance, marketing and sales, operations, organization, risk, and strategy. McKinsey’s consulting services focus on more than a dozen different industries, from automotive and banking to pharmaceuticals and telecommunications. Founded by James McKinsey in 1926, the firm is owned by its partners.
CHILD TRENDS, INC.
Taggs (This = outright HHS grants, not contracts for services or products delivered)
|Recipient Name||City||State||ZIP Code||County||DUNS Number||Sum of Awards|
|CHILD TRENDS, INC||WASHINGTON||DC||20008-2304||DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA||127687093||$ 19,907,379|