ORGANIZED CRIME MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, Part II

ORGANIZED CRIME MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT

PART TWO

HARVESTING CHILDREN FOR CONDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDING:

BY THE NUMBERS

“Article 16.3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, English Version, United Nations Department of Public Information. <http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm>

“When I meet a man I ask myself, 'Is this the man I want my children to

spend their weekends with?'“ Rita Rudner, Comedienne, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations. <http://www.quotationspage.com/>

Laying a cornerstone

Structural corruption occurs when employees of a government agency or program are required, as a condition of continued employment, to falsify reports, commit perjury, or engage in other illegal activity to obtain agency funding or meet agency or program goals. Structural corruption is similar to what accountants refer to as “implied corruption” or “implied fraud.”

Sitting down at the table

The tables included in this article are for the benefit of those needing documentation to convince others of the level of fraud and corruption political extremists and allied criminals have brought into government agencies and programs. Some readers have probably suspected children were being exploited by government employees in child “protection” agencies, but have been unable to convince your naive friends. When you inform those naive friends of these articles and they dismiss you with “Ah, he’s just some kind of anti-government militia nut job,” you can print copies, sit them down at the table and show them.

Now, here it is. You’ve got tables.

1. LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR CHILD PROTECTION FRAUD: MANDATED STATE TITLE IV-E FEDERAL FUND CLAIM REPORTS

“And every one who hears these words of mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.” Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:26 NAS Bible

State agencies are required, as a condition of federal funding, to file quarterly Federal Title IV-E Expenditure Reports (Federal Form IV-E-12, OMB No. 0980-01310, “The OMB number may have changed as of October 1999,” George Babbitt, Arkansas Department of Human Services). Among the information State child protection service agencies must report are projections of the average number of children that will be held in State protective custody and State custody for adoption during the reporting period.

Children held in State protective custody have been removed from parental custody. Children held in State custody for adoption have been removed from parental custody and parental rights terminated.

Living the bottom line

Table 1 was constructed from 1997-8 fiscal year quarterly Title IV-E Expenditure Reports filed by the Arkansas Department of Human Services Division of Children and Family Services.

The bottom line is that by reporting holding an average 2208 children in state custody for protection or adoption, Arkansas brought into its 1997-8 fiscal year economy $30,263,587 in federal funds.

Let us suppress, for the moment, the thought this money was, in whole or in part, federal taxes removed from Arkansas and laundered through Washington, D.C to be returned with strings attached. The strings in this case requiring someone’s child be taken into “protective” custody or terminating parental rights and putting their child’s picture on the internet to inform everyone the child is up for adoption. Someone might get angry if we thought about that.

The last column of Table 1 reports the average number of federal dollars generated by each child held in protective custody ($17,178.43) and held for adoption ($5,850.45). Note, the State of Arkansas obtained more federal dollars from a child held in non-voluntary foster care than adoption assistance.

Table 1

1997-8 FISCAL YEAR TITLE IV-E FEDERAL PARTICIPATION

CATEGORY	1ST QUARTER (ADJUSTED)	2ND QUARTER (ADJUSTED)	3RD QUARTER (ADJUSTED)	4TH QUARTER (UNADJUSTED)	1998 TOTAL	AVERAGE FEDERAL SHARE DOLLARS PER CHILD IN STATE CUSTODY
NON-VOLUNTARY FOSTER CARE Maintenance Assistance NET TOTAL PAYMENTS (A5)	$1,388,894	$2,387,030	$2,465,322	$2,739,211	$ 8,980,457
State and Local ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ADMINISTRATION (A7)	$1,940,848	$2,873,454	$2,773,152	$3,286,686	$10,874,140
State and Local TRAINING (A6)	$ 947,488	$1,632,223	$1,628,024	$2,272,199	$ 6,479,934
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE Maintenance Assistance PAYMENTS NET TOTAL PAYMENTS (5A)	$ 435,302	$1,019,640	$ 870,052	$ 725,941	$ 3,050,935
State and Local ADMINISTRATION (7A)	$ 223,717	$ 216,831	$ 223,951	$ 231,717	$ 896,216
State and Local TRAINING (6A)	0	$ 612	$ 587	$ 706	$ 1,905
NON-VOLUNTARY FOSTER CARE TOTAL	$4,277,230	$6,892,707	$6,866,498	$8,298,096	$26,334,531	$ 17,178.43
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE TOTAL	$ 659,019	$1,237,083	$1,094,590	$ 958,364	$ 3,949,056	$ 5,850.45
TOTAL FEDERAL SHARE (ALL PROGRAMS)	$4,936,249	$8,129,790	$7,961,088	$9,256,460	$30,283,587	$ 13,715.39
Average Monthly Number of Non-Voluntary Foster Care Children	1356	1527	1624	1624	Ave. 1533
Average Monthly Number of Adoption Assistance Children	661	661	688	686	Ave. 675

Table 2 reports the projected quarterly Arkansas Title IV-E expenditures and average number of children in State custody through fiscal year 2000. Note the projections always increase. That is an important pattern.

Table 2

PROJECTED (1997) QUARTERLY FEDERAL SHARE OF TITLE IV-E EXPENDITURES AND AVERAGE MONTHLY NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN ARKANSAS STATE CUSTODY

CATEGORY	1998 FY	1999 FY	2000FY
NON-VOLUNTARY FOSTER CARE Maintenance Assistance TOTAL	$2,742,179	$2,879,288	$3,023,253
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE Maintenance Assistance PAYMENTS NET TOTAL PAYMENTS (5A)	$ 864,308	$ 907,523	$ 952,899
Average Monthly Number of Non-Voluntary Foster Care Children	1365	1400	1441
Average Monthly Number of Adoption Assistance Children	650	660	671

Picking up an important loose end

Responsibility for completing and filing Federal Title IV-E Expenditure Reports is usually assigned to a specific individual in the State child protection agency financial management section. Completing and filing this report is only part of the individual’s work load.

The individual who must project the average number of children held in State protective custody and held in State custody for adoption is given no data on which to base their projections. There is no mathematical formula used to calculate these projections. Projections are arbitrarily increased each reporting period. There is no mechanism for basing these projections on the actual number of abused children in the general population. There is no mechanism by which these projections can ever decrease if the number of abused children decreases. The State projections of the number of children held in State protective custody and held in State custody for adoption have no foundation in reality, yet they are part of the basis for filing federal fund claims.

Finding the Federal Title IV-E funding facts in your State

You think this is too fantastic to be true? File an FOIA request with your State child protection agency requesting the following information:

1. The quarterly Federal Title IV-E Expenditure Reports (Federal Form IV-E-12, OMB No. 0980-01310) for the past five years.

2. The mathematical formula used to calculate the projected number of children that will be held in State protective custody and the number held in State custody for adoption reported on the federal form.

3. A copy of all reports, data or other information used to calculate the projected number of children that will be held in State protective custody and the number held in State custody for adoption.

2. COMMISSIONS GENERATED PROCESSING CHILDREN FOR FEDERAL FUND CLAIMS

“Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and

child.” Vice President Dan Quayle, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations. <http://www.quotationspage.com/>

As the number of conditional federal funding programs increased, the expertise and support needed to file claims also increased. Claim filing initially accomplished by one State employee was contracted out to for-profit corporations¹, some publicly held, which specialized in maximizing federal fund claims. It is possible for parents to receive a stock dividend from profits generated by a corporation filing federal fund claims for their own children taken into state custody. Irony is still alive and well in America.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services entered into a series of contracts for the specific purpose of maximizing federal fund claims. Under the first contract (contract number 0015651) with MAXIMUS, Inc. (now DMG-Maximus), MAXIMUS, Inc. was paid 9% commission for the increase in federal fund claims resulting from their efforts. Under “Objectives and Scope” the contract states:

"The contractor will develop strategies to enable the department to maximize utilization of federal funding under the initiatives specified in Attachment I to this agreement."

Performance indicators establish the conditional federal funding income at the time the contract was signed as a baseline. One performance indicator is the founded child abuse rate. MAXIMUS, Inc. is only paid 9% commission on the increase in federal fund claims generated and paid above the baseline existing at the time the contract was signed. Such contracts are renewed annually, with a baseline established for the new contract at the level of federal funding claims generated under the previous contract. Under the second contract with MAXIMUS, Inc., the commission rate was set at 9.5%. This pattern of contractual relationships for processing federal funding claims also establishes a pattern that the number of children taken into State custody will always increase and never decrease. This is an important pattern.

There are two ways for child protection agencies to continually increase conditional federal funding claims. The child protection agency must continually increase the number of children taken into State custody or the amount of conditional federal funding claims generated from each child held in State custody must continually increase. Corporations specializing in “Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and revenue enhancement” find ways to do both.

Attachment I to the first MAXIMUS Inc. contract is 53 pages in length and contains several statements of performance indicators. For example, Section V.3.6.1 states:

"The contractor will meet the minimum targeted return of combined enhanced revenues projected for all initiatives set forth in this agreement."

Failure to meet the targeted return will result in imposition of one of the following remedies:

"1. Should the Contractor not meet "acceptable performance" standards, it will result in the withholding of quarterly payment to the contractor until such standards are met.

2. Failure to meet "acceptable performance" standards by the next quarter following the quarter in which standards will be considered noncompliance with the terms of the contract and may -- at the option of DHS -- result in:

-Continuing withholding of payments until such standards are met; or

-Termination of the contract and forfeiture of payments will be made in accordance with Attachment I, Section 5.8."

If any revenue generating condition falls below the level existing at the time the contract was signed, including the founded child abuse rate, the contractor faces withholding of the quarterly payment, cancellation of the contract, or both.

Noticeably absent is any research or contracts for research to determine if children taken into State custody benefit in any way. In fact, there is almost a total lack of such research in the relevant professional literature. Only two studies could be located comparing mortality rates between children in and out of state custody. Thompson and Newman (1995)² reported that violent deaths and deaths due to disease among children in the Canadian welfare system occurred at rates significantly higher than the general population, both over and under the age of 18. In the only United States study, Siefert, Schwartz, and Ortega (1994)³ reported that infant mortality in Michigan's child welfare system was substantially higher than the general population.

A skeptic might be tempted to conclude those managing the government child protections system have no other concern for children in State custody than how many federal dollars they can be used to generate for the respective State economies. Perhaps we can find a different picture when we look at child protection agency caseworkers - perhaps not.

Finding the facts about commission structures in child protection agency contracts in your State

Contracts entered into by State agencies are public records subject to FOIA requests. An additional powerful tool is available in some States. Some State Supreme Courts have ruled that corporate records associated with state contracts are also subject to FOIA requests. Check to see if your State makes relevant records of State contract holders subject to FOIA requests.

Two valuable resources for assistance with FOIA requests are the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri <http://web.missouri.edu/~foiwww/> and the Mississippi Center for Freedom of Information site <http://www.mcfoi.org/DEFAULT.HTM> contains several possibly useful links. A third site, CPS Watch <http://www.cpswatch.com/forms/>, has model forms and other useful information specifically relating to child protection agencies.

Submit FOIA requests to review and make selected copies of the following:

1. All contracts issued by the State child protection services agency (and I would recommend asking for all contracts for the entire Department of Human Services, although it will take time to review all the contracts).

2. Look for the performance indicators established to determine fulfillment of the contract.

3. Determine how the contractor is compensated, a flat fee or percent of the revenue generated from their efforts.

4. If the contractor provides training, request to review and copy training manuals and any other related material produced.

5. If the contract requires periodic reports or other documents, request to review and copy selected documents.

6. Document the contractual consequences of failure to meet performance standards.

7. Look for anything that functions to coordinate the activities of components of the child protection system. Although these contracts are legal, they are a critical component of the crime management structure. As with any sophisticated criminal enterprise, compartmentalization of legal and illegal function is useful.

3. SEIZURE QUOTAS FOR CHILD PROTECTION SERVICE CASE WORKERS

“I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf.” Robert Bloch, from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations. <http://www.quotationspage.com/>

Table 3 contains a breakdown of State and federal salary fund components by Division of the Arkansas Department of Human Services for the 1995-6 fiscal year. The Division of Children and Family Services received 58% of its payroll funds from conditional federal funds. This means that employees of the Division of Children and Family Services must, by their own decisions and activities, generate sufficient federal funds to cover 58% of their paychecks

Table 3

SOURCE OF 1995-6 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES SALARY FUNDS BY DIVISION FROM FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL REPORT

DIVISION OF DHS	TOTAL REGULAR SALARIES	STATE FUNDS	FEDERAL FUNDS
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY SERVICES	$47,531,440.69	$12,505,944.79 (26%)	$33,879,958.20 (71%)
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES	$21,665,259.33	$ 9,031,484.81 (42%)	$12,523,886.49 (58%)
MENTAL HEALTH	$29,035,130.00	$16,751,076.79 (58%)	$ 9,807,340.08 (34%)
ECONOMIC AND MEDICAL SERVICES	$ 8,761,612.65	$ 1,251,072.25 (14%)	$ 6,169,232.62 (70%)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES	$ 9,800,184.52	$ 3,861,468.82 (39%)	$ 5,696,178.48 (58%)
AGING AND ADULT SERVICES	$ 2,464,728.57	$ 1,138,647.15 (46%)	$ 1,247,957.88 (51%)
SERVICES FOR THE BLIND	$ 2,060,357.70	$ 837,260.03 (41%)	$ 1,222,858.80 (59%)
VOLUNTEERISM	$ 550,197.52	$ 146,974.09 (27%)	$ 401,186.91 (73%)
YOUTH SERVICES	$ 7,508,248.88	$ 7,194,242.85 (96%)	$ 313,947.14 (04%)

Using an average $2230.43 in federal salary fund revenues generated for each child held in Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services custody, Table 4 lists the quota of children required to generate 58% of the salary funds for each staff position in the Division. The “AUTHORIZED NUMBER” column lists the number of staff authorized for each position. The “PAY GRADE” column lists the official pay code classification for each position. Because the Division of Children and Family Services was unable to produce the true salary for each employee, the starting salary for each pay grade was used as an approximation for each employee in that position. This approximation is in the “GRADE STARTING SALARY” column.

Using this salary approximation method results in an underestimation of the quota of children required to balance the payroll fund.

The “FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED” column lists 58% of the starting salary for each pay grade. The “TOTAL FEDERAL DOLLARS REQUIRED TO MEET STAFF PAYROLL” column lists the product of the “FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED” (58% of each position starting salary) and the authorized number of staff for each position. The result of this calculation divided by $2230.43 is listed under the “QUOTA OF CHILDREN TO MAKE CLAIMS” column. The result is a projected 5,529.33 total number of children required to generate 58% of the Division of Children and Family Services payroll from federal salary funds. The actual number of founded child abuse allegations reported for the fiscal year was 5615. The underestimation was 86.

Table 4

1995-6 ARKANSAS DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES QUOTA OF FOUNDED CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN BUDGETED FEDERAL SALARY FUNDS

POSITION TITLE	AUTHORIZED NUMBER	PAY GRADE	GRADE STARTING SALARY	FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED (58%)	TOTAL FEDERAL DOLLARS REQUIRED TO MEET STAFF PAYROLL	QUOTA OF CHILDREN TO MAKE CLAIMS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DCFS	1	UNC	$72,460	$42,026.80	$ 42,026.80	18.84
DHS ASSIST DIR	3	UNC	$58,939	$34,184.62	$ 102,553.86	45.98
DCFS ADMR ADMIN SVCS	1	UNC	$44,934	$26,061.72	$ 26,061.72	11.68
DCFS ADMR PROG OPS	1	25	$30,470	$17,672.60	$ 17,672.60	7.92
DCFS ADMR COMMUN SVCS	1	25	$30,470	$17,672.60	$ 17,672.60	7.92
PSYCHOLOGIST	1	25	$30,470	$17,672.60	$ 17,672.60	7.92
DCFS ADMR PROG SUPPORT	1	25	$30,470	$17,672.60	$ 17,672.60	7.92
DCFS ADMR INDIV & FAM SVCS	1	24	$28,626	$16,603.08	$ 16,603.08	7.44
DHS PROGRAM ADMR	2	23	$26,862	$15,579.96	$ 31,159.92	13.97
DCFS AREA MANAGER	6	23	$26,862	$15,579.96	$ 93,479.76	41.91
DCFS FIELD MANGER	2	22	$25,231	$14,633.98	$ 29,267.96	13.12
TRAINING PROJECT MANAGER	1	22	$25,231	$14,633.98	$ 14,633.98	6.56
INFORMATION SYSTEM PLANNER	1	22	$25,231	$14,633.98	$ 14,633.98	6.56
NURSE SUPERVISOR	1	22	$25,231	$14,633.98	$ 14,633.98	6.56
DHS PLANNING & POLICY DEV COORD	1	21	$23,718	$13,756.44	$ 13,756.44	6.17
DHS PROGRAM MANAGER	2	21	$23,718	$13,756.44	$ 27,512.88	12.34
DCFS PROGRAM ADMR	4	21	$23,718	$13,756.44	$ 55,025.76	24.67
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINER II	3	21	$23,718	$13,756.44	$ 41,269.32	18.50
QUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR	1	21	$23,718	$13,756.44	$ 13,756.44	6.17
NURSING SERVICE SPECIALIST	1	21	$23,718	$13,756.44	$ 13,756.44	6.17
FAMILY SERVICE WORKER III	48	20	$22,238	$12,898.04	$ 619,105.92	277.57
DHS PROGRAM COORDINATOR	15	20	$22,238	$12,898.04	$ 193,470.60	86.74
MANAGEMENT PROJECT ANALYST II	2	20	$22,238	$12,898.04	$ 25,796.08	11.57
COUNSELOR	5	20	$22,238	$12,898.04	$ 84,490.20	28.91
FAMILY SERVICE WORKER II	156	19	$20,911	$12,128.38	$ 1,892,027.28	848.28
DHS/DCFS FIELD SVCS REP	16	19	$20,911	$12,128.38	$ 194,054.08	87.00
DHS STAFF SUPERVISOR	8	19	$20,911	$12,128.38	$ 97,027.04	43.50
GRANTS COORDINATOR II	4	19	$20,911	$12,128.38	$ 48,513.52	21.75
REHAB STAFF DEVELOPMENT SPEC	1	19	$20,911	$12,128.38	$ 12,128.38	5.44
BUDGET SPECIALIST	1	19	$20,911	$12,128.38	$ 12,128.38	5.44
CHILD CARE LICENSING SPEC	41	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 465,897.76	208.88
DHS PROGRAM ANALYST	6	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 68,180.16	30.57
ADOPTION SPECIALIST	16	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 181,813.76	81.52
STAFF DEVELOPMENT SPEC II	3	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 34,090.08	15.28
YOUTH SVCS COUNSELOR II	2	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 22,726.72	10.19
COTTAGE LIFE PROGRAM SUPERVISOR	1	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 11,363.36	5.09
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER III	2	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 22,726.72	10.19
MANAGEMENT PROJECT ANALYST I	1	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 11,363.36	5.09
PLANNING SPECIALIST II	1	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 11,363.36	5.09
NURSE I	10	18	$19,592	$11,363.36	$ 113,633.60	50.95
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II	5	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 52,939.50	23.74
FAMILY SERVICE WORKER I	473	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 5,008,076.70	2,245.34
JOURNEYMAN CARPENTER	1	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 10,587.90	4.75
GRANTS COORDINATOR I	6	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 63,527.40	28.48
PERSONNEL OFFICER II	1	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 10,587.90	4.75
QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER	14	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 148,230.60	68.46
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER II	1	17	$18,255	$10,587.90	$ 10,587.90	4.75
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I	5	15	$16,224	$ 9,409.92	$ 47,049.60	21.09
SOCIAL SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE I	1	15	$16,224	$ 9,409.92	$ 9,409.92	4.22
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER I	20	15	$16,224	$ 9,409.92	$ 188,198.40	84.38
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SUPERVISOR	1	15	$16,224	$ 9,409.92	$ 9,409.92	4.22
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY/ADMIN SECTY	4	14	$15,235	$ 8,836.30	$ 35,345.20	15.85
SECRETARY II	14	13	$14,299	$ 8293.42	$ 116,107.88	52.06
SOCIAL SERVICE AIDE II	185	13	$14,299	$ 8293.42	$ 1,534,282.70	687.89
DOCUMENT EXAMINER II	3	12	$13,417	$ 7,781.86	$ 23,345.58	10.47
SECRETARY I	13	11	$12,616	$ 7,317.28	$ 95,124.64	42.65
DOCUMENT EXAMINER I	3	10	$11,841	$ 6,867.78	$ 20,603.34	9.24
CLERK TYPIST	32	10	$11,841	$ 6,867.78	$ 219,768.96	98.53
RECEPTIONIST	1	10	$11,841	$ 6,867.78	$ 6,867.78	3.08
TOTALS	1157				$12,332,774.90	5,529.33

The calculations represented by Table 4 may be summarized in the following equation where Q represents the projected quota of children required to generate sufficient federal salary fund claims to balance the child protection agency payroll, S_n represents the true annual salary for each employee in the child protection agency, P represents the percent of agency salary funds obtained from federal salary fund claims, and C represents the average federal salary funds obtained for each child held in State custody.

[S_{1.
. . n} S₁ + S₂ + S₃ +. . .+ S_n ] P

Q =

Table 5 compares the projected number of founded child abuse allegations, which assumes the founded rate is determined by the agency dependency on federal salary funds, with the actual number of founded child abuse allegations reported by the Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services. With figures for two of the four fiscal years significantly affected by administration decisions, the largest over and underestimation did not exceed 10%. It appears that the number of founded child abuse allegations can be accurately projected using the child protection agency dependency on federal salary funds generated by children held in custody as the predictor.

Table 5

ACCURACY OF PROJECTIONS BASED UPON CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY DEPENDENCY ON FEDERAL SALARY FUNDS

FISCAL YEAR	TOTAL AUTHORIZED POSITIONS FOR DIVISION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES	FEDERAL FUNDING DEPENDENCY ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FOUNDED ALLEGATIONS	PER CENT UNDER/OVER UNDERESTIMATION	ACTUAL NUMBER OF FOUNDED ALLEGATIONS	PERCENT OF ANNUAL INCREASE
1995-6	1157	5529	- 2	5615	4.68
1996-7	1041	5196*	-10*	5762	2.62
1997-8	1153	5703	+ 9**	5209**	-9.60
1998-9	1153	5705	- 1	5775	10.87

*Administrative decisions resulted in a temporary reduction in the number of Family Service Workers and total allocated Division of Children and Family Services positions in the 1996-7 fiscal year. Since the projection calculation is based in part on the total allocated staff positions, the staff allocation reduction resulted in a decreased number of projected founded child allegations. Please note, that despite a reduction in staff, the number of founded allocations still increased over the previous year. It would be reasonable to expect that a reduction in child abuse investigators would result in a reduction in founded child abuse allegations. A reduced number of Family Service Workers would conduct a reduced number of investigations and detect a reduced number of instances of genuine child abuse and neglect.

Table 6

TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN FAMILY SERVICE WORKERS

POSITION TITLE	1995-6	1996-7	1997-8	1998-9
FAMILY SERVICE WORKER I	473	417	476	476
FAMILY SERVICE WORKER II	156	158	164	164
FAMILY SERVICE WORKER III	48	49	49	49
TOTAL	677	624	689	689

**The Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services has stated its 1997-8 reported number of founded child abuse allegations under-reports the true number as a result of changing to a computer based tracking system called CHRIS. Not all of the previous data could be converted to the CHRIS system.

Table 7 lists the total budget for the Department of Human Services and the total federal fund component for four fiscal years. The average federal fund component for the four years is 67.5%. Note that these are billion dollar budgets.

Table 7

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DEPENDENCY ON FEDERAL FUNDS FROM SUMMARY BUDGET INFORMATION COMPARING APPROPRIATIONS AND OPERATIONS FOR THE 1995-1997 BIENNIUM WITH REQUESTS FOR 1997-1999 BIENNIUM, (VOLUME 10)

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	ACTUAL EXPENDITURES		REQUESTED BUDGET		REQUESTED BUDGET		REQUESTED BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR	1995-6	% OF TOTAL	1996-7	% OF TOTAL	1997-8	% OF TOTAL	1998-9	% OF TOTAL
FEDERAL FUNDS	$1,232,908,219	68	$1,335,239,657	68	$1,455,200,714	67	$1,566,355,546	67
% ANNUAL INCREASE			8.30%		8.98%		7.64%
TOTAL BUDGET	$1,813,799,379		$1,960,611,367		$2,177,852,523		$2,338,117,777

The Arkansas Division of Children and Family Services is dependent on federal salary fund revenues generated from children taken into state custody to meet its payroll. The number of children necessary to generate the federal fund revues required to balance the agency payroll is an accurate predictor of the annual number of founded child abuse allegations. For this to reoccur on an annual basis, management protocols would have to be in place to ensure that sufficient children are taken into custody to generate this federal revenue. The other possible explanation, that it repeatedly reoccurs by chance, is not credible.

For the number of children needing protective State custody to continually increase, all of the State, Federal and privately funded programs to reduce child abuse would have to be complete failures. Yet, claims have been made that child abuse reduction programs have been successful. It would be a strange social phenomena indeed for child abuse to be simultaneously increasing and decreasing.

Finding the facts about child custody quotas for the child protection agency in your State

Child protection agencies produce annual financial reports. The information needed to calculate the number of children required to produce sufficient federal salary fund dollars to balance the agency payroll is (1) the total amount paid to all child protection agency staff members; (2) the percent of federal salary funds used to meet the agency payroll for the year; (3) the average amount of federal salary fund claims generated for children held in State custody. If this information is not found in the annual financial report, file a specific request for it or ask your State Senator or Representative to request the information.

Multiply the total staff salaries by the percent of total salary funds derived from federal salary funds. Divide this by the average amount of federal salary funds paid for each child in State custody. Compare the resulting number with the actual number of “founded” or “true” child abuse allegations reported by the agency for that year. If the two numbers match, it implies the number of founded child abuse allegations is determined by agency dependency on conditional federal funds.

As a condition of federal funding, State child protection agencies are required to report the annual number of children who die or are injured in State custody. Obtain a copy of this report for your State. Check to see if your State child protection agency also has a Child Death Review Committee. If they do, request a copy of all documents and reports generated by this Committee. Compare the number of deaths reported to the Child Death Review Committee with the number reported to the federal government. Compare the death rate for children in State custody with the child death rate for the general population. If the death rate is higher for children in State custody, then children are placed at greater risk by being taken into State custody.

4. IT IS 10:00 AM. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?

“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), from Michael Moncur's (Cynical) Quotations <http://www.quotationspage.com/>.

“Life is all one piece. Men err when they think they can be inhuman exploiters in their business life, and loving husbands and fathers at home. For achievement without love is a cold and tight-lipped murderer of human happiness everywhere.” Smiley Blanton, from Poor Man's College <http://www.quotationspage.com/>.

Title IV-E Expenditure Reports citing fictitious projections of the number of children held in State custody are filed with the federal government. These fictitious projections are arbitrarily increased every reporting period, making it appear that increasing federal fund claims are justified. This is called fraud.

Contracts are issued by child protection agencies that require contractors to continually produce increases in federal fund revenues or have their contract canceled and forfeit any payment for their work. When such contracts are renewed, the increase in revenue generated by the previous contract becomes the baseline for the new contract. Compensating a contractor with a percent of the increase in federal fund revenues generated is a commission system. This commission system is based on processing children taken into State custody for federal fund claims.

The staff of child protection agencies must justify and produce federal salary fund claims sufficient to obtain the federal fund component of the agency payroll. This can only be accomplished by seizing and taking into State custody the number of children necessary to generate the federal salary funds. This is a quota system.

Behind a legislated wall of secrecy, an alliance of political extremists and criminals operating in child protection agencies have established an administrative machine to exploit children for financial gain and to achieve an extremist political agenda. The result is a modern form of child slave trade. Conducting this malicious enterprise requires support from organized criminals and political extremists in mental health, social work, and child abuse investigation units. The following installments in this series will deal with the tools used by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and child abuse investigators to falsify evidence used to justify taking children into state custody, file fraudulent insurance and federal fund claims, and obtain guilty verdicts against parents, teachers, ministers and other adults falsely accused of child abuse and molestation.

No one knows how many children are actually being abused or by whom they are being abused. On the infrequent occasions when alleged child abuse statistics have a basis in actual data, it is derived from the State child protection agency statistical reports. As demonstrated in this installment, the number of children taken into State custody are a product of commission and quota structures.

State child abuse statistical reports are forwarded to the federal government to become the national child abuse statistics. When someone cites statistics about the child abuse rate, ask where those figures came from. Track the source back and you should find the original source to be State child abuse statistical reports, unless the statistics are fictitious as with the figures reported on Title IV-E Reports. (To comprehend the scope and magnitude of the bureaucracies fed by the child abuse industry, visit the National Clearing House on Child abuse and Neglect links <http://calib.com/nccanch/sites.htm>.)

The current child “protection” system is a machine that exploits children to obtain federal funds for State economies. No one financially benefiting from the current system cares about children in State custody. If there was any genuine concern there would be more than two meager studies to determine if children derive any benefits from being held in State custody. If the safety of children was the actual goal of child protection agencies, every one of them would have a built in monitoring system to ensure children are benefiting from being held in State custody and the death rate would be lower than the death rate for children in the general population.

Footnotes

¹American Management Systems, Incorporated <http://www.amsinc.com/>, expand box “Everything in this site...” and scroll down list of service areas; DGM-MAXIMUS <http://www.dmgmaximus.com/services/index.html>; Public Consulting Group, Inc. <http://www.pcgus.com/units.html>; Renaissance Worldwide, Inc. <http://www.rens.com/consulting/government.html>.

²Thompson, A. H. and Newman, S. C. (1995). Mortality in a child welfare population: Implications for policy. Child Welfare, LXXIV(4), 843-857.

³Seifert, K., Schwartz, I. M., and Ortega, R. M. (1994). Infant mortality in Michigan's child welfare system. Social Work, 39(5), 754-579.

THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER^TN

220 North Willow, Suite 222

North Little Rock, AR 72114

Telephone: (501) 374-1778

thesociologist@aol.com