Texas Schools Felony Fraud numbers of dropouts

Regarding the big story that the Child Protective Services
agencies of every state in the USA failed Federal Audits.
The DHHS term for these audits is "Child Welfare Review".

LaVonne:
Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
for Child Abuse Information?

That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.

If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

(Also see other thread about US DOJ FOIA hanky panky.)

Greg,

Still trying to get you to answer to question.

LaVonne

Greg Hanson wrote:

Regarding the big story that the Child Protective Services
agencies of every state in the USA failed Federal Audits.
The DHHS term for these audits is "Child Welfare Review".

LaVonne:
Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
for Child Abuse Information?

That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.

If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

(Also see other thread about US DOJ FOIA hanky panky.)

Greg Hanson wrote:

Regarding all 50 States FAILING Federal Audits for compliance
with Child Protection rules:

LaVonne:
Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
for Child Abuse Information?

That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.

If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

THIS IS HOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCIES AND JUVENILE
COURTS OPERATE ALSO. THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO KNOW IS DISRESPECTED.
IN JUVENILE COURT THEY VIOLATE PEOPLES RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE
DOCUMENTS IN THE COURT FILE BUT KEPT SECRET.
LAWS AND LOOPHOLES IN THE LAWS ARE USED LIKE A GIANT SWINDLE.

If you have an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

LaVonne



http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7272
Justice e-censorship gaffe sparks controversy
By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Oct 22 2003 3:46PM

A government watchdog group Wednesday accused the Justice Department
of improperly censoring portions of a key report on internal workplace
diversity, after online activists successfully unmasked the
blacked-out portions of an electronic copy of the document.

The 186-page report was released to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act last week and posted to Justice Department's website
in Adobe's "Portable Document File" (PDF) format. But the department
blacked out vast portions of the document's text, citing an exemption
to FOIA that permits agencies to keep internal policy deliberations
private.

The text didn't stay concealed for long. On Tuesday a website called
the Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving endangered documents,
published a complete version of the report, with the opaque black
rectangles that once covered half of it completely removed. Memory
Hole publisher Russ Kick won't say how he unmasked it, but
experimentation shows that the concealed text could be selected and
copied using nothing more than Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Once
copied, the text is easily pasted into another document and read.

It turns out the report began its life as a Microsoft Word document,
and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public release did so
by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight color set to black,
according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of activePDF, a maker of
server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient technique would have
been perfectly effective had the end product been a printed document,
but it was all but useless for an electronic one. "Using Acrobat, I'm
actually able to move the black boxes around," says Sullivan. "The
text is still there."

In 2000, the New York Times made a similar error in publishing on its
website a classified CIA file documenting American and British
officials' engineering of the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's elected
leadership. Before releasing the document as a PDF file, the paper
blacked out the names of Iranians who helped with the plot. But online
intelligence archivist John Young published an unsanitized version of
the report after discovering that the opaque black lines and boxes
concealing the names could easily be removed.

Both cases demonstrate that what you see is not always what you get in
electronic documents. Censors could have more effectively eliminated
the text by deleting it, rather than painting it over. Additionally,
commercial software is available that's designed specifically to help
government agencies redact PDF files for release under FOIA and the
Privacy Act. Pennsylvania-based Appligent even sells its "Redax"
Acrobat plug-in to the Justice Department. "The amazing thing is that
there are different divisions in the Department of Justice that are
using our software, so it's a little shocking that they would do this
in Word," says company president Virginia Gavin.

Denuded of its censorious kludgework, the report -- produced last year
by KPMG -- reveals much about the Justice Department's gender and
ethnic diversity issues. But, significantly, it also shows that the
department is overly aggressive in cutting documents for public
release, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). On
Wednesday FAS wrote a letter to the Justice Department's Office of the
Inspector General -- the DoJ's internal investigators -- urging a full
investigation into officials' "unauthorized withholding of
information."

"Too much information was withheld," says FAS's Steven Aftergood.
"Information that was purely factual was censored as if it were
deliberative...We want agencies to be able to discuss different policy
options and to make recommendations outside of a charged political
environment, and the deliberative exemption allows them to do that.
But the exemption does not apply to factual material."

For example, a section of the text notes, "sexual harassment is not
perceived by attorneys to be a problem in the Department, but racial
harassment is." That should never have been cut from the public
version, says Aftergood. "That's something that ought to be made
publicly available."

Much, if not most, of the scores of blacked out pages should have been
released under law, Aftergood says. He credits the PDF blunder with
exposing a systemic problem in the Justice Department's FOIA
compliance, and he hopes an internal review will result in an overhaul
of the system. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on
the matter, and the almost-censored document disappeared from the
department's website Wednesday afternoon.

LaVonne: Do you dispute the two news stories
submitted as proof that all 50 states failed
child safety audits?

Or are you trying to get the US DHHS to
pull the info out of whatever pidgeon hole
they hid it in?

IA DHS held public comment sessiona all over
the state map. They scheduled a date when
they would release a summary of these comments.
After they got a LARGE turnout and a lot of
ANGRY comments about agency abuses of families,
for SOME REASON the summary of public comments
never becaame publicly available as scheduled.

This sort of behavior is repeated by these
agencies over and over.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
LaVonne: Do you dispute the two news stories
submitted as proof that all 50 states failed
child safety audits?

Or are you trying to get the US DHHS to
pull the info out of whatever pidgeon hole
they hid it in?

IA DHS held public comment sessiona all over
the state map. They scheduled a date when
they would release a summary of these comments.
After they got a LARGE turnout and a lot of
ANGRY comments about agency abuses of families,
for SOME REASON the summary of public comments
never becaame publicly available as scheduled.

This sort of behavior is repeated by these
agencies over and over.

The Chicago Tribune printed an article noting that of 39 states recently
audited... each failed. I take issue with the evaluation criteria and the
manner it was applied but for better or worse there are those who are
finally taking notice of the deplorable system CPS has evolved into.

I suspect the federal government is trying to find a way to cut the costs of
child care business and return authority, and costs, to the states. As many
here have already noted, the welfare of the children is not paramount....
it's all about money otherwise the system would probably remain status quo.
Money has been the sole contributor to the evil perpetrated by CPS on
families.

bobb

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:01:02 GMT, "bobb" wrote:


"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
. com...
LaVonne: Do you dispute the two news stories
submitted as proof that all 50 states failed
child safety audits?

Or are you trying to get the US DHHS to
pull the info out of whatever pidgeon hole
they hid it in?

IA DHS held public comment sessiona all over
the state map. They scheduled a date when
they would release a summary of these comments.
After they got a LARGE turnout and a lot of
ANGRY comments about agency abuses of families,
for SOME REASON the summary of public comments
never becaame publicly available as scheduled.

This sort of behavior is repeated by these
agencies over and over.

The Chicago Tribune printed an article noting that of 39 states
recently
audited... each failed. I take issue with the evaluation criteria
and the
manner it was applied but for better or worse there are those who are
finally taking notice of the deplorable system CPS has evolved into.

This has been a matter of contention between the states and the feds
for some time now. ASFA: PL 105-89 is the subject of much social work
program study. For one thing it had a tremendous impact on ICWA,
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. (1978) Public Law 95-608. There is
apparently some conflict.

And that should be a clue that ASFA either was not intended to do what
it stated, or that it is, as you are examining below, being used for
something else entirely.

I suspect the federal government is trying to find a way to cut the
costs of
child care business and return authority, and costs, to the states.

And here is were we part company on opinions. I contend it is just the
opposite. The current Republican administration (if you can even call
them Republicans without that appilation "CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING")
are simply extending the intent of the liberal Democrats...that is to
take over more and more state authority.

If there is anything I dread more than this administration continuing
its obvious right wing agenda by winning another term in office it is
the spector of liberal Democrats fielding a presidential candidate
that the electorate can swallow and them winning.

The stage is set for a huge increase in centralized control and our
issue over the adventure in family intrusion is but one small but
vital part in that larger goal.

I'm thought to be a promoter of CPS and the state...being
misunderstood of course. What I AM a promoter of is state authority
over federal authority.

The feds are currently playing a wonderfully sly game with families as
the pawns.

As many
here have already noted, the welfare of the children is not
paramount....
it's all about money otherwise the system would probably remain
status quo.

Actually it would have been more likely that we would have had the
small evils of state authority as compared to the greater ones of
federal control.

Money has been the sole contributor to the evil perpetrated by CPS on
families.

And where is the controlling center in all this?

Can you see now how ASFA is being used to wrest control away from the
states and vest it in the federal pickpockets that use our own money
against us?

And the solution put forward by many of the stupid in this ng, or
those with questionable ethics and their OWN agendas, is to make MORE
federal law.

When will you wake up?

There is only one cure for ASFA: Repeal.

We seem to not be going in that direction.


bobb

Kane

snip

There is only one cure for ASFA: Repeal.

We seem to not be going in that direction.


ASFA needs to be repealed, and and this you and I agree. In recentl years,
probably because of the media interjecting what they see as inconsistancy
between state in just about every matter, the states have lost a great deal
of authority yet the are obligated to assume responsibility.

The big break for the federal government was the legal black-mail they
imposed on the states to lower the speed limits to 55 mph or lose government
funding in favored programs. The courts agreed such action was legal. Well,
AFSA is the same thing. States do not have to abide by federal law but
they will suffer great fiancial losses... which lawmakers cannot afford.

bobb


bobb



bobb

Kane

Why repeal ASFA without repealing CAPTA first?

Here's a link for various and sundry DHHS news items
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html

Why didn't you answer it in the same thread?
Why did you make a new thread?
Intentional or accidental?

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
m...

Why didn't you answer it in the same thread?

Answer what?

Why did you make a new thread?

Read the Subject.

Intentional or accidental?

I think you were accidental.

Dan