If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Comments on this Story
Comments on this Story Write a letter to the Editor 3 Total Comments — See All Comments 1. Comment by Lori S. (Loris) — August 3,2007 @ 8:23AM Before these deaths, deaths of children in cps custody and under their watch was already this bad. This is not a new problem. It is ongoing and has gotten worse since Governor Napolitano threw more money at the agency and instilled her policy encouraging the removal of children. This would include the deaths of Emily Mays and Dwight Hill. Not reported lately, but not forgotten to those watching this agency's blunders and fatal oversite. Death Watch - The latest report on child fatalities is in and it's even worse than you thought By Sarah Fenske December 14, 2006 http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-...ath-watch/full ...The bad news is really bad. There was nearly a 10 percent leap in child fatalities in 2005. Even allowing for population growth, that's alarmingly high. "Preventable" deaths were higher than ever, notching a 25 percent increase from 2004. The researchers also concluded that 50 children died because of maltreatment. That's the highest number of maltreatment deaths Arizona has ever recorded. But what makes the deaths particularly tragic is that Child Protective Services had prior contact with almost half of the kids who died because of abuse or neglect, according to the report. And 14 of the 50 kids actually had open cases at the time of their deaths. That, too, is a state record — albeit one you're never going to see touted in a press release. In 2003, at Governor Janet Napolitano's urging, the Legislature approved a mammoth funding increase for CPS, and funding has only continued to grow. Last year, the state earmarked $163 million for the Department of Children, Family, and Youth Services, almost double its allocation prior to Napolitano's election And though more kids than ever are in foster care, deaths from child abuse and neglect have continued to rise The 2005 statistic isn't an anomaly, it's part of a steady uptick that began in 2002. See Suffer the Children October 26, 2006 "More than two times the number of kids have died from abuse on Napolitano's watch" than in a similar period under Governor Jane Hull. Even more troubling for the agency, more kids are being killed while their CPS files are still open. State Senator John Huppenthal, a Chandler Republican, says that the funding increases and putting more kids in foster care were supposed to prevent just that. "Their solution was, 'Pull out more kids, and the kids will be safer,'" he says. "But we've found there's no correlation between removal rates and safety None at all Nine of the kids who died in 2005 were in foster care at the time of their deaths. 2. Comment by Clouds 4. (customcloud) — August 3,2007 @ 9:09AM 5/23/2006 State Kidnapping Financial Incentives -Incentive Payments to States SEC. 458. [42 U.S.C. 658a] (a) IN GENERAL In addition to any other payment under this part, the Secretary shall, subject to subsection (f), make an incentive payment to each State for each fiscal year in an amount determined under subsection (b). (b) AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE PAYMENT (1) IN GENERAL.—The incentive payment for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the fiscal year. (2) INCENTIVE PAYMENT POOL (A) IN GENERAL.—In paragraph (1), the term “incentivepayment pool” means— (i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; (ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; (iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; (iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; (v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; (vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; (vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; (viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; (ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and (x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the secondpreceding fiscal year. (B) CPI. For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term “Consumer Price Index” means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor. (3) STATE INCENTIVE PAYMENT SHARE In paragraph (1), the term “State incentive payment share” means, with respect to a fiscal year(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the fiscal year; divided by (B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year. (4) INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT In paragraph (3), the term “incentive base amount” means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State performance for the fiscal year: (A) The paternity establishment performance level. (B) The support order performance level. © The current payment performance level. (D) The arrearage payment performance level. (E) The cost-effectiveness performance level. (5) Maximum incentive base amount.— (A) IN GENERAL. — For purposes of paragraph (4), the maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year is— (i) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and © of paragraph (4), the State collections base for the fiscal year; and (ii) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph(4), 75 percent of the State collections base for the fiscal year. (B) DATA REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETE AND RELIABLE. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year with respect to a performance measure described in paragraph (4) is zero, unless the Secretary determines, on the basis of an audit performed under section 452(a)(4)©(i), that the data which the State submitted pursuant to section 454(15)(B) for the fiscal year and which is used to determine the performance level involved is complete and reliable. © STATE COLLECTIONS BASE.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State collections base for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of(i) 2 times the sum of (I) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved is required to be assigned to the State pursuant to part A or E of this title or title XIX; and (II) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved was so assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required to be so assigned; and (ii) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in all other cases. (6) DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE PERCENTAGES BASED ONPERFORMANCE LEVELS. (A) PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT.— (i) DETERMINATION OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENTPERFORMANCE LEVEL.—The paternity establishment performance level for a State for a fiscal year is, at the option of the State, the IV-D paternity establishment percentage determined under section 452(g)(2)(A) or the statewide paternity establishment percentage determined under section 452(g)(2)(B). (ii) DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE. The applicable percentage with respect to a State's paternity establishment performance level is asfollows: If the paternity establishment performance level is: The applicable percentage is: More on link - your social security funds - http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm And as above, they have incentive to collect child support - Paternity- (of course parents should pay, the point is the state is enforcing it for money and bonuses...or they would not give a hoot) 3. Comment by Clouds 4. (customcloud) — August 3,2007 @ 9:18AM SOCIAL SECURITY TITLE IV D - TITLE IV GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD-WELFARE SERVICES DHS Agencies (ADES-DCYF-CPS) and Courts (Pima County Juvenile and Superior Courts) do Not get bonus money when they help families, unless they are adoptive families Read the DHS Adoption Incentives Brochure and Adoption Assistance Brochure published by the state DHS agency. The Clinton Administration's Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 and subsequent changes by the Bush Administration: The Clinton Administration passed the Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997 which gives DHS agencies Bonus Money for children they adopt. At first, they were required to double their adoptions to get the Bonus Money. President Bush changed the ASFA so that NOW the DHS agency must adopt only ONE more than the 'mean' adoption rate to qualify for the Bonus Money. That was done so that more states could qualify for the Bonus Money. (It was NOT designed to help children in any way. It was advertised that it was to adopt children who had been in foster care for several years, but that's NOT what it is being used for) President Bush also extended the Adoptions and Safe Families Act from 2002 through 2008. Then, he announced that our Social Security Fund would be broke. The Bonus Money and Awards from the ASFA come from our Social Security Fund (FICA Taxes). Read the Adoptions and Safe Families Act. If a child is twelve or older, they get an additional Bonus Money. In October 2005, DHS agencies were given more than $17 Trillion Dollars for 2004. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
One women's comments ... | 0:-> | Spanking | 0 | November 18th 06 11:59 PM |
Toddler comments | Donna Metler | Breastfeeding | 0 | December 2nd 05 12:29 AM |
Need Comments on Situation | WiseSarah | Child Support | 0 | July 4th 04 01:33 PM |
Looking for comments ... | John Sambrook | General | 0 | May 19th 04 07:47 AM |
any comments | KEITH CRABILL | Single Parents | 55 | July 9th 03 02:19 AM |