A Times Editorial
The high price of Medicare fraud
In Print: Sunday, December 27, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some scoffed when President Barack Obama said part of the cost of health care reform could be covered by eliminating fraud in the system. But each arrest made by the federal Medicare Fraud Strike Force illuminates how extensive the bogus billing schemes can be. Rooting out that fraud is key to cutting health care costs.
Federal agents swooped into Detroit, Brooklyn and Miami recently to break up schemes the government said had defrauded Medicare of $61 million. They arrested 30 people, including doctors and nurses.
This month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General reported it suspected South Florida providers were fraudulently collecting Medicare reimbursement for treatment of home-bound diabetes patients that was either not delivered or was medically unnecessary. Statistics were the tip-off: In 2008, Miami-Dade accounted for more than half of the $1 billion Medicare paid nationally for home treatment of people with diabetes and related illnesses, yet the county has only 2 percent of the nation's qualifying diabetic patients. The federal government also stopped reimbursing a Miami psychiatrist who wrote nearly 97,000 prescriptions to Medicaid patients over a period of 18 months, nearly twice the number of the second-highest prescriber in Florida.
With providers under scrutiny in Miami-Dade, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force is expanding its reach to Tampa, where it has discovered similarly suspicious statistics. The strike force, created in 2007, claims to have targeted 257 people in a handful of cities who allegedly falsely billed Medicare for $600 million.
That's likely just the tip of the iceberg. Fraud at such a scale impacts the solvency of the Medicare system and enriches criminals with money that could be used to treat the sick. Stopping it is part of the solution to the country's health care crisis.
[Last modified: Dec 26, 2009 03:30 AM]
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/the-high-price-of-medicare-fraud/1061066
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Baby Stealer of the Year Award
LK is running a contest on Legally Kidnapped for an award for the absolute
worst of the worst babystealer or system suck on the planet for 2009.
Please go to: http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2010/01/babystealer-of-year-for-2009.html
LK will need judges to help choose a winner and other blogger's to help
promote it, and would appreciate it if you would all link to this specific
post or he will even provide the codes for the form so that the visitors of
your own blogs can fill it out there. Please help to spread the word.
Voting and nominations goes on for 1 week and will end on Friday morning,
January 8th. At which time, he will provide members of this newsgroup, who
have officially been nominated by me as judges, with a link to all who are
nominated, asking you, the members of this group to pick a winner. If a
winner can not be agreed upon and chosen out of a few of the nominees, I
will ask that the group reduce it to 3 or 4 finalists, I will put it up on
LK as a poll and let the readers of Legally Kidnapped decide upon a final
winner.LK will not take on such a responsibility for choosing a winner for
this prestigious award all by himself.
LK
http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
I my self have nominated Anna the Homewrecker. Maybe I'll even nominate retired Judge Cloutier. The Judge who wrote the opposite of all testimony in my daughters TPR decision.
worst of the worst babystealer or system suck on the planet for 2009.
Please go to: http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2010/01/babystealer-of-year-for-2009.html
LK will need judges to help choose a winner and other blogger's to help
promote it, and would appreciate it if you would all link to this specific
post or he will even provide the codes for the form so that the visitors of
your own blogs can fill it out there. Please help to spread the word.
Voting and nominations goes on for 1 week and will end on Friday morning,
January 8th. At which time, he will provide members of this newsgroup, who
have officially been nominated by me as judges, with a link to all who are
nominated, asking you, the members of this group to pick a winner. If a
winner can not be agreed upon and chosen out of a few of the nominees, I
will ask that the group reduce it to 3 or 4 finalists, I will put it up on
LK as a poll and let the readers of Legally Kidnapped decide upon a final
winner.LK will not take on such a responsibility for choosing a winner for
this prestigious award all by himself.
LK
http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
I my self have nominated Anna the Homewrecker. Maybe I'll even nominate retired Judge Cloutier. The Judge who wrote the opposite of all testimony in my daughters TPR decision.
Friday, January 1, 2010
National Coalition For Child Protection Reform - Responds to Statements From National CASA Association and Caliber Associates
National Coalition For Child Protection Reform - Responds to Statements From National CASA Association and Caliber Associates
Posted: 31 Dec 2009 09:52 PM PST
NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM
53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Virginia, 22314
Phone and Fax: (703) 212-2006 / e-mail: info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
For release: For further information,
contact:
Immediate Richard Wexler, Executive
Director (703) 212-2006 /
www.ncpr.org
NCCPR RESPONDS TO STATEMENTS FROM NATIONAL CASA
ASSOCIATION AND CALIBER ASSOCIATES
ALEXANDRIA VA. (June 23) – Richard Wexler, Executive Director of
the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, issued the following
statement today in response to documents released by the National CASA
Association and Caliber Associates:
The National CASA Association has launched a desperate campaign of damage control in an effort to spin a study commissioned by the group itself. But no matter how desperately National CASA tries to divert attention, the organization can’t evade the key findings from its own study:
Children with CASAs were nearly five times more likely to be in foster care than children without CASAs.
Yet children without CASAs were found to be just as well off – and just as safe – as children with CASAs.
Thus, we conclude that the only real accomplishment of CASA is to encourage the needless removal of children from their homes.
BACKGROUND:
At its annual convention earlier this month the National CASA Association issued a summary of the most comprehensive study ever done of the program. It was commissioned by National CASA itself and conducted by Caliber Associates.
NCCPR put out a press release contending that while CASA volunteers are dedicated and mean well, in general the CASA program does no good and may well do harm. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a story about the study.
National CASA subsequently released the full study, though it is hard to find on CASAs website. National CASA also put out a statement and Caliber put out a response to the NCCPR press release. Links to both were included in a weekly news summary on the website of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy. NCALP broke with its longstanding practice of using these e-mails solely to send links to news stories in order to rush to CASAs defense.
THE BEST WAY TO EVALUATE THE CASA STUDY: READ IT.
Before getting into specifics about the comments from National CASA and the researchers, however, NCCPR suggests a simple way to settle the matter: People should read the full study for themselves and draw their own conclusions. National CASA has posted the study on one of its websites – though it requires an extremely diligent search to find it. (If the study is as favorable, or at least as neutral, as CASA claims, it’s hard to understand why CASA doesn’t make the study easy to find by posting it prominently on both of its websites). At the moment, the study can be reached directly via this link:
http://www.casanet.org/download/casasurveys/caliber_casa_report_representation.pdf
RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT FROM CALIBER
The firm hired by National CASA to do the study, Caliber Associates, has prepared a “response” to a press release from NCCPR.
In the document, Caliber responds to our contention that the study does nothing to improve the lives of children and may do harm, by declaring that “as far as we are concerned the most critical facts about the well being of children with and without CASA volunteers” are that the children most in need of a CASA got one and that these children are at very high risk of poor outcomes “when they first enter the program.”
NCCPR’S RESPONSE: We don’t dispute either of these points. But neither tells us if the CASA, once assigned, does any good. We believe that other study findings indicate that, in general, CASA does no good and may do harm. Caliber complains that NCCPR didn’t note that children and parents who received CASAs got more services.
NCCPR’s RESPONSE: There is no indication that the increased services actually improved outcomes. Indeed, the same study also asked caseworkers to assess the percentage of parent and child needs met in cases with and without CASAs. They found “no significant difference,” suggesting that the additional services didn’t do any good. Caliber omits this from its response to NCCPR.
The researchers quote the following from NCCPR’s original press release. “Most important, there was no difference in ‘exposure to violence and maltreatment.” In “response” Caliber takes this quote out of context, implying that it is a reference to the children’s backgrounds before any intervention. In fact, this statement specifically refers to the children’s status after intervention,
comparing children whose intervention included a CASA and those whose intervention did not include a CASA. The results are shown in the study itself, in Table 26, and they do, indeed, show no difference in exposure to violence and maltreatment.
Caliber’s comments here are related to the straw CASA has been trying to grasp since the report’s findings became public: the claim that all the differences are due to the fact that CASAs handle more difficult cases. But Caliber went to enormous lengths to adjust for this in order to come up with an apples-to-apples comparison. On page 40, the report lists eight separate variables for which they adjusted. The report then states: “Inclusion of these variables means that the percentages and mean scores presented in this section indicate the outcomes that would be expected of children who did and did not have a CASA volunteer if the two groups had similar demographic characteristics and prior experiences.” [Emphasis added].
The authors of the report also include a section speculating that, because the results were so surprising they must not have done a good enough job in adjusting for severity. But this is circular reasoning. The argument, essentially, is that “the results are so bad for CASA that we must have measured wrong.” They also cite “tests” they performed in an effort to confirm this. Again, NCCPR suggests that readers examine the report for themselves to evaluate the plausibility of this argument.
We believe the more plausible explanation is that the results reflect racial and class bias built into the CASA model itself. And rather than suggesting flawed methodology, the size of the differences suggests the extent of the bias. Even if one believes that the comparison between the two groups is not perfect, is it implausible that such imperfection would account for the fact that the children with CASAs were nearly five times more likely to be in foster care than the
children without CASAs, and yet there was no difference in safety and well-being outcomes.
Furthermore, if Caliber’s explanation is to be believed, why doesn’t it apply to the so-called “good news” about CASA? Why isn’t the fact that children who have CASAs get more services also simply a function of their cases being more severe?
Please note that NCCPR included Caliber’s explanation, and our response, in our original press release. Caliber, in contrast, has taken NCCPR’s release out of context.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM NATIONAL CASA
In an unsigned statement, attributed to CASA CEO Michael Piraino, found via a link on the website of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy, CASA relies almost exclusively on the claim that all negative or “neutral” findings can be attributed to the fact that CASAs handle more severe cases. The statement does not acknowledge the strenuous efforts of the researchers to control for this.
The statement also makes some interesting comments on some other issues:
Concerning the surprisingly low number of hours per month CASAs report spending on their cases, CASA claims that the volunteers actually spend more time, but don’t bother to write it down “…and the last thing we want to do is turn [volunteers] into data input people.”
That’s exactly what poorly- functioning child welfare agencies say when issues are raised about whether caseworkers actually performed required tasks – such as visiting children. “Oh, we’re sure they did it,” we are told. “They just didn’t have time to write it down.”
This also doesn’t explain why, according to the report “cases involving African- American children were associated with over an hour less volunteer time each month…” [emphasis added].
It seems unlikely that volunteers dealing with cases involving African-American children consistently were less likely to fill out time logs. Furthermore, this section of the CASA statement contains a significant factual error. The statement claims the researchers found only that workers spent less time per child in cases involving African-American children. It goes on to
speculate that maybe these families had more children. The CASA statement then poses the question: “Is there a difference in time spent per case?” [Emphasis in original].
But the study itself already supplies the answer, and the answer is yes. Indeed, the study refers to less time per child and less time per case in cases involving African-American children. For example, on page 22, the study says: “The mean number of hours spent on African-American children’s cases was 2.67 versus 4.30 for children of other races.” [Emphasis added]. The CASA statement also goes on to cite a different study, a “National CASA Consumer Satisfaction Survey.”
But the CASA statement leaves out some important findings from this survey, which is available here: http://www.casanet.org/download/casasurveys/CS-survey- final-report-09-03.pdf
· The study included a number of open-ended questions, in which
respondents had to write comments rather than check boxes. In their responses, so
many caseworkers singled out concerns about class and cultural bias in CASAs
that the researcher felt compelled to acknowledge it as a “theme” in survey
comments.
As the author acknowledges, this was not a study of a random cross-section of CASA programs; rather these programs volunteered. That makes it likely that these programs are better than typical CAS A programs.
People who have bad experiences with a program generally are less likely to respond to surveys about it. Thus, those who didn’t fill out the survey forms probably would have given CASA lower ratings. This is especially significant in light of the low response rate from parents, compared with other groups.
Even with all these factors biasing the study in favor of CASA, one of the two questions where, comparatively, CASA “consistently scored low” concerned CASAs’ objectivity.
Though it is not statistically significant, birth parents gave CASAs lower ratings on every single question except one. The one exception is that birth parents say CASAs have more influence on the court -- hardly a compliment.
If CASAs truly were objective, views of birth parent attorneys and children’s attorneys should be similar. In fact, birth parent attorneys gave CASAs lower ratings on every question except two – and most of the time, these differences are statistically significant.
The survey asks respondents to give an example of something a CASA did that was helpful. There is no request for an example of something a CASA did that was harmful. (Although it is interesting to note that on the “something helpful” question enough people specifically wrote the word “nothing” as opposed to just leaving it blank, for this to emerge as a “theme.”)
CONCLUSION
The two studies combined are a clear indictment of the CASA model. But rather than heed the warnings, CASA is burying its head in the sand. Of course some individual CASAs do some good for some children. There are undoubtedly some good CASA programs. And, as we emphasized in our original statement, we do not question the dedication or motivation of CASA
volunteers. But the two studies combined suggest that, on balance, CASA does more harm than good and needs radical reform. At a minimum, these studies should be a wake-up call for the constituency that, according to the “Consumer Satisfaction Survey,” appears least willing to show any skepticism about CASA: Judges. They need to be far more willing to question CASAs closely about how they reach their conclusions and far less prone to rubber-stamp CASA
recommendations.
Posted: 31 Dec 2009 09:52 PM PST
NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM
53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Virginia, 22314
Phone and Fax: (703) 212-2006 / e-mail: info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
For release: For further information,
contact:
Immediate Richard Wexler, Executive
Director (703) 212-2006 /
www.ncpr.org
NCCPR RESPONDS TO STATEMENTS FROM NATIONAL CASA
ASSOCIATION AND CALIBER ASSOCIATES
ALEXANDRIA VA. (June 23) – Richard Wexler, Executive Director of
the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, issued the following
statement today in response to documents released by the National CASA
Association and Caliber Associates:
The National CASA Association has launched a desperate campaign of damage control in an effort to spin a study commissioned by the group itself. But no matter how desperately National CASA tries to divert attention, the organization can’t evade the key findings from its own study:
Children with CASAs were nearly five times more likely to be in foster care than children without CASAs.
Yet children without CASAs were found to be just as well off – and just as safe – as children with CASAs.
Thus, we conclude that the only real accomplishment of CASA is to encourage the needless removal of children from their homes.
BACKGROUND:
At its annual convention earlier this month the National CASA Association issued a summary of the most comprehensive study ever done of the program. It was commissioned by National CASA itself and conducted by Caliber Associates.
NCCPR put out a press release contending that while CASA volunteers are dedicated and mean well, in general the CASA program does no good and may well do harm. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a story about the study.
National CASA subsequently released the full study, though it is hard to find on CASAs website. National CASA also put out a statement and Caliber put out a response to the NCCPR press release. Links to both were included in a weekly news summary on the website of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy. NCALP broke with its longstanding practice of using these e-mails solely to send links to news stories in order to rush to CASAs defense.
THE BEST WAY TO EVALUATE THE CASA STUDY: READ IT.
Before getting into specifics about the comments from National CASA and the researchers, however, NCCPR suggests a simple way to settle the matter: People should read the full study for themselves and draw their own conclusions. National CASA has posted the study on one of its websites – though it requires an extremely diligent search to find it. (If the study is as favorable, or at least as neutral, as CASA claims, it’s hard to understand why CASA doesn’t make the study easy to find by posting it prominently on both of its websites). At the moment, the study can be reached directly via this link:
http://www.casanet.org/download/casasurveys/caliber_casa_report_representation.pdf
RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT FROM CALIBER
The firm hired by National CASA to do the study, Caliber Associates, has prepared a “response” to a press release from NCCPR.
In the document, Caliber responds to our contention that the study does nothing to improve the lives of children and may do harm, by declaring that “as far as we are concerned the most critical facts about the well being of children with and without CASA volunteers” are that the children most in need of a CASA got one and that these children are at very high risk of poor outcomes “when they first enter the program.”
NCCPR’S RESPONSE: We don’t dispute either of these points. But neither tells us if the CASA, once assigned, does any good. We believe that other study findings indicate that, in general, CASA does no good and may do harm. Caliber complains that NCCPR didn’t note that children and parents who received CASAs got more services.
NCCPR’s RESPONSE: There is no indication that the increased services actually improved outcomes. Indeed, the same study also asked caseworkers to assess the percentage of parent and child needs met in cases with and without CASAs. They found “no significant difference,” suggesting that the additional services didn’t do any good. Caliber omits this from its response to NCCPR.
The researchers quote the following from NCCPR’s original press release. “Most important, there was no difference in ‘exposure to violence and maltreatment.” In “response” Caliber takes this quote out of context, implying that it is a reference to the children’s backgrounds before any intervention. In fact, this statement specifically refers to the children’s status after intervention,
comparing children whose intervention included a CASA and those whose intervention did not include a CASA. The results are shown in the study itself, in Table 26, and they do, indeed, show no difference in exposure to violence and maltreatment.
Caliber’s comments here are related to the straw CASA has been trying to grasp since the report’s findings became public: the claim that all the differences are due to the fact that CASAs handle more difficult cases. But Caliber went to enormous lengths to adjust for this in order to come up with an apples-to-apples comparison. On page 40, the report lists eight separate variables for which they adjusted. The report then states: “Inclusion of these variables means that the percentages and mean scores presented in this section indicate the outcomes that would be expected of children who did and did not have a CASA volunteer if the two groups had similar demographic characteristics and prior experiences.” [Emphasis added].
The authors of the report also include a section speculating that, because the results were so surprising they must not have done a good enough job in adjusting for severity. But this is circular reasoning. The argument, essentially, is that “the results are so bad for CASA that we must have measured wrong.” They also cite “tests” they performed in an effort to confirm this. Again, NCCPR suggests that readers examine the report for themselves to evaluate the plausibility of this argument.
We believe the more plausible explanation is that the results reflect racial and class bias built into the CASA model itself. And rather than suggesting flawed methodology, the size of the differences suggests the extent of the bias. Even if one believes that the comparison between the two groups is not perfect, is it implausible that such imperfection would account for the fact that the children with CASAs were nearly five times more likely to be in foster care than the
children without CASAs, and yet there was no difference in safety and well-being outcomes.
Furthermore, if Caliber’s explanation is to be believed, why doesn’t it apply to the so-called “good news” about CASA? Why isn’t the fact that children who have CASAs get more services also simply a function of their cases being more severe?
Please note that NCCPR included Caliber’s explanation, and our response, in our original press release. Caliber, in contrast, has taken NCCPR’s release out of context.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM NATIONAL CASA
In an unsigned statement, attributed to CASA CEO Michael Piraino, found via a link on the website of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy, CASA relies almost exclusively on the claim that all negative or “neutral” findings can be attributed to the fact that CASAs handle more severe cases. The statement does not acknowledge the strenuous efforts of the researchers to control for this.
The statement also makes some interesting comments on some other issues:
Concerning the surprisingly low number of hours per month CASAs report spending on their cases, CASA claims that the volunteers actually spend more time, but don’t bother to write it down “…and the last thing we want to do is turn [volunteers] into data input people.”
That’s exactly what poorly- functioning child welfare agencies say when issues are raised about whether caseworkers actually performed required tasks – such as visiting children. “Oh, we’re sure they did it,” we are told. “They just didn’t have time to write it down.”
This also doesn’t explain why, according to the report “cases involving African- American children were associated with over an hour less volunteer time each month…” [emphasis added].
It seems unlikely that volunteers dealing with cases involving African-American children consistently were less likely to fill out time logs. Furthermore, this section of the CASA statement contains a significant factual error. The statement claims the researchers found only that workers spent less time per child in cases involving African-American children. It goes on to
speculate that maybe these families had more children. The CASA statement then poses the question: “Is there a difference in time spent per case?” [Emphasis in original].
But the study itself already supplies the answer, and the answer is yes. Indeed, the study refers to less time per child and less time per case in cases involving African-American children. For example, on page 22, the study says: “The mean number of hours spent on African-American children’s cases was 2.67 versus 4.30 for children of other races.” [Emphasis added]. The CASA statement also goes on to cite a different study, a “National CASA Consumer Satisfaction Survey.”
But the CASA statement leaves out some important findings from this survey, which is available here: http://www.casanet.org/download/casasurveys/CS-survey- final-report-09-03.pdf
· The study included a number of open-ended questions, in which
respondents had to write comments rather than check boxes. In their responses, so
many caseworkers singled out concerns about class and cultural bias in CASAs
that the researcher felt compelled to acknowledge it as a “theme” in survey
comments.
As the author acknowledges, this was not a study of a random cross-section of CASA programs; rather these programs volunteered. That makes it likely that these programs are better than typical CAS A programs.
People who have bad experiences with a program generally are less likely to respond to surveys about it. Thus, those who didn’t fill out the survey forms probably would have given CASA lower ratings. This is especially significant in light of the low response rate from parents, compared with other groups.
Even with all these factors biasing the study in favor of CASA, one of the two questions where, comparatively, CASA “consistently scored low” concerned CASAs’ objectivity.
Though it is not statistically significant, birth parents gave CASAs lower ratings on every single question except one. The one exception is that birth parents say CASAs have more influence on the court -- hardly a compliment.
If CASAs truly were objective, views of birth parent attorneys and children’s attorneys should be similar. In fact, birth parent attorneys gave CASAs lower ratings on every question except two – and most of the time, these differences are statistically significant.
The survey asks respondents to give an example of something a CASA did that was helpful. There is no request for an example of something a CASA did that was harmful. (Although it is interesting to note that on the “something helpful” question enough people specifically wrote the word “nothing” as opposed to just leaving it blank, for this to emerge as a “theme.”)
CONCLUSION
The two studies combined are a clear indictment of the CASA model. But rather than heed the warnings, CASA is burying its head in the sand. Of course some individual CASAs do some good for some children. There are undoubtedly some good CASA programs. And, as we emphasized in our original statement, we do not question the dedication or motivation of CASA
volunteers. But the two studies combined suggest that, on balance, CASA does more harm than good and needs radical reform. At a minimum, these studies should be a wake-up call for the constituency that, according to the “Consumer Satisfaction Survey,” appears least willing to show any skepticism about CASA: Judges. They need to be far more willing to question CASAs closely about how they reach their conclusions and far less prone to rubber-stamp CASA
recommendations.
CASA Data Collection and Evaluation
Data Collection and Evaluation
Collecting and analyzing data enables National CASA and CASA programs to assess our efforts and ultimately improve our services to children. The following surveys, summaries and reports demonstrate constituent satisfaction with CASA and GAL programs.
2008 State Organization Survey Report (PDF)
2007 State Organization Survey Report (PDF)
2008 Local Program Survey Report (PDF)
2007 Local Program Survey Report (PDF)
Caliber Evaluation of CASA Representation Report (PDF)
Judges and Attorney Survey of Volunteer CASA/GALs (PDF): Judges value CASA volunteers but need more of them.
Consumer Satisfaction Survey: A 2003 survey measuring satisfaction with CASA volunteers among parents, judges, child protection workers, child protection supervisors and attorneys
Full Report (PDF)
Executive Summary (PDF)
CASA Effectiveness Manual
The purpose of this manual is to provide CASA programs with an easy to use system for tracking information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. Emphasis is placed on how to write and measure goals related to child-outcomes. The manual includes easy to follow definitions, instructions, tracking forms and sample surveys.
Introduction
Part 1: Writing and measuring child outcomes and process goals
Part 2: Tracking volunteer and program activities
Part 3: Collecting information regarding outcomes and activities
Part 4: Conducting surveys
Part 5: Using information collected to write reports
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5466423/k.16B4/Data_Collection_and_Evaluation.htm
Collecting and analyzing data enables National CASA and CASA programs to assess our efforts and ultimately improve our services to children. The following surveys, summaries and reports demonstrate constituent satisfaction with CASA and GAL programs.
2008 State Organization Survey Report (PDF)
2007 State Organization Survey Report (PDF)
2008 Local Program Survey Report (PDF)
2007 Local Program Survey Report (PDF)
Caliber Evaluation of CASA Representation Report (PDF)
Judges and Attorney Survey of Volunteer CASA/GALs (PDF): Judges value CASA volunteers but need more of them.
Consumer Satisfaction Survey: A 2003 survey measuring satisfaction with CASA volunteers among parents, judges, child protection workers, child protection supervisors and attorneys
Full Report (PDF)
Executive Summary (PDF)
CASA Effectiveness Manual
The purpose of this manual is to provide CASA programs with an easy to use system for tracking information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. Emphasis is placed on how to write and measure goals related to child-outcomes. The manual includes easy to follow definitions, instructions, tracking forms and sample surveys.
Introduction
Part 1: Writing and measuring child outcomes and process goals
Part 2: Tracking volunteer and program activities
Part 3: Collecting information regarding outcomes and activities
Part 4: Conducting surveys
Part 5: Using information collected to write reports
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5466423/k.16B4/Data_Collection_and_Evaluation.htm
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Alex Jones discusses Secret Society depopulation scheme with Jesse Ventura
Alex Jones discusses Secret Society depopulation scheme with Jesse Ventura
‘Conspiracy Theory’ authority Alex Jones explains the motives for and inner-workings towards a depopulation scheme that aims to eliminate some 80%+ of the current human population. Powerful globalists inside the Bilderberg group, along with the Big Pharma, Big Agra and vaccine cartels are working towards lowering sterility and attacking the immune system…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/alex-jones-appearance-on-the-excellent-secret-societies-episode-of-conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura/
‘Conspiracy Theory’ authority Alex Jones explains the motives for and inner-workings towards a depopulation scheme that aims to eliminate some 80%+ of the current human population. Powerful globalists inside the Bilderberg group, along with the Big Pharma, Big Agra and vaccine cartels are working towards lowering sterility and attacking the immune system…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/alex-jones-appearance-on-the-excellent-secret-societies-episode-of-conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura/
Bildeburgers Group and Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory
Bildeburgers Group and Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory
By jayita, Gaea News NetworkDecember 31st, 2009
LOS ANGELES (GaeaTimes.com) — On Wednesday night, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura featured the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, conference, consisting of 130 invited guests. The guests include only great personalities from the field of politics, banking, business and media. They discuss about wars, oil prices, economic downturns, etc.
Each year the group meets secretly in a hotel under intense security. The meeting took place twice in Europe, followed by Canada and Chantilly,Virginia. The 2009 Bilderberg meeting was held in Athens, Greece.
Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots.
No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
- BBC News reported.
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is alleging that the Bilderberg Group (along with seven masterminds above them) wants to wipe out much of humanity through poisoned vaccines (like H1N1) and food additives (like Aspartame).
What do you think are they really powerful to control lots of big issues of our small world?
http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/12/31/bildeburgers-group-and-jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theory-75622/
By jayita, Gaea News NetworkDecember 31st, 2009
LOS ANGELES (GaeaTimes.com) — On Wednesday night, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura featured the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, conference, consisting of 130 invited guests. The guests include only great personalities from the field of politics, banking, business and media. They discuss about wars, oil prices, economic downturns, etc.
Each year the group meets secretly in a hotel under intense security. The meeting took place twice in Europe, followed by Canada and Chantilly,Virginia. The 2009 Bilderberg meeting was held in Athens, Greece.
Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots.
No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
- BBC News reported.
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is alleging that the Bilderberg Group (along with seven masterminds above them) wants to wipe out much of humanity through poisoned vaccines (like H1N1) and food additives (like Aspartame).
What do you think are they really powerful to control lots of big issues of our small world?
http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/12/31/bildeburgers-group-and-jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theory-75622/
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit
Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit
Share this storyBuzz up! Share THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: 12/30/09 12:05 am
Recommend (5)A new federal court decision is creating ripples in the world of child-abuse protection. They aren’t good ripples.
Ruling earlier this month in an Oregon case, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed tight new restrictions on investigations of suspected child abuse – restrictions that tip the balance of power in favor of the suspected abusers.
The judges held that Oregon’s equivalent of Child Protective Services violated the Fourth Amendment when one of its caseworkers and a deputy sheriff took a girl aside at school and asked whether her father had been fondling her. The ruling’s implication is that they should have obtained a warrant – or the permission of her parents – before doing so.
Washington’s Children’s Administration is scrambling to comply with this brand-new and rather astonishing requirement. Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist says it will “seriously handicap” investigations. He also points out that it will make it tougher not only to quickly identify child abuse, but also to rule it out. A boy who shows up to school with suspicious bruises may have gotten them from his mother’s live-in boyfriend – or a fall from a tree. It’s important to find out, fast, what’s going on.
Probable cause – which must be established to get a warrant –often can’t be determined before talking to a child. Teachers, for example, frequently develop an acute sixth sense about the possibility of abuse, based on subtle changes in a student’s behavior, eye contact, mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that Billy’s sudden quietness and tendency to look at his shoes is evidence that a crime has been committed.
The alternative is asking the possible abuser – or the partner who may be covering for the abuser – for permission to question the child. Great idea.
One absurdity at the heart of the 9th Circuit’s opinion is the notion that investigators are somehow violating the child’s constitutional rights when they talk to him or her at school without such permission. That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” is designed to protect suspects and criminal defendants. It’s not designed to prevent abuse victims from talking about their abuse.
In any case, the Fourth Amendment forbids arbitrary searches of the home and other spheres of privacy, such as the interiors of automobiles. Just as abuse victims are not suspects, schools are not spheres of privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher can snatch a purse away from a girl suspected of smoking in a lavatory – an inconceivable decision if a school were the equivalent of a house. The difference, says the 9th Circuit, is that the state has a “special need” to prevent smoking that was “not present” in the Oregon abuse case.
There we have it: The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize the personal effects of a girl suspected of wrongdoing at school; it does need a warrant to ask a girl whether she’s getting molested at home. Great jurisprudence, that. This foolish decision must be reversed, and fast. (I don't agree with this statement. Parents and childrens constitutional rights are violated every day by CPS and the courts)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/1010325.html
Share this storyBuzz up! Share THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: 12/30/09 12:05 am
Recommend (5)A new federal court decision is creating ripples in the world of child-abuse protection. They aren’t good ripples.
Ruling earlier this month in an Oregon case, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed tight new restrictions on investigations of suspected child abuse – restrictions that tip the balance of power in favor of the suspected abusers.
The judges held that Oregon’s equivalent of Child Protective Services violated the Fourth Amendment when one of its caseworkers and a deputy sheriff took a girl aside at school and asked whether her father had been fondling her. The ruling’s implication is that they should have obtained a warrant – or the permission of her parents – before doing so.
Washington’s Children’s Administration is scrambling to comply with this brand-new and rather astonishing requirement. Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist says it will “seriously handicap” investigations. He also points out that it will make it tougher not only to quickly identify child abuse, but also to rule it out. A boy who shows up to school with suspicious bruises may have gotten them from his mother’s live-in boyfriend – or a fall from a tree. It’s important to find out, fast, what’s going on.
Probable cause – which must be established to get a warrant –often can’t be determined before talking to a child. Teachers, for example, frequently develop an acute sixth sense about the possibility of abuse, based on subtle changes in a student’s behavior, eye contact, mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that Billy’s sudden quietness and tendency to look at his shoes is evidence that a crime has been committed.
The alternative is asking the possible abuser – or the partner who may be covering for the abuser – for permission to question the child. Great idea.
One absurdity at the heart of the 9th Circuit’s opinion is the notion that investigators are somehow violating the child’s constitutional rights when they talk to him or her at school without such permission. That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” is designed to protect suspects and criminal defendants. It’s not designed to prevent abuse victims from talking about their abuse.
In any case, the Fourth Amendment forbids arbitrary searches of the home and other spheres of privacy, such as the interiors of automobiles. Just as abuse victims are not suspects, schools are not spheres of privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher can snatch a purse away from a girl suspected of smoking in a lavatory – an inconceivable decision if a school were the equivalent of a house. The difference, says the 9th Circuit, is that the state has a “special need” to prevent smoking that was “not present” in the Oregon abuse case.
There we have it: The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize the personal effects of a girl suspected of wrongdoing at school; it does need a warrant to ask a girl whether she’s getting molested at home. Great jurisprudence, that. This foolish decision must be reversed, and fast. (I don't agree with this statement. Parents and childrens constitutional rights are violated every day by CPS and the courts)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/1010325.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)