Accused in Texas Face Long Wait to Fight Abuse Label
It’s been more than a decade since Child Protective Services entered Gary and Melissa Gates’ Houston-area home and removed their two biological kids and 11 adopted ones, following an allegation the pair had emotionally abused one of their children. Within three days, a judge had returned all the children to their parents; within eight months, the child welfare agency had dropped its case.
But the Gateses, along with half a million other people, remain listed in a statewide database of people who mistreat children — a registry that often precludes child care jobs, foster care and their life’s work ...
Comments (3)
tom brown
An example of gvt abuse and incompetancy at its worst. This kind of situation is very disturbing to say the least. People are kept on the 'list' even when and after they are cleared by administrative or court action. This is totally unacceptable as being on the 'list' is negative indicator for anyone. Even CPS says the list is to protect kids from people who have been 'proven/shown' to be abusers. People who have been exonorated should be removed by a simple key-stroke as soon as documentation is received by the agency. This says a lot about the American way of life.....
Abolish CPS
Haul bricks and miss meals? Haven't any of these gestapo CPS workers ever seen an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" where the best behaved and the most loved and well cared for of children are given similar punishments? Yes it's a television show but it is based on a factual way of life.
Look around today for better examples of considerate children who's family puts decency and respect for oneself and others above all, you'll be hard pressed to find one.
CPS cannot enter your home without a warrant. Don't even open the door.
John Giovenco
Subject: CPS
> To: jgio@sbcglobal.net
> Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 4:23 AM
> State’s Child Protection Agencies
> Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government
> September 14, 2008 by cbliss
> State’s Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to
> Defraud Federal Government
> © Nev Moore Jan. ‘02
>
> In 1974 Walter Mondale initiated CAPTA (the Child Abuse
> Prevention and Treatment Act), the legislation that began
> feeding federal funding into the state’s child welfare
> agencies. With remarkable foresight Mondale expressed
> concerns that the legislation could lead to systemic abuse
> in that the state agencies might over-process children into
> the system unnecessarily to keep, and increase, the flow of
> federal dollars. Shortly after CAPTA was enacted there was a
> dramatic increase in the number of children in foster care,
> peaking at around 500,000 during the mid-70’s. George
> Miller, the Chairman of the federal Select Committee on
> Children, Youth, and Families, initiated an intensive
> investigation of the nation’s foster care system after the
> effects of CAPTA started to become apparent by the soaring
> numbers of children who were being placed in foster care. An
> official at the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
> Welfare admitted to Miller that the
> government had no idea where many of the nation’s
> 500,000 foster children where living, what services they
> were receiving, if any, or if any efforts were being made to
> reunite them with their families.
>
> To address the obvious free-for-all snatching of children
> that CAPTA had stimulated, the Committee crafted new federal
> legislation with the intent of creating accountability and
> clearer guidelines for the states child welfare agencies.
> During the crafting of P.L. 96-272 Chairman Miller’s
> concern was that the federal government was footing the bill
> for warehousing children in institutions and inappropriate
> settings without accountability. In 1980 the Adoption
> Assistance and Child Welfare Act, P.L. 96-272, was enacted.
> The act included provisions that “reasonable efforts” be
> made to prevent children from being unnecessarily removed
> from their homes and placed in foster care. Although CPS has
> always tried to buffalo the media and the public that they
> are involved with families due to some sort of horrific
> child abuse or neglect, there has never been any debate
> among national policy makers, researchers, and federal
> agencies that the vast majority of
> CPS cases are due to poverty or frivolous/social reasons
> and do not contain elements of real child abuse. If the
> cases did actually involve acts of abuse they would be
> criminal, identified and investigated by law enforcement,
> rather than social workers, and would be prosecuted as such.
> P.L. 96-272 came into effect partly because Congress
> determined that a large number of children were being
> unnecessarily removed from their homes, and, once removed,
> they were lost in the limbo of foster care for years, many
> until they just grew too old, when they were then put on the
> streets at the age of 18.
>
> The Child Welfare League of America testified before a
> senate subcommittee: “In fact, there were many instances
> then, as now, of children being removed unnecessarily from
> their families. It is important to recognize that children
> are almost always traumatized by removal from their own
> families.” So, accountability from each states child
> protection agency was also written in. To receive the
> federal money the states would have to submit an annual
> report to the federal government, known as an AFCARS report,
> that specifically accounts for each child in state care.
> ACLU Children’s Rights Project attorney, Marcia Robinson
> Lowry, explained in her testimony to Congress: “As a
> condition of federal funding, states must have a reasonable
> information system to identify children in federally-funded
> state custody.” These requirements were implemented in
> 1980. Up until 1999 some states were still not filing their
> federally required AFCARS report to the
> federal government. According to Jeffrey Locke, former
> Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social
> Services, the excuse to the legislature was that they
> “couldn’t figure out how to
> work their computer system.”
>
> When I called Senator Therese Murray in 1998 to ask how
> many children had died in foster care in Massachusetts, her
> aide replied: “We don’t have those statistics.” At
> that time Senator Murray was the Senate Chair of the
> Committee on Health & Elderly Affairs, and therefore
> responsible to oversee the collection and filing of AFCARS
> data.
>
> The “reasonable efforts” requirements were designed to
> address these issues by requiring the states child welfare
> agencies to have specific investigation and assessment
> policies to minimize frivolous removals, to provide
> “services” to address and ameliorate conditions that
> were detrimental to the child’s well-being; to place
> children with relatives when removal from the home was
> absolutely necessary; and make efforts to reunite families
> in a timely fashion. Methods to audit and track compliance
> with federal requirements were also built in. The states
> were to establish “citizen review panels” comprised of a
> specifically designated representation of the population
> which would include not only members of collateral
> professional communities involved in child protection, but
> “parents, foster parents, and former foster children.”
> Each state was to have at least three citizen review panels.
> The panels would essentially act as a standing jury
> of peers and would review CPS cases. Twenty years after
> P.L. 96- 272 went into effect the citizen review panels have
> never been established in most states.
>
> Another means of creating accountability was to have the
> federal authority, U.S. Department of Health & Human
> Services, conduct compliance audits, which are known as
> Section 427 reviews. The method of enforcement that Congress
> devised to ensure that the states followed the federal law
> was to provide incentive funds to the states that documented
> their compliance with the federal regulations. The states
> would self-certify compliance, but could be subjected to
> “periodic” 427 reviews by the Dept. of Health &
> Human Services. Were the states to find themselves in
> non-compliance they would simply return the incentive funds.
> It would seem that providing cash to agencies that are
> allowed to self-document compliance is a somewhat less than
> intelligent system. It would be interesting to track down
> exactly how much money the states child “protective”
> agencies have returned to the government because they found
> themselves in non-compliance. Gee, maybe this is
> rocket science.
>
> Like CAPTA, P.L. 96-272 could only have worked if the
> federal government demanded compliance and meticulous
> accountability, and them imposed sanctions for
> non-compliance. Even better – criminal charges for
> racketeering for intentional fraud. Mark Soler, director of
> the National Youth Law Center in California explained:
>
> “The Department of Health & Human Services has failed
> to promulgate meaningful regulations to implement the
> Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. It has applied
> even the minimal federal regulations that were developed in
> an inconsistent and arbitrary manner, and only token
> implementation of the laws protecting children.’
>
> Even when HHS finds overwhelming evidence of lack of
> compliance during 427 reviews, no sanctions are imposed and
> they continue to keep the fed $$$ pouring in – in
> violation of their own regulations. Not so much as a slap on
> the hand or even token admonishment. Certainly explains how
> CPS developed their arrogance and contempt for any authority
> – because there is none. Their confidence that they are
> free from the feds insisting on compliance with the law is
> well illustrated by the foster care numbers which increased
> dramatically after CAPTA began feeding federal dollars into
> the states child protection agencies, then dropped equally
> dramatically after the enactment of P.L.96-272, which was
> supposed to create more specific federal regulation and
> accountability. However, once the state agencies saw that
> the federal government was not enforcing compliance, the
> foster care numbers soared once again.
>
> Michael Petit, Deputy Director of the Child Welfare League
> of America, stated in his testimony before Congress: “A
> 427 is a meaningless process for most of the states. It
> represents no kind of sanctions to the states whatsoever for
> non-compliance.” Marcia Robinson Lowry told Congress:
> “States are passing HHS audits with systems in which no
> reasonable person could consider that children are being
> well treated. It is virtually impossible to fail a 427
> audit.”
>
> The initial concept of “reasonable efforts” was the
> only conclusion that any rational person could come to:
> rather than disrupt children’s lives, and traumatize them
> by seizing them from non- abusive situations and placing
> them with strangers (who are often no better, and sometimes
> far worse), assist families in overcoming their obstacles
> and problems by providing support and services. The idea
> never worked, though, because it has always been more
> profitable to too many to remove children rather than keep
> them at home. Rather than offer support and simple,
> practical services to families CPS forged contracts with
> vendors. Now private businesses, under the guise of
> “service providers”, could mushroom into existence
> knowing that their sugar daddy, CPS, would provide a
> never-ending flow of coerced clients. The market potential
> is unlimited – potentially every mother, father,
> grandparent, and child in the country. Rather than offering
> practical,
> meaningful services that are germane to the families
> circumstances, CPS clients are ordered to engage in
> “services” with CPS-contracted vendors; special interest
> groups who are dependent on CPS for their income and profit
> by maintaining the levels of children in foster care, and
> whose interests are protected by a bureaucracy intent on
> securing it’s own survival and protecting unlimited
> growth.
>
> The extent of which CPS is allowed to continue to operate
> while being so far out of compliance with the existing state
> and federal laws is mind boggling. It would be a challenge
> to find any other agency in our countries history that
> operated in such gross and blatant violation of the law with
> absolutely no intervention from the administration. Tens of
> millions of tax dollars are being squandered on a system
> that is destroying families and causing lifelong emotional
> ruin to children – and those are the lucky ones who live
> through it.
>
> The most egregious area of outright criminal fraud is
> CPS’s practice of filing their federally required
> documentation of compliance in secrecy through the courts.
> The federal foster care reimbursements are channeled through
> the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. Each
> states child welfare agency enters into a contract with the
> federal government, which is referred to as their Title IV-E
> state plan. It is this contract that spells out the
> responsibilities that CPS must, by law, comply with in order
> to receive their federal funding. To document compliance
> with the fed regs CPS must file a form through the courts in
> each individual case. In Massachusetts these forms are
> referred to as a “29-C.” 42 U.S. Code, ss 672 reads:
>
> “These requirements are not mere formalities. The Finance
> Committee of Congress, in preparing its summary for final
> passage of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
> 1980, P.L. 96-272, stated; ` The Committee is aware of
> allegations that the judicial determination requirement
> (sic: that a judge makes a determination that a child needs
> to be removed from the home) can become a mere pro forma
> exercise in paper shuffling to obtain federal funding. While
> this could occur in some instances, the Committee is
> unwilling to accept as a general proposition that the
> judiciaries of the States would so lightly treat a
> responsibility placed upon them by federal statute for the
> protection of children.”
>
> 1980 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News: “A judicial
> determination of those efforts (reasonable efforts, as
> defined in the Act) serves to closely examine, in the case
> of each individual child, whether reasonable efforts were
> made to keep the family intact.” In accordance with the
> federal requirements the Massachusetts legislature enacted
> G.L. c.119 ss 29b, which requires all judges to certify that
> the Department of Social Services met the obligation
> grounded in the federal statute of making reasonable efforts
> to protect the child short of removing him or her from the
> parents, and, if the child was removed, making it possible
> for the child to return home in a timely manner. Rather than
> “closely examining”, in Massachusetts this grave
> responsibility is carried out by judges by rubber stamping
> stacks of 29c forms that simply contain three “yes” or
> “no” check boxes. In many instances making three check
> marks is even too much work for
> Massachusetts judges and they rubber stamp the forms while
> leaving them blank – never mind actually verifying that
> the “reasonable efforts” were made. In return for these
> forms DSS receives it’s federal money.
>
> The three questions are:
>
> 1. Continuation in the home is contrary to the well being
> of the child?
>
> 2. Reasonable efforts have been made prior to the placement
> of the child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of
> the child from his/her home?
>
> 3. Reasonable efforts have been made to make it possible
> for the child to return to his parent/guardian?
>
> I discussed this issue a few years ago with Veronica
> Melendez at the Children’s Bureau (the federal authority).
> She told me that the federal government was under the
> impression that all parties were present in the court room
> at the time of the filing of the 29c’s, so that the
> parents attorneys had the opportunity to object, rebut, or
> verify the “reasonable efforts.” In reality, no one sees
> the federal forms except the judges and a representative of
> DSS’s main legal department. Attorneys ask us how we ever
> “got our hands on” the 29c forms, as we have never yet
> met an attorney who has seen the forms, let alone have been
> notified of the filing hearing. We even have forms on which
> the “no” boxes were checked, yet the children were still
> removed from their homes and federal funds collected for
> them.
>
> By seizing children illegally in violation of the Title
> IV-E requirements, then filing false documents in secrecy
> through the courts to obtain federal funding, CPS is
> defrauding the federal government with intent. CPS should be
> subject to investigation and prosecution by the U.S.
> Attorneys Office. They should be held liable for the
> restitution of all illegally obtained funds, and prosecuted
> for perjury, obstruction of justice, and the fraudulent
> collection of federal funds under the False Statements and
> Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-292 110 stat 3459, 42
> U.S.C.S. 670-679a; P.L. 96-272; C.F.R. part 1356; and Title
> IV-E. I have discussed this issue with the Inspector
> Generals Office and they felt it could possible be
> prosecuted under RICO, yet they have also failed to act,
> possibly because it isn’t just CPS/DSS who is committing
> federal fraud, but also the judges who are signing the
> documents.
>
> In 1988 George Miller, the original architect of P.L.
> 96-272, and Chairman of the congressionally appointed Select
> Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, recognized the
> fraud being committed in the name of child “protection”,
> and stated:
>
> “What has been demonstrated here is that you have a
> system that is simply in contempt. This system has been sued
> and sued and orders have been issued and they just continue
> on their merry way. And HHS just continues to look the other
> way. You have a system that is not only out of control,
> it’s illegal at this point. What you are really engaged in
> is state sponsored child abuse.”
>
> From FBI Investigating This CPS Office!, 2008/09/14 at 3:08
> PM
>
> Tags: abuse, abused, accountable, allegations, apart,
> authority, balanced, breaking, broken, budget, character,
> Child, children, complaints, court, courts, cps, cps dshs
> children child families family federal law defense,
> criminal, defense, deliberate, department, depend,
> dependency, destroying, doing, dshs, election, false,
> falsifying, fbi, federal, fired, fraud, funds, grandparents,
> gregoire, health care, help, home, income, incomopetence,
> inj, injustice, innocent, investigate, judge, justice, law,
> laws, lawyer, lies, love, low income, lying, mean, order,
> parent, parents, placement, power, protective, punishment,
> remove, reports, right, rights, service, services, social,
> state, threats, washington, win, worker, wrong
> Posted in agencies, Child Parent Seporaters C, Corruption
> By CPS Needs To Stop, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
>
> Some how cps or better called Child Parent Seperaters
> March 30, 2011 by cbliss
> How can we ever stop this evil agency?
>
> Tags: abuse, ACCUSATIONS, appointed, breakdown, care,
> Child, children, classes, court, cps, dad, divorce, fair,
> false, families, fbi, federal, fighting, fight\, foster,
> help, kidnapped, kids, laws, lawyer, lies, love, mom, money,
> placement, protective, records, services, unfair, warrant,
> wrong
> Posted in Corruption By CPS Needs To Stop | 8 Comments »
>
> Don’t ever let CPS in your home and don’t ever talk to
> them
> December 8, 2010 by cbliss
> I was informed by a lawyer, you don’t have to let CPS in
> your and you should never let them in, without a warrant.
> Never talk to them or let your children talk to them. Every
> case is different, but in my opinion he is right. The lawyer
> told me that’s how they get a warrant, by rewording what
> is said and what they see. If you have not done anything
> wrong do not sign anything giving up any of your rights. If
> you have abused your children, it is a criminal matter and
> will be settled in criminal court.
>
> Posted in Corruption By CPS Needs To Stop | 3 Comments »
>
> CPS Workers Get Bonuses, But Their Accounting System
> Doesn’t Record it That Way
> September 13, 2009 by cbliss
> Just look at the first few paragraphs of this report. It
> shows:
>
> The data contained in this report may not agree with the FY
> 2007 budget and accounting records
>
> Why?
>
> the cost of furnishing personnel in lieu of cash are
> included in the grants data, but are recorded as personnel
> service costs in accounting records
>
> Here’s the whole report:
>
> ForEwOrd
>
> The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the
> principal United States (U.S.) government agency for
> protecting the health of all Americans and providing
> essential human services to those in need. As one of the
> largest federal departments, the nation’s largest health
> insurer, and the largest grant-making agency, HHS represents
> almost a quarter of all federal outlays and administers more
> grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined. HHS
> manages an array of grant programs in basic and applied
> science, public health, income support, child development,
> and health and social services. Collectively these programs
> are the Department’s primary means to achieve its
> strategic goals and objectives, described in the FY
> 2007-2012 HHS Strategic Plan (see Appendix A). The top 50
> programs by award amount are identified in Appendix B.
>
> To realize these goals HHS forms partnerships with other
> federal departments; state, local, and tribal governments;
> academic institutions; hospitals; the business community;
> nonprofit and volunteer organizations including faith-based
> and community-based organizations; and foreign countries and
> international organizations. The primary vehicle used in
> these partnerships is a grant. Grants are financial
> assistance awards that provide support or stimulation to
> accomplish a public purpose authorized by federal statute.
> The primary beneficiary under a grant or cooperative
> agreement is the public, as opposed to the government.
> Unique to the HHS Indian Health Service (IHS) are Public Law
> 93-638 Title V Compact and Title I Contract awards, which
> are self-determination funding agreements. Compacts are
> explained further in the IHS portfolio section of this
> report.
>
> This report is the annual summary of grants HHS awarded
> during Fiscal Year 2007 (October 1, 2006, through September
> 30, 2007). The purpose of this report is to provide an
> overview of the Department’s grant programs, which are
> described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
> (CFDA) (www.cfda.gov). The source of the grant data is the
> Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS),
> the Department’s central grant funding information
> database. Annual grants reports for fiscal years 1997
> through 2006 are located at the TAGGS Web site (http://taggs.hhs.gov/AnnualReports.cfm).
>
> This report does not include technical assistance, which
> provides services instead of money; other assistance in the
> form of loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies, or
> insurance; direct payments of any kind to individuals; or
> contracts which are required to be entered into and
> administered under procurement laws and regulations.
>
> By aggregating this grant information into this single
> report, we hope to provide a more complete and useful
> understanding of the Department’s grant awards. This
> report provides grant award information in four sections:
> Overview, Mandatory Grant Awards, Discretionary Grant Awards
> and Operating Division (OPDIV) Grant Programs.
>
> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
>
> Office of the Secretary
> Office of the Assistant Secretary for Resources and
> Technology
> Office of Grants
>
> Table of Contents
>
> Foreword………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
> 2
> Table of
> Contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
> 3
> Notes on Methodology,
> TAGGS………………………………………………………………………………………..
> 4
> Section I.
> Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
> 5
> Organizational
> Chart……………………………………………………………………………………………..
> 7
> Grant Awards By Operating
> Division……………………………………………………………………….
> 8
> Section II. Mandatory Grant
> Awards…………………………………………………………………………………
> 10
> Section III. Discretionary Grant Awards by Financial
> Assistance Type………………………………… 16
> Section IV. Operating and Staff Division Grant Portfolios
> Administration for Children and Families
> (ACF)………………………………………………………
> 22
> Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
> (AHRQ)……………………………………………
> 24
> Administration on Aging
> (AoA)………………………………………………………………………………
> 25
> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> (CDC)………………………………………………..
> 27
> Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
> (CMS)…………………………………………………
> 30
> Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA)…………………………………………………………………….
> 32
> Health Resources and Services Administration
> (HRSA)…………………………………………. 34
> Indian Health Service
> (IHS)………………………………………………………………………………….
> 36
> National Institutes of Health
> (NIH)…………………………………………………………………………
> 38
> Office of the Secretary (OS)
> Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
> Evaluation (ASPE)………….. 41
> Office for Public Health and Science
> (OPHS)…………………………………………….
> 43
> Office of Global health AFFAIRS
> (OGHA)………………………………………………….
> 46
> Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
> Evaluation (ASPR)………….. 48
> Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
> (SAMHSA)………………… 50
> Appendix A. HHS Strategic Goals and
> Objectives……………………………………………………………..
> 52
> Appendix B. HHS Grant
> Programs…………………………………………………………………………………..
> 53
>
> Notes on Methodology, TAGGS
>
> The grant information contained in this report is from the
> HHS TAGGS, which contains data generated by the HHS
> grant-making operating divisions (OPDIVs) and several staff
> divisions (STAFFDIVs) within the Office of the Secretary
> (OS). For purposes of this report, OS is considered an
> OPDIV. Developed and maintained by the Office of Grants
> (OG), TAGGS is the Department’s central repository for all
> HHS grant award data.
>
> TAGGS currently tracks obligated grant funds of mandatory
> and discretionary grant programs at the primary transaction
> level. HHS grant-making OPDIVs submit grant award data to
> the TAGGS database monthly and annually. Other data
> submitted to TAGGS include grant recipient demographic
> (e.g., type of organization, address); funding and grants
> payments, managed in the Payment Management System; and
> descriptive program information included in the CFDA Web
> site. (www.cfda.gov).
>
> The OG maintains a public Web site (http://taggs.hhs.gov), where users are able to view
> standard TAGGS-generated reports and to query the database.
> This TAGGS Web site is used by HHS staff, congressional
> offices, other executive agencies, potential and current
> grant recipients, and other interested parties for a variety
> of informational purposes. Some commonly searched TAGGS
> fields are congressional district, grant program name,
> recipient (grantee) name, recipient location (state, city,
> zip, and/or congressional district), awarding OPDIV,
> transaction amount (or sum of transactions), and fiscal
> year.
>
> The data in this report reflect all grant awards obligated
> during FY 2007. The number of grants is a count of awards or
> projects receiving grant funds. This report also includes
> funds deobligated in FY2007 that were awarded in prior
> fiscal years. Deobligations are downward adjustments to
> previously awarded obligations, representing cost revisions,
> corrections, or award cancellation. However, any
> deobligations to FY 2007 Awards occurring in subsequent
> fiscal years will not be contained in this report.
>
> The data contained in this report may not agree with the FY
> 2007 budget and accounting records (e.g., Medicaid’s
> accounting adjustments) for several reasons. For examples:
> 1) the grant award data may include reobligations of prior
> years’ funds in addition to current year funds; 2) the
> cost of furnishing personnel in lieu of cash are included in
> the grants data, but are recorded as personnel service costs
> in accounting records; and 3) jointly funded grants are
> included in accounting records, but are not included herein
> unless awards are made by HHS programs.
>
> The dollar amounts set forth in this report for each OPDIV
> may also differ from the amounts shown in the each OPDIV’s
> Budget Request (“Preliminary Budget Submission to HHS,”
> the “Justification of Budget Estimates to OMB,” and the
> “Justification of Estimates for Appropriations
> Committees”). Percentages used throughout the report may
> not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding and other minor
> adjustments.
>
> Section I. Overview
>
> The Department of Health and Human Services awards
> approximately 60% of the federal government’s grant
> dollars. HHS awards two types of grants: mandatory and
> discretionary. Mandatory grants are those that a federal
> agency is required by statute to award if the recipient,
> usually a state, submits an acceptable state plan or
> application, and meets the eligibility and compliance
> requirements of the statutory and regulatory provisions of
> the grant program. Discretionary grants are those that
> permit the federal government, according to specific
> authorizing legislation, to exercise judgment, or
> “discretion,” in selecting the applicant/recipient
> organization, through a competitive grant process.
>
> Over three quarters of HHS’s budget is comprised of
> mandatory programs. Medicare, Medicaid, State Children’s
> Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and Temporary Assistance
> for Needy Families (TANF) are the largest HHS mandatory
> programs, providing a total of approximately $600 billion
> annually in health and human services to over 80 million
> Americans. Medicare and Medicaid are the nation’s largest
> health insurance programs assisting states, healthcare
> providers, and individuals in the provision of adequate
> health care for those in need. Although Medicare and
> Medicaid are entitlement programs, Medicare is directly
> administered by HHS and state governments. TAGGS does not
> track such direct payments; thus, they are not included in
> this report.
>
> Other HHS health programs encompass biomedical research,
> training of biomedical research scientists and health
> professionals, support of health professional schools,
> development and delivery of health services, disease
> prevention and health promotion programs, and construction
> of research, educational, and health facilities.
>
> HHS social service programs provide support to every group
> of Americans, including children, youth, families, and the
> elderly. As a social service program, TANF provides block
> grants to states to provide benefits and services to low
> income families with children. In addition to providing cash
> benefits to needy families, states use TANF to provide a
> wide range of benefits such as child care and transportation
> aid and activities to help reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies
> to support two-parent families. Other HHS social service
> programs to improve the social and economic well being of
> those in need include refugee assistance, enforcement of
> child support orders, foster care and adoption, prevention
> of child abuse and neglect, Indian tribal services, Head
> Start programs, youth at-risk prevention, and other programs
> and initiatives targeted toward improving the social and
> economic well being of those in need.
>
> The following HHS OPDIVs/STAFFDIVs administer and manage
> over 300 grant programs which are described in the Catalog
> of Federal Domestic Assistance (www.cfda.gov). In this
> report, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
> awards are included in the Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention grant funding data.
>
> ACF – Administration for Children and Families
> AHRQ – Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
> AoA – Administration on Aging
> ATSDR – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
> CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> CMS – Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
> FDA – Food and Drug Administration
> HRSA – Health Resources and Services Administration
> IHS – Indian Health Service
> NIH – National Institutes of Health
> OS/ASPE – Office of the Secretary/Assistant Secretary for
> Planning and Evaluation
> OS/OPHS – Office of the Secretary/Office of Public Health
> and Science
> OS/OGHA – Office of the Secretary/Office of Global Health
> Affairs
> OS/ASPR – Office of the Secretary/Office of the Assistant
> Secretary for Preparedness and Response
> SAMHSA – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
> Administration
>
> Organizational Chart
>
> The following organizational chart shows the structure of
> HHS.
>
> GRANT AWARDS BY OPERATING DIVISION
>
> FY 2007 Total Dollars: $273,301,411,087
> FY 2007 Total Awards: 76,088
> FY 2007 Total Recipients: 11,725
>
> OPDIV
> Awards
> %
> Awards
> Dollars
> %
> Dollars
> ACF
> 7,899
> 10.38
> $45,238,834,935
> 16.55
> AHRQ
> 339
> 0.45
> $88,424,530
> 0.03
> AoA
> 1,086
> 1.43
> $1,355,120,415
> 0.50
> CDC
> 3,167
> 4.16
> $4,037,343,122
> 1.48
> CMS
> 573
> 0.75
> $192,028,184,295
> 70.26
> FDA
> 108
> 0.14
> $30,380,660
>