Chapter 7, Part III: The Sugar Coated Machine (True Story)
The machine? which implements federal goals operates in such a way as to give the innocent appearance of doing nothing more than gathering together the local community to address community concerns.? Focus group meetings result in the production of a laundry list of proclaimed local health concerns which look suspiciously like pages from Goals 2000, Healthy People 2000, and the President’s Health Security Plan. Is the sugar coated “machine†dangerous? You be the judge.
|
T |
he Missouri Department of Health? has an initiative called the Community Health Assessment Resource Team? (CHART).? A similar initiative through the State Department of Mental Health? is called Healthy Communities 2000. The purpose of both is to build local partnerships? and collaboratives to assess and address community health “needs.� At the same time, taxpayers are told that health reforms eliminate the duplication of services among the various governmental agencies.? In reality, the effort to provide universal access to services of all state agencies has resulted in the quadrupling of programs.
Taxpayers have experienced an unprecedented rise in taxes? to fund the government’s burgeoning bureaucracy to implement health and education reform.
A local newspaper article reports that “A coalition of four
A Healthy Communities 2000? flier states there are “over 150 Community 2000? teams in the state.� When comparing the results of assessments and focus groups? from various communities, it’s not surprising to find that they are similar, and reflect the areas of “need†found in Healthy People 2000.? In fact, minutes from partnership? meetings refer to the distribution of Healthy People 2000![2]
There is more here than what meets the eye. The Freedom of Information Act should allow you to obtain copies of the minutes of similar partnerships? working in your community. ? The “machine†seems to have a pattern that has been observed at work in meetings of various organizations.? Minutes of the Partnership’s meetings provide an example of how the “machine†works to implement its goals.? The best way to understand how the machine? works, is to explain the activities of one such partnership:
Three individuals who were from a Catholic hospital, a community hospital and the County Health Department facilitated the partnership’s monthly meetings.
“WHAT: The (N) County Partnership for Community Health–is a diverse group that has come together to look at community health from many angles in hopes of finding the most critical health-related needs present in the community. From this information, (N) will develop and help carry out a health improvement plan for the community.
“WHO: (N) is made up primarily of people who represent a variety of organizations, including-but not limited to-health care facilities, local schools, businesses, churches, civic groups and governmental agencies.? The group is also open to individuals who have an interest in improving community health.? The group meets regularly to review progress and plan future projects.
“WHERE: As its name implies, (N) activities are focused in (N) County which, for the purposes of this project, has been defined by the following school districts: (N).
“HISTORY: (N) began in October 1995 when representatives from (N) Hospital and (a Catholic) Health Center - with help from the (N) County Health Department (editor’s note: The County Health Department distributes contraceptives? to minors? without parental consent) and Archbishops Commission on Health? - joined forces and embraced an initiative called CHART (Community Health Assessment Resource Team). CHART was developed jointly by the Missouri Department of Health? and the Missouri Hospital Association? to provide resource information and assistance to groups conducting community assessments.
“AREAS OF FOCUS:? (N) is comprised of several sub-committees that are responsible for researching and coordinating different issues.? They are: Communications/Public Relations; Membership; Health Outcome? Data? (mortality, incidences of recurring health problems); Women’s and Children’s Outcome Data and Related Issues; Hospital/Emergency Room Visits; Non-Traditional Health Care Data? (i.e., literacy levels, crime statistics, etc.); Demographic/Socioeconomic Data; and Primary Research (i.e., data that cannot be obtained from secondary sources).
“
The Partnership’s letterhead lists the following: eight public school districts; four parochial? high schools; a community college, a hospital college, a public college, a private college; four area Chambers of Commerce; and 42 other community agencies including Planned Parenthood, Parents as Teachers, Caring Program for Children, various hospitals, insurance companies and HMOs, parish nurses, counseling? and service agencies, senior citizen organizations, police departments, numerous state agencies, Urban League, Junior League’s? TOTAL? program, area mayors, area church? and ministerial alliances, etc.? Approximately 30 individuals representing various government and community agencies, schools, organizations, etc., attend monthly meetings.? The leaders attempt to bring those present to consensus? regarding issues such as a vision statement, health-related issues to be addressed, what segment of the community to target, etc.
Originally the meeting location alternated between a local
In March 1996 the Partnership’s Public Relations Committee sent a letter to all the superintendents of school districts within its self-defined working boundaries.? The letter to superintendents invited their district’s participation in a kick-off event to recognize the beginning of the unique collaborative health-needs assessment? process explained in the accompanying fact sheet.? The letter stated “We will provide an apple tree to be planted at a site in each of the eight school districts which define (the Partnership’s) service area. The apple was chosen for our logo and for this ceremony as a symbol of the wellness and new beginnings we anticipate this project will bring to our community–The groundbreaking will feature the presidents of (N) Hospital and (N)
The Partnership’s March minutes shows the following team reports:
“Community/Public Relations:
- “Healthy Missourians 2000? booklets arrived and are here for distribution …
- “Book five (5) of the CHART manual has been printed and is available …
- “Thanks to the (N) for the printing of (the Partnership’s) stationery. We now have a good supply of envelopes and stationery.â€
Someone should ask the (N)
- “Membership
- “Health Outcome Data:? “They will be using the information gleaned from the focus groups? to help then identify specific areas to target.
- “Women’s & Children’s Outcome Data/Issues:? The information is displayed by zip code with key health issues/outcome showing our performance? against the national norm.? The members of this group will be formulating two focus groups.? The participants will be recruited from the prenatal clinics? and be representative of individuals who presented for care late in their pregnancy.? The goal is to better understand some of the causes of late/no prenatal care.
- “Non-Traditional Health Care Data:? The (N) County Police Department is cooperative and much information is being gathered.? Information from the focus groups? will help narrow down the focus.
- “Demographic/Socio-Economic Data:? The information is almost overwhelming and they are reviewing to identify the most relevant data and the best way to display.
- “Preventable Hospitalizations/ER Visits:? Preventable hospitalization would indicate a problem with prevention? and early access for primary treatment.
- “Primary Research:? This team will become more active as the focus groups? and team information becomes more available.
“FOCUS GROUP REPORTS:?
- “Religious Community: The composition of the focus group is diverse both from a church? body and racial standpoint.â€
[Note: the name of the pastor in charge of this group appeared on the letterhead of a survey? sent to school board candidates.? A number of other names on the letterhead included those of known abortion? advocates.]
- “Youth Community:? They reported that this was an exceptional group who openly discussed the issues as perceived by the youth.? The issues centered around drugs, alcohol use, sex education, violence and abuse.? The youth believe that waiting until high school to present education on these issues is too late, peer programs are effective, and that the youth as a whole need someone they can talk to and confide in.
- “Senior Community:? In preparation for the focus group several meetings have been held with leaders of senior groups in (N) County.? From these groups names of individuals were identified and invitations extended.
Handouts for this meeting included a chart titled Socioeconomic Profile.? There was considerable discussion at the meeting about how the figures did not seem “right.� One example was the figure representing the number of homeless? children, since children are not admitted to school without the name and contact information of a parent or guardian.? It was then explained that the definition of “homeless†is very broad and includes those families who may be staying with a relative or friend while in the process of moving.
As Mark Twain is quoted as saying, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.â€? Add a financial incentive, and partnerships? will find unimaginable ways to manipulate statistics to accommodate some “need.â€
The April agenda included:?
- “Model for Integrating Secondary/Primary Research
- “Reports from the Teams (same 6 listed above)
- “Reports from Focus Groups (religious, youth, senior)
- “Identification of Additional Focus Groups: Business/Civic community, Health Care Community, Political Community
- “Community Resource Model/Formatâ€
Minutes from the May meeting documents that eleven senior citizens, mostly female, represented all the senior citizens within the Partnership’s boundary consisting of eight school districts. ? The senior citizens “achieved consensus? on many issues. General themes included sharing, getting along, safety, self-worth and pride, information and communication, transportation, cooperation among agencies and municipalities.â€
A Partnership member expressed an interest in attending the parent focus group and knew of other parents who would possibly also like to attend.? This member was told that, “the meeting isn’t open to the public.â€? When the Partnership member stated, “Oh, you mean the focus group is hand-picked?†the response was: “The committees pick the individuals invited to be a part of the focus groups.â€
By June the Parent Focus Group Summary was prepared and stated that of the 12 parents invited, both men and women, only six women attended.? Are six women truly representative of ALL the parents in eight LARGE school districts?? This leads one to question the validity of such focus groups, but then this is the “machine†at work!
The Parent Focus Group’s Discussion Summary listed Characteristics of a Healthy Community to include:? available preventive medicine coverage, including–birth control? pills and information; required community service hours for high school graduation.? Among the list of possible solutions was earlier help for parents, schools, churches to teach responsible sexuality to eliminate need to consider abortion.
A school district committee that was forming a
Also in June the result of the School Personnel Focus Group were presented.? This eight-member group consisted of one school board member, two principals, four teachers, and one counselor.? Once again while much of what was included in the School Personnel’s Discussion Summary was positive, there was MUCH that did not reflect the values? of the community.? School board members were not informed (let alone approve) that their school district was being represented in this focus group.
Among “factors which impact health,†members of the school personnel focus group listed “condoms? in high school setting†and “transportation.†Listed as “what they saw as important health issues†was “teen pregnancy, risk-taking behavior? of teens, lack of follow-up visits to health care provider, and lack of ‘connect’ between ‘health’ curriculum and real life issues.â€? They listed “fear, defensiveness and resistance from parents†as a “barrier? to achieving health and healthy communities.? “Specific health issues they want to see addressed†included “teen pregnancy.â€? Their list of “possible solutions†included “access to contraception–offer short interesting topics of 20 minutes starting at junior high level focusing on issues such as AIDS–mobile STD clinics? to visit schools–blitz all segments of the neighborhood to gain community wide support and involvement, start small if necessary–put economic penalty on parents for lack of participation–pay attention to the male side of teen pregnancy–address teens before they get pregnant.â€? Items listed under “what prevents a community from being healthy†included “lack of knowledge, lack of employment, media, self-esteem is low, lack of responsibility, access to health.â€? The School Personnel Focus Group listed the following items under “Community support needed to make an impact:? school board members need to be willing to address issues and not ignore them, everyone in the community has to take responsibility to address the problem, gain strength in numbers, and parental support.â€?
The Law Enforcement Task Force also met in July.? While the Partnership’s area covers dozens of police municipalities, only eleven jurisdictions were invited.? Five confirmed and four police chiefs attended.? Many taxpaying citizens would agree that the first responsibility of those unable to attend was their jobs.? The Law Enforcement Task Force considered priority issues to be:? youth problems related to crime, gangs, and weapons; substance abuse? and drugs; domestic violence, and the needs of the senior population including perceptual issues.? This focus group proposed to meet concurrently with other focus groups? to commence a community dialogue and start networking.
Two groups of the Women/Children Focus Group met at two locations, a high school and a Catholic? health center.? The responses were combined into one report. A total of eight persons participated.? They included one person from the County Health Department (which distributes contraceptives? to minors? without parental consent) and a friend, one junior high school grandmother, and five people from the
This group’s Characteristics of a Healthy Community included access to health care, available clinics, education of parents to available activities such as summer camps, and affordable insurance.? Barriers? to having a healthy community included “community leaders who do not follow up on issues, and lack of funding for clinic staffing - people wait too long.� Specific health care issues faced included “hospital stay too short, hospital costs are too high, need sex education? at an early age, lack of activities for youth, children with guns, (children) are given too much, lack of information about resources, automatic pre-schools? for 3-4 year olds (emphasis added), education about drugs, AIDS, and sex. Teen pregnancy? was listed among “other unhealthy behaviors.� This group listed “children need at least one day a week in structured services among the kind of community support needed.
The nine priority health issues or “needs†identified from the primary and secondary sources and focus groups? included:? chemical abuse, violence/safety, sexuality issues, socialization, mental health, access/resources, transportation, recreation, and education.
During the August meeting, copies of Healthy People 2000? were distributed!? It’s interesting to note that the nine “needs†identified in the focus groups? coincided with objectives listed in Healthy People 2000.
During September’s monthly meeting, announcements consisted of the Partnership’s reception of the Governor’s Community Initiatives Award at the CHART meeting.? In particular the award was the “Progressive Prioritization & Strategy Development of the Most Comprehensive Improvement Plan.â€? It was announced that the president of the Catholic? health center and the president of the community hospital associated with the Partnership would be “part of a panel discussion for CHART.? Participants at the program were from other states considering CHART as a model for doing community health assessment? and improvement.â€
The September meeting also included the formation of three sub-groups: youth, families, and seniors.? Minutes from this meeting state that, “of the nine issues that had been identified, each group rated the importance of the issues as they affect their population.? After that was accomplished the remainder of the meeting time was spent brainstorming the elements of a vision statement for that population. Before each group adjourned, a sub-committee (breakout group) was formed to actually write the vision statement.â€
The announcement for the September meeting stated, “Note: Each member of the stakeholder team will be able to select a sub-group of their choice. Facilitators are as follows:†The names of two individuals were listed under each heading of youth, seniors, and family.? The individuals listed were those active within the Partnership, politically correct, and receptive to the goals of the Partnership.? Here’s how the “machine†worked:
Three sheets of easel paper that were labeled “family,†“youth†and “seniors†were attached to a wall.? Members of the large group were asked to sign their name on the sheet that represented their area of interest, or the group they were most interested in participating with.? Each group created a vision statement on the topic of their group.? The vision statement was to include who, what, why, how, where, and when of their group.
The “facilitator†recorded the ideas brainstormed by the group onto an easel.? As ideas were brainstormed, the facilitator would say, “I think we can simplify that to say–†or “I think what you are saying is–.†or “Can we say it this way–?â€? Then everyone in the group was given a certain number of colored dots.? Each dot was “worth†so many points.? Each person placed their dots beside the issues they considered to be among the most important.? This neutralized the suggestion/s of the rogue conservative who may have been present and participated in the brainstorming session, even though efforts were made to involve “the right people.â€? Those who were not satisfied with the “consensus†didn’t want to appear confrontational so they went along.? The facilitator then created a list of the suggestions or issues that received the most interest or points.? This list was then considered the group’s consensus of the community’s “needs.â€
In the breakout groups or sub-groups the brainstorming process started all over again.? The breakout group was asked to brainstorm words and ideas which should be included in the vision statement.? Before the meeting ended, it was suggested that some members of the breakout group form a subcommittee to write the vision statement based on the breakout group’s input before the next meeting.? The leader is the same person named as the breakout group’s “stakeholder†or facilitator? chosen by the “powers that be†at the beginning of the process.? Others who volunteered for the subcommittee were also supportive of the Partnership’s goals.
The “machine†ran into a “snag†when a subcommittee member asked questions about the relationship between contraception? and terms such as “prevention? of disease,†“healthy choices? related to sexuality and parenthood,†and “safer and wiser behaviors†which were used in the youth vision statement.
Since the Partnership had dispensed copies of Healthy People 2000? and Healthy Missourians 2000, the concerned subcommittee member asked if the youth vision statement could include goals listed in those documents.? The response was affirmative. (Recall that Healthy Missourians 2000 includes a goal of increasing to at least 90 percent of the proportion of “sexually active†youth 19 and younger who use contraception.)
The concerned subcommittee member asked that the term “healthy choices†be added to the vision statement’s glossary for a definition.? Another subcommittee member pointedly and condescendingly asked “how do YOU define ‘healthy choices’?� The concerned subcommittee member responded “probably not how some people would define it, but I define healthy choices? as abstinence? and secondary virginity.? There are side effects? from contraceptives? which are not healthy.� The subcommittee member from Junior League? then responded with a “lecture†about the need to be “open-minded, broad-based, the importance of not bringing personal agendas to the table, and the need to realize that the Partnership included numerous community agencies and organizations with a diverse point of view on the issue of contraception.� The concerned subcommittee member responded that was the precise basis for the concern, since contraception was not consistent with the faith and values? of a number of agencies and organizations associated with the Partnership.? Such agencies may be put in a position of having to choose between their faiths and participating in the Partnership.? The concerned subcommittee member went on to explain that if the Partnership supported contraception, school districts associated with the Partnership would also be put at a disadvantage since school districts have a responsibility not to undermine the faith, values, and cultural diversity of the children and families they serve.
In the end, “healthy choices†was added to the glossary and defined as “Models from which to choose alternative behaviors? related to sexual activity, violence and substance abuse.� It was explained to the concerned subcommittee member that in an effort to be “inclusive†the definition of “healthy choices†included a contraceptive model.? The subcommittee member put the concern in writing to the subcommittee leader, but the letter was not made available to the subcommittee members, nor members of the youth breakout group, nor the Partnership as a whole.
The agenda of October’s monthly meeting included the presentation, and modification of the vision statements, and to begin to identify goals and objectives.? The meeting was opened with a prayer.? Before the presentation of the three breakout group’s vision statements, one of the Partnership leaders made a plea.? It was expressed that since some issues were controversial, there was a need for all to be “open-minded,†an understanding for the need to be broad-based, and the necessity of not bringing “personal agendas†to the table.
The first group presented their vision statement.? There was discussion that resulted in the modification of some sentences.? The youth group was next.? The concerned subcommittee member who raised the contraception? issue found it interesting that they had not been granted the courtesy of being informed of who from their subcommittee would be presenting their vision statement at the monthly meeting.? After a member of the subcommittee read the vision statement, they asked the group if anyone had any suggestions.? No one said a word.? Then the group was asked if anyone had a comment about the youth vision statement.? The concerned subcommittee member raised their hand and was reluctantly called upon.? The concerned subcommittee member explained that while those present were asked not to bring their personal agendas to the table, in reality the Partnership’s vision statement was its agenda.? The subcommittee member went on to explain that it was “important that everyone understood that the term ‘healthy choices’? included a contraceptive model in case anyone would have some comments.� No one said a word, not even the Catholics who were present-which included nuns.
Announcements made during the November meeting included the promotion of a reference book titled Adolescent Health-Status Report? 1996 published by the Missouri Department of Health’s Division of Maternal, Child and Family Health.? This book was funded by this same state agency and the Maternal, Child Health Block Grant from the United States Department of Health and Human Services.? A State Health Education Specialist wrote the report from the University Extension? at the
The federal document titled Together We Can? was also recommended during the November meeting. See this book’s chapter titled “‘Together We Can’ Socialize ‘Caring Communities’†which is the federal model for building Caring Communities community partnerships.
The November meeting was indeed busy.? The mission statement was modified to add the word “safe†to the last sentence.? The vision statement drafts were presented and reviewed.? The concerned subcommittee member suggested that the youth vision statement should include a statement saying the Partnership “promotes abstinence? and secondary virginity? in an effort to support students.� The suggestion “fell into a black hole†as it was not followed up on (ignored), and was not incorporated into the revision approved at the following meeting.? The “machine†was at work.
A work group was formed to create a map of community “assets.†Asset mapping? resulted in the listing of school districts and their municipalities, police departments, schools, colleges/universities, community centers, health-care facilities, shopping centers, grocery stores, libraries, grade schools with Latch Key, grade schools without Latch Key, parks, day-care? centers, churches, and businesses with greater than 200 employees.
Another work group was created to develop a glossary of terms to be used in communications.? A Partnership leader suggested using a school district’s Public Relations coordinator and the District’s Community Specialist, saying, “I left a call, I know she’ll do it (put together a public relations communications glossary).â€
The final topic on the November agenda was measuring the outcomes? and goals which the Partnership wanted to establish. Goals taken from Adolescent Health for which the Partnership desired change included: decrease violence/crime rate, decrease teen pregnancy? rate, decrease substance abuse, decrease STD rate and decrease the high school dropout? rate.â€
There was much discussion about “what processes it would take to accomplish these outcomes? without coming out and saying it.� Discussion centered on using terms that would create a positive image when communicating with the community.? The following are examples of some of the processes (wording) suggested to provide a positive image in order to accomplish negative health goals:
- Increase number of adults completing GEG education = Decrease welfare costs.
- Increase after-school and summer activity programs = decrease teen pregnancy, decrease violence, decrease substance abuse, decrease high school drop out.
- Increase school health programs = decrease dropout, decrease substance abuse, (Not listed here but constantly referred to in school health programs is decreasing teen pregnancy.)
- Increase average number of school days attended = decrease drop out, increase state aid money to school districts.
- Increase mentoring and tutoring programs = decrease high school dropout, decrease violence, decrease substance abuse, decrease teen pregnancy.
- Increase schools offering classes in team building/positive problem solving (K-12) = decrease violence, decrease substance abuse, (Not listed here but constantly referred to is decreasing teen pregnancy).
- Increasing number of youth delaying parenting = decrease teen pregnancy.
There was no December meeting due to Christmas, and January’s meeting was canceled due to weather.
February’s meeting included a review of the community resources by school district started during November’s meeting.? Also discussed were the results of how the youth, family, and seniors sub-groups rated the nine community issues.? Of interest to this author was the observation that most of the nine areas included “sub-issues†either directly or indirectly related to teen pregnancy.? ? ?
The population (youth, families, and seniors) vision statements were reviewed.? Each of the three vision statements had been condensed and rewritten by the pre-appointed “stakeholders†who “facilitated†the subgroups throughout the process, and who were leaders in the Partnership.? This is how the “machine†ensured that the vision statements were consistent with the goals of the Partnership while providing the appearance of community consensus.
As a member of the youth subcommittee which wrote the youth vision statement, I remember being particularly struck by the difference between what the subcommittee had created and the final version of the youth vision statement presented to the large group at this meeting for final approval.? The term “healthy choices†had been deleted.? The final version included:? “Health issues of youth are identified and addressed with a focus on prevention; healthy community and family lifestyles are promoted, especially choices related to sexuality, parenthood–and school graduation.â€
The modified vision statement was reviewed.? It did not include the suggested wording regarding Partnership support for abstinence? and secondary virginity.
The February meeting included discussion of the prioritization and selection of a first community in which the Partnership would begin “working†based on a chart that listed community characteristics and negative indicators of three school districts.? The indicators were relative to: teen pregnancy, birth to teen moms, lack of prenatal care, infant mortality, poverty, unemployment, HIV/AIDS? cases, high school graduation rate, and the major business in the school district.? The discussion changed direction as questions were asked about what the Partnership would offer the community selected.? The response was “expertise†as the Partnership had no funds.? The minutes of the February meeting reflect that:
“After much discussion it was decided that (the Partnership) need(ed) to evaluate what gifts and resources the (Partnership) brings to the community.? In addition, we need to know if the community wants to become involved with local efforts to improve the overall health of their community.? So rather than our selecting a community, it was decided that we would have a small committee review these issues and develop a request for proposal (RFP).? The RFP will be brought to the next meeting and we will discuss the process.â€
This was one time the “machine†was sidetracked - at least temporarily.
The March meeting included a guest speaker (from a local Healthy People 2000? program) who reviewed their process for responding to identified health issues in their community.? They developed a number of task forces which include:? Alcohol And Other Drugs, Teen Pregnancy Prevention task force, Suicide Prevention for 15-24 Year Olds, Tobacco, Mental Health, Children and Violence, Environmental, Youth Alternatives, Recreation, and others.
The March meeting also included a review of the process for selecting interventions through the Request for Proposals (RFP).? The minutes reflect that for the RFP process to be successful the Partnership would need to administer a survey? to assess the commitments and resources available from current Partnership members. The RFP states that, “The Partnership has identified some desirable community health outcomes which result in decreases in:
- “the rate of crime and violence
- “the rate of teen pregnancy? (emphasis added)
- “the incidence of substance abuse
- “the rate of sexually transmitted disease
- “the number of students who drop out of school
“The Partnership has also identified some specific goals which would support an improving community health environment and better health outcomes? by increasing:?
- “the number of adults with GED education, job training? or retraining
- “access to after school and summer youth programs, mentoring and tutoring, and intergenerational opportunities
- “sources of school and community programs for healthy choices? (emphasis added).
- “opportunities to have team building, positive problem solving and conflict resolution education
- “the number of youth who delay parenting and stay in school (emphasis added).
The “machine†which is designed to adapt to whatever environment it finds itself, is now back on track.? The RFP explains to its reader that the Partnership “is not able to provide financial support but has much to offer:
- “access to professionals, agencies and community experts
- “access to mentoring, in-kind services
- “advocacy of programs and grant proposals, particularly models which can be replicated or expanded
- “networking and involvement in progressive collaborations, support of partnerships
- “commitment? to support established programs, improve effectiveness and coordination and promote activities which improve the health of the community.
“The Partnership is seeking:
- “community activists, groups and agencies with a commitment? to implement programs which will positively impact the outcomes? and goals of the partnership
- “programs and projects with direct involvement of the community
- “proposals which result in measurable outcomes? and reliable ways to measure them
- “efforts which can become self-sufficient, grow and be duplicated.â€
Target groups to whom the Partnership will send RFPs include members of the Partnership, school districts, municipalities, police departments, church? affiliations, community organizations, commercial affiliations, and organizations.
During the Partnership’s April meeting the name of the Request for Proposal (RFP) was changed to Request for Partnership.
The Partnership’s leadership (from the County Health Department) walked the members through an example of a sample RFP.? Numerous times throughout the process, references were made to how the processing of the example reflected that of an actual RFP.? Towards the end of the process the Partnership’s leadership asked the members to ACCEPT and APPROVE the “sample†as an actual RFP!
As it turned out, the Partnership’s leadership from the community hospital and another member had met the week before.? At that time they wrote the RFP that was presented to the membership as an “example†and then requested the membership to agree to support the program as a REAL Request For Partnership!
Members tactfully voiced that they had been “led†to believe that the sample was simply an example, and were not prepared to give approval to an actual RFP.
There was a definite sense of impropriety when the members realized that those who would be funding the project were the ones who had “clandestinely†met the week before to write the RFP.
Later in the same meeting one of the members asked about the amount of funding available to the Partnership through the State CHART program.? It was explained that the Partnership received no moneys from CHART.? The only money available from the State CHART program was for doing a community assessment.? It was then explained that while the Partnership had no funds? for RFP projects, the County Health Department DID appropriate some funds to the Partnership for projects that implement the goals of the Partnership.? It was stated that those funds could be available to programs such as the “example†project!
Since the RFP for the “sample†project did not even include all the information required in the RFP, members of the Partnership requested that the RFP be resubmitted when the paperwork had been completed.? After the meeting, the member who was to be responsible for the “sample†project commented that they would have the information for the next month’s meeting.
–And so the sugar coated “machine†grinds on–.
? Those who participate in the Partnership for Community Health described above, ALSO participate with the local community service coalition.? The April 1997 newsletter of one such coalition announced the need to arrange a date to accommodate the Executive Director of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America who was said to have “great expertise and vision about the power of local coalitions†(emphasis added).? Coalitions and partnerships? are generally run and attended by local leaders.? Be sure to read this book’s chapter titled “Advisory Councils or Unelected Representation?†to further understand how the “machine†works.
One such example is the Junior League? and its TOTAL program.? The Partnership and the service coalition both deal with the same issues, and work in many of the same school districts and neighborhoods.? The coalition has four subcommittees called Teen Violence, Teen Parenting, Healthy Families, and Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs.? The “community specialist†of the “lead†school district is responsible for the operation of the coalition.
This particular community service coalition’s funding source is a well-known foundation, and is located in the “lead†school district’s facilities.? Students and families identified as being in need of “intervention†are referred to agencies associated with the community service coalition.
This particular service coalition had little or no accountability to the local school boards.? One would think the school board might be concerned about their responsibility to parents, if not the risk of liability, especially since the service coalition includes the County Health Department which distributes contraceptives? to minors? without parental consent!
One community agency (known to be pro-life) offered the service coalition free programs on prenatal development, abstinence, and secondary virginity? as its contribution to reducing substance abuse? and suicide? associated with Post Abortion Syndrome.? The agency was told it was “too narrow-based†to participate!
The coalition’s April 1997 newsletter quoted the following points made during a training? it hosted on grant writing and fund raising:
“*? The Federal Government has large amounts of money available, specifically in areas that affect the Coalition.? Departments offering substantial funding for grants? are Health and Human Services, Safe and
“*? At the state level, groups should look at School to Work, School Health grants? and Goals 2000? for significant pots of money.â€
–And the “machine†grinds on–.
A key component to the “machine†is money.? Among the funding sources listed in the State ? ? are foundations.? Robert Wood Johnson? is a foundation of the Johnson & Johnson Company.? Attorney Kent Masterson Brown? took the Clinton? White House? to court in order to have made public the records of the
Since 1972 Robert Wood Johnson? “has made more than $2 billion in grants.â€[5]? Robert Wood Johnson gives States enormous amounts of dollars to write planning grants for “kid-care†plans.? If the planning grant is written to accommodate what Robert Wood Johnson is willing to financially back (state health reform “
A friend received a $25 check from Mathematica Policy Research? (based in Princeton, N.J.) to participate in a Robert Wood Johnson? funded study which was to include a half hour interview.
Robert Wood Johnson? also funds? “Faith in Action†which is a national interfaith program that promotes the “machine’s†agenda.? This program includes working with parish nurses? who are good people with a heart of serving others.? Most do not see or understand the “machine†let alone how their little “cog†moves the “machine†along.
This author highly recommends that you read “Trojan Horse Moneyâ€? published in the December 16, 1996, issue of Forbes Magazine.? The article exposes how “foundations are imposing their private agendas on state governments.? How?? By thinly disguised bribery.â€
Among the numerous foundations funding health and education reform is the Carnegie Corporation? which produced Great Transitions-Preparing Adolescents For a New Century.? This document was recommended to hundreds of teachers, counselors, social workers, and nurses during a State Comprehensive School Health Conference. Members of the Carnegie Council? On Adolescent Development included:?
- Michael Cohen? served as vice-chair of the advisory panel for the U.S. Congress of Technology Assessment’s? landmark study of adolescent health in 1991.? See this book’s chapter titled “Lexicon Is Lingo†for definitions quoted from Adolescent Health Volume 1 Summary and Policy Options published by the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
- David Hornbeck? - Chaired the Carnegie Council? on Adolescent Development’s Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents.? He designed Kentucky’s reform legislation, is (or was) chairman of the Children’s Defense? Fund? board of directors, and serves on the advisory boards and boards of directors of several organizations, among them the Pew? Forum on Education Reform, and the National Center on Education and the Economy.
- Thomas Kean? is a former governor of
- Ray Marshall? who is (was?) a member of the
- Ted Koppel, anchor of ABC New’s “Nightline.†There were also many others on the Carnegie Council? on Adolescent Development.[6]
Several task forces participated in the creation of Carnegie’s Great Transitions.? Members of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents included then governor Bill Clinton? of
–And the “machine†grinds on–.
The “machine†is at work regardless of which reform program is raising concern.? Parents who questioned whether School-to-Work? was being implemented in their districts were assured by district administrators that it was not.? Within the year administrators were freely using the term “school-to-work.â€
Out of “the blue†a copy of a federally funded School-To-Careers grant appeared in the weekly packet of information that school board members receive.? There was no prior discussion with the board about the grant prior to its appearance in the packet.? The grant appeared as an agenda item for the next school board meeting.? It appeared on the agenda as an informational item, rather than an item for board action (vote). This $241,000 grant was going to be implemented.? When a concerned school board member asked the superintendent if student participation was mandatory, the response was “no.â€? When the same question was asked of the administrator who was responsible for writing and implementing the grant, the answer was “yes.†The explanation given was that the MO School Improvement Plan, on which the state assesses each district, includes school-to-work. The grant itself says that the school-to-career program is to be available to all students grades K-12.? Students are to choose one of six career pathways in which to “major.†Among the grant’s first-year objectives is to “Create introductory and reflective curriculum for performance events, as well as job-shadowing and mentoring experiences in the seventh through tenth grades.â€
Another question asked by the concerned school board member was taken from among the first year objectives and states: “In concert with state employment agencies, develop a labor market analysis which is used to modify the Career Pathways Program to be consistent with the demands and opportunities of the local labor market.†The administrator responded:? “This grant is not career oriented, it’s academic oriented. The money will be used to help build the infrastructure for the reforms we’re already doing.†In reference to the local labor market, the school board member asked whether a student who was interested in a career which was not available in the labor market area in which the school district was located, would need to move in order to be accommodated? The administrator replied that since their grant was only one of two in the area, it was felt that there would not be a problem in accommodating any student.
During the school board meeting, administrators assured board members that students would not be “working,†but merely doing some field trip type job shadowing.? However, page 6 of the grant includes a segment titled “Work-Based Learning.†Page 10 of the grant states: “Plans will include the development of a
The district was submitting the grant on behalf of the local service coalition that it had created a few years earlier.? The coalition now includes major employers in the area.
? Of particular interest was the letters of support attached to the grant.? Two of the letters were from the current school board president of the district which wrote the grant, and a past school board member of the same district.
There’s another twist to the picture. This same school district started a
At about the same time that all the board members received a copy of the grant in their weekly packet, members of the
Why was it that the committee/board member who was least likely to support the grant didn’t know anything about it, while two other committee members with close ties to the board, and supportive, knew about the Community School’s school-to-career project, and had even written letters of support? The response from the assistant superintendent responsible for the grant was: “Remember the one meeting you missed? Well, we had to work really fast on the grant, and needed to have all the letters written within that week.â€
Why were the committee members not called?? Second, there should have been minutes provided to all committee members and the board of education, to record and advise of all
–And the “machine†grinds on–and on–and on– and on–
[1] Peggy O’Farrell, “Grant Would Pay For Health Care, †a local community paper staff writer.