This corruption didn't begin with the Somalis

Before tracking down "root causes" and supply chain history of the Somali day care fraud, I hope Congress stops and looks at two basics: Head start (turned 60 in 2025 in the failed War on Poverty which we lost ) and the corruption in the nonprofit arena (got really bad during Bush I who wanted to reduce federal employment with "faith-based" solutions).

By any definition and all the studies, Head Start has failed miserably--40 million children, their parents and the tax payers. Not every daycare is a head start model, but it's been ingrained in generations that children will be better off if mom leaves home to work and someone not family takes care of the kids. That's the old south slavery model, isn't it? By 2nd grade all academic gains are lost.

 
The whole nonprofit grants from the federal government model so the money is controlled locally is riddled with corruption, nepotism and graft, The Somali thing is the tip of the iceberg, and it's not just day care. It's good intentions gone bad.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/fbci/qr3.html?

Some think the Head start failure is a result of this year's fraud investigation (60 years), but it was declared a failure at 50 years and 40 years,  It's never passed the smell test. Head Start is in turmoil - The Hechinger Report

Government bureaucracy drowning in failed programs and thousands of reports--Head Start

While I've been watching the Soros' funded fascist professionals create chaos on our campuses, I've been digging deep into the reports about Head Start, which so far has hit us up for over $1 trillion since its beginning as small test group in the LBJ era to improve the academic and life trajectory of poor children. All evaluations at 40, 50 and now almost 60 years have shown it to be a huge failure to help children succeed, but an outstanding success in providing a good living for millions of academics and government workers.

Here's one example. The culture of the TANF office. I'm pretty jaded about government waste--after all, I was a university librarian buried in task force reports and minutiae of information, data and knowledge. But this one really stunned me. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/project/understanding-poverty-childhood-and-family-experiences-and-tanf-office-culture-2016 

It's a long, long way from helping a 3 year old get ready for kindergarten in the hope he'll do better in math in high school. (Yes, that's what they believed in 1965). We already know what gives kids the best chance to avoid poverty--married parents who have finished high school and have jobs. It's not the culture of the office that hands out the checks.

ACF stands for Administration for Children & Families, and I think it was created to push Head Start back into infancy since it had failed so miserably to help pre-school aged children. But the genealogy of government agencies and bureaus is fuzzy and fat so I could be wrong. It happens.

More money for failed Head Start in the budget bill

"Since 1965, Head Start has been a sinkhole for taxpayer dollars and an ineffective education program for children. And yet, proponents—hand in glove with Congress—want to model hundreds of billions of dollars in the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending package on it."

It now costs more than $10,200 per participant.

Pre-K Funding in $3.5T Spending Bill Is Modeled After Failed Head Start (dailysignal.com)

One of the problems I see in all Biden's programs is the "no legacy" legacy of Barack Obama.  If there were ever evidence for this administration being Obama 2.0, it is the trillions now being thrown at Obama's failures in the Build Back Better spending bill.  It includes a $3 billion “tree equity” outlay for planting saplings and $25 million on “anti-discrimination and bias training” in the healthcare industry — as well as nearly $79 billion for the Internal Revenue Service to step up its enforcement of tax laws. (Don't spend more than $600 or you might get audited.)  And now this boondoggle.  The belief apparently is that it was lack of money, not lack of history, of common sense, and his own racism.

Reasons to build the wall

The main objections I hear from Democrats about the wall they were in favor of in 2006, but not in 2017-18 (because Trump is president) are, 1) it won't work, 2) the cost, and 3) it's racist. Let's briefly touch on racism. Border security is not and never was, racist. If it were racist all security methods would also be racist. Even the locks on your doors and automobiles. We wouldn't have security at our northern borders or our airports if protecting borders were racism. During the Obama years, Border Patrol was apprehending illegals from high risk countries coming in from Canada (164 in 2011), and they weren't Canadians, most were recent Muslim immigrants to Canada.

If we judged government programs/policies by cost or whether they work, Head Start, which costs about $10.6 Billion in programing and $5.7 Billion in childcare (2017), would have been dropped years ago. No party will even touch that idea.

It was like pulling teeth to get an impact study (begun in 1998, data collection began in 2002, reported in 2010), but after billions and billions spent on Head Start since 1965, the final impact study showed some social and intellectual advancement in the pre-school years which was lost by the end of first grade. The final study, done by the government and analyzed out the wazoo, showed a huge workforce was paid, children had moderate to good day care, better health care, but the goals of the program were not met. The Head Start children on average did no better than the control group which did NOT receive all those benefits of a government pre-school. Even after a decade of study, the conclusion was--we need more study, more analysis, more explanations, and more money.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf

If high costs and no discernable results are good enough for Head Start for 50+ years, it should be good enough for at least a decade of border security.

Investing in young children

Head Start, a federal program for pre-schoolers to prepare them for school, was declared a failure after 40 years and again after 50 years and trillions of dollars by the government’s own assessment. No politician for 55 years has dared suggest dismantling it, and the only solution was more money and more fiddling with the design which tries to make up for no dad in the home, low income of young single moms and the chaotic living conditions of the children, which may include mom’s boyfriends, or abuse, or foster care, couch surfers, poor nutrition, unsafe neighborhoods, etc.
Then came Early Head Start in 1994—practically beginning with pre-natal care. EHS had by 2009 over 650 programs. Despite marginal increases in the percent of parents who read to children through EHS, by age 5 there was no improvement even with rigorous studies.  EHS and Head Start don't change the family dynamics. So I was somewhat surprised when I read about a genetic design (although nothing surprises me much these days where bureaucracy and government grants are concerned).

“Using genetically-informed designs. Because genetic differences play an important role in children’s academic achievement and behavioral adjustment,  research to inform EHS should make use of methods that take genetic factors into account. Examples are studies using twins and adopted children as experimental subjects.”  (10 ideas, Nicholas Zill)

That’s the kind of talk that gets Charles Murray kicked off liberal college campuses. Even so, it’s darn scary to put “genetic differences” into the hands of the federal bureaucracy, the only component that has grown and advanced ($100 million in 1965, $16 billion in 2011)  in the whole Head Start half a century of no progress.

 http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Investing_in_Young_Children.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1013_investing_in_young_children_haskins_ch3.pdf

Obama got the gimmes

Obama wants just a smidgen more from the rich to support his failing pre-school idea (for over 50 years and trillions of dollars Head Start designed to end poverty has shown no permanent gains in education for children). I admire the foundations the super wealthy support, but really, they can do both--just don't take the tax deduction and they'll have Obama's wish that the wealthy pay more. Also, it's been known for years that conservatives and middle income people contribute... to charity at higher rates than the super wealthy. According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama. So wanting others to pay more sort of goes with the political philosophy. "Am I my brother's keeper" was first said by Cain after he killed Abel. I thought this was not a good choice of words for Obama's big push to help black men and Latino men.

Head Start—a very expensive feel good poverty program

The omnibus 1,582 page appropriations bill includes increased funding for Head Start and Early Head Start by $612 million, to $8.6 billion. This administration and those before it have studied this program carefully with the same results--it doesn't work. The 2012 study found little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of participants. So why continue to fund it? What politician of either party could risk the backlash?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/universal-preschools-empty-promises

Even though 74% of American 4 year olds are already in pre-school, Obama thinks the government needs to expand even more into this area and crowd out private and church programs, which will probably be declared "substandard" the way he did with health insurance which over 80% were satisfied with. Maybe he can reduce the gap between rich and poor by making all preschools perform like Head Start?

"The Columbus school district says it will find a way to expand pre-kindergarten even without the money that a levy would’ve raised." Columbus Dispatch Nov. 28, 2013. Professional educators are a powerful lobby for early childhood education--follow the money. Pre-schools have a patch work of standards by city and state for buildings, curricula, teachers, aides, safety, play time, unions--I mean, can you see the economic opportunities here for colleges of education, the building trades, the regulatory agencies?

Head Start isn’t

One of the biggest failures in the War on Poverty has been Head Start--again, no member of Congress would dare vote against it. The gains are lost, aka "fade away," and no amount of money will change that. Not every child with a caring, nurturing home will succeed, and not every child whose home is a disaster will fail. But statistically, we are throwing good money after bad, and 50 years of testing has shown that. Head Start has provided a lot of jobs for parents and government workers, some nutrition and health care for children, but it was never a works/nutrition/health program. If Obama wants more money for pre-schools to close his gap, just say no. It's a feel good drug.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/how-lasting-are-the-benefits-of-preschool/2014/01/07/

Head Start closures being reported

A report for WCTV by Julie Montanaro is being discussed on Facebook.

Here’s my take.  Some of the Head Start employees (often parents of the children enrolled) may suffer from the shut down, but there is evidence that any boost the children get disappears by third grade. 40 years and this is the research. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final.pdf    The report  ( Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Washington, DC. January 2010) was sat on for four years and released on a Friday evening in Feb. 2010, so you may have missed it. Obama chose to increase the funding for Head Start anyway, as you can see from the graph, and maybe that’s the story. In government if spending billions doesn’t work, spend more.

The mission of Head Start was to give poor children a "head start" for school readiness—make up for all that middle class children got at home in vocabulary, reading readiness, socialization, good nutrition, etc. It was part of that social experiment called the “War on Poverty” of the 1960s. 40 years and $8 billion later it has failed in its mission. The most successful event to lift children out of poverty is the marriage of their parents. Co-habiting parents yields about the same results as single parent home. Poverty falls to 8% compared to 56% for single parent families. Marriage of parents also gives them a boost in health and education, and children raised with fathers are less likely to enter the criminal justice system.

Uncle Sam just isn't a good step-father because government can't be a parent and apparently isn't all that great at being a pre-school facilitator. Head Start isn't the only program--many churches support pre-schools in low income neighborhoods (mine included). My neighbor runs one--it's a delightful program. And the results are about the same--dedicated, loving, committed personnel pour their lives into these kids. The best we can say about Head Start (and private charities that do this) is that the children are safe, well cared for, and often employs the parents.

Buried deep in this article about budget increases for Head Start FY2011 you find a reference to the 2010 report of its failure of mission, although it doesn’t link to the government report I cited above. http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2010/a_closer_look_at_obama_s_fy11_budget_head_start-27490

Do children need day-care or daddy-care?

If Democrats want to wag a finger this week, get all the men in a room and demand that they mentor and cajole young men about their responsibilities and to marry the mother of their children. And if you are divorced and can't take care of your first family, don't start a second. Even if the new wife or girlfriend nags. Barack Obama essentially did this during the primaries, and so did several other black leaders. I may not like his politics but he is a good role model for young men. But when the numbers are crunched, it will show that women contribute to poverty when they don't marry the fathers of their children and have babies before finishing high school. Feminists on the left need to report this instead of blaming President Bush, or men in general. Birth control? Just Say No, my sister.

These media poverty stories never change. Even though we can all look around and see an incredible difference between 2008 and 1988 or 1958, in the news it is always the same--doom and gloom. No opportunity. No jobs. Hunger. Hopelessness. It's extremely political, and if I were a Democrat, I'd be ashamed that none of the "hope and change" programs we promised in the past have made any difference. Except that one in the mid-1990s under President Clinton, when welfare was cleaned up. Oops. He was forced into that one by Republicans, and the left was fighting mad. But that is his legacy. Millions of women grabbed hold and became energized tax payers, developed a back bone and showed that old American spirit. Obama will try to change that if he becomes President by sneaking in reinforcements to keep women with a step-daddy in the house named "Uncle Sam." Universal pre-school? One more way to get more taxes and more control and show no gains. Universal pre-school will create more feel-good programs, a demand for more taxes to fight poverty, more low-income jobs to be administered by educators, and more reasons for mothers to get into the labor force. Head Start is over 40 years old--no gains beyond the early years of elementary school.

Take away: The poverty gap is no longer racial, it is marital.