Sunday, November 19, 2017

Happy Adoption Month: Why The Hell Is The U.S. Using Israeli Privatization Policy Research In Child Welfare?

In honor of November, National Adoption Month, I would like to present to you, another example of high quality propaganda to promote the profiteering through privatization in modern day human trafficking, more readily known as adoption.

Joseph Deutsch
Here you shall find a study, even through it was used to craft federal policy, a private document, of which you must purchase, to find out its methodology.

So, instead of translating a bunch of goobly gook of researcher bias to justify making more money, I thought I would take a different approach to support my position that the Children's Bureau Express, is pumping out more crap for personal inurement, whether through private investment of social impact bonds, political campaigns, or any other type of fraud scheme.

Let us begin with the authors, one by one.

Joseph Deutsch is an Isreali professor of economics out of Bar Ilan University.  Why is an Isreali professor pontificating on U.S. child welfare policy?

Professor Simon Hakim
Simon Hakim
Next, we have Simon Hakim, with a background in privatization, security, private and public police and prisions, hailing from a Isreali university background,  from the Center for Competative Government, formerly known as the Privatization Research Center, promulgating U.S. child welfare policy?

Uriel Spiegel, also hailing from Bar Ilan University, is putting in his groundbreaking economic perspectives of supply and demand, hailing from the microeconomic school of autarky and monopolies in government privatized programs.  (I have substituted extreme economic sarcasm as I was unable to find a photo of Uriel).

Last, but not least we have Michael Sumkin, a Masters student from Bar Ilan University, who relies upon previous published research hit papers for the Children's Bureau Express like: The Economics of the Baby Shortage

Why is the United States even using anything out of Isreal in dealing with child welfare when it is stealing its own children.

Are these foreign university policy think tanks registered as foreign agents?  Nope, but they should be.

U.S. v. Israel: Which Is Worse In Child Welfare?

Israel Uses U.S. Immigrant Child Welfare Model

I would be remiss to mention there are many, many Israeli pharmaceutical corporations that have relocated to Russia after being busted for Medicaid fraud in child welfare and bribing governmental officials through campaign contributions with these privatized policies.

For me, this is just another reason to quickly advocate for indictments for Jerry Milner. (Notice I skipped the investigation process because I am that confident he is financially linked up with Israeli funding, some how, some where, but I will leave that deep dive until another post.)

So, why is the hell is the United States reliant upon research from Isreal in promoting privatization in child welfare using dirty data based upon false claims and bribing of elected officials through privatization fraud schemes?

Subsidies for Private Agencies Increase Adoption Rates For Older, Special Needs Children

According to a recent study, subsidies should be created to accelerate the adoption of older and special needs children from foster care and enable private contracting of this work for best results.

The study analyzed the impact of public and private interventions in adoption services, as well as government adoption subsidies in all 50 states between 1996 and 2010, and considered variables such as attributes of the adopted child, adoptive parents, the state, and the adoption process.

As described in the article "Privatization and Subsidization of Adoption Services From Foster Care: Empirical Evidence," the results led the authors to conclude that adoptions conducted through a private agency for young and healthy children were not as efficient as those conducted through a public agency.

However, when cases involved older children and those with special needs, privatization resulted in improved and accelerated services. The study also found subsidization to be particularly successful for older children and children with special needs, while it was not a factor in the adoption of healthy babies.

The authors suggest limiting subsidies, however, to those adoptions that have historically proven more challenging (i.e., the adoption of older children and those with specific medical or mental health concerns). They also caution that contracting out adoption services is only appropriate when ample competition exists among agencies because that provides contractors with greater motivation to excel.

"Privatization  and Subsidization of Adoption Services From Foster Care: Empirical Evidence," by Joseph Deutsch, Simon Hakim, Uriel Spiegel, and Michael Sumkin (Children and Youth Services Review, 78), is available at

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

No comments: