One issue here is that properties which are right next to each other and which generate very similar prices are weighted “much higher” than other sales, as do properties which are next to each other and are purchased by a single buyer. If a single buyer offers the same general price for several properties which are next to each other then this weighting generally is so high that all other sales don’t even really count. This means that if someone in the general area (and that can be a pretty wide area for this part of the transaction) purchases several properties at a premium in order to get a larger parcel to do something with then that will be the value applied to all properties in the area. This also means that commercial property transactions can be considered in residential valuation if the commercial area is creeping in on the residential one. That is a big business buying several businesses tearing them down and building a big facility will not effect local federal valuations. But if that same big business gets a zoning change and buys several houses to tear down for their facility then this transaction and the subsequent valuation of the commercial property will generate the only transactions which will actually truly count for the federal valuation.

As I also just hinted here; this function of properties being next to each other and selling at the same time will also cause transactions to be the primary valuation transactions on a valuation when if they were not next to each other they could not be considered. Properties which sell in a block like this which are miles away.

Native Illinois agencies, working under DCFS (Illinois Department of Children and Family Services) are able to provide shelter/group home services, as listed in the grant requirements document, for substantially less than the Heartland Alliance bid (I believe the ratio is $120/bed/night vs. $181/bed/night).

I have looked at high end homes throughout Chicago, inside and out. This facility is to hold 30 children and 6 staff (per shift). I saw a $700,000 home in Sugar Grove, 7 bedroom, 7 acres, which could also hold this facility. Maryville Academy, owned by the Archdiocese of Chicago, is a purpose built complex that once held several hundred children. It is now barely utilized (after scandals rocked the management under Father Smith), and so portions could be leased (remember, this is a 5 year program) for a likely much lower sum than the outright purchase of the Naperville property. I was in a massive home in Lake Forest, another posh community, that would have held this number of residents easily, and it was priced at $1.2 million.

The location was supposedly chosen because the local asian community would be able to provide volunteers and staff to support the work. However, per HHS the children will be mostly Chinese, and the local asian population is largely Korean. The areas with the highest Chinese populations are Chicago, Schaumberg, and Oak Brook, all far away from this location, and all nearer the major airport that will be the transport hub used to receive these children.

Basically, what I am saying is that all of the factors that have been cited as compelling this choice of site are not accurate as to the suitability of the location.

When HHS took over the program from DHS, there were ? locations managed by 33 Regional Juvenile coordinators in OJA (Office of Juvenile Affairs), which was managed by a Director and 10 staff in Washington. The budget was $31.6 million. In 2004, ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) had 41 locations with 920 beds available. There are currently 36 locations managed by a Director and 28 staffers at DUCS (Division of Unaccompanied Children’s Services). (I am looking for bed numbers, which are hard to find; however, a comment in the DHS OIG report from ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement), dated 9/8/2005 states that their inability to transfer children to ORR custody was mainly resulting from two factors–the cancellation of many of the contracts for juvenile facilities, and that many of those were geographically close to where the children were apprehended. This is important because other sections of the report note that ICE would have to transfer the children, and they were constrained because of a hiring freeze through at least the end of 2004 (basically they had to do more work with less staff to help another agency, which apparently was hiring at the time).

The grant noted above, above and beyond DUCS funding, is to use $42.883 million to add/replace capacity for 750 beds in their system. The Naperville facility is meant to hold 30 children, and will cost $1.87 million; the grant average is $57,177 per bed, while the Naperville facility would hit $62,333 per bed, 10% over the average (I have yet to find the cost of the Galleria and “down the street from the Bushes” locations). To contrast, a nearby group home, with similar staff/child ratio, and which actually is for more aggressive children (possibly close to the staff secure level), was bought for $200,000 several years ago, and can handle 8 children. This comes out to $25,000 per bed. These kind of numbers start my B.S. sensors screaming. Even for the reasons Ray pointed out, this home can be considered expensive for the purpose.

Regarding the charity meme: Heartland Alliance positions itself as a charitable organization. As HS has stated, if they are receiving over 75% of their money from government contracts, they are less a charity (receiving freely given funds, whatever the tax code definition) than a government contractor (a la Kellogg, Brown, and Root).

BTW, thanks to HS and Ray for helping me clarify my arguments against this waste of funds. And Ray, if your scenario above is true, would the methodology used to argue for this home/location (and a rumour that they would add high fencing and a security guard) sound like a “cover” for the placement?

Thank you,

Fraud Guy

It does sound like a waste. I would agree with the analysis if it were not for one thing: if the information in the articles referenced in the article are correct then there is an issue of secure custody.

According to the information originally provided these homes were specifically for children who were in custody. I worked in a home where children had to be secured. In this case they were witnesses, which is I admit very different. But at the same time I know the facility had a lot of expenses which a normal facility would not. Example as a staff member I was fire arms trained with several types of weapons. When on the job as strange as it sounds we were required to always be armed with side arms. The facility did have an “armory” which would make many a military unit envious. We were expected to defend the facility if it was attacked, and were equipped to hopefully do so. (It never came up) Not to make to much of a point of it, but we were also paid a lot better than other child care workers doing this kind of work with nonsecured children because of the fact we were expected to be ready to take this risk. When the children were transported anywhere, which was rare and normally only for medical treatments and the like, it was with additional armed security. Those guys were even more expensive than we were.

At the same time we did provide a home type environment for the children in our care. Since as I hinted the children almost never left the facility there were a lot of additional costs in this area. We had what today would be a middle of the road, but at the time was a seriously top of the line home theater. We had a small but very well equipped playground. (which was also hidden from view) Of course we had our own “home” school facility. All because taking the kids to any thing was strictly a no no.

I hoped with the location research for an additional facility. The facility itself had a lot of additional locational requirements. These included being in an area where it would be unusual to have people from outside of the area. The general location had to have multiple entrances and exits with ease of verifying the lack of a tail before final arrival. Also it was a consideration of if the neighbors could be bribed to participate in actions. (The facility in question was located in a exclusively religious location, but I can see locating in a very rich neighborhood meeting this requirement frankly I like the religious solution better but …) The facility had to be large to meet some of the needs discussed above, and had to have a 1500 foot buffer on all sides of the facility with a inconspicuousness fence around that buffer. At the same time the facility had to not look out of place in the community. I would think that a middle class neighborhood would not allow this to happen. At the same time the location had to allow for a serious very quick police backup. In my experience it was ten minutes to eight cops on scene and more on the way. The SWAT team could be on scene and deployed within thirty minutes. Which may sound like a lot, but is a pretty quick response especially to a location that meets these other requirements.

Now I am going to admit that some of these requirements probably don’t apply. They are listed as an example of additional expenses that relate to providing all the foster care services which would be covered by the costs you list, while at the same time operating in a secure manner. I don’t know the requirement that are included in these facilities. In the facilities I worked with the actual location was one seriously important secret. Obviously this is not the case in this case. But I would think that some buffer zone, having a large facility that would also blend into the neighborhood would be a logical requirement. But I am only guessing. I am saying that the description of the needs would include additional expenses.

More expenses generally means more expensive. I realize that this sounds pretty elementary. Frankly I suspect you can understand this. Some of the others in this thread I doubt can. Certainly even with all that I have said I would tend to agree with you that it sounds like a waste. It might even be abusive. I doubt that it is technically fraudulent. But there certainly are some interesting questions here. But the idea that this is “giving to charity” is pretty far off the ball which is the claim made several times here.

The head of the program for Heartland Alliance pointed out that their rate of pay is similar to other programs around the country. Since I am aware that Illinois DCFS funds residential programs at @ $4000/month/child (agencies with children in foster homes receive $3300-$3600/month for services for special medical/psychological needs children), one of the higher rates in the country (we have looked into interstate adoptions and the rates states pay while children are in foster care) his claim that their receipt of $5400/month is average struck me as odd.

When the local rates for care were brought up, the DHHS representative glared at the Heartland exec, who scrambled to come up with the above rebuttal about the National Rates (i.e. what DHHS usually pays?).

Heartland is a government contractor. Their status as a not-for-profit corporation does not mean that they don’t make money via salary and other compensations, especially since they have a high number of volunteer workers.

This is not NIMBY. One commenter in a nearby, much more modest neighborhood asked to move the home to his area, because it would be a waste to spend this much money for a luxury home when a more modest community would serve. The members of the neighborhood, many affluent through their own efforts, and who are very active in charities with both their time of money, basically decried the waste of money this program represents (before they knew of the other multi-million dollar neighborhoods they place such homes in.

I think the biggest issue I have is the attitude of DHHS & Heartland. It was reflected in the arguments for this proposal repeatedly hammered that it was for the children, and these rich people just don’t want to help (although none volunteered their own neighborhood for the project). One person was quoted locally to say that since “they” don’t have to pay for the purchase, why are the neighbors complaining?

The problem is, they are paying for it, as are we all. The DHHS rep tried to calm funding fears by saying that the funding wasn’t from the local or state level. But if you pay federal taxes, it is coming from your pocket. And you have a right to be heard.

Well yes I do wonder about the use of this facility. But from having been on the other end of these programs I can see that there might be some reasons for this. Don’t forget that as you would know if you researched the material given in the above article that one of the requirements is that this be a secure facility in a secure neighborhood. Basically this is required to be a private jail. I would doubt that the options you listed would meet this requirement. I would think that I could come up with a facility that would do the job better for less money than this, but one has to at least allow for an explanation.

The zoning issues certainly do apply. But they would apply regardless of who bought the property and used it for this purpose. At some point this will have to be chalked up to a NIBY problem. It has to be in someone’s back yard.

I will not argue that the kids in the Texas facilities are being treated as they should be. One does as I say have to wonder about the nature of the facility, but certainly a reasonable facility is needed for both situations.

As for allowing 5000 children on planes unaccompanied, I would doubt that this is the number that got ON the plane unaccompanied. So especially teenagers would in fact have arrived unaccompanied, but if you read the articles carefully this number also includes children who arrived with an accompanying adult, but who for one reason or other was detained. Since the adult or adults were being sent to a actual jail which would be unsafe for children the children with them were now “unaccompanied”. This does not mean that they were excluded, just that they were detained. Our INS/nowICE system is a total mess. As I pointed out with my friend’s experience. I also know of a incident a decade ago which I doubt has improved, where an associate arrived during a storm that delayed some flights. So the line at the entry point was pretty long. When the time for shift change came the INS (at that time) didn’t have the personnel for an additional shift, so everyone still waiting for entry was “secured” (IE: jailed) until they could be processed. The first priority was to process current incoming passengers, so they were in a kind of limbo for over a day until a lawyer got involved. So no 5000 children doesn’t suprise me. You just have to understand the system and how it DOESN’T work.

All of this deals with if there was waste or fraud involved, and not the claim that the very funding was wrong. The claim keeps being made that this was a gift to a charity from tax money, which it was not. Frankly there is a lot of smoke for waste and fraud in this funding. I am just not sure if there is a fire there or not.

The bigger point is that if we wish to have a facility to handle these children, we don’t have to buy a luxury estate to do it. In Illinois, there are other properties (even one owned by the Catholic Church that is currently almost vacant and that has many acres of open land) which could be bought or leased at a much lower price.

In addition, the neighbors of the location will see their property values drop precipitously (more than the dropping real estate market), and then there is another 20 acre parcel next door that will not likely be turned into housing typical of the neighborhood.

Finally, the zoning board is not allowing public comment before their vote, the funding has changed from Homeland Security to Health and Human Services, and the Senior Senator from Illinois sits on the biggest advisory board for this Heartland organization.

It seems like the story about the children is obscuring other issues, but a basic repudiation of this plan just covers one thing–our tax dollars do not have to be wasted to pay for this home, when other, less expensive methods can be found.

I don’t want to get into how DHS can allow 5000 unaccompanied minors into the country by plane each year, when you can’t take your own soda onto a plane–though you could take KY. I also don’t want to get into the complete lack of sympathy here for the 100,000 unaccompanied kids who come over from Mexico each year–we’ll treat them to Texas county jails, but kids coming in by plane get a luxury resort? Why?

Given the quality of this last post I think that giving your brain credit for being able handle anything as weighty as a straw is over stating its ability.

I am not sure why you are even bring up the issue of Fox, but since you did. Many Mexican citizens are living here in the US and they are allowed to vote in Mexican elections. Much like Americans abroad can vote in US elections. I would expect that many of those here are here illegally, but many more are here legally. I know this is a concept that you will probably not be able to lift with your brain’s ability to handle weighty issues. But those who are here illegally try and not be noticed, and so probably are not as likely to vote as those who are here legally. So the people Fox was campaigning to probably were legals. And one has to wonder why you would have side a morbid problem with this.

You were the one who brought up the south of the border. I did not. I just pointed out to you that it was false like pretty much all of the rest of the stuff you post here in this thread.

I would assume that yes that many of these children probably have legal representation who are attempting to provide them with legal entry into the US. Your problem with people following the law is???

Many other of these children as the article points out did come here with their parents. Their parents are in adult detention, which is another word for standard jail. One would hope that you actually can grasp the straw sized concept that it is unwise to lock up children in a facility with murders and rapists and pedophiles. I hope you can also grasp the straw sized concept that it is also unwise to just permit them to wonder around the US without supervision. So it would take only the ability of your brain to lift two straws at once to understand that the government needs a facility to handle this problem.

To immediately send them back maybe not even to the right location and without a parent. Now that is the workings of a brain that can’t handle two straws at once. If you were paying attention to the article and its research materials you would find that some of the children do not have a specific location they were from. So what do you do buy a ticket and send them on the first plane leaving the country for somewhere? Also if you are going to send them back without their parents even if you know the country of origin, how are you going to get a child through the plane transfers and the like necessary to make it back to their home country. How about to their home town? This is going to require a professional escort. Guess what we have an example of the cost of this in a recent public extradition. Your 1.8 million would cover about 10-20 kids at the going rate. Is it possible that your brain can indeed grasp that dropping an unaccompanied child into many of these nations without adult support is an even dumber idea than dropping them into our society?

I don’t know if you noted that most of these children will be eventually legally admitted. So it seems pretty dumb to send them away at the cost of about $100,000 only to require them to then return.

So maybe you can understand that this is a service that the government is going to have to contract for or provide itself. So this organization is contracting to provide these services. So it is the same as the example I gave.

How about a different example. As we all know if we pay attention to the news the cost of an escorted air transfer is about $100,000. So if we are going to constructively murder these children by sending them home and this organization can provide this escort service for $50,000 is that something that the government should do. Or is that illegal charity?

You are much too kind. I had to go read the article again and, if it is concerning anything other than charity at gunpoint, my tiny mind is still reaching for straws. You may wish to try again.

My opening statement was clouded by memories of Vincente Fox’s campaign stop in Chicago when he was running for office. Silly me. Perhaps he was only there for the opera. And then there are the tens of thousands who turned out in the streets to protest H.R. 4437. Now, before you jump to conclusions, I don’t think everyone in the crowd was illegal. Neither do I imagine that all of the illegals in Chicago were present. But, that’s another story.

Had you attempted to chastise me for not reading the referencing article submitted by Fraud Guy, you would have been correct in an assumption. The information in that story would have spared you the comment about south of the border because the thirty children it mentions are from China and India. It will probably operate like their Rogers Park home where the children “stay for about 60 to 90 days while pro bono attorneys work to legalize their residency and staff members try to place them with relatives in the country or in foster homes.” It may be safe to say the purpose of this particular facility IS to “provide homes for children without parents” and that I may have a point. Of course, this all depends on a general agreement of what the word unaccompanied means.

This doesn’t negate the “what are they doing there” question. It merely changes the focus. Are these children stowaways or did somebody purchase a ticket for them on an international flight? It would cost a lot less than $1.8 million to send thirty kids anywhere in the world. and we know where in the world these are from. No. There is more brewing here than simple charity and we shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Finally, I’d like to address your last point. If I have this correct, the shelter received a one time grant to purchase a means of production. They are using the machinery to employ Americans with low prospects of obtaining employment. And, they finance their operations with the proceeds from selling what they produce. While I would label the motivations of the shelter providers as charitable, I cannot call the revenue they receive, charity. Their situation is more closely related to producing widgets for export. They just happen to be using their resources (not ours) to provide charity.