Social Media does not lie! - it's easy to buy smoke & mirrors
Flopped5's Commentary: With all those headlines, the CA voter might assume that First 5 has large numbers of supporters and followers; but numbers do not lie and social media data we collected recently supports our contention that First 5 is engaged in a high gloss, no substance media campaign . . . it's the smoke and mirrors we've been saying it is. This is not all the info, because we do have lives, but it does cover most of the big counties and there are sure WAY fewer supporters than all the flag waving and media coverage would have us think.
We would also contend that these numbers lend credence to the idea that a small number of people are benefiting from First 5 funding, and it's measurably not the kids. Don't let the big dollars in big media publications fool you.
Flopped5's Commentary: With all those headlines, the CA voter might assume that First 5 has large numbers of supporters and followers; but numbers do not lie and social media data we collected recently supports our contention that First 5 is engaged in a high gloss, no substance media campaign . . . it's the smoke and mirrors we've been saying it is. This is not all the info, because we do have lives, but it does cover most of the big counties and there are sure WAY fewer supporters than all the flag waving and media coverage would have us think.
We would also contend that these numbers lend credence to the idea that a small number of people are benefiting from First 5 funding, and it's measurably not the kids. Don't let the big dollars in big media publications fool you.
|
Agency
First 5 CA - state Alameda Amador Contra Costa First 5 LA San Diego Fresno Marin Mendocino Monterey Orange County Riverside Sacramento San Bernadino San Francisco Santa Clara Santa Cruz Solano Tehama Ventura Total County Level First 5 Years Fund Children Now |
Facebook Likes
49667 108 218 375 1396 672 764 69 227 104 692 39 884 306 34 1063 26 24 217 501 7719 1264 1235 |
YouTube Subscribers
67 1 6 13 4 0 0 0 1 2 3 17 6 53 170 |
Twitter
Followers 8499 364 1739 0 0 582 147 104 2936 2479 1877 |
NOTE: We added the new First 5 Years Fund and the Children Now organization to illustrate that these loud talkers, who are making the news nationally with questionable claims about Headstart, have fewer than 3,000 active supporters (and we do assume there is some overlap in the twitter and facebook followers). Blanks mean the First 5s do not have a site that we could locate, 0's mean they have a site but have no followers or subscribers. (03/26/13)
California First 5 admits $300+ MILLION was improperly given to the state of CA, 02/16/13
Flopped5's Commentary: We can now see to whom the illegal transfer of funds to the state of California went over the past few years. It turns out it was $329 million and they explicitly admit it that some, if not all, of the transfers were illegal supplantation (top of page 4). They are now considering giving the state DDS another $40 million and the claim by DDS is that funds will go to "new" services.
Even First 5 does not seem to believe the DDS about funds going to "new" services as they refer to a DDS grant request that shows funds would be paying for an existing effort. Also, since evaluation reports on the DDS Early Start program show that it has been around since before 2007, it is difficult to understand what is "new" about these services - our belief is that it is just another case of "magic with words". The handout is #13 in our documents archive so that you can print it out and show anyone who attempts to dismiss or deny these truths.
California First 5 sets aside $150,000 for a consultant to "update" its strategic plan, 02/16/13
Flopped5's Commentary: Since they expect staff to do most of the work and since it is an "update", why do they think it requires $150K for a consultant? Sounds like $50K or so would do the trick, especially since Executive Directors usually draft most strategic objectives in advance of any ad hoc committee meetings. Again, we believe too many First 5 dollars are spent making consultants richer; here's more evidence to support our opinions.
Fresno Board of Supes rejects an experienced First 5 Commissioner applicant? Shock and Awe, 02/07/13
Flopped5's Commentary: It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day in the errrr - - - oh dang, what happened to all that unified harmony in the First 5 world? As problems surface and are kept alive here and by those who submit potential problems to us (thank you, we are listening), we are little surprised as people question exactly who is trying to make their way onto these boards. Perhaps Ms. Anderson has ties to organizations that have already received a lot of the funding; perhaps the BOS is interested in directing funds elsewhere; or perhaps, as they say, "it is what it is": government run amuck. Note that the Fresno Bee, which may benefit from First 5 ad purchases, supported Ms. Anderson - perhaps the Bee has "skin in the game" - and just who is playing politics? (see our media page).
First 5 funds Tax Preparation Service (for adults), 01/12/13
Flopped5's Commentary: There's plenty to find questionable about the funding going on in this list, but at the very bottom is again proof that First 5 is spending money in what we believe is a flat out illegal use of funds: for Tax Preparation services. No one, in our opinion, can seriously be expected to believe that this funding complies with the Prop 10 language that requires funds to go to directly serving children 0 to 5. It's not only Alameda First 5 funding this program either, as a quick Google search will show.
Children "Tied" to First 5 Marketing Campaigns, 01/04/13 -
Flopped5's Commentary: If nothing else, this article's comment section is worth a read, and shows that, in contrast to the high gloss PR efforts, not everyone is buying the First 5 marketing campaign, as in: "Perry said that all American children deserve to have quality early childhood experience" (emphasis ours).
Well, perhaps we can all agree that it would be nice if everyone had a quality early childhood experience, but we believe that to contend that it is "deserved" and should be paid by taxpayers reflects seriously unrealistic expectations about what's achievable.
When you hear stuff like this, you have to wonder if the Early Childhood movement is designed to build a voter base, because thinking that a few billion here and there (where a lot of the money is in fact creating long term pensions for adults) will change millions of kids' life direction is really rather ludicrous.
However, it does make sense to say these things and spend that kind of money if you are looking to move a particular segment of the population from Republican to Democrat.
As you know if you've read flopped5 for any period of time, our work group here is made up of people across the political spectrum, but none of us are in denial when we look at the Early Childhood movement in this way - it's clearly social engineering in a way that is embarrassing at best, as there are no measurable outcomes to speak of thus far other than pension paying job creation.
Of course Ms. Perry herself was paid a 6 figure salary with a pension. Was that deserved? Really? For giving away free money? Oh what sweaty work . . . where's the proof that it has made a difference?
Facts are that there are just too many people for everyone to get everything that even the most progressive amongst us hope they can have or experience. Healthy childhoods that level the adult playing field are a utopian pipe dream that most people realize is unachievable.
Most people do their best in raising and caring for our young, but we do not believe that anyone really seriously believes that spending $200 per child (which is about what the First 5 commissions spend) is going to make any real dent in the future of a kid's life. That's why we feel such quotes are laughable. No one with good common sense really believes it, but yet if you say it enough, some people believe it because it's magic with words.
And - since the article claims that there are so many big name philanthropists involved, why not let them fund such any effort to provide all children positive early life experiences?
It's our opinion that tax money should be used for essential services, like children's healthcare; let philanthropy do its job (separate from government) for these other campaigns.
Delegating Authority - really? More like Irresponsible Governance, 12/02/12 -
Flopped5's Commentary: San Joaquin County seeks "efficiency" by delegating First 5's authority to approve contracts up to $250K without appropriate oversight. Think the First 5 deal makers are happy? You betcha! Clearly a step in the wrong direction given First 5 Commissions' documented history of awarding money to those on their boards and the other questionably connected.
Making fitness ‘fit’ into everyday activities, 10/24/12 -
Flopped5's Commentary: At least three issues arise from this placed article. First, it is written by First 5 California, which seems inappropriate but appears consistent with an active multi-million dollar marketing campaign they have undertaken (and we wonder of course, if First 5 has also purchased advertising space). Second, this article asks that you check out our page on racism for a view of how little money has been spent on African American kids. Third, we feel this is probably the first ever outreach effort (nearly 15 years after the law's approval) we have seen towards the African American community (except for one program at LA First 5 and the new Sacramento program described in the article below).
First 5 California - Wanna make $150K?, 10/06/12 -
Flopped5's Commentary: This link was to the open Executive Director job at the state level First 5 California. Well, it must be nice to be a public "servant" who needs a pension because public jobs pay so poorly. Even the more liberal in our group think this is a ridiculous paycheck for a job that does not require the government employee to risk their life.
This job would likely pay $100-110K in the nonprofit sector, given the size of budget, likely number of direct reports and the total comp package, including defined benefit pension (an additional $30-40K per year). Don't even talk about equivalencies in the private sector, because almost anyone who would be hired for this job would not be acceptable as a top manager in the private sector - it is simply just harder work when you have to sell a product or service to make a living. And, we ask, did the Prop 10 law inform us that they would siphon $250K-350K+/year each in total comp for many of the executive directors?
First 5 spends how much on anti-tobacco education?, 10/04/12 -
Flopped5's Commentary: This article asserts the following "Proposition 10, which levied a 50 cents per pack tax on cigarettes, was designed to fund early childhood development and anti-tobacco education programs." (bold ours).
So how much has actually gone to fund anti-tobacco education programs? Well, we're still looking for a lot more than the $1 million that First 5 California has sent to the California Smokers Helpline; clearly it appears to have been 1% or less of all funds.
And yet, here you have a news organization implying that smoking cessation education receives major funding from the agency - more smoke and mirrors, n'est pas?
First 5 spends ad money on "Words with Friends" phone game, 08/31/12 -
Flopped5's Commentary: Gilroy Dispatch reports that First 5 is now spending money advertising on telephone games. We quote: "As a taxpayer, I gagged when I saw that a government funded program, First 5 California, is buying ads that pop up on Words with Friends. It’s unbelievable how government can bastardize and freely spend tax money." See our media page for an example of a "Social Marketing Plan" created by a local First 5.
Article claims First 5 is a Non-Profit, 08/13/12
Flopped5's Commentary: For the record, First 5 is a group of local county agencies and one state level agency; it is not a non-profit. Further in the article, there are claims of First 5 impact when, in our opinion, none have been proven. The article states with some unsubstantiated authority that First 5 funding will make future citizens "more likely to do better in school, graduate from college, get better jobs and stay out of trouble". Please visit our page on failure to produce outcomes to see why we feel the public may never know whether or not First 5 dollars have made a positive impact, let alone be linked to any of these highly positive outcomes.
LA Supes fight over $87M in First 5 $, 08/03/12
Flopped5's Commentary: LA Supervisor Molina calls at least some First 5 funding "a rip-off". The question is, does she only claim that it's a rip-off because perhaps one of her pet projects will now go unfunded? Or is she dead on, and the move of $87M is replacing funding from other sources for existing programs - which would then be illegal supplantation? No matter what, when you review also the story on the funding approval, it's clear that County Supervisors continue to be able to secure major First 5 dollars for county-managed projects. The new twist may be that it is no longer easy to use appeals of "for the good of the kids" as a unifying and unchallengeable rallying cry - it appears that some people are just not buying it anymore.
Lots of tax money, up in smoke, 05/30/12
Flopped5's Commentary: We stayed completely out of the Prop 29 debate - after all, Flopped5 exists to educate about Prop 10 and we simply feel that when voters are more educated about single purpose laws, they will just about always do the right thing. However, since the dust has settled on Prop 29, we felt this article deserved an airing, if only for its review of the actual tobacco prevention expenditures one might think Prop 10 would be interested in funding.
Governor’s Budget Revision Plan Calls For $4.1 Billion In Additional Spending Cuts To Help Close Nearly $16 Billion Deficit, 05/14/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Illegal Supplantation - Coming Soon?
IF you do not vote yes in November - see UPDATE below.
"EARLY START - In addition $40 million will be provided by the First 5 California Children and Families Commission (Proposition 10) for California’s early intervention program called “Early Start”. The fund shift represents a $40 million savings to the State general fund in the developmental services budget."
That sounds okay on the surface, but the proposed "fund shift" is actually rather shifty if you ask this judge, who specifically said it is illegal to move First 5 funds to an existing program, and she just said so in the last 6 months. This chess move is called supplantation and it is specifically disallowed by the First 5 proposition.
It's just kind a bit of a nuisance, isn't it, when the Governor, who is a Yale educated lawyer by training, proposes to do what a judge says is illegal stuff?
And if it is moved, it means First 5 funds shiftily shifted through state level supplantation will have exceeded $135 million thus far.
Did you think the funds from Prop 10 would be "shifted" this way when it came up for vote?
We did not.
UPDATE:
Governor’s budget revise includes . . . $80 million transfer of Proposition 10 funds
"If this current proposal goes through as stated, First 5 California will have contributed more than $400 million to state budget solutions since 2008."
If the $80 million proposed here is actually moved, we believe we will have been able to document $175 million in improperly supplanted funds; it would be nice if the state level agency First 5 California spelled out exactly how the $400 million has been used by the state. Either way, $175 million or $400 million is not chump change and highlights the problem of governing by proposition.
Grand Jury Report critical of First 5 Riverside, 04/24/12
Flopped5's Commentary: After all the excitement of this website's launch in the first part of the year, we decided to take a couple months off. However, we are back and First 5 has of course provided more opportunities for us to all question its ongoing value to California taxpayers. Back again in the news is First 5 Riverside, whose Grand Jury report, issued
|
in late April of this year (right panel), suggests that while Riverside First 5 was brought under the county proper, they may have not learned much about how to run an ethical organization.
Our top 4 winners for excerpts in the category of most predictable but abhorrent findings are : |
|
1. "Sworn testimony revealed there are allegations of document tampering and mismanagement of both computer and hardcopy files, including grants and contracts."
2. "The Grand Jury investigation revealed management bias and favoritism when staff recommendations were modified prior to presentation to the Commission... Further investigation revealed that neither staff nor management understands the First 5 Commission’s policies and procedures related to staff complaints, grievances, and the resolution of internal conflicts. ... Testimony revealed this confusion has led to low morale and fear of job loss."
3. "Under First 5 grant guidelines, a grant applicant must assure First 5 that funding of any kind will supplement, not supplant, existing programs. Sworn testimony revealed supplanting has allegedly occurred in funded programs."
4. "The commission’s structure could be perceived as causing conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts in their areas of knowledge and interests. Though apparent care is taken to recuse those affected, testimony revealed there is a continuing perception on the part of community members, providers, and even some staff that conflicts of interest are not fully addressed."
Follow up article to Grand Jury report from a regional Patch site:
First 5 Awarding $17 Million In Grants On Heels Of Grand Jury Investigation, May 7, 2012
2. "The Grand Jury investigation revealed management bias and favoritism when staff recommendations were modified prior to presentation to the Commission... Further investigation revealed that neither staff nor management understands the First 5 Commission’s policies and procedures related to staff complaints, grievances, and the resolution of internal conflicts. ... Testimony revealed this confusion has led to low morale and fear of job loss."
3. "Under First 5 grant guidelines, a grant applicant must assure First 5 that funding of any kind will supplement, not supplant, existing programs. Sworn testimony revealed supplanting has allegedly occurred in funded programs."
4. "The commission’s structure could be perceived as causing conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts in their areas of knowledge and interests. Though apparent care is taken to recuse those affected, testimony revealed there is a continuing perception on the part of community members, providers, and even some staff that conflicts of interest are not fully addressed."
Follow up article to Grand Jury report from a regional Patch site:
First 5 Awarding $17 Million In Grants On Heels Of Grand Jury Investigation, May 7, 2012
First 5 Contra Costa recalled
toys for "elevated levels of lead"
With the help of a First 5 loan, ABC Kids day care center to open in Fillmore, 04/15/12
Flopped5's Commentary: We are wondering how it is that a First 5 loan was used to fund a private business, one that openly serves not only kids up through age 5, but also kids from 5 up through 12. While it is not clear if all of the $175,000 came from First 5, this seems like another probable violation in the use of First 5 funds, as funding is only supposed to be to benefit kids up to age 5. Did you think, should you have voted for this proposition, that they would be providing loans to private, for profit businesses? We did not.
Supervisor: Solano on road to recovery, 04/15/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Here is a news that illustrates how people often really do not understand how First 5 funding works. The article states "While the county doesn’t control school funding, it does address education through its support of such projects as First Five...". No county funds First 5, period. Proposition 10 funds First 5, but as can be seen here, there is an ongoing lack of education about how this program is structured. It also shows again that reporters seem to have no incentive to research the actual First 5 back story.
State will not appeal court ruling on First 5 funds, 03/20/12
Flopped5's Commentary: As we expected and hoped for, the state is letting this slide this year. Now the initiative can be returned to the ballot and, hopefully with more education, in part from us, voters will understand more about First 5 before continuing to pay for what we feel is a completely dysfunctional law.
A Taxing Situation in California for Jerry Brown: Lies, Damn Lies, and the CTA, 03/12/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Interesting news story that we feel contains hints of perhaps what is to come in the future of California's taxes.
First 5 funds stay with Sacramento County; African American children to benefit, 03/06/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Not that we've changed our minds about redirecting First 5 funds in total, but we're adding this link to suggest that shining a light on First 5 activities may "make a difference" in First 5 behavior. Our page on racism in funding has been up for about a month; they changed their policies this week - an influence? maybe.
First 5 Tehama Children and Families Commission narrows its focus, 03/01/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Here's a quote that indicates again how the media may knowingly or unknowingly be angling the First 5 story: "Funding for the statelinked program has been cut 30 percent overall, Snider said." If a person were not better informed, they might think the phrase "statelinked" means that First 5 funds come from the California state budget, but they do not. On 03/03/12, another article again triggers questions as to how it appears that First 5 receives overly positive and high levels of human interest story coverage; for instance, the idea that First Five funding creates "the future leaders of the county" simply can't be supported by any data.
Science-based parenting classes help moms and dads deal with discipline, 02/28/12
Flopped5's Commentary: This is the type of human interest newspaper story that creates questions for us, as First 5 is able to pay over $30 million a year to newspapers and other media in advertising fees. We believe human interest stories are good, if only to balance the really bad news out there, but here are our questions:
> Since some participants are required to attend this program by an existing county program, is this augmentation or is it supplantation? Meaning, was this program ever funded by other dollars and then, once First 5 came along, was that program shuttered so that First 5 funds could be used to replace it?
If so, then that's supplantation and it's illegal, according to a sitting judge. This is a very fair question, as people have been sent to mandatory parenting classes for many decades, while First 5 is only over a decade old, so why now are they sent to this program? In other words, are they sent to any other programs or is this the only program they are now sent to and did the new existence of this program allow them to shut down the county funded one?
> Why was a First 5 program selected to be featured?
> Aren't there 3,000+ other nonprofits in Sacramento who could have been featured?
ALERT - More Evidence of Media Favoritism towards First 5:
Maybe this is why other nonprofits are not getting a fair share of media interest: we just found some new evidence that at least some First 5 stories are likely part of a concerted effort to insert First 5 human interest stories statewide into media coverage.
We believe this is the First 5 equivalent of "product placement", just like Coca-Cola gets its logo cups on the American Idol judging table, for, as this website states, through a goal to "Establish a partnership with Univision Television Network that would allow First 5 California to highlight important issues, programs and resources" they have been very successful, as "through the partnership, 163 segments have been produced" (emphases ours - and they mean human interest stories when they say "segments"). Media independence, really?
For those fascinated by how this all may be working, here's an additional article on how the First 5 advertising agency is using technology to get the First 5 message out: "Benefitting from solid audience targeting capabilities, like those provided by AudienceScience, enables us to reach our target Hispanic audience with scale like never before..." This quote may also lend a bit of weight to the argument that there is an entrenched racial bias in First 5 funding, notwithstanding the new move by Sacramento First 5 to spend $5 million on African American kids.
First 5 LA Commission approves $5.5 million to fund wide ranging policy advocacy grants, 02/27/12
Flopped5's Commentary: These grants are "for 13 policy grants up to five years with a maximum grant amount of $500,000" to "advance First 5 LA’s policy agenda".
Did you know that they would be giving away up to $500,000 per organization to "advance" their own policy agenda? Does any of that fall into the lobbying category? If so, is it not illegal? Is this a way to bypass lobbying laws by LA First 5 themselves? They blatantly are saying that they are advancing their own policies; the only difference perhaps is that they are paying someone else to do it. Did you intend that they use funds for this purpose should you have voted to approve Proposition 10? We did not.
Sherry Novick, First 5 Lobbyist, leaves, 02/24/12
Flopped5's Commentary: The above link shows that Ms. Novick is no longer employed by the First 5 Association; a job ad for the position is out, and a First 5 California newsletter shows that she already has a new position at Kaiser Permanente.
However, the days are now over when the person who, by all known accounts, both wrote the law and was receiving over $200,000 in total comp for a job she wrote into the law. We do not believe this change will in anyway reduce the problems at First 5, as the problems are structural and we believe now cultural.
We feel that maybe the complaint filed against Rob Reiner by Fresno First 5 with the First 5 Association (see supplantation) finally gave Ms. Novick pause and led to her leaving; perhaps it was as simple as a savvy politico knowing that the party is over when the counties can no longer be counted on to stick together in their public messaging.
Inventory of the California Children and Families Commission Records, 02/22/12
Flopped5's Commentary: For those who might like to dig into early First 5 records, October 1999 to November 2002, we found this interesting little archive.
Rob Reiner Center? 02/22/12
Flopped5's Commentary: In spite of the description, we don't really know what this center is or how it happened, and certainly we invite anyone who knows what Carol Jimenez' historical relationship might be to First 5 to drop us a line. So now the state is funding a Rob Reiner Center? They say it's state funding, but is it really just First 5 county funds from the Prop 10 tax? More questions than answers for now, but we thought we'd share.
First 5 Tulare County Commission prepares for cuts, 02/08/12 KSFN
Flopped5's Commentary: We feel this story on First 5 reflects exactly the sort of media coverage that can mislead viewers. First, should you feel a little confused about whether or not this story has anything to do with Jerry Brown's budget, it does not. Since Assembly Bill 99 was refused in the courts, the State of California is not cutting First 5 funding.
And, since it cannot be the State of California that is cutting back funds, it therefore is just the state level First 5 California agency making a program choice, and therefore, this has nothing to do with the California budget crisis, and yet one might be left thinking that Jerry Brown is taking money from these particular kids.
At least one person on our team believes that, no matter who is supposedly cutting these funds, that private philanthropy should be paying for these sorts of programs anyway, not government. And, we all believe that this is the perfect sort of time to ask: "Is there media bias involved in First 5 coverage or are they eating up the First 5 story hook, line and sinker?" and "How did this story come into being? Is First 5 buying advertising time?" and finally "who is Phil Cox?" A county supervisor who can influence funding to pet projects.
back to History of the Law
continue to News
Flopped5's Commentary: We are wondering how it is that a First 5 loan was used to fund a private business, one that openly serves not only kids up through age 5, but also kids from 5 up through 12. While it is not clear if all of the $175,000 came from First 5, this seems like another probable violation in the use of First 5 funds, as funding is only supposed to be to benefit kids up to age 5. Did you think, should you have voted for this proposition, that they would be providing loans to private, for profit businesses? We did not.
Supervisor: Solano on road to recovery, 04/15/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Here is a news that illustrates how people often really do not understand how First 5 funding works. The article states "While the county doesn’t control school funding, it does address education through its support of such projects as First Five...". No county funds First 5, period. Proposition 10 funds First 5, but as can be seen here, there is an ongoing lack of education about how this program is structured. It also shows again that reporters seem to have no incentive to research the actual First 5 back story.
State will not appeal court ruling on First 5 funds, 03/20/12
Flopped5's Commentary: As we expected and hoped for, the state is letting this slide this year. Now the initiative can be returned to the ballot and, hopefully with more education, in part from us, voters will understand more about First 5 before continuing to pay for what we feel is a completely dysfunctional law.
A Taxing Situation in California for Jerry Brown: Lies, Damn Lies, and the CTA, 03/12/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Interesting news story that we feel contains hints of perhaps what is to come in the future of California's taxes.
First 5 funds stay with Sacramento County; African American children to benefit, 03/06/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Not that we've changed our minds about redirecting First 5 funds in total, but we're adding this link to suggest that shining a light on First 5 activities may "make a difference" in First 5 behavior. Our page on racism in funding has been up for about a month; they changed their policies this week - an influence? maybe.
First 5 Tehama Children and Families Commission narrows its focus, 03/01/12
Flopped5's Commentary: Here's a quote that indicates again how the media may knowingly or unknowingly be angling the First 5 story: "Funding for the statelinked program has been cut 30 percent overall, Snider said." If a person were not better informed, they might think the phrase "statelinked" means that First 5 funds come from the California state budget, but they do not. On 03/03/12, another article again triggers questions as to how it appears that First 5 receives overly positive and high levels of human interest story coverage; for instance, the idea that First Five funding creates "the future leaders of the county" simply can't be supported by any data.
Science-based parenting classes help moms and dads deal with discipline, 02/28/12
Flopped5's Commentary: This is the type of human interest newspaper story that creates questions for us, as First 5 is able to pay over $30 million a year to newspapers and other media in advertising fees. We believe human interest stories are good, if only to balance the really bad news out there, but here are our questions:
> Since some participants are required to attend this program by an existing county program, is this augmentation or is it supplantation? Meaning, was this program ever funded by other dollars and then, once First 5 came along, was that program shuttered so that First 5 funds could be used to replace it?
If so, then that's supplantation and it's illegal, according to a sitting judge. This is a very fair question, as people have been sent to mandatory parenting classes for many decades, while First 5 is only over a decade old, so why now are they sent to this program? In other words, are they sent to any other programs or is this the only program they are now sent to and did the new existence of this program allow them to shut down the county funded one?
> Why was a First 5 program selected to be featured?
> Aren't there 3,000+ other nonprofits in Sacramento who could have been featured?
ALERT - More Evidence of Media Favoritism towards First 5:
Maybe this is why other nonprofits are not getting a fair share of media interest: we just found some new evidence that at least some First 5 stories are likely part of a concerted effort to insert First 5 human interest stories statewide into media coverage.
We believe this is the First 5 equivalent of "product placement", just like Coca-Cola gets its logo cups on the American Idol judging table, for, as this website states, through a goal to "Establish a partnership with Univision Television Network that would allow First 5 California to highlight important issues, programs and resources" they have been very successful, as "through the partnership, 163 segments have been produced" (emphases ours - and they mean human interest stories when they say "segments"). Media independence, really?
For those fascinated by how this all may be working, here's an additional article on how the First 5 advertising agency is using technology to get the First 5 message out: "Benefitting from solid audience targeting capabilities, like those provided by AudienceScience, enables us to reach our target Hispanic audience with scale like never before..." This quote may also lend a bit of weight to the argument that there is an entrenched racial bias in First 5 funding, notwithstanding the new move by Sacramento First 5 to spend $5 million on African American kids.
First 5 LA Commission approves $5.5 million to fund wide ranging policy advocacy grants, 02/27/12
Flopped5's Commentary: These grants are "for 13 policy grants up to five years with a maximum grant amount of $500,000" to "advance First 5 LA’s policy agenda".
Did you know that they would be giving away up to $500,000 per organization to "advance" their own policy agenda? Does any of that fall into the lobbying category? If so, is it not illegal? Is this a way to bypass lobbying laws by LA First 5 themselves? They blatantly are saying that they are advancing their own policies; the only difference perhaps is that they are paying someone else to do it. Did you intend that they use funds for this purpose should you have voted to approve Proposition 10? We did not.
Sherry Novick, First 5 Lobbyist, leaves, 02/24/12
Flopped5's Commentary: The above link shows that Ms. Novick is no longer employed by the First 5 Association; a job ad for the position is out, and a First 5 California newsletter shows that she already has a new position at Kaiser Permanente.
However, the days are now over when the person who, by all known accounts, both wrote the law and was receiving over $200,000 in total comp for a job she wrote into the law. We do not believe this change will in anyway reduce the problems at First 5, as the problems are structural and we believe now cultural.
We feel that maybe the complaint filed against Rob Reiner by Fresno First 5 with the First 5 Association (see supplantation) finally gave Ms. Novick pause and led to her leaving; perhaps it was as simple as a savvy politico knowing that the party is over when the counties can no longer be counted on to stick together in their public messaging.
Inventory of the California Children and Families Commission Records, 02/22/12
Flopped5's Commentary: For those who might like to dig into early First 5 records, October 1999 to November 2002, we found this interesting little archive.
Rob Reiner Center? 02/22/12
Flopped5's Commentary: In spite of the description, we don't really know what this center is or how it happened, and certainly we invite anyone who knows what Carol Jimenez' historical relationship might be to First 5 to drop us a line. So now the state is funding a Rob Reiner Center? They say it's state funding, but is it really just First 5 county funds from the Prop 10 tax? More questions than answers for now, but we thought we'd share.
First 5 Tulare County Commission prepares for cuts, 02/08/12 KSFN
Flopped5's Commentary: We feel this story on First 5 reflects exactly the sort of media coverage that can mislead viewers. First, should you feel a little confused about whether or not this story has anything to do with Jerry Brown's budget, it does not. Since Assembly Bill 99 was refused in the courts, the State of California is not cutting First 5 funding.
And, since it cannot be the State of California that is cutting back funds, it therefore is just the state level First 5 California agency making a program choice, and therefore, this has nothing to do with the California budget crisis, and yet one might be left thinking that Jerry Brown is taking money from these particular kids.
At least one person on our team believes that, no matter who is supposedly cutting these funds, that private philanthropy should be paying for these sorts of programs anyway, not government. And, we all believe that this is the perfect sort of time to ask: "Is there media bias involved in First 5 coverage or are they eating up the First 5 story hook, line and sinker?" and "How did this story come into being? Is First 5 buying advertising time?" and finally "who is Phil Cox?" A county supervisor who can influence funding to pet projects.
back to History of the Law
continue to News
This site is a living work in progress; please check back for updates and/or clarifications. See Fair Use Notice & Disclaimer should you wish additional information. Definition of SATIRE
