Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Can state human service contractor ceos really be making this much money?

By

A friend of mine who works at a human service company recently sent me this link:

http://www.seiu509.org/admin/A…

It shows the alleged salaries of the ceos of three state funded private companies. My friend has worked at one these places for 7 years and now makes a whopping 12$ per hour. She cares for profoundly disabled adults with disabilities. How is it possible for a state funded company to pay their ceo so much and the workers make so little?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Vinfen is a mental health subcontractor.  Seven Hills does adult day care and autism.  Both take donations and apply for grants as well as state funding.

    <

    p>Some non-profits get a little state funding, some get a LOT.  The latter are usually in labor intensive areas where public sector benefits on top of wages would make the cost of the program hugely expensive.  So they subcontract them.  And a social worker at Seven Hills (like your friend) get $25,000 and required health insurance, and a person with a state job at DSS doing the same work for the same population gets far better health care and a lifelong pension.

    <

    p>The state hires these non-profits like you would hire a plumber.  They pay the fee, but the employemnt particulars remain with the employer.  Like you, the state cares more if the plumber gets the job done, not what they offer for holiday pay.

    • According to Vinfen’s 2008 tax return, it had $86 million in total revenue.  $85 million of that was from government fees and contracts and $383,000 from gifts and grants. Looks pretty vast from here, like the SEIU link says.

      <

      p>The AG’s website has all this stuff.  (It’s in big unwieldy TIF files.)  

      • ‘the vast majority’ is not the same as state funded.  The poster was saying they WERE state funded.  I was more familiar with seven Hills, but both have WAY over half from the state as subcontractors.

        <

        p>Here’s another question – why does the Pacheco Law apply to construction subcontractors and not human service ones?

        • contractors varies.  Overall, contractors to agencies of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services in Massachusetts take in $2.6 billion in state and federal funds, according to the Operational Services Division.

          <

          p>Peter, my understanding of the Pacheco Law is that it does apply to human service contractors.  But it hasn’t been used in many cases for a number of reasons.  The law requires the state auditor to determine whether a function or service being performed by a state agency can be more cost-effectively carried out by a private contractor.

          <

          p>There are a number of ways to get around the law.  If developmental centers for people with intellectual disabilities are simply closed, for instance, the law doesn’t get invoked. The administration can argue in these cases that they aren’t technically privatizing the services offered in the developmental centers; they are simply closing the centers and moving the residents to other existing programs.

  2. These salaries are FAR less than what’s typical for CEOs in the private sector.  

    • about taking care of developmentally disabled people who don’t have money to pay for the care they need? That’s something the private sector stays away from — there’s no money in it.  

  3. of human services contracting firms is not so much the size of individual salaries, but the sheer number of people in this sector who make over $100,000 a year. (I’m with the Mass. Coalition of Families and Advocates, Inc., COFAR).

    <

    p>Currently, a state regulation caps an individual contract executive’s salary that can be charged to the state at $143,900.  In cases in which an executive has a higher salary, the company has to obtain that money largely through private donations.  

    <

    p>The problem with this system is that over the past 30 years, as state services have been steadily privatized, the number of contract executives earning at least $143,900 a year has grown steadily.  There are more than 1,000 firms that contract with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.  Thus, in the past three decades, a huge layer of highly paid bureaucracy has been introduced that is funded through state contracts.

  4.    But they max out their donations to democrats. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Yes the governor is biting off the hand that feeds him.
      But some of the union membership see what is going on.    
      The Governor is trying to privatize to make the CEO’s richer. Ignoring the fact that privatization and institutionalization costs taxpayers NINE TIMES MORE!
      So why is LG Murray pushing for a $302 Million addition to a place the executive branch wants to eliminate? Yeah, I wonder about that too.
      Disclosure: I am a dues paying member of SEIU 1199. I know what I’m talking about.

  5. We also need to look at the enormous amounts of taxpayer revenues that go to the regional planning agencies  Executive Director pay is lucrative as well with no government oversight for the pay-scales.  The average grunt in an RPA is making median salary for their skills/experience level but the top dogs (sound familiar) are riding very high.   Community Development Block Grants, state and federal bid contracts are their bread and butter.
    The amount of money lost for the redundant bureaucracies is truly crazy making.  In some circumstances the RPA’s are repeating what municipal govt. and state government agencies have already done.
    Example: Road and bridge funding channeled through RPAs; the RPA take a 15% administrative cut to procure a bid and process the paperwork.  The road construction firm is hired and paid through the grants that have been developed by taxing the citizens, appropriating the money to a government bureaucracy (pay personnel, benefits and pensions), the bureaucracy then farms it out to the RPA (paying more personnel, benefits and pensions – which are not vetted to be in line with other govt. perks); the RPA then bids it and when work commences it has to be coordinated with the local government (personnel, benefits, pensions).  With copious records and administrative paper shuffling all the way up and down the chain.  

    <

    p>Quasi-public?  WTF is that, really?

    <

    p>MassPirg doesn’t seem to think that there is much sunshine on these under-the-radar tax-funded organizations.

    <

    p>

    “Quasi-public agencies play a critical role in delivering public services, but they don’t always get the scrutiny they deserve. This report makes a clear and timely argument for reforms to improve the performance and accountability of Massachusetts’ quasi-public agencies,” said Alasdair Roberts, Rappaport Professor of Law and Public Policy at Suffolk Law School.

    <

    p>

    The 42 state and regional authorities found in the report ranged in size from 6 to 6,000 employees. The 41 quasi-public agencies for which any budget information could be obtained showed combined annual budgets amounting to $8.76 billion in fiscal year 2008. By comparison, the state budget was almost $27 billion. Thus, the quasi-public agencies represent almost one-third additional government activity that is exempt from even limited normal transparency and oversight rules.

    <

    p>

    “Because quasi-publics are not directly accountable to the legislature and exempt from many kinds of public oversight, their decisions and budgets should be more – not less – open to public scrutiny. This report shows the opposite is currently true,” said Cummings. “Detailed information should be publicly disclosed and readily available about expenditures, revenue and debt, as well as about outside contracts and internal governance. The Internet makes it easy to provide ready access to this information at minimal cost.”

    <

    p>Can we just have an Audit for all “make work” systems and then shift the lost funds to effective and efficient usage?

  6. -No matter from what source.
    -including deferred comp, perks, & EVERYTHING.
    -maybe the same rule for quasi public agencies, too.

    <

    p>Just maybe then the public would support revenue restructuring.  Just maybe then the public sense of unfairness would not be frequent.

    <

    p>Just maybe there would be more money for the blind, the deaf, the mentally, ill, children in foster care, etc.

    <

    p>And you know what?  That would be MORE than enough to have a very good lifestyle for a family.

    <

    p>Could it be the Animal Farm Culture of “all of us are equal ‘cept me – I am and deserve to be MORE equal” and the managerial/elite/oligarchic class all identifies with Napoleon of Animal Farm Fame?  

  7. Since most of the state human service budget is contracted out to non profits, why can’t we make them subject to the open meeting law, and freedom of information laws?  I’m refereing to just those companies that would not exist if it were not for state contracts: vinfen, seven hills, baycove, North Shore ACR, Delta Projects, Riverside etc. Combined i would bet these companies use a few hundred million dollars of tax dollars every year. Not chump change. If they don’t want to subject themselves to more transparency they don’t have to do business with the state.

    • About ten years ago, Connecticut added a provision to its Freedom of Information Act to include public access to records maintained by private contractors who perform “governmental functions.”    

      <

      p>The definition of “governmental function” is:

      <

      p>

      the administration or management of a program of a public agency, which program has been authorized by law to be administered or managed by a person, where

      (A) the person receives funding from the public agency for administering or managing the program,

      (B) the public agency is involved in or regulates to a significant extent such person’s administration or management of the program, whether or not such involvement or regulation is direct, pervasive, continuous or day-to-day, and

      C) the person participates in the formulation of governmental policies or decisions in connection with the administration or management of the program and such policies or decisions bind the public agency. “Governmental function” shall not include the mere provision of goods or services to a public agency without the delegated responsibility to administer or manage a program of a public agency.

      The link is to the search page is here. If you enter the phrase governmental function, the first return is Chapter 14, the Freedom of Information act. Within chapter 14, it’s Section 1-200, Definition #11)

      <

      p>If Massachusetts changed its public records law (our FOIA equivalent at G.L. c. 66, section 10), many more records in the areas of law I and my colleagues work in would be available.  How does it look to you?  

    • But – if a non-profit receives more than, say, 40% of its budget from the state, then FOIA is a good idea.

      <

      p>It would prompt a rash of fundraising/grant writing to keep that percentage down, but that’s not a bad thing either.

      • And adding that

        <

        p>I bet that if a a non-profit has the state’s blessing to act on its behalf for big decisions like: is Person X eligible for Program Y, when eligibility involves subjective decisions, like, for example — how hard is this person trying to avoid becoming homeless?

        <

        p>If the non-profit is authorized to act on the state’s behalf in that way, then, I’d bet that non-profit receives more than 40 percent of its budget from the state.

        <

        p>It would be interesting to see a result.

        <

        p>  

Archives