Peoria Unified School District’s Behavioral Health Program Doesn’t Work

Peoria Unified School District’s Behavioral Health Program Doesn’t Work

By Tamra Farah |

The Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) is seeking federal funds to renew the Mental Health Service Professionals (MHSP) Demonstration Grant through the Department of Education (ED). The grant would enable the district to expand its program for unlicensed behavioral health workers. The grant application includes assertions to garner sympathy and support, such as highlighting low student-to-behavioral health worker ratios, funding cuts, and increased student academic issues post-COVID. There is just one problem: the initiative is flawed and poorly justified when scrutinized, raising several critical concerns.

If renewed, the MHSP grant would enable PUSD to hire additional counselors and social workers, asserting that they will assist students deemed to have mental health issues that purportedly hinder academic performance. A primary concern is the qualification of these personnel and the poor track record in this type of intervention in improving academic proficiency.

In a recent Substack piece, Attorney Chris Evans points out that the district refers to the personnel to be hired as “mental health professionals,” which Evans argues is “a title inflation for a person with no license from a professional board, no regulatory oversight, but is certified by the Arizona Department of Education to work in schools with zero scope of practice limitations.” This raises grave concerns about the effectiveness of mental health assistance and the safety of children under the care of these individuals.

PUSD staff and board members persist in claiming that behavioral health services enhance academic outcomes. However, the evidence to support this assertion is lacking. Robust independent research indicates this claim is false and seems to justify seeking federal funds rather than being a fact-based strategy.

For example, a close examination of PUSD academic assessments from 2017-2018 to 2023 reveals minimal improvement over five years in attempting to integrate behavioral health services into its schools; the expected improvements in academic performance have not materialized. During the first grant period, state assessment scores show no significant progress, and in subjects like math, the scores have declined. This stagnation indicates the lack of effectiveness of the rationale for the project’s federal funding and suggests that the behavioral health program has not delivered the promised academic benefits. If these programs cannot demonstrate a clear, positive impact on student achievement, their expansion, and current presence in schools are suspicious.

The ideological motivations behind this push for more behavioral health services cannot be ignored. The emphasis on social justice and equity indicated in the grant application may overshadow the primary goal of educational institutions: to enhance academic achievement. The current approach appears to conflate these objectives, potentially at the expense of educational quality.

The current justification for renewing this grant employed by PUSD is misguided. At the May 29 meeting, board President Becky Proudfit asked the grant administrator if the first grant initiated in 2019 had been effective and what the effect had been on the students in the district. During his response, the administrator admitted that he thinks, “It’s just really important to note that it’s hard to determine the overall success of the grant.” And still, the PUSD board voted 4-1 to renew the Mental Health Service Professionals (MHSP) Demonstration Grant for another five years.

It is time for PUSD to reevaluate its priorities and ensure that any funded programs are accountable and effective. Most importantly, addressing mental health in students is important, yet fundamentally within the authority and responsibility of parents and guardians, not schools.

Tamra Farah has a twenty-year career in public policy and politics. Her role as director and senior advisor at Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Arizona Women of Action and her expertise in PR and communications demonstrates her ability to create engagement and transformation in her efforts. Tamra has appeared on Fox News, America’s Voice, Newsmax, and Victory Channel and is quoted in major publications like The New York Times and Washington Post.

Defying Hypocrisy: Pro-Life Spiderman’s Stand Against Injustice Amidst The Battle For Life

Defying Hypocrisy: Pro-Life Spiderman’s Stand Against Injustice Amidst The Battle For Life

By Katarina White |

In February 2023, pro-life activist Maison DesChamps, known to many as the “Pro-Life Spiderman,” free-climbed the Chase Tower in Phoenix, Arizona—no ropes or extensions, just his hands and a bag of chalk. His mission was to bring attention to the grave evil of abortion and advocate for women facing crisis pregnancies. Many, like Maison, understand it as a moral atrocity, a modern-day holocaust. Not only does abortion take innocent lives, but it also leaves lasting emotional scars on women who undergo the procedure.

Maison’s daring climb, reaching the peak of the tallest building in Arizona, was a heartfelt plea for life and a call to action for humanity. His aim was to expose the brutal truth about abortion, shedding light on the horrific dismemberment of unborn infants—a grim reality often shrouded in secrecy and deceit.

In addition to his activism, DesChamps founded the nonprofit organization Anti-Abortion-Front, dedicated to rescuing those “being led away to death” and holding back those “staggering toward slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11).

In stark contrast to DesChamps’ fight against abortion, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment could soon be up for a vote. The final decision on whether it will appear on the November 2024 ballot will be made on July 3rd, after it is determined if the campaign has collected enough signatures. This initiative seeks to enshrine the right to abortion until birth in the Arizona State Constitution. This amounts to the legalized murder of children who could otherwise survive outside the womb.

DesChamps’ actions challenge the public to realize the truth—that murder is murder regardless of how old a human is. But the difference between his punishment for a peaceful protest and the potential legalization of late-term abortion highlights a profound hypocrisy, and it prompts a critical reflection on justice and morality in a country that is supposed to be the freest in the world.

Despite the peaceful nature of his protest, authorities charged DesChamps with trespassing. As of Tuesday, June 4, Maison was admitted into a Maricopa County jail, where he is expected to spend the next week. Supporters argue that his imprisonment is a gross injustice, as his actions were driven by a deep sense of compassion and a desire to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Maison DesChamps now faces significant legal fees and associated costs, and there’s even a GiveSendGo campaign to help cover these expenses. But Maison would be the first to say it’s worth it to highlight the unparalleled need to defend innocent babies in the womb. If our society can imprison someone for peacefully protesting to protect life while allowing the potential for laws like the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment that permit killing a baby right before birth, we face a grave hypocrisy. Maison’s climb is a passionate plea for humanity to recognize that abortion is murder and that we cannot stand idly by. We have a responsibility to take action against it.

WATCH: ‘Pro-life Spiderman’ shares why he scaled 40-story Chase Tower

Katarina White serves as Legislative District Co-Chair for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed with the “Decline to Sign” initiative, visit the Arizona Right to Life website. Katarina also delves deeper into the proposed amendment through the “Conservative Seoul Show,” where she presents the “Sanctity Unveiled” segment. You can join her as she explores the challenges faced by the sanctity of life in the State of Arizona here.

Mesa Needs City Council Members Who Put Our Citizens First

Mesa Needs City Council Members Who Put Our Citizens First

By Melody Whetstone |

Like a lot of Arizona residents, I was drawn to the state by its natural beauty, economic opportunities, and conservative values. In the 15 years my husband Gary and I have called Mesa home, we’ve seen a lot of growth and some exciting opportunities for our community and the citizens of District 2. Unfortunately, we’ve also seen some significant erosion of Mesa’s conservative values as well as questionable zoning and purchase decisions by the Mesa City Council. I believe we can, and should, do better. That’s why I’m running for City Council!

As a city council member, I’ll work to represent my District with the values and needs of my constituents instead of personal opinions. Take, for example, the purchase last year of the Arizona Grand Hotel by the City Council which is slated to be converted to a homeless shelter. In addition to overpaying for the property by $1 million, the annual operating cost paid by the city is estimated to be $3.5 million, which will be a permanent burden to Mesa taxpayers. The city council approved the sale over strenuous objections of adjacent businesses and homeowners.

Homelessness is a serious issue in our state, but there are better alternatives for properties not located adjacent to a residential area. Unfortunately, the current District 2 councilperson chose to vote her values against the wishes of her constituents.

Over the past 15 years, we’ve had a moderate increase in economic development activity in our district, but we’ve continued to be a bedroom community. It is the “actions over words” that have me concerned. While the Council says they want to bring in more high wage jobs, they continue to approve of more and more residential and multi-family projects. We have a vibrant airport at Falcon Field, but instead of protecting this valuable asset from residential encroachment, the council has turned a blind eye and put the airport in jeopardy. The same thing has happened to Boeing and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The council’s actions have not mirrored what the council has set as their Strategic Plan. We need to refocus the council and balance residential needs with economic development.

Another area that I believe we are lacking in is police and fire. Response times for our police have risen from 3.64 minutes in 2017 to 4 minutes today. That may not seem like much, but those extra seconds can mean the difference between the bad guy getting away or being caught. It can also be the difference between life and death. We need to make sure we have adequate personnel and equipment to ensure our public safety officials show up in a timelier manner.

Finally, I feel as though the city has left its lane and ventured into areas outside the City’s Charter. The city isn’t responsible for ensuring homeless people have shelter. I’m not trying to be dismissive of the need for humanity, I just feel as though the City should focus on potholes and allow the many not-for-profit entities and the religious communities across Mesa to share in the compassion. Citizens’ tax dollars should go exactly where Mesa’s founding fathers outlined in the Charter so many years ago: to ensure we have clean, potable water, a safe and reliable natural gas and electric system, clean streets that are pothole free, great outdoor parks and trails for public recreation, and public safety that continues to be one of the best in the nation. 

I’ll work hard every day to represent the citizens of District 2, so that you will truly have a voice at the City. If you are tired of the status quo, let’s build our community together!

Melody Whetstone is candidate for Mesa City Council. You can find out more about her campaign at Melody4Mesa.com.

Arizona Voter Rolls Contain 500,000 Unqualified Voters. We’re Suing To Clean Them Up.

Arizona Voter Rolls Contain 500,000 Unqualified Voters. We’re Suing To Clean Them Up.

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Last Friday, the AZ Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit in federal court against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) mandate that he maintain accurate and updated voter registration records. Why? The data shows that there are 500,000 unaccounted for registered voters who are not qualified either due to death or moving out of the state, and in total, up to more than a million voters on the rolls who should not be registered.

Clean and accurate voter rolls are the bedrock of elections run with integrity. Ensuring only those eligible to vote may register and are on the rolls means that only eligible voters may vote in an election. It’s a basic principle: garbage in, garbage out. If we begin with bad data – ineligible individuals on the rolls – the system is susceptible to allowing ineligible ballots to be cast.

That’s why in 2022 we championed two landmark pieces of legislation to accomplish just that, and why, unsurprisingly, Marc Elias and the left’s lawfare machine immediately sued to stop these commonsense safeguards from going into effect. HB2492 ensures only eligible citizens who have provided proof of citizenship can register to vote and HB2243 requires regular and routine voter roll maintenance using several databases of information, with regular reports to the legislature of the results.

Both these laws are consistent with the NVRA’s mandate that states maintain accurate voter registration lists. But right now, Adrian Fontes is failing in his obligations under both, and that’s why we have filed a lawsuit in federal court to force him to do his job.

Four Counties Have More Registered Voters Than People

How do we know? According to the most recent census and voter registration data, more than 90% of the voting age population in Arizona is purportedly registered to vote. The national average is 69.1%. Why would Arizonans register to vote at an absurdly higher rate than the rest of the country? The only answer is that the state and counties are failing to adequately remove individuals who are no longer eligible, leading to bloated rolls…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

Biden Promised To Build Half A Million EV Charging Stations. So Far, There Are A Grand Total Of 8.

Biden Promised To Build Half A Million EV Charging Stations. So Far, There Are A Grand Total Of 8.

By Stephen Moore |

The Biden administration has spent tens of billions of dollars on green energy and yet last year the U.S. and the world used record amounts of fossil fuels.

That would seem to be prima facie evidence that this “great transition” to renewable energy has so far been an expensive policy belly flop.

The evidence is everywhere. Americans aren’t buying EVs anymore than they were before Biden was elected. The car companies even with record federal subsidies are losing billions of dollars making EVs that people don’t want. Wind and solar still account for less than 15% of American energy, and across the country hundreds of communities are saying “not in my backyard” to ugly and spacious solar and wind farms. And of course gas prices at the pump and electric bills are 30% to 50% higher, even though we were promised that the green revolution would save us money.

A case in point is the scandalous mismanagement of how these green energy programs are being implemented.  Consider the $7.5 billion federal program stuck inside the Biden 2021 Infrastructure bill — a law that Biden touts as one of his great achievements. That bill promised half a million EV charging stations installed all over the country.

Instead, there have been a grand total of… drum roll please…”seven or eight installed.” To be fair, that was through last month. They might be up to nine now.

When Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was confronted recently on CBS’s “Face the Nation” about what happened with all the money, he hemmed and hawed and replied: “In order to do a charger, it’s more than just plunking a small device into the ground, there’s utility work, and this is also, really, a new category of federal investment.”

Uh huh! Sure. Installing an electric charger for a Tesla in your garage is very complicated business. It’s like trying to Build the Taj Mahal (which may not have cost $7.5 billion).

Here’s another mystery. Why can’t Pete give us an exact count on the progress when the number is small enough to use his fingers?  What is for sure is that at this pace they may get 500 built by 2030 — not the 500,000 promised.

Thank God our celebrated transportation secretary renowned for riding his bike to his office in Washington wasn’t in charge of the Normandy landing.

Then there is the question of where the $7.5 billion of taxpayer money has actually gone. At their current rate of production the final program’s price tag could inflate to more than $1 trillion.

If Trump were president, he’d have long ago summoned Mayor Pete to the Oval Office and greet him with those two words that made him famous: “YOU’RE FIRED.”

Instead many Democrats are quietly talking about throwing Joe Biden off the ticket and one of the front runners to take his place is none other than the highly accomplished Pete Buttigieg.

But there are some serious lessons to be learned from this monumental screw-up.

First, though Biden loves to chat up how much money the government is “investing” — where are the signs that any of these trillions of dollars of borrowed money have improved our lives. This EV charger scandal is just another reminder that the government generally doesn’t “invest” tax dollars — it mostly wastes them.

Second, competence matters. At the Committee to Unleash Prosperity we released a study finding that more than 90% of the Biden top economic and finance team has NO experience running a business. We have an energy secretary who knows nothing about energy and a transportation secretary who knows nothing about transportation. They are either lawyers, academics, politicians or government employees.

They are not bad people. They just don’t know how to run anything — and it shows.

Finally, why do we need the government to build EV charging stations? One hundred years ago the government didn’t build gas stations. They just magically sprouted up all over the roads that crisscross America because entrepreneurs responded to the demand. So two or three brothers would scrap together some cash, buy a small plot of land on I-66, build a service station with four to eight hoses connected to a tank, put up a tall sign posting the gas price and drivers would pull in and fill er up.

All of this “infrastructure” without a single penny or instruction manual from Washington.

Can you imagine if Biden had been president in the 1920s and proclaimed that the government will build 500,000 gas stations? They still wouldn’t be built and we’d all be waiting in long gas lines.

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.

Welcome To Arizona, You Are Now In California

Welcome To Arizona, You Are Now In California

By Dan Titus |

People in states that have signed on to the EPA/ State Climate Action Plan program can no longer say, “it’s only happening in California” because California is the United Nations blueprint for the entire United States.

On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration met at the Sustainable Development Summit in New York with the goal of recommitting to the [United Nations] 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals—SDGs. A White House fact sheet stated, “The United States is committed to the full implementation of 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, at home and abroad. At their core, the SDGs seek to:

  • Expand economic opportunity – This means public-private partnerships, which is crony capitalism. In this scheme there are winners and losers, where profits are privatized, and losses are socialized on the backs of middle-class Americans.
  • Advance social justice – This means placating and advancing people based on their skin color. At its core it is discriminatory.
  • Promote good governance – This skirts our elected form of government and injects unelected special interest initiatives into our lives, where no one gets to vote.
  • Ensure no one is left behind – This means catering to protected classes and minorities in order to create “capacity building” for initiatives and redistributive wealth schemes. Under Diversity and Inclusion (DEI), these classes are awarded “equity” and “inclusion” based on their skin color.

The Biden administration hired people from California and put them into positions in all federal agencies relating to climate change in order to fulfill his Green New Deal plan. Therefore, the plan mirrors what California has done at the national level.

The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program are through cooperative grants, (Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, CPRG) which have “take it or leave it” terms and conditions. These agreements bind states and local jurisdictions into creating GHG inventories to reduce GHG emissions, which eventually wind their way into administrative law, constraining property and individual rights. These grants force United Nations style Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) that addresses the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the Biden administration has committed to.

The EPA pitches climate action plans as voluntary. This is not true. Once a state agrees to take grant money, they sign on to mandatory elements in the grant terms and conditions contract — They are now in the United Nations/California club.

The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program is between the federal EPA, a “Partner” and unelected state agencies, boards, bodies, or commissions. Therefore, the entire process is being implemented without the consent of citizens and oversight of state legislatures – no one gets to vote. In essence, most states, including so-called conservative states, are selling out for bribes, aka grant money.

According to the EPA, states submitted Priority Climate Action Plans (PCAPs) under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program was hurried into place because there was concern that there could be a Republican change in the November 2024 election, which could jeopardize the program; hence, the name “priority” climate action plan in the first phase of the plan.

In 2023, under the first phase of the $5 billion program, the EPA made a total of $250 million in grants available to states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 80 MSAs, four territories, and over 200 Tribes and Tribal consortia to develop ambitious climate action plans that address greenhouse gas emissions. 45 states are now covered by a climate action plan. 5 states: Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, South Dakota and Wyoming decided not to participate.

The program is a two-phase federal grant program that allows the state to develop and implement ongoing community-driven projects that reduce ambient air pollution.

  • Phase I provided $250 million for noncompetitive planning grants, of which states were eligible for $3 million each to support the development of a climate action plan.
  • Phase II includes $4.6 billion in competitive implementation grants to execute the projects identified in the climate action plan.

The deadlines for submission of PCAPs are:

  • Priority Climate Action PlanCreates an inventory of the state’s primary GHG generators. Due March 1, 2024 (states and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and due April 1, 2024 (tribes, tribal consortia, and territories)
  • Comprehensive Climate Action PlanA plan to cut that pollution statewide. Due two years after planning grant award, or approximately mid-2025 (states and MSAs) and due at the close of the grant period (tribes, tribal consortia, and territories)

The EPA/State Climate Action Plan program seeks to create arbitrary greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in order to install unconstitutional hidden fees and taxes on hard working Americans. This is accomplished by doing a greenhouse gas inventory for carbon (CO2) and methane.

Once inventories for GHGs have been established, reduction goals can be set by States and local jurisdictions. Taxes and fees follow: GHG pricing mechanisms like cap and trade programs for energy producers; congestion pricing and vehicle mileage taxes for cars and trucks; mandatory retrofitting of commercial and existing residential homes to “green” building standards; zero emission vehicle requirements; increased gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil prices. For example, categories for emission controls include:

  • Transportation
  • Electricity Generation
  • Industry
  • Agriculture
  • Commercial and Residential Buildings
  • Waste and Materials Management
  • Wastewater
  • Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry

The EPA provided states with an outline template to follow in the development of their PCAPs called the, Priority Climate Action Plan Guidance: An Outline for States and MSAs. Therefore, the State PCAPs are very similar in their presentation. For example, PCAP lists required elements:

  • GHG Emissions Inventory,
  • Priority Measures and Reduction Estimates,
  • Benefits Analysis,
  • Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities (LIDAC) Benefits Analysis,
  • Review of Authority to Implement,
  • Intersection with Other Funding Availability, and
  • Coordination and Engagement.

State legislatures did not pass PCAPs. It all happened through interagency coordination: EPA and state agencies, which are under the control of Governors.

Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University for the Arizona Governor’s Office of Resiliency were the lead players in The Clean Arizona Plan: Priority Climate Action Plan State of Arizona. They coordinated the obligatory public outreach required by EPA grants, which included feedback from numerous special interest stakeholders who directly benefit from environmental initiatives, while hard working residents are relegated to answering simple questions on outcome-based online surveys — All of this is at the detriment to Arizona’s residents.

People need to contact their state’s Governor and condemn them for signing on and creating commissions and task forces while utilizing faux stakeholder consensus to justify existing PCAPs and Comprehensive Climate Action Plans already in the works. They need to notify their state legislatures that this is happening and ask them if they know about this EPA program.

Also, people need to remind elected officials of their constitutional oaths to protect individual property rights, as evidenced in a Paramount Network’s “Yellowstone” season one episode: Patriarch John Dutton is confronted by a group of Communist Chinese tourists who are trespassing on his land. He demands that they leave and when he explains that he owns the land, one trespasser states, “It is wrong for one man to own all this.” Dutton responds, “This is America, we don’t share land here!”

People in states that have signed on to the EPA/State Climate Action Plan program can no longer say, “it’s only happening in California” because California is the United Nations blueprint for the entire United States.

Dan Titus is affiliated with the American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC). Their mission is sustaining representative government; not governance, by collectivist-oriented unelected agencies and commissions.