A Call-to-Action Education
An Atlanta-based nonprofit, CHRIS 180, received $22.98 million in federal child welfare subawards between April 2021 and July 2024. During that same window, FEC records show its then-chief executive donated $6,500 to federal campaigns — $3,500 to Sen. Raphael Warnock’s committees and $2,500 to Rep. Nikema Williams’s committees, both members of Georgia’s congressional delegation, which votes on the appropriations that ultimately fund those awards. Staff contributions to Sen. Warnock’s committees totaled $4,025 overall.
Nobody in this story broke a law. That is the story.
And before you read another word, here is how to read the paragraph above — because a fact printed in an investigation tends to read as an accusation, and we’re not going to let a sentence do that work unearned. A private citizen donating to a federal campaign — including the executive of a nonprofit that runs on federal money — is legal, common, and constitutionally protected. Nonprofit leaders across the country do it every election cycle. On its own it harms no one and proves nothing. What makes it worth an article is not the donation. It’s the blind spot around the donation: no rule anywhere requires anyone to notice when who funds you and who you fund are the same people. So here’s our deal with you for the rest of this piece: every time we show you a fact, we’ll also tell you whether it’s normal, unusual, or against the rules. You shouldn’t need a finance-law degree to read a news article, and you shouldn’t have to take our framing on faith.
What Happened to the Children
In 2024, a U.S. Senate subcommittee investigation led by Sen. Jon Ossoff found that more than 400 children in Georgia state custody were likely sex trafficked. Roughly 2,000 more went missing from state care. Through that same period, federal child welfare money kept moving into Georgia — $22.98 million of it through one prime contractor, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (since rebranded Global Refuge), down to CHRIS 180 in five subawards.
Meanwhile, Georgia’s Department of Family and Children Services faces an $85 million funding gap for core services. The money is moving — it’s just moving through contractors. (Normal, unusual, or against the rules? Normal. Pass-through funding is how the federal structure is designed: HHS awards to a prime contractor, the prime subawards to local organizations. Nothing irregular about the route. What the design leaves open is who watches the middle — hold that thought.)
So — who failed?
What we’ve all become accustomed to hearing next is that the system failed. A system broke down. The system let these children fall through the cracks. We’re not going to do that here. A system is too abstract to answer for anything. You can’t question “the system.” You can’t email it, vote on its budget, or ask it what it knew. It’s not tangible — and that’s exactly why the phrase is so comfortable to say: it gives everyone somewhere to point and nobody anywhere to go.
Instead, we’re going to name where the failure happened. At every point in this story there were specific offices holding oversight duty or chain of custody over these children — seats, each with a job description, an occupant, and a paycheck. Here are the five that held a piece of this outcome.
The Five Seats
Seat 1 — The federal grant officers. Inside the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, specific grant officers signed the awards to the prime contractor. Their job is not just to move money — it’s to hold the prime accountable for performance. Ask: what performance findings did they file while children in the receiving state were going missing from care?
Seat 2 — The prime contractor’s compliance office. Federal grant rules place subrecipient monitoring squarely on the pass-through organization. When a prime takes federal money and hands it down, the prime’s compliance office — not a distant agency — owns the duty to verify how it’s used. Five subawards, $22.98 million, forty months. Ask: where are the monitoring reports?
Seat 3 — The commissioner’s office, Georgia DFCS. Every one of those 400+ children had one legal custodian: the State of Georgia, acting through its Division of Family and Children Services. The commissioner’s seat owns custody. An $85 million gap in core services is a budget document with signatures on it — the governor’s office proposes, the legislature passes, the commissioner administers. Ask: who signed off on caseload ratios while children disappeared from placements?
Seat 4 — Georgia’s federal delegation. Two senators and fourteen representatives vote the appropriations, and hold the oversight power, for federal money entering their state. Sen. Ossoff’s subcommittee used that power — the 400-children finding exists because his seat did its job. The question for every other seat in the delegation: what did you do with the finding?
Seat 5 — The rule-writers. Federal ethics rules ban corporate contributions. They say nothing about personal contributions from the executives of organizations living on federal awards, and no disclosure requirement connects the two. It is nobody’s job to ask the question. Congress writes those rules. That’s not an accident of “the system” — it’s a blank the rule-writing seats have left blank.
The Money, Precisely
Every figure below was pulled from public records and re-verified on August 25, 2026:
(The organization’s leadership changed at the end of 2024; the contributions documented here date from the prior executive’s tenure. FEC data current through December 2024.)
At the time of this writing — August 25, 2026 — these are what the public records show. Federal filing data is amended and refiled continuously: committees file new reports, correct old ones, and reattribute contributions, and agencies re-release the files. If you run these searches yourself next month and get slightly different totals, that isn’t an error — ours or yours. It’s the record doing what a living record does. The searches below will always show you the current truth.
A donation of $6,500 doesn’t buy a senator. That’s not the claim. The claim is narrower and harder: the executive of a federally funded child welfare contractor can donate to the lawmakers who fund and oversee that pipeline, and no rule requires anyone, anywhere, to notice. We noticed because we went looking
.
Go Look — This Part Is Yours
Here’s the part we love most: everything in this article came from free, public, searchable records. No badge, no subpoena, no law degree — a browser and twenty minutes. Most people were never told these doors are unlocked. Handing you the key is why we exist.
Step 1 — Pick your state. Go to projectmilkcarton.org/explore. The federal grant trail, the nonprofits, and the oversight map for all 50 states are already laid out for you, free.
Step 2 — Follow one dollar. Open USASpending.gov and type the name of any organization in your county that works with kids. Every federal award it has received appears. This took us minutes. It will take you minutes.
Step 3 — See who’s giving. Open the FEC’s individual-contribution search at fec.gov and type an executive’s name. Public record, ten seconds, no account needed.
Step 4 — Ask a seat its question. Pick one of the five seats above — or find its twin in your own state. Every seat has a name, an office, an email address, and a public-records door. Three sentences is enough: here’s what the record shows, here’s the duty of your seat, what was done? Seats answer; systems don’t. And the moment one specific occupant owes you one specific answer — that’s oversight. You just did it. Yourself.
Step 5 — Tell us what you found. projectmilkcarton.org · t.me/ProjectMilkCarton. We’ll help you read it, verify it, and — when it holds up — publish it.
Four hundred children trafficked from state custody is not a reason to look away. It’s the reason these records exist — and the reason we read them. Now you can too. This is how change for kids actually starts: one citizen, one record, one seat, one answer.
The Toolkit: Worked Examples, Ready to Use
Steps 1 through 5 told you the doors exist. This section walks you through them — worked examples built on this exact case, so you can see what each tool looks like filled in, then adapt it to any story in your own state. Every door below is a normal, lawful channel of citizen oversight that has existed for decades. None of it requires a lawyer, a membership, or anyone’s permission.
How to read these examples: each one plainly says what it is, who it goes to, and what it can and can’t do. The facts inside them are the verified figures from the table above — nothing more. When you adapt a template to your own findings, hold yourself to the same standard we hold ourselves to: only what the record shows, checked before you send it.
A note on where this guide stops — and where your rights begin
Project Milk Carton is a 501(c)(3) charity. That status is a deal with the public: we educate, research, and publish — and we never support or oppose any candidate, party, or campaign, and never will. So nothing in this guide touches elections, endorsements, or campaigns, and nothing in it asks you to.
Your rights as a private citizen are broader than ours as a charity — that’s how the law is built, and it’s worth knowing as plain civics. What you do with your own voice, on your own time, in your own name, is entirely yours. What we can hand you is what we’re built for: the records, the tools of public oversight, and the training to use them. That turns out to be most of the toolbox — and it’s the part that works in every season, every year, no matter who holds any seat.
Tool 1 — The Federal FOIA Request
What it is: The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) lets any person request records from federal agencies. No reason required. It is the single most underused oversight tool in America.
Where this one goes: Submit through FOIA.gov, the federal government’s central FOIA portal — ACF requests are handled by the HHS Office of the Secretary FOIA Office (select that office when filing; phone 202-690-7453). That routing comes straight from ACF’s own FOIA page.
Worked example — adapted to this case: Modify accordingly for future use cases
Subject: FOIA Request — Records regarding Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service subawards for child welfare services
To the FOIA Officer, Administration for Children and Families:
Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request the following records for the period January 2021 through December 2024:
Grant performance reports, monitoring reports, and site-visit findings for awards to Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (EIN 13-2574854), now operating as Global Refuge, under child welfare and unaccompanied-children program funding.
Records of subrecipient monitoring conducted by or reported to ACF concerning subawards from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service to CHRIS 180 (Atlanta, GA).
Any corrective-action plans, findings of concern, or special conditions placed on these awards.
I request electronic copies (PDF). I am willing to pay reasonable duplication fees up to $50; please notify me before exceeding that amount. If any portion is withheld, please cite the specific exemption and release all segregable portions.
Respectfully, [YOUR NAME] · [ADDRESS] · [EMAIL] · [DATE]
What it can do: put monitoring records — or their absence — on the public record. What it can’t do: compel an investigation or an answer beyond the records themselves. (Normal, unusual, or against the rules? Completely normal. Agencies receive hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests a year. Yours is routine business.)
Tool 2 — The State Open Records Request
What it is: Every state has its own public-records law. Georgia’s is the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., and it covers state agencies like the Division of Family and Children Services.
Where this one goes: Georgia DFCS open-records officer (listed on the agency website).
Worked example — adapted to this case:
Subject: Open Records Request — DFCS contracted placement services
Under the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., I request, for January 2021 through December 2024:
Contracts and amendments between DFCS and CHRIS 180 for child welfare or placement services.
Aggregate (de-identified) outcome data for children served under those contracts: placements, placement disruptions, missing-child reports, and substantiated maltreatment findings.
Records reflecting DFCS’s review of, or response to, the 2024 U.S. Senate subcommittee findings on children missing or trafficked from Georgia state custody.
Please respond within the timeline the Act requires, and provide electronic copies (PDF). I will pay reasonable fees up to $50; please notify me first if costs exceed that.
Respectfully, [YOUR NAME] · [CONTACT] · [DATE]
Important: request aggregate, de-identified data only. Individual child records are confidential by law, should be, and will be denied. The pattern is public business; the children are not. (Find your own state’s law: every state has one — search “[your state] open records act” or start from our /explore page.)
Tool 3 — The Public Record Search You Can Run Tonight
FEC contribution records (fec.gov → campaign finance data → individual contributions), USASpending.gov award and subaward records, and nonprofit Form 990 filings (IRS Tax-Exempt Organization Search, or ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer) are already public. You don’t need to file anything to see them. Twenty minutes with these three windows is how this article started. Save what you find with the date you found it — public data files are amended over time, and a dated copy is your honest record of what the record said.
Tool 4 — The Constituent Oversight Letter
What it is: A letter to your own senators and representative asking what their seats have done with a documented finding. Not a campaign message — an oversight question to a sitting office, which is a constituent’s job description in one sentence.
Worked example — adapted to this case:
Dear [Senator/Representative NAME]:
I am your constituent. In 2024, a U.S. Senate subcommittee found that more than 400 children in Georgia state custody were likely sex trafficked, and roughly 2,000 more went missing from state care. Public records also show that during 2021–2024, $22.98 million in federal child welfare subawards flowed into Georgia through a single pass-through contractor, while the state’s child protective agency reports an $85 million funding gap for core services.
As a member of Georgia’s federal delegation, your office votes the appropriations behind this funding and holds oversight power over it. My questions:
What has your office done in response to the subcommittee’s findings?
Do you support requiring public disclosure when executives of organizations receiving federal child welfare funds contribute to the campaigns of legislators who vote on that funding — closing the disclosure blank that currently exists?
I am asking for a written response. Thank you for your service.
[NAME] · [ADDRESS — shows you’re a constituent] · [DATE]
Note what this letter does not do: it doesn’t threaten, it doesn’t mention elections, and it doesn’t tell the office what to conclude. It asks the seat its question and requests an answer in writing. Written answers become part of the record. That is the whole game.
Tool 5 — The Community Records-and-Letters Gathering
What it is: The oldest civic technology there is — a room, a stack of paper, and neighbors who read the same records. A church hall, a library room, a living room.
How it works, mechanically: - 20–30 people, one evening. Pizza helps. - A 15-minute walkthrough of the documented facts (this article works; so does your own local version built with Tools 1–3). - Everyone personalizes and signs an oversight letter (Tool 4) to their own senators and representative — personalized letters are read; identical form letters are counted. - Mail them the same day. A congressional office receiving dozens of individually written constituent letters on one documented issue in one week takes notice — that’s the staff’s job. - Optional: a coordinated call morning. Same script discipline as the letter: documented facts, oversight questions, request for written response. Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121 connects you to any office.
What it can do: make an issue impossible for an office to file under “no one’s asking.” What it keeps out: everything electoral. The room is about records and oversight questions — that discipline is what makes it durable and what makes it welcome in any congregation or community group, whatever its politics.
Tool 6 — The Media Tip
What it is: Local investigative desks want documented local stories. A good tip is short, factual, and arrives with its receipts.
Worked example — adapted to this case:
Subject: Documented tip — $23M in federal child welfare subawards into GA; oversight gap
To the investigations desk:
Public records document the following: CHRIS 180, an Atlanta nonprofit, received $22.98 million in federal child welfare subawards (April 2021–July 2024) through prime contractor Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, now Global Refuge. FEC records show the nonprofit’s then-chief executive personally donated $6,500 to federal campaigns in the same period, including members of Georgia’s delegation that votes the underlying appropriations. A 2024 Senate subcommittee found 400+ children in Georgia state custody were likely sex trafficked; roughly 2,000 more went missing from care. Georgia DFCS reports an $85 million funding gap for core services.
Every figure is from public records: USASpending.gov subaward data, FEC individual-contribution filings, HHS TAGGS, and the subcommittee’s published findings. I can provide the source documents.
The open question a newsroom could run down: no rule requires anyone to track when executives of federally funded child welfare contractors donate to the legislators who fund them. Who, if anyone, is watching that seam?
[NAME] · [CONTACT]
Notice the discipline: the donations are attributed to the then-chief executive personally, never to the organization (organizations cannot legally donate to federal campaigns, and blurring that line would be false); every number is sourced; and the tip poses a question rather than announcing a verdict. That’s what separates a tip an editor trusts from one that goes in the bin.
Tool 7 — The Oversight-Body Request
What it is: Congress’s own watchdogs — the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and agency Inspectors General — take up work partly based on congressional interest, and constituents can ask committees to request it. This is oversight machinery working exactly as designed.
Worked example — a policy-review request to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (whose jurisdiction includes the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of government agencies and government contracting; check hsgac.senate.gov for current leadership and contact):
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member:
I write to request that the Committee ask the Government Accountability Office to review conflict-of-interest and disclosure policies for federal child welfare grantees.
The documented pattern: a Georgia nonprofit received $22.98 million in federal child welfare subawards (2021–2024) while its then-chief executive personally donated to members of the state’s federal delegation. Nothing in this was against any rule — which is precisely the issue. No federal policy requires disclosure or review when executives of child welfare grantees contribute to the legislators who fund and oversee those programs. During this same period, a Senate subcommittee found 400+ children in Georgia state custody were likely sex trafficked.
A useful GAO review scope: (1) survey HHS conflict-of-interest and disclosure policies for grantees and subrecipients; (2) assess subrecipient-monitoring practices for large pass-through awards in child welfare programs; (3) recommend whether a disclosure mechanism should connect grant records with campaign-finance records.
The public deserves to know whether anyone is assigned to watch this seam. Thank you for your consideration.
[NAME] · [ADDRESS] · [DATE]
And the Inspector General door: the HHS Office of Inspector General runs a public hotline (1-800-HHS-TIPS · oig.hhs.gov) for reporting evidence of fraud, waste, or abuse in HHS programs. Know that door exists — and respect what it’s for. This article documents a policy blank, not fraud; we say so plainly, and an honest citizen files a hotline complaint only when they hold actual evidence of wrongdoing, not a pattern that troubles them. If your own records search ever surfaces real evidence, that’s the door — and bring the documents.
Tool 8 — The Public Comment
What it is: When federal agencies propose rules, the law requires them to take public comments — and to read them. Comments become part of the permanent federal record and agencies must respond to substantive ones. Regulations.gov lists every open docket.
How to use it honestly: comment on dockets your issue actually belongs to — child welfare program rules, grants-management policy, subrecipient oversight requirements. A substantive comment states the documented pattern, cites its sources, and proposes the specific policy fix (for this case: a disclosure requirement connecting grantee-executive contributions with award records). One well-sourced comment on the right docket outweighs a hundred pasted onto the wrong one — and pasting your issue onto unrelated dockets discredits it. Check regulations.gov for currently open child-welfare and grants-policy dockets before commenting; deadlines matter and stale dockets don’t accept comments.
A Sustainable Rhythm
Oversight is a practice, not an event. A citizen or group that touches this once a week, indefinitely, accomplishes more than one that burns hot for a month and vanishes:
One record pulled (Tools 1–3) · one letter or follow-up sent (Tools 4, 7) · one conversation had (Tools 5, 6) — per week, that’s plenty.
FOIA and open-records requests have statutory clocks. Calendar them. A polite follow-up citing your original request date is normal and expected.
Keep a dated file of everything you send and receive. That file is the oversight record — and if it ever holds a story, Tool 6 is waiting.
And Step 5 always stands: bring what you find to us — projectmilkcarton.org · t.me/ProjectMilkCarton. We’ll help you verify it, and when it holds up, publish it.
None of this is dramatic. That’s the point. The children in this story were failed quietly, by seats that assumed nobody was reading the file. Be the person reading the file.
Sources:
USASpending.gov federal subaward records; FEC individual contribution filings (bulk data through December 2024); HHS TAGGS grant data; U.S. Senate Human Rights Subcommittee findings (2024); IRS Business Master File (EIN verification). All dollar figures re-verified against source records on August 25, 2026; EIN 13-2574854 verified August 26, 2026. Full documentation at projectmilkcarton.org.
If you enjoyed this work and feel encouraged by independent investigations like this, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to 17sog.substack.com here on Substack, or donate at Project Milk Carton Inc. or at https://t.co/PvtnrODkNz
Your support helps us turn information into action for children and families by:
keeping high-risk and missing children visible
identifying gaps in the systems responsible for protecting them
giving families and communities clear, usable information they can act on
supporting education, outreach, and practical community-based solutions
maintaining the public-data and OSINT work that makes this accountability possible
building tools and resources designed to help communities protect children before they disappear into a system
Most importantly, please share this article.
Independent journalism survives when ordinary people help spread information.
And informed communities protect children.
ALL paid subscriptions are 100% tax deductible
Project Milk Carton | 501(c)(3) | EIN: 33-1323547