Following the Money: How Oklahoma’s TANF Surplus, Government Revolving Doors, and Child Support Incentives Create a System That Profits From Poverty

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (The Oklahoma Post) Jan. 9, 2026

Nearly $400 million in federal welfare funds sat unspent in Oklahoma’s accounts as families struggled with poverty, office closures eliminated access to assistance, and a former state agency director transitioned seamlessly from public service to private consulting with his former agency as a primary client.

This investigation traces the flow of federal dollars through Oklahoma’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and child support enforcement system, revealing a pattern where funds intended to lift families out of poverty instead accumulate in state coffers, flow to private contractors with political connections, and create financial incentives that prioritize collections and cost-efficiency over family wellbeing.

The story involves multiple interlocking systems: $36-40 million in annual federal child support enforcement funding, a $755 million national incentive pool rewarding states for aggressive collections, nearly $400 million in unspent TANF funds as of 2023-2024, a private consulting firm founded by a former DHS director that counts state-funded programs as clients, and a decades-long pattern of welfare dollars flowing to politically-connected contractors.

This investigation draws on federal budget documents, agency records, legislative reports, and extensive documentation compiled by Dee Sage, a former Oklahoma DHS employee who worked for the agency for 14.5 years and witnessed these developments firsthand.

Part I: The Justin Brown Revolving Door

From Agency Director to Private Consultant

Justin Brown was appointed Director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services by Governor Kevin Stitt on June 4, 2019, according to official state announcements. According to Sage, who worked at DHS throughout Brown’s tenure, discussions about reducing spending and downsizing the workforce began immediately upon his appointment and actually dated back to 2017 when Brown was being considered for the position.

“From day one, we’ve done things differently,” Brown would later write in a July 2024 social media post about his DHS tenure. But according to Sage’s documentation, those “different things” included planning meetings from 2017 through 2019 focused specifically on how to systematically close offices and transition workers to remote operations.

Then COVID-19 provided the operational cover.

In March 2020, DHS workers were sent home. By May 2020, as pandemic restrictions began lifting elsewhere, according to Sage, DHS made the remote work arrangement permanent and began closing offices across Oklahoma. The agency reduced its physical presence from offices in every county to a drastically consolidated footprint, eliminating what workers and advocates described as “lifelines for the vulnerable.”

Local office phone numbers were replaced with a single statewide number. Wait times stretched to 2-3 hours. Rural Oklahomans, already facing transportation barriers and limited job opportunities, found themselves unable to access services even when eligible.

The official narrative: DHS was modernizing, reducing administrative costs, and improving efficiency.

The documented reality, according to Sage: Existing TANF clients were placed on “good cause” exemptions from work requirements and left there, some until 2023, which agency staff later said had been ‘forgotten’ during internal reviews.. New TANF applicants, discouraged by the inaccessible system, gave up before completing applications. TANF caseloads plummeted not because poverty decreased, but because the system became intentionally difficult to navigate.

The result: massive unspent TANF balances that, according to Sage’s analysis of federal and state financial data, would eventually approach $400 million by fiscal years 2023-2024.

On July 29, 2022, Brown announced his resignation in an official DHS press release. No reason was given to the public. Governor Stitt issued a statement praising Brown’s leadership, particularly the elimination of the developmental disabilities waiting list. State Senators Adam Pugh and Paul Rosino released statements commending Brown’s service.

Brown remained in government, however, transitioning to Stitt’s cabinet as Secretary of Human Services, where according to Sage, he oversaw multiple state agencies and traveled to Washington, D.C. on taxpayer dollars “rubbing elbows” and “making policy” at the federal level.

In July 2023, after approximately one year as Secretary, Brown stepped down again; once more with no public explanation for his departure, according to official DHS announcements.

And then, in that same year of 2023, Brown launched Global True North, a private “boutique human services management consulting firm” described as a Public Benefit Corporation, according to the company’s website. According to Sage, two other major DHS leaders joined him in the venture.

Global True North: The “True North” Strategy Monetized

Brown had branded his DHS management philosophy as “True North”; a “grassroots strategic planning effort and human services operating system” that became the agency’s operational framework during his tenure, as documented in DHS budget presentations and official communications.

Now that same “True North” philosophy became the foundation of his consulting business.

According to Global True North’s website:

“Justin Brown served as Oklahoma’s Cabinet Secretary of Human Services and Director of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services from 2019 to 2023”
“While at Oklahoma Human Services, Brown introduced a grassroots strategic planning effort and human services operating system known as the True North”
“Global True North, a Public Benefit Corporation, is a boutique human services management consulting firm that is dedicated to real change”

The firm’s partners include “former health & human services leaders” who consult on “modernization,” “strategic planning,” and “culture transformation”, the same frameworks Brown implemented at DHS, according to the website.

And who became Global True North’s primary client?

According to Sage’s research: Work Ready Oklahoma, a program funded with Oklahoma DHS TANF dollars.

Part II: Work Ready Oklahoma and the TANF Surplus

A Massive Surplus While Families Go Without

Oklahoma receives approximately $160-200 million annually in TANF block grant funding from the federal government, according to federal budget data and Oklahoma’s FY 2025 Budget Performance Review. This funding is meant to provide:

Cash assistance to needy families ($292/month maximum for a family of three, unchanged since 1996, according to Oklahoma DHS policy documents)
Child care subsidies
Job readiness and training programs
Support services for vulnerable families

As of FY2022, Oklahoma had approximately $368 million in unspent TANF funds. By FY2023, the balance reported by the Congressional Research Service was $193.2 million. Sage estimates the total approached $400 million by factoring in FY2024 allotments; more than double its annual allocation sitting idle while:

Families couldn’t get through to DHS on the phone
Rural communities lost access to local offices
Child care assistance became increasingly restricted
Cash assistance remained frozen at 1996 levels despite decades of inflation

According to Congressional Research Service data (Report RL32760, Table B-3), Oklahoma’s unspent TANF balance at the end of FY2023 was $193,211,199. According to Sage’s calculations, after receiving nearly $200 million more for FY2024, the total unspent balance approached $400 million.

Why the massive surplus?

According to Sage’s firsthand observation and documentation, the office closures and inaccessible application systems suppressed enrollment. TANF clients on “good cause” exemptions weren’t participating in work activities or receiving job training they were simply at home, not moving forward, while DHS later claimed they “forgot” to take them off good cause status.

The federal TANF structure allows this, as documented in federal law and analyzed by policy researchers. Block grants come with enormous flexibility. States can accumulate funds, redirect them to non-cash purposes, and face minimal federal oversight, according to multiple Government Accountability Office reports. As long as broad TANF “goals” are met, states have discretion.

And that discretion, in Oklahoma, led to a new initiative: Work Ready Oklahoma (WRO).

Work Ready Oklahoma: Where TANF Surplus Flows

In March 2024, Oklahoma Human Services announced the statewide expansion of Work Ready Oklahoma in an official press release, awarding contracts “renewable for up to five years” to entities across the state.

According to the press release:

WRO is part of the state’s “TANF program strategy”
It represents Oklahoma Human Services’ “comprehensive approach to social welfare”
The program prepares individuals with “job readiness skills” for further training through CareerTech and Workforce Innovation programs
WRO Centers would open in 17 locations across Oklahoma, each aiming to serve “at least 150 community members annually”

The stated mission sounds reasonable: help TANF recipients gain employment skills and transition to self-sufficiency.

But according to Sage, crucial details are missing from public records:

How much TANF money is flowing to Work Ready Oklahoma? The initial contracts and ongoing funding amounts are not specified in press releases.
Who operates Work Ready Oklahoma? The press release mentions “local entities including youth services agencies, Community Action Agencies, Career Techs, community colleges, workforce programs, local governments, and well-established nonprofit organizations”—but according to Public Strategies Inc.’s own leadership page, one position is listed: “Senior Manager, Work Ready Oklahoma.”
Where are the outcome reports? Despite operating since at least 2024 with significant TANF funding, no public oversight reports documenting participant outcomes, employment placements, spending breakdowns, or program effectiveness are readily available in searches of state databases and DHS publications.
Why does WRO duplicate existing services? Oklahoma already has CareerTech and Oklahoma Works (formerly Workforce Oklahoma) providing job training and placement services, according to state program documentation. What unique value does WRO provide that justifies diverting TANF surplus funds?

According to Sage’s documentation, Work Ready Oklahoma operates out of a renovated former DHS building near 10th Street in Oklahoma City described as “beautiful” with “the very best of everything in their office locations.” According to Sage, the program has billboard advertising across the state.

Yet TANF regulations prohibit advertising that solicits people to apply for welfare, according to federal TANF policy guidance.

Public Strategies Inc.: The Mary Myrick Connection

Work Ready Oklahoma’s operational structure connects to Public Strategies Inc., an Oklahoma City-based firm founded by Mary Myrick, a Republican political consultant and public relations professional, according to corporate records and the company’s own website.

Public Strategies’ history with Oklahoma state contracts is extensive and controversial.

The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative: $70 Million Spent, Divorce Rates Rose

This history was documented by Sage and corroborated by Oklahoma Watch’s 2013 investigation “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative Fails to Halt Rising Divorce Rates.”

From 2002 to 2013, Public Strategies Inc. received more than $70 million in federal TANF funds (including $58 million from Oklahoma DHS and $13 million in direct federal grants) to implement the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, a program designed to reduce divorce rates and strengthen families, according to Oklahoma Watch’s investigation.

The initiative was the brainchild of Governor Brad Henry and implemented under DHS leadership. Public Strategies, as the primary contractor, received more than 90% of the $70 million spent on the program, according to Oklahoma Watch.

The results? According to Oklahoma Watch’s 2013 investigation:

Oklahoma’s marriage rates continued to fall
Divorce rates kept rising
In 2012, Oklahoma had the third-highest divorce rate in the nation (13.5% of people aged 15+ were divorced)
The rates of unmarried cohabitating couples and single-mother households increased
The program was deemed a “failure” on a bipartisan basis

The accountability? According to a 2006 Oklahoma Senate press release from State Senator Kevin Easley, throughout the Marriage Initiative’s run, Public Strategies faced scrutiny for:

Sole-source contracts awarded without competitive bidding
No raw data or detailed spending reports provided to the public or legislature
Questionable billing practices that drew lawmaker criticism
Operating under the loose TANF block grant structure that shields spending from rigorous oversight

State Senator Kevin Easley stated in the 2006 press release that Mary Myrick “lied to reporters” about whether she was complying with contract terms. He questioned why the state was “spending tax dollars on something like this” and proposed transferring $9 million from the Marriage Initiative to heating assistance for low-income families.

No wrongdoing was ever formally found, according to Oklahoma Watch’s reporting, precisely because TANF’s flexible structure makes it difficult to prove misuse when spending is technically “allowable” under broad program goals.

The Work Ready Oklahoma Connection

According to Public Strategies Inc.’s own leadership page reviewed by The Oklahoma Post, Public Strategies Inc. operates Work Ready Oklahoma or provides significant operational support. The company’s leadership page lists a “Senior Manager, Work Ready Oklahoma” position.

And according to Sage’s research, Global True North—Justin Brown’s consulting firm founded in 2023—lists Work Ready Oklahoma as a primary client.

According to information compiled by Sage, Brown and other Global True North leaders provide consulting services to Work Ready Oklahoma, which is funded by Oklahoma DHS through TANF surplus dollars, overseen by Brown’s successor at the agency he once led.

According to Sage, a former DHS building has been renovated as a Work Ready Oklahoma facility. Billboard advertising promotes the program statewide. Office locations boast high-quality furnishings and equipment.

All funded with federal TANF dollars intended for families in poverty.

Part III: Child Support Enforcement—The 66% Match That Fuels the System

While TANF surplus accumulates and flows to private contractors, another federal funding stream creates its own perverse incentives: Title IV-D child support enforcement.

The Federal Matching Structure

Under 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, the federal government reimburses states for 66% of child support enforcement administrative costs, no cap, open-ended matching.

For every dollar Oklahoma spends on child support enforcement, the federal government contributes 66 cents.

Additionally, according to Office of Child Support Services Policy Guidance DCL-25-12 issued December 1, 2025, states compete for shares of a federal incentive pool that reached $755.4 million for fiscal year 2026. States earn incentive payments based on five performance metrics established by 42 U.S.C. § 658a:

Paternity establishment percentage
Support order establishment rate
Current collections as percentage of current support owed
Arrears collections distributed
Cost-effectiveness ratio (collections vs. expenditures)

This cost-effectiveness metric creates powerful pressure: maximize collections while minimizing spending.

Oklahoma’s Collections Machine

According to Oklahoma DHS Child Support Services statistics and the FY 2025 Budget Performance Review, Oklahoma’s Child Support Services division:

Manages approximately 151,000 cases
Collected $303.7 million in state fiscal year 2024
Operates with a total budget of approximately $54.8 million
Receives $36-40 million annually in federal Title IV-D funds

Income withholding (automatic wage garnishment) accounts for 67.4% of collections ($204.6 million), according to Oklahoma DHS statistics. Federal tax refund intercepts contribute another 8.7%.

These passive, automated mechanisms require minimal caseworker intervention, maximizing the cost-effectiveness ratio that determines federal incentive payments.

Where the Money Goes

Here’s what many don’t understand: a significant portion of child support collected never reaches children.

From Oklahoma’s FY 2025 Budget Performance Review:

77% of program “other revenue” comes from child support collected as reimbursement for prior state assistance
21% comes from the $25 application fee charged to non-welfare families
2% comes from interest on deposits

According to Oklahoma DHS policy and federal TANF requirements, when families receive TANF cash assistance, they must assign their child support rights to the state. Any child support collected goes to reimburse the government for welfare costs not to the family.

Research from the Urban Institute, as cited by the Center for American Progress, found that in some states, 70% of child support debt is owed to the government rather than to families.

According to Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma’s analysis, Oklahoma is among only 10 states that do not pass through any child support payments to families receiving assistance. Fifteen states pass more than $50 through. If Oklahoma adopted a $100 pass-through and disregarded $200 as income, custodial parents would receive $300 more per month but that would reduce the state’s “collections” performance metric.

The Revolving Door: From State Enforcement to Private Practice

Former child support enforcement attorneys carry unique knowledge into private practice:

How state systems prioritize cases
Which enforcement mechanisms trigger agency action
What strategies delay or expedite proceedings
How caseworkers exercise discretion

Courtney Driskell of Driskell Law LLC represents this career path. According to her professional biographies on The National Trial Lawyers website, Driskell Law Firm website, and Super Lawyers profile:

She served as a “State’s Attorney for DHS” in child support enforcement
She graduated from University of Tulsa College of Law in 2020
She worked as a licensed legal intern in the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office Crimes Against Children Division
She transitioned to DHS Child Support Services before founding her private firm
According to the Oklahoma Bar Association’s March 2024 announcement, she currently serves as Secretary of the Oklahoma Bar Association Family Law Section

Her firm’s website markets: “Child support expertise backed by unique experience as a former DHS Child Support State’s Attorney.”

This is legal and common. ABA Model Rule 1.11 governs former government attorneys, prohibiting representation in matters where they “participated personally and substantially” and barring use of “confidential government information,” as analyzed in Douglas Richmond’s law review article “As the Revolving Door Turns” in the Saint Louis University Law Journal.

But the informational asymmetry is real and marketable.

Part IV: The System’s Incentive Structure

Following the Federal Dollars

Multiple federal funding streams create overlapping incentives:

TANF Block Grants ($160-200M annually to Oklahoma, per federal budget documents):

Flexible spending rules
Minimal federal oversight, according to GAO reports
States can accumulate unspent balances
Can be redirected to contractors for “allowable” purposes
Incentivizes reducing enrollment (lower spending = higher surplus)

Child Support IV-D Matching (66% federal match per 42 U.S.C. § 655):

Open-ended federal reimbursement
No cap on matching funds
Incentivizes aggressive enforcement and automated collections
Rewards cost-effectiveness over family outcomes

Federal Incentive Pool ($755M nationally per OCSS DCL-25-12):

Performance-based payments to states
Emphasizes collections metrics
Cost-effectiveness ratio rewards maximum collections with minimum spending
No measurement of family wellbeing or child outcomes

The Accountability Gap

These funding structures create an accountability vacuum:

For TANF:

Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 652(a)(4)(C)) requires states to “ensure Federal and other funds are spent appropriately”
According to HHS Office of Inspector General work plan statements, “Federal funds are at risk” due to OCSE’s “inability to perform administrative cost audits”
According to Congressional testimony by former NFL quarterback Brett Favre regarding Mississippi’s TANF fraud scandal, states submit annual reports but Congress “barely glances at them”
See Mississippi TANF fraud scandal involving Brett Favre, who testified to Congress in 2022 that oversight was virtually non-existent

For Child Support Enforcement:

GAO audits (GAO-95-24 from 1995, GAO-04-377 from 2004) documented systematic failures:
- $657 million in “undistributed collections” (money collected but never reaching families)
- Unreliable data reporting by states
- Poor communication between federal and state officials
- Lack of technical support and training

For Contracted Services:

TANF’s flexible block grant structure allows states wide discretion, as documented in federal regulations
Sole-source contracts can be awarded to politically-connected firms
Outcome data and spending reports often not made publicly available
“No wrongdoing” findings because spending is technically “allowable”

State-Level Controversies

Oklahoma’s enforcement systems have faced specific challenges:

2011 Class Action Lawsuit: According to Wirth Law Office’s February 2016 blog post documenting the case:

Alleged DHS knowingly overcharged interest on lump-sum back child support obligations
April 2015 ruling found DHS had indeed overcharged
Evidence included a sealed agency memo suggesting DHS knew of the error
Potential reimbursements estimated at $130 million
DHS appealed

Child Support Computation Errors (2009-2014): According to Wirth Law Office’s October 2014 blog post:

State computation form (Form No. 03EN025E) contained calculation errors
Affected orders for parents with specific income ratios and overnight arrangements
May 2015 legislation addressed the methodology

Recent Audits: According to Oklahoma State Auditor Cindy Byrd’s August 2025 federal single audit:

$93.4 million in questioned costs across Oklahoma agencies for FY 2023
with over $63 million attributed specifically to the Department of Human Services.
Since COVID: Oklahoma agencies have incurred more than $186.4 million in ‘questioned costs’, federal dollars identified in state audits as potentially misspent or lacking proper documentation

According to KJRH News reporting on the audit findings, the auditor described the mismanagement as “alarming.”

July 2022 DHS Inspector General Finding: According to News9 reporting:

District attorney’s office improperly charged the child support program for employee costs during DHS onboarding
Illustrates how IV-D funds can be misdirected

Part V: Child Care Cuts and the Vulnerable

According to Sage, in December 2024, Oklahoma DHS announced it would no longer pay for after-school child care for children aged 6 and older receiving TANF or SNAP benefits.

The rationale: budget constraints.

The reality according to Sage: The state was sitting on nearly $400 million in unspent TANF funds while simultaneously:

Funding billboard advertising for Work Ready Oklahoma
Renovating buildings for WRO program offices
Paying consulting contracts to Global True North
Maintaining Public Strategies Inc. operational contracts

The potential consequences, as Sage outlined:

Six-year-old children left home alone while parents work
Increased risk of accidents, fires, injuries
Parents forced to choose between keeping jobs and children’s safety
Child welfare investigations when children are found unsupervised

The pushback: According to subsequent DHS communications reported by local media, after public outcry, DHS revised its position somewhat, claiming child care for 6-7-8 year olds would “likely be covered” and requesting $70 million in additional funding despite the massive TANF surplus already accumulated.

Conclusion: A System Designed to Profit From Poverty

The pattern is clear:

Federal dollars flow to states with minimal oversight and flexible spending rules (documented in federal statutes and GAO reports)
States accumulate surpluses by making assistance difficult to access (per Sage’s documentation and Congressional Research Service data)
Unspent funds are redirected to contractors with political connections (per Oklahoma Watch and Senate investigations)
Former agency directors transition to private consulting, serving their former agencies (per Sage’s research and corporate records)
Enforcement systems prioritize metrics (collections, cost-effectiveness) over family outcomes (per federal incentive structure documented in 42 U.S.C. § 658a)
Vulnerable families face benefit cuts despite massive unspent balances (per Sage’s documentation)

Justin Brown’s trajectory exemplifies the pattern, as documented through official announcements and Sage’s research:

Appointed DHS Director in June 2019 (official DHS announcement)
Implemented office closures and remote work during COVID (per Sage’s firsthand observation)
Oversaw accumulation of TANF surplus as enrollment declined (per Sage’s analysis of federal data)
Resigned as Director in July 2022 (official DHS announcement, no public reason given)
Became Secretary of Human Services in Stitt’s cabinet, July 2022-July 2023 (official appointments)
Founded Global True North consulting firm in 2023 (per company website)
Firm’s primary client: Work Ready Oklahoma, funded by DHS TANF dollars (per Sage’s research)

Public Strategies Inc. under Mary Myrick, as documented by Oklahoma Watch and Sage:

Received $70 million for Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (2002-2013) that failed to reduce divorce (Oklahoma Watch investigation)
Faced criticism for sole-source contracts and lack of detailed reporting (2006 Oklahoma Senate press releases)
Now operates or supports Work Ready Oklahoma (per company’s own leadership page)
Continues pattern of TANF-funded contracts with minimal public accountability

The child support connection, per federal and state budget documents:

Oklahoma receives $36-40 million annually in federal IV-D funds (Oklahoma FY 2025 Budget Performance Review)
66% federal match rewards aggressive enforcement (42 U.S.C. § 655)
77% of collections reimburse state welfare costs, not families (Oklahoma FY 2025 Budget Performance Review)
Former enforcement attorneys market government experience in private practice (per attorney websites)
System prioritizes collections metrics over family wellbeing (per federal incentive structure)

The Questions That Remain

For Oklahoma lawmakers and oversight bodies:

Why has nearly $400 million in TANF funds accumulated while families struggle?
What specific amounts has Work Ready Oklahoma received in TANF funding?
What are the outcome metrics for WRO—employment placements, earnings increases, family self-sufficiency?
Why was Global True North awarded consulting contracts to serve programs at the agency Brown formerly directed?
What competitive bidding processes were used for WRO and related contracts?
Why is billboard advertising allowed for a TANF-funded program when regulations prohibit soliciting welfare applications?
How do WRO’s services differ from existing CareerTech and Oklahoma Works programs?

For federal oversight:

Why does Congress accept annual TANF reports without rigorous review?
How can $5.2 billion in unspent TANF funds accumulate nationally while poverty increases? (per ProPublica 2021 investigation)
What accountability mechanisms exist when states redirect welfare funds to contractors?
Should the Title IV-D incentive structure be reformed to measure family outcomes rather than just collections?

For Oklahoma families:

How can they access assistance when offices are closed and phone waits exceed 2 hours?
Why are child care benefits being cut when massive TANF surpluses exist?
Who ensures that federal dollars intended for poverty relief actually reach those in need?

The federal dollars are documented. The incentive structures are measurable. The revolving door from public service to private consulting is visible.

What remains harder to quantify is whether Oklahoma’s most vulnerable families the stated beneficiaries of these federal programs are actually better served by a system built around surplus accumulation, contractor payments, and collection metrics rather than around family wellbeing and pathways out of poverty.

Writing By: Robbie Robertson | Editing by Robbie Robertson

Sources and Documentation

Key Sources:

Dee Sage – Former Oklahoma Department of Human Services employee (14.5 years of service). Provided via her public posting original documentation, timeline analysis, and firsthand observations regarding:

Justin Brown’s tenure planning and office closure strategy
TANF surplus accumulation and “good cause” exemption practices
Work Ready Oklahoma operational details and facilities
Global True North’s relationship with WRO
Public Strategies Inc. contract history
Child care benefit cuts despite surplus funds
Marriage Initiative outcomes and spending

Federal Statutes and Regulations:

42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1) – Federal 66% matching rate for child support administrative costs
42 U.S.C. § 658a – Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998
42 U.S.C. § 652(a)(4)(C) – Federal requirement for proper use of child support funds
45 CFR 303.8 – Three-year review requirement for child support orders
OCSS Policy Guidance DCL-25-12 (December 1, 2025) – FY 2026 incentive pool allocation

Oklahoma Budget and Agency Documents: 6. Oklahoma Department of Human Services, FY 2025 Budget Performance Review (oksenate.gov) 7. Oklahoma DHS Child Support Services Statistics (oklahoma.gov/okdhs/services/ocss/stats.html) 8. Oklahoma State Plan for TANF (2023 renewal, oklahoma.gov)

Federal Oversight Reports: 9. U.S. GAO Report GAO-95-24 (1995) – Child Support Enforcement: Credit Bureau Reporting 10. U.S. GAO Report GAO-04-377 (2004) – Undistributed Collections and Tax Refund Intercepts 11. U.S. GAO Report GAO-11-196 (2011) – Need for Improved Data 12. HHS OIG Work Plan – Child Support Administrative Cost Audits (ongoing concern) 13. Congressional Research Service Report RL32760 (November 2024) – TANF Overview and Data

Legal Authorities: 14. Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) – Due process in child support contempt proceedings 15. ABA Model Rule 1.11 – Conflicts for Former Government Attorneys 16. Douglas R. Richmond, “As the Revolving Door Turns: Ethical Standards and Guidelines for Government Lawyers Who ‘Go Private,'” Saint Louis University Law Journal

Professional Biographies and Organizations: 17. Courtney Driskell professional profiles (The National Trial Lawyers, Driskell Law Firm website, Super Lawyers, Oklahoma Bar Association March 2024 announcement) 18. Justin Brown professional profiles (Global True North website, California Health Care Foundation, Government Technology, Aspen Institute, LinkedIn) 19. Global True North website and corporate documentation (globaltruenorth.org)

Oklahoma-Specific Reporting and Records: 20. Oklahoma DHS Press Release (July 29, 2022) – Justin Brown Resignation as Director 21. Oklahoma DHS Press Release (July 2023) – Justin Brown Resignation as Secretary 22. Oklahoma DHS Press Release (March 6, 2024) – Work Ready Oklahoma Statewide Expansion 23. Oklahoma Governor’s Office statements on Brown appointments and resignations (via news reporting) 24. Oklahoma Senate statements (Sen. Adam Pugh, Sen. Paul Rosino) on Brown’s service (July 2022)

Public Strategies Inc. and Marriage Initiative: 25. Oklahoma Watch (November 27, 2013) – “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative Fails to Halt Rising Divorce Rates” by M. Scott Carter 26. Oklahoma Senate Press Release (2006) – Sen. Kevin Easley criticism of Marriage Initiative contracts 27. Public Strategies Inc. corporate information (Dun & Bradstreet, company website at publicstrategies.com) 28. Public Strategies Inc. Leadership Page – listing “Senior Manager, Work Ready Oklahoma” position 29. Mary Myrick professional profiles (LinkedIn, company leadership page)

State Audits and Controversies: 30. Oklahoma State Auditor Cindy Byrd, Federal Single Audit Report FY 2023 (August 2025) 31. Wirth Law Office blog (February 2016) – “Court Says DHS Overcharged Interest on Back Child Support in Oklahoma” 32. Wirth Law Office blog (October 2014) – “Oklahoma DHS Child Support Computation Form Error Calculator” 33. KJRH News – “Auditor: ‘Alarming’ mismanagement of funds at two agencies” 34. News9 – “State Auditor Completes Forensic Audit Of Former District Attorney’s Finances”

Research and Policy Analysis: 35. Center for American Progress – “3 Ways States Can Improve Child Support” 36. Urban Institute Research – Child support debt owed to government vs. families 37. ProPublica (2021) – National investigation of $5.2 billion in unspent state TANF funds 38. Oklahoma Policy Institute – “Revisiting TANF” (2013) and ongoing TANF program analysis 39. Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma – TANF Oklahoma resource page 40. National Center for Children in Poverty – Oklahoma TANF State Profile

Congressional Testimony: 41. Brett Favre testimony to U.S. House of Representatives (2022) regarding Mississippi TANF fraud and lack of federal oversight

Acknowledgments:

This investigation would not have been possible without the documentation, analysis, and courage of Dee Sage, who spent 14.5 years serving vulnerable Oklahomans at DHS and witnessed these developments firsthand. Her meticulous record-keeping and willingness to speak publicly about systemic failures exemplifies the best traditions of whistleblowing and accountability journalism. Her work is her work…amazing.

Additional thanks to the journalists at Oklahoma Watch whose 2013 investigation into the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative provided crucial historical context.

We cite their work along with a lengthy source list of our own research. Public info matters.

Editor’s Note: The Oklahoma Post attempted to reach Justin Brown, Mary Myrick, Public Strategies Inc., Work Ready Oklahoma, Global True North, and Oklahoma Department of Human Services for comment on the matters raised in this investigation. As of publication, no responses have been received. This article may be updated if statements are provided….are truthful, verifiable, but only in this area of the article.

Editor’s Note (Updated Post-Publication):
Following a full-scope fact check, all major claims in this investigation are supported by public records, state audits, federal documents, and verified timelines. Minor updates have been made for precision: Justin Brown’s appointment and resignation dates are now sourced to DHS press releases (June 4, 2019 – July 29, 2022). Oklahoma’s TANF surplus is clarified with official year-end figures—$368M unspent in FY2022, $193.2M in FY2023—while acknowledging the projected $400M balance cited by Dee Sage includes FY2024 allotments. Audit findings referencing $186.4M in “misappropriated” federal funds have been aligned with the official term “questioned costs” as stated in the Oklahoma State Auditor’s 2025 report. Quotes or claims derived from Sage’s direct documentation are now clearly attributed to distinguish between firsthand observation and public agency statements. These updates do not alter the findings or conclusions of this investigation.

The Oklahoma Post is committed to investigative journalism that holds Oklahoma’s institutions accountable. If you have information about TANF spending, child support enforcement practices, or government contracting in Oklahoma, contact us confidentially at admin@theokpost.com

Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.

Donate Here — Donate To The Oklahoma Post Here

Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com

And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.

By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report

2025 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.