Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

In response to wondering how to communicate to one state’s legislator that any new Fatherhood Initiative, either precisely worded or inspiringly vague, though powerfully phrased, is indeed superfluous, I simply researched (again, in this state) two known existing fatherhood programs (at least under one Federal Department) — the one with “fatherhood” in its name, “CFDA 93.086, Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood” and the ones which has the intended effect of a “required outcome” to the legal process, namely “Access Visitation” grants, CFDA 93.597, commonly known as putting more time in the hands of the noncustodial parent (a.k.a. father), through moving the decision-making process outside the courtroom, until it has been screened by mediators, custody evaluators, and parenting planners.  (See my Cooks in the Court Kitchen Post).  Yes, these grants were making it to Kansas as well as to the rest of the U.S. (including V.I., P.R. & Guam).

Note:  in the database “usaspending.gov” and under “Grant search by program” it is impossible to search readily by 93.086, as it’s not on the list of hyperlinks.  I tend to feel this was not accidental.

CFDA Number = 93086

State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008

Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES 
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214

CFDA Number = 93597
State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008

Recipient: KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 
Recipient ZIP Code: 66612

I noticed how MANY types of things are administered directly through the KS ST Office of the Governor, which to me seems a little over-centralized and top-heavy.

While looking, I marveled that both  Abstinence Education and Community Based Abstinence-Education grants with Medical research on Male Contraception (guess which funding won out??)  (Actually both types got the grants,

so I suppose the winners are, however, those grants benefitted — or will — and the losers are the taxpayers — if they didn’t.  For example,

based on several factors, I’d say the Abstinence Education is a bust.  Not that I’m anti-Abstinence, hey, but how many decades is this going to be tried?   Since there is a Community-Based stipulation, the kind this decorative adjective, is government-based.  In fact, come to think of it, what has happened to just generalized DISCRETION in education, period?  The concept that “education” won’t happen without a program (particularly a government run one) is just a little “out there” to start with.  

I also believe that if there were better things to do in class, or young people had a vision for surviving past 20 (in some communities), or succeeding in life, there just might be a little less screwing around before financial independence.  Also what might be helpful if there was a general tendency to point them in the direction of financial independence, throughout the public schools.  We are, however, generally speaking (it seems) teaching the vast majority to hope to hold a job, rather than hope to own or run a business.  After all, can’t EVERYONE run a business (?) so someone has to be the employees, right? 

What better way to ensure a constant supply of willing employees (and a surplus of them, too) by the caste/income/race-sorting system we call public school education?  

The local child support agency (the one that “bailed” in my case, coming to the rescue of the father who’d rather take the kids than get a job) is frequently airing its successes and programs on the local cable TV.  What they don’t tell us, in the programs aimed at  young teens, is how they treat middle-aged parents in the family law venue.  OR WHY . . . . . Too bad, that. . . . 

Anyhow, in Kansas, a VERY small segment of what appears to be a wonderful research center, really:

(for the sake of margins, the same grant award, but , different fields displaying).  

(Where is the original, the “NEW” of this particular one, after which there was competing, then  non-competing continuation?)

WHAT, you say, might this be?  It’s CFDA CODE 93242, Mental Health Research . . . . and just the tip of the iceberg on our lust to KNOW (and to predict, and to manage, and to manipulate, and to label, and to — well, it’s all really for the national HEALTH):

We DO want to know why our neighbors (or others, or certain populations, or peoples, or income levels, or etc.) are mentally ill, and to verify (nay, certify) that they are, right?  To help them.  Become more sane.  Like us (case in point, studying all this may not be a sign of sanity…..).

I could not (today) find the “abstract” for these, but below are some samples of abstracts (with the word “stereotype” in them):

Mental Health, Discretionary must be a large segment:

AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS POST, I WILL LIST CERTAIN TYES OF RECIPIENTS: (ALL is too many):

(I thought you might enjoy that. . . . )  I’m not quite sure how shifting standards comes under Mental Health (which this grant is listed under), but hey, it takes all types.  I’d love to see the final report. . . . .

Searching Federal HHS grants on just the word “stereotypes” brings up a mix of social and medical sciences, and some overlap.  

ONE thing’s clear, it’s being studied.  I wonder if this will reduce the amount of “stereotyping” going on, just as studying domestic

violence has reduced the amount of domestic violence, and promoting responsible fatherhood has produced an abundance of responsible fathers nationwide, diminished the number of, well, ones like Doug Ouellette and such.  (Responsible in business, dangerous in marriage…. or at least being asked to separate from it…)

For example:

This looks interesting, and like it ought to justify several more fatherhood grants:

And, WOW, it’s a new one:  so new, not even any thesaurus terms for the abstract yet.  Started 2008, 

Principal Investigator, an Assistant Professor at Columbia, Institution< NY State Psychiatric Institute, and 

the Recipient (by the way, these are hyperlinks; you can click away, as can I…. Start with the grant numbers here) is a scary-sounding:

“Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.”

Total of all awards:

$ 858,685,338

(YES, you read that right:  $858,685,338 from 1997-2009)

OR, from another data resources:

http://www.usaspending.gov/faads/faads.php?recipient_name=Research+Foundation+for+Mental+Hygiene%2C+Inc.&sortby=r&detail=0&datype=T&reptype=r&database=faads&fiscal_year=&detail=-1&datype=T&submit=GO

(i am beginning to wonder whether this is partly WHY the US is the world’s largest “jailor” — population research?).

This one here seems very relevant, but only about $350K:

I mean, I’m sure this would affect quality of health care.  I know I had a sexist oby/gyn for the 2nd child (but I stood up to him, and there was a younger on on duty also, who accepted that not every woman who gives birth should be automatically anesthetized and cut….)

(Then again, the place this grant goes to, I happen to know, got about $127 Million in grants in single year…..)

Here’s one that interests me, as a musician, obviously.  I’m surprised to find $3mil on this, as typically music is the first thing cut from the public school curriculum in tough times  (i.e., periodically…..)

well, NO, that’s apparently about the male zebra finch. . . .   Go figure…..

But $858 million??  over about 12 years?  That’s like, HEY — what’s going ON with that foundation??

It’s not just the “mental hygiene” concept, but the “Mental Hygiene, INC.” Sounds sci-fi.

(Added 08-11-09:  I did look up some more on who ARE they?; it’s on the web, and free for anyone else who is willing to put in the time to look.  And a bit of an eye-opener, too.  They have done some good work, helping people after 9/11.  But it’s major business, and was set up in 1952 to facilitate research projects.  )  

While money will ALWAYS flow to study incarcerated African American males (or females), how about some to help in DOING the studies, not BEING studied?  “Nationally, African Americans, Latin Americans, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans are underrepresented in the sciences and social sciences. ”

Maybe this project wasn’t structured right, it only coughed up $81K: but it sounds reasonable to me:

This might upset a few apple carts and probably wouldn’t be duplicated.  Better to mentor children of prisoners, than potential social science superstars….

This one got over $1 million, so it must be very important (or, hard to study):

Took 4 years.  

$

Oh, Here’s a $2 million one:  Must be longitudinal and very relevant to national health and wellbeing or safety:

(NOTE:  project duration says 1986 – 2007.  These records therefore don’t show 1986 – 1997, probably similar amounts/year.

Well, since this project was over with one and a half years ago, perhaps we can write and find out what they learned.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/LangloisLAB/

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/crl.html#scope

The Children’s Research Laboratory (CRL) was founded in January 1982 to facilitate training and research on a wide variety of topics relating to infant and child development. We are located in the Seay Psychology building at the corner of Dean Keeton and Speedway on the University of Texas campus.

Approximately 7 faculty members and 20 graduate students currently conduct research at the CRL. While most are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, research assistance also has been provided to faculty from the Linguistics Department, the Department of Human Ecology, and the College of Education. Our current facility includes a waiting room for parents, numerous laboratory suites, offices for faculty and graduate researchers, a student lounge, and a developmental psychology library. Space is also available for visiting faculty and post-doctoral fellows. In addition, the CRL provides invaluable training to approximately 150 undergraduate students per year. Their close work with both graduate students and faculty on specific research projetcts prepares them for graduate work toward advanced degrees or other careers involving children.

Our research has examined a broad range of topics, including studies of infant vision and audition, the early development of cognitive and intellectual ability, the development of language, parent-infant interaction, social stereotypes by young children and adults, and the causes of parental abuse of children. Research projects at the CRL are funded primarily through federal and private foundation funds.

Rebecca Anne Hoss, Judith H. Langlois, Rebecca Bigler, Jacqueline D. Woolley, Robert A. Josephs, Kristin Neff, …

This dissertation is dedicated to all those who have supported and guided me in my quest for a graduate degree in psychology, including my loving husband Chance Lawson, my unconditionally supportive…

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1129416

(Abstract:)

The relation between physical attractiveness and behavior was examined by assessing whether behavioral differences exist between attractive and unattractive children.

{{As determined by . . . . .??}}

64   3- and 5-year-old boys and girls were selected as subjects on the basis of physical attractiveness. Same age and sex, attractive, unattractive, and mixed-attractiveness dyads were formed and were observed in a seminaturalistic play setting. A categorical observation system was used to record affiliative, aggressive, activity-, and object-directed play behaviors. A developmental pattern was found for aggression: no differences based on attractiveness were evident in 3-year-olds, but 5-year-old unattractive children aggressed against peers more often than did attractive children. Unattractive children were generally more active than attractive children. Few differences in affiliative behaviors were found between attractive and unattractive children.

>>>>

Phew!

This is a side-note to a Judith Langlois site, but I don’t think the topic is “incidental” to WHAT is our federal HHS department doing with these grants (and why):  

INTRODUCTION

It is useful to distinguish, in a first approximation, between behavioral biology in general, and the more special fields of classical comparative psychology, classical ethology, and the newer fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Contemporary animal behavior research often tries to combine the methods and insights of the experimental approach of comparative psychology with the field observational approach of ethology. Comparative psychology originated in North America as a branch of experimental psychology; its practitioners were mainly interested in differences between species, especially in intelligence and learning. Classical ethology is a branch of biology that originated in Europe, used observational rather than experimental methods, and was interested first and foremost in the naturally occurring behavior of animals. Although the dichotomy must not be overstressed, animal behaviorists tend to be trained in psychology, work with “bright” animals, and generally are interested in learned behaviors; while contemporary ethologists, sociobiologists, and evolutionary psychologists are likely to concentrate on innate behaviors. While the study of learned behavior is both important and immediately applicable to human psychology, these behaviors do not have an evolutionary basis beyond the neural capacity to learn. (For a more detailed account of the differences between these traditions, see, e.g., Barry Sinervo.)

The research covered in this area introduction encompasses a very large domain. For the sake of convenience, we have divided it in clusters that are listed alphabetically under the conventional labels “animal behavior,” “animal cognition,” “ethology,” “behavioral ecology,” “cognitive ecology,” “neuroethology,” “sociobiology,” and “evolutionary psychology.” It should be borne in mind throughout that these labels reflect little more than the contingencies of the history of behavioral biology, and that in practice, the boundaries between these sub-areas tend to be quite blurred.

The question I pose is whether historians and social scientists have much to gain from models of cultural evolution that treat cultural change as a kind of selection process. Can such models provide a unifying paradigm for the social sciences that plays the same role in the study of human culture that models of biological evolution play in biology as a whole?

As an explanatory theory of human behavior, dynamical ((Kind of dynamic, but not quite, so only “dynamical”??)  models of cultural evolution and social learning hold more promise of success than models based on rational choice. Under the right conditions, evolutionary models supply a rationale for Nash equilibrium that rational choice theory is hard pressed to deliver. Furthermore, in cases with multiple symmetrical Nash equilibria, the dynamic models offer a plausible, historically path-dependent model of equilibrium selection. In conditions, such as those of correlated encounters, where the evolutionary dynamic theory is structurally at odds with the rational choice theory, the evolutionary theory provides the best account of human behavior.

— Brian Skyrms 

 Evolutionary Psychology (EP)

EP was articulated in the wake of human sociobiology’s unsuccessful attempts (most notably, Lumsden/Wilson 1981) to come to grips with gene-culture coevolution. Its goal is to uncover “the psychological mechanisms that underpin human … behavior, and … the selective forces that shaped those mechanisms” (Donald Symons). Its key assumptions are, in Eric Alden Smith’s accurate summary, modularity (human behavior is guided by specialized cognitive mechanisms performing specialized tasks); historicity (natural selection shaped those modules to produce adaptive behavior in the paleolithic EEA or “environment of evolutionary adaptedmess”); adaptive specificity (adaptive outcomes, e.g., mate preference, are very specific); and environmental novelty (modern environments are characterized by an unprecedented degree of novelty). From these assumptions, EP deduces that valid adaptive explanations must refer to genetically evolved psychological mechanisms linked to specific features of the EEA; that “culture,” “learning,” “rational choice,” and “fitness maximization” are insufficiently modular to be explanatorily realistic mechanisms, whether cognitive or behavioral; that contemporary human behavior may often be maladaptive; and that measuring fitness outcomes or correlates of contemporary behavioral patterns is irrelevant.

{{I”m tempted to add, this includes collective institutional behavior in many matters.  Either we (so to speak) are trying to study, manage, and predict human behavior, so as to better MANAGE it, (evolutionary bias) OR we (so to speak) are trying to enforce a certain religious paradigm on the entire country, a paradigm in which all animals are equal, but SOME (male) animals are more equal than others.  And, anyone, incidentally, who doesn’t agree with the above will be tortured in one (or more) institutions, until they do.   How this differs IN THEORY AND PRACTICE with what this SAME United States is sending troops overseas to quell (insurgents, and make the world safe for “democracy,” I’m not sure – – it does have frightening similarities.  Except, in many other countries, I could probably only put up ONE blog post saying this. . . . . .  if I dared.  We DO make fun of our government pretty well, I admit }}

ANYHOW, do you catch the flavor of the lingo?

By the way, calling people “bipolar” is popular these days.  Never fear, a “Special Unit of Government” is on it, since about 2002, with a Mental Health Research Discretionary type grants. Apparently designed for this particular recipient only: (this is the only recipient that came up under Mental Health Research Discretionary and “Special Unit of Government.”

Total (quick-check) $6,753,531

WHO, you may say, is the Cambridge Health Alliance, and what are they doing?  What’s so special about them?

Psychopathology and controlling behavior in adolescents. . . . . . . Perhaps someone ought to study where they’ve been for the prior teen years, and take a look at which institutions as well as which environments. . . . .  

5R01MH62030-020 (Federal Grant ID — you can look it up):

COMMENTARY BELOW:

Assistance to Recipient(s) “Cambridge Health Alliance”
(FY 2000-2009)

Summary

Type of projects:  Top 5.

..