Archive for August 2009
Possibly Certifiable Insanity (Stockpiling Mental Health Research Grants, “Discretionary,”nationwide).
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
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0112 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,368.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,368.00 | |||||
CFDA Number = 93597
State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008
Recipient: KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 66612
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 0801KSSAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 01-30-2008 | $100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $100,000.00 | |||||
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:
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | Award Title | Sum of Actions |
| 2003 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 138,291 |
| 2002 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 155,041 |
| 2001 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 182,417 |
| 2000 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 177,105 |
| 1999 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $160,365 |
(for the sake of margins, the same grant award, but , different fields displaying).
| 2003 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 138,291 |
| 2002 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 155,041 |
| 2001 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 182,417 |
| 2000 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 177,105 |
| 1999 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 160,365 |
(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:
| R01MH071749
Arizona |
STEREOTYPE THREAT AS A STRESS INDUCED COGNITIVE DEFICIT | NIH | NIMH | $ 588,957 |
| Title | Stereotype Threat as a Stress Induced Cognitive Deficit |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01MH071749 |
| Project Start/End | 01-AUG-2004 / 31-MAY-2008 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Prior work on stereotype threat (see Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002, for a review) suggests that the stress of being targeted by negative stereotypes can cause stigmatized individuals to perform more poorly on complex cognitive tasks when anything is done to remind them of their membership in a negatively stereotyped group.
Although research has established the generalizability of these stereotype threat effects, a precise and integrated model of the processes by which negative stereotypes interfere with performance is still needed. This application draws on existing literatures examining how stress impacts cognitive processing and outlines a theoretical model that integrates cognitive, physiological, and affective processes that mediate stereotype threat effects on test performance by reducing an individual’s working memory capacity. This model proposes that negative stereotypes reduce performance in testing situations because they present the individual with inconsistent views about the self that induce, a) cognitive processing in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistency, b) a physiological stress response involving increased stress hormones and sympathetic activation, and c) attempts to suppress felt anxiety.
Each of these processes is hypothesized to have a negative effect on an individual’s working memory capacity, a cognitive process integral to any complex mental task. The results of three preliminary experiments are reported to provide evidence that working memory capacity is a key mediator of stereotype threat effects on performance. The 11 experiments that are proposed will expand upon these findings to identify the processes by which stereotype threat interferes with working memory capacity and performance. {{RATHER THAN, say, DOING something to alleviate the stereotyping in the situation..? }}
A significant impact of the present research is that in gaining a better understanding of the stress-related processes that are affected by stereotype threat, it becomes more feasible to develop strategies that will enable individuals to cope successfully with social stigma. |
| Thesaurus | academic achievement, cognition disorder, prejudice, psychological stressor, psychophysiology, social perception, stress, university student anxiety, coping, culture, gender difference, hormone biosynthesis, neural information processing, racial /ethnic difference, self concept, short term memory, social psychology, sympathetic nervous system behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, human subject, interview, psychological test |
| PI Name/Title | SCHMADER, TONI M. |
| PI eMail | |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PO BOX 3308 TUCSON, AZ 857223308 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2007 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | SPIP |
| F31HD058492
North Carolina |
RACE STEREOTYPES AND SELF PERCEPTIONS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOUTH | NIH | NICHD | $ 33,879 |
| Title | Race stereotypes and self perceptions in African American youth |
|---|---|
| Award Number | F31HD058492 |
| Project Start/End | 30-SEP-2008 / |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The purpose of the proposed study is (1) to examine the developmental progression of academic race stereotype endorsement in African American youth; (2) to explore, over time, the impact that academic race stereotype endorsement has on the academic self-concept and self-esteem of Black adolescents; (3) to examine whether racial centrality (i.e., the extent to which being Black is central to an individual’s definition of self) moderates the relationship between stereotype endorsement and self-perceptions; (4) to explore the influence of parental racial socialization messages on academic race stereotype endorsement; and (5) to determine the relationships among stereotype endorsement, racial centrality, racial socialization, and decisions about higher education. 135 African American eleventh graders in a rural school district will participate in the project. These students participated in the first wave of the Adolescent Identity Project when they were in middle school. Written parental and student consent will be required for study participation. Consent letters will be distributed to students in their English classes. Once consent has been received, students will be administered self-report questionnaires in small groups (5-10 students) at their schools. Trained research assistants will instruct students on how to complete each measure and will be available to answer questions. Once questionnaires are completed, the research assistant will thank the students and give them a $5 restaurant gift certificate. In addition, during the students’ 12th grade year, they will be mailed a follow-up packet. Students will be questioned about their college plans (whether or not they are planning to attend college and whether it is a Historically Black College or University), SAT scores (if applicable), end of grade scores, and stereotype endorsement. The proposed study will significantly contribute to the body of knowledge on African American adolescents’ achievement-related beliefs and how they develop and change overtime. Understanding achievement-related beliefs will provide a pathway for explaining the factors that contribute to and promote achievement motivation and academic success for African American adolescents. Public Health Relevance: This Public Health Relevance is not available. |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | OKEKE, NDIDI A. |
| PI eMail | okeke@email.unc.edu |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL Office of Sponsored Research CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2008 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
This looks interesting, and like it ought to justify several more fatherhood grants:
| R01DA024029 | PATERNAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT AND SUBSTANCE USE IN CHILDREN & ADOLESCENTS | NIH | NIDA | $ 1,592,006 |
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:
(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:
| R21HL088620 | MEASURING CULTURAL COMPETENCE AND RACIAL BIAS AMONG PHYSICIANS | NIH | NHLBI | $ 346,500 |
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…..)
| R01NS050436 | INTEGRATIVE STUDY OF VOCAL DEVELOPMENT | NIH | NINDS | $ 3,219,146 |
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. )
| Title | Paternal Criminal Justice Involvement and Substance Use in Children & Adolescents |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01DA024029 |
| Project Start/End | 01-AUG-2008 / 31-MAY-2013 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Of the 6.5 million adults who were under some form of correctional supervision in 2000, 3.6 million were parents,[{AND MOSTLY MEN}} thereby affecting 7.1 million minor children. Nationally, approximately 85% of all prisoners are male. Contrary to stereotypes, many of the fathers have significant connections to their children: prior to arrest 44% of incarcerated fathers lived with their children and 65% of the others continued at least monthly contact while in prison. Note however, that among incarcerated fathers >60% reported using drugs in the month before their offense; 25% reported a history of alcohol dependence; 14% reported mental illness and 70% did not have a high school diploma.\
Yet, despite evidence that parental involvement with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is related to children’s elevated risk for substance use, psychopathology, and future incarceration, no rigorous studies of a representative sample of such children have been conducted. {{I thought it was FATHERLESSNESS, not FATHER-INCARCERATION that was the main issue, from what we have been hearing nationally, through the courts, HHS, government, and initiatives….}}
A better understanding of the specific impact of paternal incarceration, from a developmental perspective, could be expected to provide insight into ways of tempering or averting many psychosocial adverse outcomes in the youth. (ANOTHER Idea (mine) might be to find ways to keep the fathers if possible from the behaviors that got them incarcerated to start with. .. . . And then that’d be one less generation to be so impacted. What do you think?)
The main objective of this investigation is to understand the impact, over time, of paternal involvement with the CJS on their children’s substance use, psychopathology, and development of risk behaviors leading to involvement with the Juvenile Justice/CJS. This proposal aims to overcome methodological limitations of previous investigations and will provide generalizable findings relevant to developing public policy for improving the lives of affected children, including reducing their risk for substance use and incarceration. Our framework acknowledges that paternal involvement with the CJS occurs in a complex environment, where risk factors cluster, leading to a number of both direct and indirect sequelae. We will recruit a sample of children (ages 10-14) following the arrest of their fathers. The sample will be representative of CJS fathers from a disadvantaged community (the South Bronx, NYC), who have close contact with their child(ren). They will be recruited through collaboration with a publicly assigned legal defense team, the Bronx Defenders. An age- gender matched comparison group of children whose fathers had never been incarcerated will be recruited in the same residential area. The study includes collaboration with agencies whose involvement make this inherently difficult study possible: including the NYC DOE, NYC DOH-MH, NYC ACS, as well as collaborators and advocacy groups, some participating on the Study’s Advisory Board. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: From a public health perspective, policy driven decisions regarding youth, especially those at elevated risk for untoward outcomes, must be based on sound scientific data. The goal of the proposed investigation is to advance our knowledge and understanding of the consequences of paternal involvement with the Criminal Justice System on the substance use/abuse/dependence and other psychopathology of their children. Knowledge about the determinants, over time, for negative youth outcomes, as well as protective factors, is critical to advancing targeted interventions in an effort to break the cycle of Criminal Justice involvement of the next generation. Public Health Relevance: This Public Health Relevance is not available. {{I have a “dumb” idea. Take some of the monies spent studying male zebra finches, and the ones on lethality risks for domestic violence femicides, which are being ignored in public policy (courts) anyhow, and put them towards things that would help break the cycle of (1) ILLITERACY and with it (2) POVERTY. Then I suspect — barring continuing racial profiling by arresting officeres, and a few other possible institutional factors (why not study the INSTITUTIONS as much as the people IN them, eh?) there might be lower incarceration rates. And Research Foundation Inc. could go find something else to research…)) {{PUT IT INTO: Expressive arts, creative arts, dance, and so forth. Put it into college scholarships. Put it into supporting the EXIT from the public school systems that undereducate and badly socialize. . . . Let’s Get Honest!!}} |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | HOVEN, CHRISTINA W. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | ch42@columbia.edu |
| Institution | NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE NEW YORK, NY 10032 |
| Department | |
| Fiscal Year | 2008 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE |
| IRG | RPIA |
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:
| R25MH070369 | PROMOTING HS MINORITY ADVANCEMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES | NIH | NIMH | $ 81,491 |
| Title | Promoting HS Minority Advancement in the Social Sciences |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R25MH070369 |
| Project Start/End | 01-JUL-2004 / 30-JUN-2006 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The long-term goal of the proposed HS-COR Honors Research Training program is to achieve ethnic parity in admissions to (goal=100%) and success in undergraduate programs (goal = 100%) related to the biomedical sciences or mental health fields. Nationally, African Americans, Latin Americans, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans are underrepresented in the sciences and social sciences.
{{POSSIBLY — just conjecturing here, total hypothesis, but I HAVE been nosing around a lot of these grants for many months now — POSSIBLY because the powers that be would rather STUDY such populations than have them participate in running the studies. JUST an idea…}} The specific aims of the program are to increase underrepresented student success by: (a) identifying 6 students who appear to have the greatest potential, (b) training students in the fundamental assumptions, value of, and pitfalls of research, (c) facilitating students’ specific research skills by their working with a faculty mentor on a specific research project, and (d) providing specific information and support to ensure that students have the qualities required to be successful in an undergraduate program, such as assistance with SAT preparation and the presentation of research in science fairs. Students will attend a summer training program on the research process that is designed to build scientific and critical reasoning skills and a practical seminar series and work one-on-one with their research mentors. Faculty mentors’ research projects reflect a variety of areas including the neuropsychology of Alzheimer’s disease, quality of life of elderly women, effects of stereotype threat on academic achievement of minority students, adolescent wellbeing, and violence prevention. Evaluation of three goals is specified. The goals are: (a) admission to college; (b) success while in college; and (c) professionalism. Each goal is made more specific and specific program components are matched with each goal. |
| Thesaurus | academic achievement, behavioral /social science, ethnic group, secondary school, training, vocational guidance African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, health science research potential, mental health personnel, university adolescence (12-20), behavioral /social science research tag, human subject |
| PI Name/Title | QUILICI, JILL L. |
| PI eMail | jill.quilici@csun.edu |
| Institution | CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROJECTS NORTHRIDGE, CA 913308232 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2005 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZMH1 |
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):
| R01MH066836
Massachusetts |
FACE OVERGENERALIZATION, PREJUDICE, AND STEREOTYPES | NIH | NIMH | $1,403,454 |
Took 4 years.
$
| Award Number | R01MH066836 |
|---|---|
| Project Start/End | 10-SEP-2003 / 30-JUN-2007 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Considerable research demonstrates a strong tendency to use facial appearance when forming first impressions.
(What’s more, common sense says this as well)
Moreover, these impressions show remarkable consensus, yielding significant social consequences. (ibid). The long-range objective of the proposed research is to explain consensual first impressions of faces and to develop methods for ameliorating their negative social consequences. Consensual First Impressions of Faces? Does this relate to (or, lead to…) “consensual sex.”?? The working hypothesis is that the psychological qualities that are accurately revealed by the functionally significant facial qualities that mark babies, unfitness, emotion, or identity are overgeneralized to people whose facial structure resembles that of babies, a particular level of fitness, a particular emotion, or a particular identity. The research has three specific aims. One is to use connectionist modeling to test the facial identity overgeneralization hypothesis that the tendency for responses to strangers to vary with their facial resemblance to known individuals contributes to racial prejudice and stereotyping. The connectionist modeling experiments seek to demonstrate that the physical similarity between two faces can in and of itself account for similar impressions of them quite apart from similarities in the social categories of the faces. The second aim is to test whether generalized mere exposure effects can be used to reduce race and age prejudice and stereotyping, as predicted by the facial identity overgeneralization hypothesis. The mere exposure experiments seek to demonstrate that increasing the familiarity of an out-group facial prototype will decrease negative reactions to out-group members. The third aim is to use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to investigate neural activation patterns in response to faces that are predicted from each of the three overgeneralization hypotheses. The fMRI experiments seek to determine whether categories of faces that are differentiated by human judges’ ratings and by the activation they elicit in connectionist modeling experiments also elicit distinct patterns of neural activation, thereby demonstrating a neural substrate for the overgeneralization effects. By focusing on the structured facial information that influences prejudice and stereotypes, the proposed research brings a novel theoretical perspective to the field of social cognition, demonstrating that the intrinsic properties of faces make a significant contribution to social biases that have been largely viewed as social constructions. It also suggests novel interventions for reducing prejudice. |
| Thesaurus | face, impression, prejudice, racial /ethnic difference bias, face expression, handedness, identity, neural information processing, social perception, visual stimulus behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, functional magnetic resonance imaging, human old age (65+), human subject, young adult human (21-34) |
| PI Name/Title | ZEBROWITZ, LESLIE A. PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | zebrowitz@brandeis.edu |
| Institution | BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY 415 SOUTH STREET WALTHAM, MA 024549110 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2006 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
| Total of all awards: | $ 1,403,454 |
Oh, Here’s a $2 million one: Must be longitudinal and very relevant to national health and wellbeing or safety:
| R01HD021332
TEXAS |
ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCE-BASED STEREOTYPES | NIH | NICHD | $ 2,352,235 |
| R01HD021332 | ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCE-BASED STEREOTYPES | NIH | NICHD | $ 2,352,235 |
| Title | Origins and Significance of Appearance-Based Stereotypes |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01HD021332 |
| Project Start/End | 01-SEP-1986 / 31-DEC-2007 |
| Abstract | This abstract is not available. |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | LANGLOIS, JUDITH H. CHARLES AND SARAH SEAY REGENTS’ PROFESSO |
| PI eMail | langlois@psy.utexas.edu |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN PO Box 7726 AUSTIN, TX 78713 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2007 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
(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.”
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Grantee Class | Award Title | Award Action Type | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 821,185 |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | INNOVATIONS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 85,881 |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LITHIUM MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH BIPOLAR | NEW | $- 105,248 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 906,904 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | INNOVATIONS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE | NEW | $ 85,844 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LITHIUM MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH BIPOLAR | NEW | $ 213,300 |
| 2007 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | A TREATMENT OUTCOME ANALYSIS FOR BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 77,680 |
| 2007 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 951,551 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | A TREATMENT OUTCOME ANALYSIS FOR BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS | NEW | $ 80,000 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 985,750 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | SUPPLEMENT FOR EXPANSION | $ 59,555 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | HMO SELECTION INCENTIVES AND UNDERPROVISION OF MH CARE | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 80,561 |
| 2005 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NEW | $ 921,689 |
| 2005 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | HMO SELECTION INCENTIVES AND UNDERPROVISION OF MH CARE | NEW | $ 82,500 |
| 2004 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 200,000 |
| 2003 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LATINO RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECT | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 898,383 |
| 2003 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 280,000 |
| 2002 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 280,000 |
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):
| Title | Psychopathology and Controlling Behavior in Adolescents. |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01MH062030 |
| Project Start/End | 25-SEP-2001 / 31-AUG-2006 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Recent attachment-related studies {{PROBABLY ALSO FEDERALLY FUNDED}} have demonstrated that both childhood behavior problems and adolescent psychopathology are predicted by (1) disorganized infant attachment behavior, behavior that is characterized by conflicting behavioral tendencies and the lack of a coherent relational strategy for dealing with stress (2). However, based on current literature, it is unclear whether a validated measure of disorganized attachment in adolescence exists.(3)
The first aim of the proposed study is to develop and validate a coding protocol for identifying controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, and other insecure-disorganized behavior in adolescence. (4) The coding scheme will be based on previous work in the field (5) and will be applied to two attachment-related parent-adolescent interaction assessments. Participants will be 120 adolescents and their mothers from low-income families, (6) 65 of whom who have participated in a longitudinal study at ages 12 and 18 months, 4-5 years, and 7-9 year. (7) The construct validity of the new measure of controlling attachment strategies will be assessed in relation to coding of Unresolved or Cannot Classify attachment strategies as assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview and will also be validated against broader aspects of parent-adolescent interaction assessed in a standard revealed differences conflict resolution task, as coded by the Autonomy and Relatedness Scales. (8) The second aim of the study is to assess whether overall risk in infancy is an important antecedent of disorganized/controlling attachment strategies in adolescence. (9) Mediational models will test whether the onset of behavior problems in the early school years or the mother’s lack of facilitation of automony and relatedness in adolescence adds to and/or mediates any observed relation between early relational risk and adolescent attachment behaviors. (10) The third aim of the study is to assess the degree to which adolescent disorganized/controlling attachment strategies are associated with adolescent psychiatric morbidity. Psychiatric diagnoses will be assessed by the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnosis (SCID) Axis I, the borderline and antisocial personality disorder sections of the SCID II, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) , and the Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale (ADES). Longitudinal analyses will further assess the degree to which early relational risk and early school age behavior problems are important precursors of adolescent psychopathology. The proposed study will contribute to increased understanding of long-term developmental trajectories that eventuate in psychopathology. In order to implement prevention or treatment programs for reducing adolescent antisocial behavior and psychopathology, it is essential {{FOR WHOM??}} to seek a thorough understanding of the developmental pathways through which such behavior develops over time. |
| Thesaurus | adolescence (12-20), child behavior disorder, child psychology, longitudinal human study, low socioeconomic status, parent offspring interaction, psychopathology age difference, behavior prediction, caregiver, conflict, depression, disease /disorder proneness /risk, gender difference, human morbidity, infant human (0-1 year), maternal behavior, mental disorder diagnosis, psychoanalysis, psychological stressor, psychosocial separation, racial /ethnic difference behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, human subject, interview, videotape /videodisc |
| PI Name/Title | LYONS-RUTH, KARLEN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | klruth@hms.harvard.edu |
| Institution | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE 1493 CAMBRIDGE ST CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 |
| Department | |
| Fiscal Year | 2004 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
COMMENTARY BELOW:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “Cambridge Health Alliance”
(FY 2000-2009)
Summary
| Federal dollars: $25,309,682 Total number of recipients: 1 Total number of transactions: 87
|
| Massachusetts 08 (Michael E. Capuano) | $8,151,249 |
Top 10 Recipients
| CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | $25,309,682 |
Recipient Type
| Government | $20,271,453 |
| Other | $4,681,488 |
| Nonprofits | $311,588 |
| For Profits | $41,653 |
| Higher Education | $3,500 |
| Individuals | $0 |
Type of projects: Top 5.
| 93.242: Mental Health Research Grants (Doesn’t quite match the total above, eh?, same category) | $11,129,223 |
| 93.145: AIDS Education and Training Centers | $3,953,377 |
| 93.252: Healthy Communities Access Program | $2,476,400 |
| 93.887: Health Care and Other Facilities | $1,633,902 |
| 93.243: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services_Projects of Regional and National Significance | $1,450,000 |
..
SHARE THIS POST on...
Yes, we SHOULD call them “restraining order suggestions” (Certifiably Insane Protection Orders in MN; meanwhile, more “Fatherhood” in KS) [[Orig. Aug. 7, 2009]].
[[Title & Shortlink added Dec. 1, 2023 to refer to this post]]
[Feb. 17, 2016 UPDATE NOTES:
This post originally published over five years ago — on August 7, 2009. For more recent focus of this blog, see more recent posts (2016, 2014) which focus on systems operations, and consolidation of economic power from outside state lines (divorce and custody remaining under state jurisdiction, as well as domestic violence prevention orders).
I am currently working on posts regarding the Greenbook Initiative (2000-2008) and involved parties, on the NCJFCJ, on IDVAAC, and the “DV cartel” as identified by its participants (centralized, coordinated, and stuck in a policy rut) on the HHS and USDOJ grants stream.
I look up nonprofit organizations functioning as social policy conduits for a small group of inter-related professionals who cut deals with each other on what to minimize, what to focus on. These represent a much larger pattern throughout government, not just relating to domestic violence itself.
Many times by the time individuals find out about the policy deals that were cut, their lives, or kids are “gone.” If not physically, often in all the other critical aspects of life which people NOT entrenched in some of these systems may still take for granted. For example, the ability to get to and from, and hold a job once one has been hired, or completing projects for clients inbetween police events, court hearings, and ongoing threats to one’s personal safety and particularly, financial survival (i.e., ability to sustain food, housing, transportation, etc.). This comment added 2/17/2016 //LGH]
(Short-link ends “-ez” and post is about 10,600 words. Including many quotes…and the text of a Kansas Senate Bill starting a “Fatherhood Initiative” — and the entire text of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (trying to see if there’s a disconnect somewhere between those two?)
I also respond to some news articles at length on the timeline in the first article shown below.) (Parts of this post also refer to the Inter-American Council on Human Rights (IACHR) for a domestic violence (“DV”) case from Kansas (Claudine Dombrowski) which appealed that high up for justice…) //LGH 12/1/23.
Today’s [Aug. 2009] headlines are right on topic with yesterday’s post. . . and the one referenced above….
Mr & Mrs. OUELETTEs, MINNESOTA, 2 accounts of 2,100 on the web, from Kare11News.
(1) Wife had order of protection against husband prior to murder-suicide
(2) Harris man gave up guns before strangling wife, hanging himself
Well, I swore I was NOT going to blog on this today, but I fear that these are indeed possibly copy-cat murder/suicides. It is now “out there” in the news as a possible way out of an emotionally embarrassing and humiliating situation.
Read THIS one, and then see if you can tell which parts were certifiably insane public policy, and how many warning signs people ignored.
And I’ll tell you why this one chills me, and makes me glad to be alive today.
(TOP of post — Minnesota. BOTTOM — Kansas.
They relate.)
Blogger’s Preface
At this point, it seems to be “certifiably insane public policy” to expect women to trust, or men to respect, such restraining orders, when clearly they don’t — I already blogged on this re: the woman in Pennsylvania who fought back.
Recently, I wrote about a father accused of molesting his (teenaged) daughter who, seeing as she was only moved 2 doors down, and into the home of a man that used to be the same father’s employee (say, what???!?). Within one week, Dad had killed: daughter, foster father and himself, and almost killed foster mother, too. So THAT helpful ruling got 3 people dead and one injury.
Great going, child protective services in that region of Tennessee.
Here’s another one that slipped through the cracks somehow, and at several different points. What “gets” me about this one is realizing several domestic violence prevention groups, nonprofits, that have been getting millions upon millions of federal dollars, over at least a decade in grants to provent violence locally, rurally, and in Indian tribes, as well as technical assistance grants to, I guess, “get the word out.”
So far, I can see they are doing a great job with putting together literature that’s already on the web somewhere, positioning themselves as the experts, consulting in private with other professionals about what to do, and keeping a body count. Which hasn’t substantially changed (per these counts) statewide in Minnesota within a decade.
So either the state is raising more suicidal or unable-to-handle-stress people, or immature young adults who then continue the immaturity into adulthood and parenthood (referring to the fathers in this case), or something. . . . . . Or so many people are being born each day that they STILL don’t know the warning signs of danger, and are talked into minimizing them.
Let’s maybe add ONE more “lethality risk” — trusting in protection orders to start with.
That’s for the courts and for the women alike. And encouraging a woman to do so (or continuing to present them as viable alternatives — when in fact they are panaceas too often) also places her in risk, given the facts. Ignorance of them is NOT bliss. . . .
When police DO respond in time, they run the risk of death themselves. When they do NOT respond in time, typically Mom, and sometimes Dad, are killed, and sometimes more. Or otherwise traumatized. SO . . . . . what else is available?
CONSIDER THIS ONE:
- State: Minnesota
- Body Count: 2, no responding officers or bystanders killed this time.
- Orphans: 3, ages 10 (boy), 8 & 8 (twin girls)
- Who are they now living with? Relatives.
- Did they witness the murder – – of their mother by their father, YES, the girls
- Did they try to intervene and fail? – — YES, an 8 year old girl tried to save her mother.
- Was 911 called? – — YES, by an 8 year old daughter?
- Was the call heeded (it seems No), or interfered with (yes, by the father)? – – – read below.
- Was that restraining order as written certifiably insane? – — ABSOLUTELY. (And it seems identical to the one I got many years ago.)
- Does making a restrained person turn in his or her guns always save a life? – — NO. Other weapons also can kill (apparently here, hands).
- Or, a person not allowed to get a gun could get a friend’s (or in a recent case girlfriend’s gun).
- Are risk assessments going to redeem lives from living in fear (or being lost)? – – – I’m not sure. I’m of the current opinion, NO, unless the woman herself takes them seriously and takes serious actions not reliant on 911 to ensure safety.
So, let’s talk about the body counts vis-a-vis the legal terminology:
When you think about it, and read the results, even calling these things “protection orders” makes zero sense. They are restraint requests. A man without restraint is ordered in public by a judge to show restraint.
WHO is to protect, in “protection order”? The power of the state? Does the state, like God, declare “protection” exists because it ordered this? And is the state, in so doing, lying to the protected parties?
I think so, basically.
Here’s a perhaps (I ALWAYS say “perhaps,” or try to) more viable protection order:
A trained, armed mother with an attitude to match, telling the man who just received the judicial order, that she is going to take the boundaries of the property seriously, and understands all laws regarding the 2nd amendment, and any contingencies. IN other words, she needs to be more determined and more aggressive than the person who formerly attacked or threatened her.
So do the people surrounding or dealing with her on this issue.
Alternately, a “not in the same state” “county” “500 mile radius” mother, and kids. And the kids could be told the truth about why this is happening, in age-appropriate terms but without name-calling or derogatory treatment of their father.
But of course that would screw up “access visitation” and “National Fathers Return Days” somewhat….
NOW, this mindset is not typically the state of a woman who has gotten to the point of requesting such an order from her husband, right? The request for an order represents to an abuser an ESCALATION in OPPOSITION to SUBMISSION. How’s he likely to respond?
SHARE THIS POST on...
WHY won’t we ask WHY judges underestimate lethality risk in domestic violence cases? (papers.SSRN.com)
Before this:
I would like to personally apologize for the lousy hyphenation in the last post. I will bring this to the attention of my webmaster (when I get one). As to blogging, I’m an old dog learning new tricks. As to polishing my blogs — my life still falls under these lethality risk categories, which the abstract below refers to as “Danger Assessment” (“D.A.”, not to be confused with “D.A” meaning “District Attorney” in some jurisdictions), and has for years, and when I feel that the “survival” aspect has changed, I will probably (from thence forward) be more careful.
Til then — and I do realize partly BECAUSE long-term family law entrapments have made long-term planning a “moot point,” I will for the short-term, get them up there, period. I tried about 3 ways yesterday to get the chart within the confines here. I also know that one cannot post a link to this particular database which actually saves the search. Instead, it brings one only to the search page.
If I were a different person, I’d just slap up the article and barely commment on it. All these “Says Who?” and “Why THIS focus in such an important field?” wouldn’t resonate within my mind.
But being who I am (daughter of a research scientist who talked back to ideas, including writing his backtalk to the author in MY books), and also, no longer so credulous about the “helping” institutions / nonprofits that structure most of our environments, for any single promiment assertion — and even moreso for any “intervention” into my life on the supposed basis of helping (and PARTICULARLY) from an expert whose own life — or whose children’s, or friend’s children’s — safety, futures, and course of life are not affected — I will continue to say WHY are only THESE questions being posted, and not other, seemingly obvious ones, and post this as I can.
I‘ve found that the answer to Why Not ask THIS?” usually points to financial emotional involvement, or other vested interests between the theorist and the ongoing business that such an unsolved problem drives in the direction of these fields of theory. (In other words, conflict of interests…)
The other part of “who I am” is someone who experientially understands the profound disinterest shown by court denizens (may I use that word?), and moreso, policy-setters (including judges) in whether or not their decisions actually compromise someone’s safety or solvency, or a child’s contact with the parent who just experienced the switch from custodial to NONcustodial.
(The long sentences is bad writing. I don’t recall this coming from my father, so I’ll take personal responsibility for it. Especially the long sentences with all the parenthetical phrases, which lack a main verb, that I typically see later. I guess my brain’s RAM filled up, and the main subject just dropped off the back end somehow before I got in the matching verb. I’ll work on this, but doubt I’ll join the “Twitter” generation.)
Anyhow, sorry, it’s not on the map, to fix everything, I don’t have time. I will try to get some help on how to quote articles, though, so hyphenation happens. In former work life, I was a stickler on format, down to the commas and unseen spaces, and in fact something of a copyeditor. (Long-term exposure to trauma-producing events DOES change one’s priorities, and thinking, too).
Meanwhile, my policy is to get the information POSTED, and those who care to follow up (are highly motivated to do so) will have some more tools, and possibly ask some questions they might not have thought of before. IN short, I am leaving a track record and a paper trail, in part in CASE something untoward happens. The status quo of my case — and life — since the moment it left renewing a restraining order, and took the exit chute into family law — has been, both inside and outside the court — that if I accepted the current abusive status quo (whatever abusive, work-destroying and income-deleting level it was at), and did NOT try to enforce ANYTHING (or expose prior illegal/criminal activity), then POSSIBLY, like a good little doggie, I might get some tidbits, even POSSIBLY a glimpse of one of my daughters. If not, then escalation.
This same venue applies I believe in the courtroom arena. As domestic violence has been exposed, action on it has mostly been diverted to TALK and TASK FORCES. And publications. As thankful as I am for the developing body of research by all these experts which seemed to validate both my experience and what I wanted to happen, appropriately given the violent background of our marriage, somehow it just never did.
I now believe all this is a stalling technique. The researchers, building their reputations, often have a leisure the “participants” don’t.
The EXPERTS are generally “ABOUT” developing liaisons, alliances, conferences, and sometimes (unfortunately) cronies. The LITIGANTS are NOT invited, generally. This is the EXACT opposite of what I believe those leaving abuse need. They need to be free and self-sufficient as MUCH as possible, and not have to sell their souls — cheap, at the most vulnerable points of life — to the closest available bidder, and cheap, too.
Survivors generally don’t have that long a leash, timewise. The thing they need is safety, and a long enough break from abuse, to get free and economically independent. This goal is intrinsically opposed to what the controller/abuser/batter wants, as we gradually come to learn (I use the “we” as to that category). Any policies which require them to depend in any way upon that batterer are going to be a recipe for trouble, and a chink in the protective armor.
Anyone who has survived BOTH abuse AND then a season in family law (and if they won custody, AND maintained it under a challenge from the ex-abuser; i.e., stalking through family court or otherwise, I think there’s probably one of two main reasons:
1. They already HAVE strong alliances in this venue, and resources (which are a protective factor in leaving abuse, incidentally), OR
2. They REALLY have some savvy, or are with someone who REALLY has some savvy on the HOW to get corruption to “back off.” that requires a different, skeptical, and challenging (whether openly or not) mindset. For example, “I know who’s paying you off.”
Anecdotal:
- An acquaintance of mine (not mentioned anywhere on this blog) recently found evidence that a forensic videotaped interview of her child, one that I think was instrumental in a custody switch, had been tampered with (sections deleted / edited) illegally. That is a powerful tool for her.
- My case has had multiple transcript errors, some of then understandable, but still significant, including getting two individuals’ names confused, and then a significant deletion to a clear, coherent and concise statement I knew that the entire courtroom heard (no expletives, but a pointed comment). The mediator’s report is almost not worth a mention; every one had factual errors, and there were substantial procedural errors, also.
- The bottom line is the judge. The judge is the one who signs the order. Beyond that, in practice, there is the issue of what happens when those are ignored. (What a morass!).
If you don’t understand the dynamic of trying to “please” and “cooperate” with an abuser, or abusive (essentially meaning corrupt and intentionally oppressive, in order to achieve a private — not public — personal benefit, typically related to power or money) organization, then either talk to a woman who got out of such a relationship or pick up Patricia Evans’ “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” and read the chapters about Reality I (Power Over) and Reality II (Cooperation, or whatever its term was).
The family court language AND structures THROUGHOUT talk about sharing, cooperating, mediating, conciliation and so forth. In TRUTH, it’s exceptionally abusive and tyrannical in how this plays out.
So, here’s my attitude: I give credit for altruism where it’s due.
“In God We Trust. Every one else pays cash, upfront.”
“Pays cash”-in the form of evidence of other cases helped, or having stemmed the tide of family wipeouts, or in short whatever the case in point is — and they do so upfront, like an attorney’s retainer. This should go for attorneys and nonprofits alike. Unfortunately in this venue (once in it), often a crisis of some sort provokes a series of hearings.
Operating on hope in this venue is certifiable insanity. Don’t go that route — do your own research, even in a crisis. Do your best to NEVER get caught in a crisis. I did, but the reason was, I kept hoping in the wrong institutions. Leaning on a broken post or fence.
I would like to personally THANK the judge that provided the first restraining order, which enabled me to physically/financially PROVE that even under severe duress, and after a lot of destruction, that with a LITTLE space and a LITTLE support, I could indeed make it financially, emotionally, personally and socially, etc., and so could (have) my daughters. I have already proved that the issue was indeed the abuse, and that with this person out of my household, and not in daily contact, I could manage.
I would also like to personally thank the organization in the city where I lived (it had the word “Family Violence”) in it, even though in several aspects, the order and the process WAS a real screwup, they DID get that initial order. For that I think them, and the mistakes they made, I later called back in. I don’t see that practices have changed in the past 10 years or so. They are beholden to who pays their lease, as we all are, and which MOST people don’t think twice about, but litigants SHOULD.
Well, let’s get to today’s point, which struck a nerve with me, although it was incidental to looking up something else):
I don’t know WHY I ask questions that I don’t see getting asked VERY often among — especially not among — experts in the fields I am an “expert” (absent a Ph.D. saying I am) as to experience AND reading lots of the literature.
TOPIC:
WHY? do judges so underestimate the lethality risk in cases that involve domestic violence?
This abstract of an upcoming social science article proposes that they “just don’t understand,” as do many well-intentioned family court reform movements, which I am not part of for that reason. This upcoming appears to propose that inserting a lethality risk assessment IN the courts — although I think a good thing to publicize — might save lives.
I disagree.
The underlying premise is that the judges, including most or all judges, in these venues care.
Based on experience and hearsay, and headlines, I also disagree.
In fairly recent months, in the United States, we have had (anecdotal from my memory, some details may not be precise):
- An Illinois Governor ousted for corruption.
- Another Governor caught cheating on his wife, although WHY that is actually headline news beats me….
- 2 Pennsylvania judges convicted of taking kickbacks, depriving hundreds of juveniles of their legal rights and sending them into detention or camps at locations the same judges had financial interest in. THey DID get caught, but it took time.
- A Texas area (Fed. District) judge sued for sexual harassment, long term, of some of his female employees.
- This is older, but a NJ (as I recall) judge with last name Thompson was caught traveling to Russia for sex with (as I recall) an underage boy, and also caught substantial child pornography. This was a JUDGE.
The illusion that all people in public office, or working to protect children — or for that matter women — is a dangerous one that needs to be dropped. The motto is not appropriately, “Just Trust Me…” but the Texan “Don’t Tread on Me,” when it comes to governmental representatives on public payrolls. With the vacant space of warm fuzzy feelings of connection in one’s mind, insert principles, and phrases, from the U.S. Bill of Rights AND our Constitution, which our President is sworn to uphold, and if He or should it some day become a She, does not uphold this, He or She should be impeached or “encouraged” to resign.
Side-benefit — you’ll be better informed, and this is great for self-confidence.
This Constitution and those civil and our legal rights (in any individual custody case) are a “use it or lose it proposition.”
The social science of risk assessment may have validity, and I believe many times does, BUT the key issue should be due process in decisions, and afterwards enforcement.
An honest look — and “Let’s Get Honest” — I’ve got a start here, AND some tools on the site — at the finances of our government will show that a way COULD be found to get sufficient law enforcement of existing laws if there were a communal, a corporately communal policy will to do so.
Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is a crucial one for survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, and it’s time we understood this. Perhaps when more abusers understood that we UNDERSTAND this, they might back off, and let us get back to the other principal issues of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness — or at least a roof over our heads, and food.
Advocacy is necessary, but we need to pay close attention of which of our advocates are advocating for what, HOW they do so (do THEY respect due process, and open communications) and what they are really about. The best advocate in any situation for an individual is the one that has the most at stake, and when it comes to DV, that is, literally, lives, honor, and fortunes, like those (OK, men), who signed, so long ago.
OK: from the valuable site, http://www.SSRN.com, free to join and informative. …. with a warning, it’s not a standalone in “family court matters” — there are major players and publishers also in the courts, whose abstracts I don’t find on here, and a warning that one needs to look at the funding, and in short, spend a good amount of time researching the people in the field to get a grasp of it, I was glad to find this database (huge) on a variety of topics, many of them within “Family Court Matters.”
http://papers.ssrn.com
Lynn McLain
University of Baltimore School of Law
Amanda L. Hitt
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, Fall 2009
Abstract:
(The draft of this article is currently undergoing cite checking and revision by the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society and will be published in final format in the Fall 2009 issue of the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society.)Judges in domestic cases often underestimate the risk to a mother and her children that an angry and abusive father or other intimate partner poses. In a recent Maryland case, for example, {{CASTILLO}} two judges refused to deny a father visitation or require that visitation be supervised, despite the fact that the father had threatened suicide. During the father’s unsupervised visitation, he drowned all three of his children, then attempted to kill himself. {{THE MOTHER IN THE CASE WAS, I THINK, A PEDIATRIC DOCTOR, THE IGNORANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS OUTRAGEOUS – IT WASN”T JUST HEARSAY TESTIMONY AS TO HIS MENTAL STATE}}.{{Or in at least one Maryland case, “Castillo”}
The Danger Assessment tool (the D.A.) developed by a Johns Hopkins Nursing professor and validated by herself and other social scientists shows how much the father’s thoughts of suicide increased the risk that he would commit murder. Had the judges had that Danger Assessment, the children might have been kept safe.
NO, I say, “had the judges had — AND HEEDED — that Danger Assessment”
The attached article does something that we think has never been done before. It takes the D.A., which has been used widely to counsel domestic violence victims, and investigates whether and how it might be admissible in myriad types of court proceedings, both civil family law proceedings and criminal matters. The primary goal is to inform judges of the importance of the impact of the complex of factors in a particular case, including unemployment of the abuser, access to a gun, the presence in the home of children from an earlier relationship, and threats of suicide.
My co-author and I hope this will be a pivotal article that will lead to the taking of steps that result in heightened understanding by judges and provision of greater protection for victims and their children. We suggest (1) how the D.A. evidence may be admissible (or not) under current rules; (2) the possible advisability of amendments to current rules or statutes; and (3) judicial training on the D.A. factors.
Keywords: domestic violence, intimate partners, suicide, homicide, Danger Assessment Tool, family law, visitation, abusers, guns, weapons
JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K49, I18
Accepted Paper Series
<><><><>><><><><><>
This (still being checked for cites) informative paper is available at link above; I recommend reading it.
The “LETHALITY RISK” or “HOMICIDE /FATALITY REVIEW” is not exactly new:
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
Warning: list of links/titles may trigger PTSD in survivors.
Can you handle this?
1985, by a Ph.D./RN, Jacquelyn Campbell
and possibly the study referred to above:
| DANGER ASSESSMENT, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, PhD, RN. Copyright © 1985, 1988. |
1990, by an attorney, Barbara Hart
Formerly @ PEnnsylvania CADV, now property of MINCAVA (Minnesota; below).
ASSESSING WHETHER BATTERERS WILL KILL, Barbara J. Hart, Esq.,
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1990,
Barbara J. Hart’s Collected Writings, Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, St. Paul, MN.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
1999, Campbell et al.
Stalking & Femicide
Homicide Studie.
| STALKING AND INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE, Judith M. McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, Carolyn J. Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich and Xiao Xu, Homicide Studies (volume 3, number 4, pages 300-316), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA: November 1999. Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications. |
2000, CDC Epidemiologist
| Maternal (pregnancy) mortality had fallen 99% this century,
except homicides….. |
|
| RESEARCHERS STUNNED BY SCOPE OF SLAYINGS: FURTHER STUDIES NEEDED, MOST AGREE, Donna St. George, Washington Post, Washington, DC: December 19, 2004. Copyright © 1996-2004 The Washington Post Company. |
In the mid-1990s, Cara Krulewitch sat in a dark, cramped file room in the office of the D.C.
medical examiner, poring over autopsies for days that became weeks, then months. She was an
epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assigned to the District.
Krulewitch wanted to see whether maternal deaths were being undercounted, as was common
elsewhere across the country. Granted access to confidential death files, she assumed she would
find more deaths from medical complications of pregnancy – embolism, infection, hemorrhage –
than anyone knew.
What she stumbled upon instead was a surprising number of homicides:
Krulewitch dug into medical archives and came across a 1992 journal article from Chicago and a
1995 study from New York City. In both, homicide had emerged as a significant cause of
maternal death. It was difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend: Were pregnant women being
killed in notable numbers?
“I didn’t understand it at all,” said Krulewitch, whose study was published in the Journal of
Midwifery & Women’s Health.
Her research came at a time when maternal mortality rates in the United States had fallen a full
99 percent from the last century, with fewer than 500 women a year dying of medical problems
related to childbearing.
Even now, studies that analyze maternal homicide are relatively rare.
One of the most comprehensive studies came from Maryland, where researchers used an array of
case-spotting methods, expecting to find more medical deaths than the state knew about. Instead
they discovered that homicide was the leading cause of death, a finding published in 2001 in the
Journal of the American Medical Association.
In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of
maternal death, followed by cancer. Two of three homicides involved domestic violence. “This is
clearly a major health problem for women,” said Angela Nannini, who led the study.
2000, Chicago, Women’s Health Risk (collaborative)
2002, West Coast U.S.
| Women’s Nonprofit Justice Center |
| HOW TO INVESTIGATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE – A GUIDE FOR INVESTIGATING THE PATH LEADING UP TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDES- FOR FRIENDS, ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS, AND ALL WHO CARE, Women’s Justice Center, Santa Rosa, CA: 2002.
|
2003, Reuters Health Report
Post-mortem when they didn’t die:
I have some commentary, so am expanding this one:
Many Women at Risk of Being Murdered Don’t Know It
By Alison McCook
Friday, November 28, 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Nearly one half of women who are about to experience an attempt on their lives at the hands of a boyfriend or husband may not realize they are in danger, new research reports.
A look back at warning signs for 30 women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner revealed that 14 did not know their lives were at risk, and said they were “completely surprised” by the attack. {{ABOUT 1 out of 2}}
Most attacks occurred around the time that women tried to end the relationship. And while nearly all women had experienced previous episodes of abuse and violence from their partners, not all instances had been severe.
These findings suggest that, in some cases, the warning signs that a woman’s life is in danger may be hard to read, lead author Dr. Christina Nicolaidis of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland said.
Nicolaidis and her colleagues interviewed 30 women between the ages of 17 and 54 who had survived an attempted homicide by their current or former boyfriends or husbands. {{NO ONE should have to undergo this!}}
All but two of the women had experienced episodes of violence or controlling behavior, such as stalking or preventing them from going anywhere alone, from the man who tried to kill them.
{{I have been reporting such behavior to professionals in my case both on AND off the record. I have signed statements of witnesses in the file. There was a prior DV restraining order, and I have sustained serious injury already. There were weapons. There has been CONSISTENT stalking, which frightens me – almost as much as the nonresponse to it by others in authority also frightens me. My last “feint” at getting an anti-stalking order was this past spring (I think). The last incident was last month. There is a reason WHY this is being systematically ignored in courts — specifically but not only family courts. But I have also been reporting this to police officers responding to an event since the year 2005 at a minimum. It is COMMON SENSE that stalking resembles the type of stalking actually done of a hunter by its prey. When it comes to people, it has a dual purpose: it may be to kill, or it may be to send a clear message sent to terrorize which (basically) it does. I have a blog here on what this did to my life, almost half a post as I recall. The absolute NON response of too many authorities to this issue tells BOTH the stalker AND the prey that the situation is uncontrolled, and (she) is on her own. I have also been stalked — and I would back this one up in court if challenged — THROUGH other people, and several of them. In order to accommodate this, I have ceased significant contact with these people, explaining why. AFTER all this, my daughters disappeared on an overnight visitation, and they were NOT informed of all the allegations in print and in person by their parent about the situation. This was not done out of love for the girls, I am sure, but as a hostage taking in this unwrapping situation.}} {{Excuse me…..}}
And while 22 of the homicide attempts occurred when women were trying to end their relationships, most women said they were breaking up for reasons other than violence.
Classic risk factors for an attempted homicide by an intimate partner include escalating episodes or severity of violence, threats with or use of weapons, alcohol or drug use, and violence toward children, Nicolaidis noted. While every woman included in the report experienced at least one of these standard signs, they were clearly not all “classic” cases, she added.
“The problem is that we often expect women to come to us describing a life filled with many or all of these risk factors, when in fact there may only be a few (risk factors) buried beneath the surface,” Nicolaidis said.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Lorrie Elliott of the University of Chicago Medical Center writes that these findings demonstrate that counselors need to recognize that “any level” of physical violence or controlling behavior from a partner can signal a woman’s life is at risk.
{{True, BUT – — BUT – – – it’s judges, and law enforcement that I’ve found need to recognize this, as I did since I left the guy until now.}}
“Curricula on domestic violence should be revised to reflect these findings,” she notes.
{{WHOSE curricula? Because family law pretty much is being “revised” as a profession to dilute this awareness, from my experience.}}
2004, DV Death Review Team, CANADA |
|
| ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CHIEF CORONER: CASE REVIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATHS, 2002, Al J. C. O’Marra, BA, MA, LLB, LLM, Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario, CA. Copyright © 2004 Queen’s Printer for Ontario. |
2006, VPC, East Coast USA
Washington, D.C. nonprofit
Homicide Data Analysis
VPC Theme: Gun control (I believe), and Alaska is the Worst
2007 Boston Globe,“Special Report”Theme: Why they kill; Promotion: Upcoming book |
|
| CONTROL ISSUES DRIVE MEN TO KILL SPOUSES – SPECIAL REPORT, Laura Crimaldi, Boston Herald, Boston, MA: September 3, 2007. Copyright© 2007 Boston Herald Inc. Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.
Batterers who use lethal force against their partners are engaged in a losing game of control that pushes them to kill because otherwise they have no chance of getting their partner to submit, according to a veteran psychologist.
{{As “Let’s Get Honest,” I chime in with my opinion: Except in LITERAL self-defense (not, defense of the ego, or self-concept), as in cops responding to domestic disputes, or a person physically assaulted in certain situations, and even then Killing is a choice, just as abuse is, or any other — especially repeated — criminal behavior. The mark of a person is what he or she will or will NOT allow him or herself to be “pushed” to do. PERIOD. This is pyschology talk, and while it’s true, it still falls short, making linguistic excuses.}}
{{{JUST a note: For at least — at LEAST — SOME major monotheistic religions (all 3, I believe), this is conceived of a divinely-ordained, and a requirement of women. ONE of these religions means “Submission” (I’m told). ANOTHER, this mandate is taken out of context (of itss text), but in my case, was continually “an excuse for the abuse.” ANY policies dealing with such men will have to deal with the issue that to them, failing to control “their women” is sometimes genuinely conceived of as having failed their God. Hence, the killing, to “win.” I have been personally (before separation) warned never to oppose this man or he woudl “escalated” til he wins. From what I can see, that hasn’t changed yet, that dynamic, and there is a track record to display evidence.
When here comes a venue, family law, that tells us to “reconcile” parenting, or almost anything else of importance, with a person holding such a viewpoint, it is basically consigning the relationship, the children, and the target parent, which will be the woman under this religious view, to defending her own life, as the courts aren’t going to. It’s an intolerable situation, and transmits these ideas down, another generation.}}
David Adams, co-founder and co-director of Cambridge-based Emerge, a batterer’s program, is the author of “Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners,” to be published this month by Vanderbilt University Press.
((FYI: NOTE: The other Co-founder and co-director, I believe, was Lundy Bancroft, who I often cite, have posted on, and have a link to. }}
In the book, Adams identifies five types of lethal batterers: the jealous partner, the suicidal partner, the career criminal, the substance abuser and the materially motivated partner.
Adams interviewed 31 men who killed their female partners as well as women who were nearly killed by their batterers. {{From the Horse’s mouths. If reported well, I’d listen!}}
He said the men who resorted to fatal force were “possessive,” “more controlling” and tended to come from households where they witnessed abusive fathers beat their mothers. At some point in their lives, the men decided to mold their behavior after their father’s behavior, he said.
“For many of the killers that I interviewed, some of them said that they had in effect lost – that they had lost a relationship, lost the partner that they only fought to control and the only thing left was to kill,” Adams said. “It was the ultimate act of control, but also an ultimate act of defeat.
|
June, 2009, Public Health Perspective;
The effect of TV News items on IPV deaths
Conclusion: Given the results observed in the case of IPV-related news, t
here is an evident need to develop a journalistic style guide in order to determine what type of information is recommended due to the potential positive or negative effects.
Keywords: battered women, copycat, femicide, mass media.
I’ll be back tomorrow. BUT — do we think there is a need to study the topic some more? Or to take a woman seriously when
she expresses this concern?
I am so far beyond “reporting” or being aware of these things, PAST the point where I realize who is not interested, and now
working on the WHY are they not interested in the places that have the MOST authority to do something about it.
In the meanwhile, self-defense and safety awareness skills count. A lot.
SHARE THIS POST on...
How can we analyze policy inbetween these leading, bleeding headlines?
Maybe if I intersperse headlines, policy talk, and commentary I can get through another day without mourning evidence of national return to stupidity day.
Man, then about 19, begets child; mother (now in other state) age not mentioned
Separation happens; Dad gets custody, Dad remarries (in which order?)
Dad has two more children and, now 34 himself, is accused of molesting his first one, now 15.
DCFS removes daughter he is allegedly molesting from his custody — SORT of, not quite!
Pissed off, or coldly determined, Dad obtains gun — or grabs one he already owns.
Before much of anything is discovered (LEST it be discovered?)
He simply heads two doors down, kills foster Dad, attempts to kill foster mother, DOES kill his own daughter,
What a life she led with her FATHER, a STEPMOTHER, two stepsiblings, and being molested, ALLEGEDLY.
SOMEONE TALKS. She gets out, but not safe. Now she’s dead.
Oh yeah, and not one to go to prison, her father also shoots himself, fatally.
Her MOM was in another state — WHY?
Just another small, friendly, Tennessee Town.
Does anyone know her brief life well enough to tell its brief story? Because when these things happen
at home, the theme is NOT telling anyone outside the family; collusion is the order of the day.
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM TODAY — August 4, 2009
QUIZ — from what YEAR are the orange quotes mid-article?
ANSWER BELOW.
Color Code:
- light blue — quotes the article
- black — my comments
- orange — quotes from a different article (speech, to be precise).
Police: Dad fatally shoots daughter, foster dad
(AND, SELF) (AND TRIES TO KILL FOSTER MOTHER, too)
DYERSBURG, Tenn. – Neighbors in Tennessee are asking why a teenage girl
fatally shot by her father was placed with a foster family just two doors down
after he was accused of abusing her.
Omitted from this lead sentence — ONE WEEK after . . . . .
I believe one of the tags on this one might be “AFTER SHE SPEAKS UP” (if it was the daughter, or her mother, or her stepmother)
This puts a CHILL on reporting abuse…
As dads disappear, the American family is becoming significantly weaker and less capable of fulfilling
its fundamental responsibility
of nurturing and socializing children and conveying values to them.
In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of America’s children
are becoming significantly higher.
Christopher Milburn, 34, killed the 15-year-old and her foster father and
wounded her foster mother before taking his own life Sunday, authorities said.
Sounds like a virtual honor-killing of some sort..
Children growing up without fathers, research shows, are far more likely to live in poverty,
to fail in school, to experience behavioral and emotional problems,
to develop drug and alcohol problems,
to be victims of physical abuse and neglect and, tragically, to commit suicide.
{{THis being a case in point, I suppose?}}
{{The order of events is reversed. Victims of physical (and sexual) abuse are often
turning to drugs, alcohol, and other risky behaviors as a result, per a decade-long
(and basically ignored by the fatherhood movement) Kaiser/CDC study (see blogroll to right), completed the
year before THIS quote I am inserting to this recent Tennessee tragedy.}}
Neighbor Frank Hipps said Milburn was good friends with Todd Randolph, the 46-year-old foster father,
and had worked for him in the past. Hipps, who had known both men for about eight years, said he didn’t know
the details of the abuse allegations but questioned why the girl had been placed so close.
Maybe he didn’t know them so well as he thought.
Who paid WHOM to get this daughter switched only 2 doors down, instead of the Dad switched out of the neighborhood?
Dad used to work for the foster father? Just HOW inbred was this town, exactly?
A mature 46 year old man, foster father, married, and a daughter in the home.
Let’s do the Father/Daughter math: 34 – 15 is HOW old was he when he got a woman pregnant?
Legally old enough: 19. Probably just out of high school.
“That kid shouldn’t have been in that house,” he said.
I agree. I think she should’ve been with her mother.
“This might have been preventable if she had been placed with foster parents out of the community.”
MIGHT is true, especially if he still knew where she was ….
OR for SURE if the man had been in jail for molesting his daughters, which is where child-molesters belong, at least to start.
Neither police in Dyersburg, in northwestern Tennessee, nor child services agency spokesman Rob Johnson
would elaborate on the abuse allegations other than to say the investigation began last week.
The girl, whose name was not released, had been staying with Todd and Susan Randolph
while the state Department of Children’s Services investigated, Dyersburg Police Capt. Steve Isbell said.
WHo paid WHOM to put her there? Come’ ON! !!! Give the girl a fresh start!
Susan Randolph, the girl’s foster mother, was released from a Memphis hospital Monday.
Frank Hipps’ wife, Tammy, said the 15-year-old was Milburn’s daughter by a previous relationship.
He was married and the couple had two younger daughters.
The court probably saw a stable TWO-parent family, it probably had at least HEARD about
the great crisis of fatherlessness we’ve been plagued with as a nation for the past about 15 years
(This girl was born right around the time this doctrine took nationalized, Congressionally recognized wings..
She must’ve been born around 1994. See below. Gee, by then, my In-the-home husband had already
started assaulting me, between babies. WHat a coincidence that, unbeknownst to me, my government
was aware of the crisis and addressing it. . . . . Oh, excuse me, not the crisis of child molestation or
domestic violence, but of FATHERLESSNESS.
The girl’s mother was living out of state
{{HOW COME SHE LOST CUSTODY?}}
and police were waiting for her to arrive before releasing the girl’s name, Isbell said.
Police found the teenager and Todd Randolph dead at the Randolph home and Milburn about a block away,
dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
One less child molester, allegedly, OR man who didn’t trust the legal system to get the truth out of his innocence.
Guess they must do things different in Family Court in Tennessee; he’d have been FINE if he could just connect
with some PAS-theory court professional and discredit whoever was alleging the abuse. Unless it was the girl…
Charles Wootton, 71, who lives across the street from the Randolphs, said he heard five pops. He looked out the window
and saw Randolph on the ground near the mailbox.
“My wife opened the door and walked out and seen the blood. That’s when I called 911,” he said.
Wootton said neighbors started to gather at the Randolphs’ house and a nurse performed CPR on Todd Randolph,
who had been shot through the neck. {{FOR THE CRIME OF . . . . . . . ??}}
Wootton said when he first looked at Susan Randolph, he thought she was dead, too.
“She told me who did it,” Wootton said.
The Randolphs have two young children who were at their grandparents’ house during the shootings, Wootton said.
Wootton had moved to the neighborhood about two weeks ago, and Todd Randolph had mowed his yard several times.
“The people around here are just about the friendliest you’ve ever met,” said Wootton. “I don’t know what happened to that guy.”
MORAL OF THE STORY: FRIENDLY PEOPLE CAN STILL MOLEST THEIR CHILDREN. WHO REPORTED? THE DAUGHTER?
THE NEW WOMAN? ONE OF HER MANDATED REPORTERS.
Isbell said Milburn had no criminal record in Dyersburg, a city of approximately 18,000 people about 70 miles northeast of Memphis.
Tammy Hipps said Milburn worked as a counselor at the McDowell Center for Children,
which helps at-risk and troubled children.
Well, was he falsely accused or properly accused?
If properly, then again, let’s note here: PERPS like places that give them access to CHILDREN, esp. troubled ones.
The shootings came just over two weeks after Jacob Levi Shaffer of Fayetteville, a small Tennessee town
near the Alabama border about.
70 miles west of Chattanooga, was accused of fatally stabbing his estranged wife,
three members of her family and a neighbor boy to death on July 18.
He also is accused of beating an acquaintance to death in nearby Huntsville, Ala.
BEFORE or AFTER she became “inexplicably” “estranged”??
Perhaps stories like these are why the word “RESPONSIBLE” was added to things like, “National Fathers Return Day?”
One Congressional discussion of which I give, below:
FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
| Lieberman, Joseph[D-CT] | ||
| Begin | 1999-06-17 | 10:13:34 |
| End | 10:21:48 | |
| Length | 00:08:14 | |
Leading off with African Americans and teen pregnancies, he relates:
Mr. LIEBERMAN.
Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues.
Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report,
can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.”
It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
COMMENTARY:
(THis mental image appears to be far less vivid than the ones of SOME fathers doing horrible things when they DID or DO live
with their children..
Like beating them. Or having sex with them. Or beating their mothers. Or simply refusing to work OR help around the home. Or,
engaging in multiple sexual relationships with other women while married. Or verbally berating a mother in front of the children.
SOME Dads are great Dads and SOME Dads are a terror. Likewise, SOME Moms are great Moms, and SOME Moms are negligent
or bad Moms. It is also harder for a mother to care properly for her children, or in the best manner, which she is afraid of being assaulted
over a minor issue by the Dad when he comes home. If he does that day. Are these senators thinking about these images when they
shudder and are aghast at a home without a Dad).
Many homes were without Dads during the World Wars I, II, Korean War, Viet Nam War, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places
men (and women) have been sent because men decided to make war with each other, in the name of peace and democracy and self-protection.
Some homes of law enforcement officers are now without Dads in them because their Dad responded to a domestic violence dispute, and
caught a bullet, generally also taking out the attacking father as well.
MY Dad’s home, growing up between two of the abovementioned wars was without a Dad in it because, guess what: His Dad (a fireman),
got tired of beating his German immigrant wife and abandoned her with three children. He witnessed this growing up.
He went on to become a successful scientist, raise children he did NOT beat (at least I wasn’t and I never saw my siblings taking this),
studied hard, worked hard, sent ALL children not just to, but also through college also, and left an inheritance. And provide for, from what
I am told/understand, not only his own mother, but also a younger brother who never quite got it together, possibly related to something that
happened when he WAS with that abusive Dad, or what, I was never told. That brother also served his country as a soldier, and died before his time,
never having married or had children.
My Dad NEVER put his children (all daughters) in contact with the abusing/beating/abandoning father, ever, in his lifetime.
I never regretted this, that I can recall. How can you regret something you never saw, where the only thing you knew about him was,
he beat the grandmother that I DID know (a little bit).
However, while Sen. Lieberman was making this speech, about a decade ago, I was for the first time in a full decade of substantial
domestic violence in MY daughters’ lives, with them at an overnight, stay-away camp, a music camp, which we had managed to get
to no thinks from the father who never left. For two weeks, I was not going to be abused at night and was around people who actually
treated me respectfully, and I worked along side them in my profession. We had had a real push getting up there, and were punished
soundly for having left, but during that week and seeing the response to us getting free from abuse for only (and not entirely; there was
a dour-faced, rules-of-camp breaking midweek visit, where $20 was casually tossed at me so I might have enough gas to get back home)
I MADE UP MY MIND that this domestic violence restraining order was GOING to be filed, and I’m “out of here.”
How ironic that i didn’t know what was being prated and pronounced in Washington, D.C. at this time.
Here’s the rest of this little 8 minute speech, in case you WOULD like the names of some of the prominent thinkers behind this
June 1999 presentation to the President of the United States, and get a glimpse inside the working of great, Constitution-respecting, minds
when left unsupervised in the Capital of our beloved country:
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped
in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless
profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness,
{{Gee, that must have been a grass-roots appeal from the teen mothers for help, or their mothers, or
theirs sisters. WHERE did this knowledge about the impact of fatherless come from, given the
establishment in 1994 of: (A) The Violence Against Women Act (help some women leave, rather than
stay, in abusive, dangerous relationships) and (B) Also in 1994, the National Fatherhood Initiative.
(Should I compare months of incorporation as nonprofit with the passage of the law?)}}
and indicate we are
in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to
the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
(CONTINUED QUOTE, in different format..):
At the end of this column, Michael Kelly asks: How could this happen
in a Nation like ours? And he wonders if anyone is paying attention.
Well, the fact is that people are beginning to pay attention, although
it tends to be more people at the grassroots level who are actively
seeking solutions neighborhood by neighborhood.
{{Evidence being….. WHO?? Time frame? Organizations? Written declarations by any of these?}}
The best known of these groups {{in fact the ONLY one named here..}}
is called the National Fatherhood Initiative.
{{Possibly because of its funding? and prominence of who’s in it?}}
I think it has made tremendous progress in recent years {{CONTEXT 1994-1999}}
in raising awareness of father absence and its impact on our society and in mobilizing a
national effort to promote responsible fatherhood.
Per the HHS TAGGS search on its name:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90XP0023 | THE RESPONSIBILE FATHERHOOD PUABLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM | 93647 | $ 500,000 |
And for column width, same search (common field: Award# / CFDA Code)
| Fiscal Year | Award Number | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2008 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BEARD | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | 90FB0001 | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | 90XP0023 | 04/09/2001 | 93647 | Social Services Research and Demonstration | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | HEATHER THURMAN | $ 500,000 |
I’d DONE data entry before, and typing. Do you know what the odds of someone even on no sleep, and having a sugar buzz, making THAT many
mistakes in 4 entries (fatherhood, responsible, and public, plus “Christopher” spelled wrong. Same grant, 3rd year, “Christhopher Brown” entered a
samesex marriage, apparently and changed last name “Brown” to his partner’s name “Beard”?
This database exists so the public can search on it. Hmmm…… I wonder if they know to search for misspelled names…. and key terms.
AND SINCE 2000– seen below:
Funding for the “Father Organization” in this “national effort”
| 93.086: Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | $1,999,068 |
However the funding for the wild oats it sowed, under this # 93.086:
(I JUST LEARNED) I believe that this code only arose (emerged naturally of course) in about 2006. However, as of 2009,
it is still not a searchable agency code on the USASPENDING.gov. Either in listing “all” programs, or under the agency it belongs under
Hmmm — $2 million less in California for our shelters? (yes, yes, I realize this is federal, not state, spending).
2000-2009 NFI Funding: (See bar chart): Well, I guessed this may not be responsible “Spelling” on whoever entered the data,
but . . . .
When we simply search only the word
“fatherhood” under “recipient” for FY2000-2009,
we get an entirely different picture (also diff’t database):
Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located 
| District of Columbia nonvoting (Eleanor Holmes Norton) | $6,942,352 |
| Maryland 08 (Constance A. Morella / Chris Van Hollen) | $2,625,112 |
Yes this is definitely an “up from the people” grassroots movement,
and not a DC.-down
initiative, surely. They are just responding to (a certain sector) of their constitutents, and from Washington, acting on it. I know straight out of
getting out of my house safe, the FIRST thing on my mind was telling Washington, I needed (well, another) father in the home, since now
I was a “female-headed” household and my children, while this Domestic Violence Restraining order was in effect, were sleeping in a fatherless
home and in danger of (NOT) learning the rights values. They were learning that that stuff they witnessed growing up was illegal. And how to
leave a dangerous relationship and start to recover.
Of course, family court was there waiting for them to go UNlearn those values, fast, and that the 14th Amendment is just a theory.
Top 10 Recipients
| NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $11,067,190 |
| FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $8,673,900 |
| INSTITUTE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | $6,557,520 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM RE | $1,500,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITA | $300,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. RE | $99,350 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAMILY REVI | $-14,518 ** |
93647 word “fatherhood”
Was that misspelling intentional? I mean, it WOULD complicate a search by Award Title
Searching, CFDA 93647 (Not the CFDA actually assigned the word “fatherhood” in its description) & word “fatherhood” (“keyword in award title”):
Exact same search, different fields, so you can see grantee, principal investigators….
i.e.,
“It did this ALL on its own altruistic self, and I’m just reporting on it here.”
The President (is this the same one that signed that 1995 proclamation? about fatherhood?)
SEARCH ON ALL grants, with only the word “fatherhood” in the grant (not grantee) title, produced
358 records, of which here are the 1995-1999 ones:
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XA0005 | REPLICATION & REVITALIZATION FATHERHOOD MODEL | 93670 | OTHER | NEW | $ 300,000 |
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XP0014 | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93647 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 180,000 |
| 1999 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 139,665 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | State Government | R40MC00141 | AN INTERVENTION FOR THE TRANSITION TO FATHERHOOD | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 344,470 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | R40MC00110 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 149,507 |
| 1998 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 104,927 |
| 1998 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | 1R40MC0011001 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 154,395 |
| 1997 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD35702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 119,899 |
| 1995 | ADDISON COUNTY PARENT & CHILD CENTER | MIDDLEBURY | VT | County Government | 90PR0005 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0003 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0004 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | ST. BERNANDINE’S HEAD START | BALTIMORE | MD | Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0002 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | County Government | 90PR0001 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
Notice the variety of recipients, including Universities (this will be useful for later “evidence-based data” resulting from grants to study the topic.
Notice that the TYPE of grants appears to be either “new” or “noncompeting.” Hmmm.
AND NOW Sen Lieberman is reporting on this grassroots movement.
Along with a group of allies, the National Fatherhood Initiative has
been establishing educational programs in hundreds of cities and
towns across America.
It has pulled together bipartisan task forces in
the Senate, the House, and among the Nation’s Governors and
mayors.
YES< there’s ONE thing that a bipartisan majority male Congress and the Nation’s (also primarily male,
if I’m not mistaken??) can unite on, and that the problem with the nation
relates to a lack of male (father) influence on young children throughout the land.
Presumably, these children that are spending, probably, the majority of their waking hours
in school, are not connecting with any decent father figures or adult males and learning from them
good values.
I wonder what the male/female ratio of teachers is in the nation’s elementary and high schools….
It has worked with us to explore public policies that
encourage and support the efforts of fathers to become more involved
in the lives of their children.
Last Monday, the National Fatherhood Initiative held its annual
(FIFTH?) national fatherhood summit here in Washington. At that summit, Gen.
Colin Powell, and an impressive and wide-ranging group of experts
and advocates, talked in depth about the father absence crisis in our
cities and towns and brainstormed about what we can do to turn this
troubling situation around.
And Last June, 2009 President OBAMA, had a “town hall on fatherhood”
which was visited by a major representative in the Violence Against Women movement
(see last post). 15 years later, these articles are still leading, suicides (NOT by the troubled
teens, bu tby at times the fathers who troubled them….) are still happening. Well, the
doctrine’s NOT about to change, it must because THAT murderous, suicide-committing father
HIMSELF had no father model in his life.
There are limits to what we in Government can do to meet this
challenge and advance the cause of responsible fatherhood because,
Because — Because — Because, “regretfully” I supposed according to this point of view,
the FOUNDING Fathers put LIMITS to government into the U.S. Constitution,** and a few
MORE also made their way into the Bill of Rights as Amendments.
(**To appreciate the link — or be tempted to read it, hover cursor over it)
I can’t WAIT til the “Equal Rights” Amendment makes it in, if it ever will.
Of course I would settle for an enforced and respected 14th Amendment:
after all, it is hard to change people’s attitudes and behaviors and
values through legislation.
Possibly because the purpose of legislation is to express THEIR attitudes, by laws they voted on,
or their elected representatives did. Possibly because the purpose of government is to PROTECT
the inalienable rights of citizens….
But that doesn’t mean we are powerless,
Yes, time has shown that the federal grants systems, and initiatives, and private deliberations IS a
way to get around the danged legislation that has made “us” (Who all agree about this fatherhood crisis)
so “powerless.”
nor does it mean we can afford not to try to lessen the impact of a
problem that is literally eating away at our country.
How do you know it’s a PROBLEM and not a SYMPTOM of another problem?
In recent times, we have had a great commonality of concern
expressed in the ideological breadth of the fatherhood promotion
effort both here in the Senate and our task force, but underscored by
statements that the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services have made on this subject in recent
years. Indeed, I think President Clinton most succinctly expressed the
importance of this problem when he said: {{in 1995….?}}}
The single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing
absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes
to so many other social problems.
Again, in your opinion, supported by government-funded research with the premise already supposed.
AS WE CAN SEE BY THE ABOVE NEWS ARTICLE. THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE SITUATION, AND
WHAT CAUSED THE MAN TO KILL 2 (NOT INCLUDING HIMSELF, AND THE FOSTER MOTHER HE TRIED TO KILL)
was HIS INDIGNANT FEELINGS ABOUT, WELL THE FATHER-ABSENCE IN HIS ADOLESCENT DAUGHTER’S LIFE.
IT WAS, REALLY, LOVE IN ACTION.
(FOR REFERENCE: This was the Monica Lewinsky president, right?
Well, I guess we can overlook that because he has just flown to North Korea,
with a shock of white hair and looking dignified (and leaner) to attempt to retrieve
two FEMALE journalists sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. I hope he succeeds.
However, his signing of that 1995 Memo sentenced women here locally to some unbelievable
long-term trauma, because of its chilling effect on the 14th Amendment (and others)
and the placement of daughters and sons in the household of men who abused (or are
abusing) either them, OR previously their mothers) (case in point).
So there are some things we can and should be trying to do. I am
pleased to note our colleagues, Senators BAYH, DOMENICI, and
others have been working to develop a legislative proposal, which I
think contains some very constructive and creative approaches
Yup, parTICULARLY creative with the laws, due process, and the titling of the
various grants involved. Let alone the use of them, or the monitoring of their use
if any indeed actually takes place.
in which the Federal Government would support financially, with
resources, some of these very promising grassroots father-promotion
efforts,
WOULD support? WOULD support?
Check HHS’s CFDA# 93.086, “promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage” for yourself on THIS site:
http://usaspending.gov (under “SPENDING” “GRANTS”)
and also encourage and enact the removal of some of the
legal and policy barriers that deter men from an active presence in their children’s lives.
A “LEGAL BARRIER” MUST REFER TO A LAW, RIGHT?
Another thing I think we can do to help is to use the platform we
have on the Senate floor–this people’s forum –to elevate this
problem on the national agenda. That is why Senator GREGG and I
have come to the floor today. I am particularly grateful for the
cosponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire, because he is the
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families.
YES, I AM SURE WE ARE REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MORE THAN CHARACTER, OR LEGAL RIGHTS OF MEN AND WOMEN BOTH….
We are joined by a very broad and bipartisan group of cosponsors which
includes Senators BAYH,
BROWNBACK, MACK, DODD, DOMENICI, JEFFORDS, ALLARD,
COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BUNNING, ROBB, DORGAN, DASCHLE, and
AKAKA. I thank them all for joining in the introduction of this special
resolution this morning, which is to honor Father’s Day coming this
Sunday,
but also to raise our discussion of the problem of absent fathers in
our hopes for the promotion of responsible fatherhood.
Senator GREGG indicated this resolution would declare this Sunday’s
holiday as National Fathers Return Day and call on dads around the
country to use this day, particularly if they are absent, to reconnect
and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, to understand and
have the self-confidence to appreciate how powerful a contribution
they can make to the well-being of the children that they have helped
to create, and to start by spending this Fathers’ Day returning for
part of
the day to their children and expressing to their children the love they
have for them and their willingness to support them. [Page: S7164]
The statement we hope to make this morning in this resolution
obviously will not change the hearts and minds of distant or
disengaged fathers, but those of us who are sponsoring the resolution
hope it will help to spur a larger national conversation about the
importance of fatherhood and help remind those absent fathers of
their responsibilities, yes, but also of the opportunity they have to
change the life of their child, about the importance of their
fatherhood, and also help remind these absent
fathers of the value of their involvement.
We ask our colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution, and
adopting it perhaps today but certainly before this week is out to
make as strong a statement as possible and to move us one step
closer to the day when every American child has the opportunity to
have a truly happy Father’s Day because he or she will be spending it
with their father.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Just for a reminder:
– Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
– Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
WELL, wordcount 5216, enough for today.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
(2 more headlines) Distraught and Distracted? A Domestic Dispute (or, the economy) made them do it? These 2 men seemed Organized and Coherent (“Cool, calm & collected”) before, and after, 3 planned murders, apparently.
leave a comment »
Good afternoon, Plano, Texas and other visitors, I hope you are well today. I include a headline contest below for viewers of the 2nd article. Submit via comments.
Unfortunately, 2 (more) bleeding headlines.
(1) California, “not a hot-blooded event”
The day before the killing, he delivered flowers and candy to her, and said they could just be friends….after a 13-year relationship
Follow up to the “distraught by economy” “domestic dispute” version of a double-homicide this week: She was trying to end a co-habiting relationship, and, unfortunately, worked in a toll booth on a busy bridge. When jogged up and shot her to death, there wasn’t a ready exit. Yet the first article portrayed it as a “domestic dispute,” a real knee-jerk, inappropriate phrase. Before I could point this out in a post, Demian Bulwa of the SF Chronicle straightened us readers out in a follow-up article: This murdering man set up the situation, and the unidentified 2nd man murdered was a friend of the girlfriend, a kind male who had given the woman a ride to work (which, did the murderer have work? So, she goes to work, and is killed there…)
I did no follow-up research, but reading the first article, could’ve laid money, if I had some, that it was indeed a cold-blooded assassination. Even so, the article below uses the word “rampage.” No, the DC Sniper was a rampage. The Columbine shootings, maybe not. This one. He didn’t shoot bystanders, or motorists. He had two targets, and made them.
Folks, that’s ALSO typically how domestic violence goes. I hope someday we “get it” that having a nice chat with someone doesn’t mean a lot, even when it’s daily for years, in these matters. Do we just not KNOW each other, and know how to assess character any more? Or characterize an incident after character just showed up, with a loaded gun (and apparently — below, a knife too).
Bridge killer set up slayings, prosecutor says
Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009
08-13) 13:51 PDT RICHMOND— Nathaniel Burris, the man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza, set up the rampage {sic} by slashing a tire on the man’s pickup truck so he could blast {kill. the object was to kill. The decibel level was not the main point} him with a shotgun as the victim waited for a tow service, a prosecutor said today.
(selections from the article):
The pickup truck belonged to 58-year-old Ersie Everette III of San Leandro, but was driven to the toll plaza Tuesday afternoon by Burris’s ex-girlfriend, Deborah Ross, a toll taker, said Contra Costa County prosecutor Hal Jewett.
Everette arrived later, having been dropped off by a co-worker after getting off his shift as a Golden Gate Transit bus driver, his family said.
Jewett said Burris, 46, punctured a tire on the truck, apparently with a knife, before Everette showed up, then hid where he could watch Everette though a pair of binoculars.
When Everette arrived and saw the damage, he called AAA for help, Jewett said. He was still waiting at 5:30 p.m when Burris approached and shot him once from close range, the prosecutor said.
{{I am so sorry that this individual, it appears did not suspect that his truck might have been chosen for a reason, rather than say, random violence. Or that some other solution could’ve been had for fixing the tire. There are down-sides sometimes to NOT being on alert.}}
According to police, Burris then jogged across traffic lanes to Ross’ toll booth and shot her several times before fleeing in a van that belonged to his employer, an airport shuttle company. He was arrested early Wednesday after he was spotted in the van on Interstate 80 in Placer County.
{{Can we deduce this man, driving for an airport shuttle company, did not have a criminal record?}}
“Characterizing this crime as a tragedy is an understatement, particularly with the calculated and deliberate way he committed these crimes,” said Jewett, who heads his office’s homicide unit. “This was not a hot-blooded event but a cold-blooded series of killings, and we think the charges reflect that.”
Ross, 51, and Burris were in a relationship for 13 years before she broke up with him just before the killings, Ross’ relatives said. {{how much “just before”?}
The day before the shootings, Burris delivered flowers and candy to her in the Richmond townhouse a mile east of the toll plaza that they had shared, and said they could remain friends, Ross’ relatives said.
{{Just be friends after that long a relationship? In general, don’t you believe that, ladies! Well — are you SURE you know that guy? If you were so sure, how come after years, the answer is, separate?}}{{and I do NOT know if tying the knot would make a difference or not. At this point, I just do not.}}
{{Flowers and candy — if these aren’t normal, consider it a red flag?}}
Richmond police Sgt. Bisa French, a department spokeswoman, said it is not clear whether Ross was romantically involved with Everette.
{{Whether he was or not, he was probably perceived as such. As helping her. 1. He was male, and 2. he helped her.}}
Everette’s relatives said today that he and Ross had been engaged and had talked of marriage.
{{wait a minute — she broke up with him JUST before the killings, yet was ready to marry someone else, perhaps? Although the two that were living together did NOT get married. . . . That must’ve upset Burris….}}
Ross’ relatives, though, said the two had merely been friends from an Oakland church where Everette was a deacon.
{{Probably she shared about some of her troubles with Burris? Was Burris going there too? Was there a history of violence, or etc. Were there really no indicators, or were people just not alert?}}
One of Ross’ sisters, Jane Walker of Oakland, said she was shocked to hear of the new allegations involving Burris.
“Oh my God, that’s scary to think that you can know someone all these years, and that they would plot and plan something like that,” she said. “He deserves whatever they give him. He’s not the person I thought I knew, and I’ll never forgive him.”
{{If my own family had similar sentiments, after I filed a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, I would not be here writing this blog. We’d probably both — he, and me — have moved on in life without further escalations, child-stealing, fights around child support, and all that. PROBABLY. I tell you one thing that would probably be different. I’d still be working in my profession, and have the children here. But my own family, like MANY families, didn’t “get” the reality of the relationship}}{{Sorry, in their pain about their sister, but the thought comes to mind that NOW they are aware….}}{{What is the lesson here? All that glitters is not gold? People are not what they seem to be? Nice guys can turn violent — or have criminal thoughts and act on them?}}
Burris is expected to be arraigned in a Martinez courtroom as soon as Friday morning. He is being held without bail at Contra Costa County Jail, where he declined a request for an interview today. Richmond police brought Burris back from Placer County on Wednesday evening.
The shotgun used in the killings was found in bushes under a window at the home of Burris’ mother, authorities said. Ross’ relatives said the mother lives in Sacramento. Efforts to reach her have been unsuccessful.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/13/BAHO1982PG.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0O6stJgMK
(2) Pennsylvania, I think
I’m running a contest for the most appropriate,
subject line for this article. Submit in comments.
Non-sarcastic entries will be summarily dismissed
as utterly inappropriate:
>>>YES, they did a good job raising this man, and would be great prospects for raising the children of the woman he murdered. There are no other decent, mature adults around with terrific track records of children they raised, who wouldn’t be tempted to backpedal (or have a conflict of interest) on the issue that, their Dad killed their Mom, but was really a nice guy at heart. Which is going to be something, an issue, those children will have to deal with.
>>>By the way one reason I didn’t post yesterday (other than aftershock off the tollbooth shooting, and other work) another case came up of a woman being recalled from iceland over a custody battle with a U.S. father. Hoping to find out more about that situation, I ran across a “cold case” (so to speak) from the 1990s, in which two Mormon parents snatched their daughters baby and took off to Iceland. (Hanes/Shelton/Zenith). This had uncomfortable reminders, as in my case, when family members get a certain opinion of a certain generation, and decide they’re better parents than others. Add to the mix, the poor Mormon grandmother was on her 6th husband couldn’t conceive, and tried to persuade her own daughter to donate some eggs. Maybe I’ll post that one — it has a runway snatch, shows how CHURCH folk often protect their own (case in point, when my kids were stolen, more than one church group appears to have helped try to sanitize the situation).<<
Can we “just say no” when the guy has, allegedly, just killed a woman, intentionally, with a car??? How far does co-parenting (only she’s dead) and “Fathers, get involved with your children” GO? How about setting a little standard. I PERSONALLY think that if a man can’t stop hitting his wife, he should lose access to his kids, and stop sugarcoating it. I didn’t think this 7-8-9 years ago, but now in retrospect, it would save society a lot of grief (and grief counselor social services). Can we at least say: “IF YOU MURDER YOUR WIFE, YOU’RE OUT OF THE PICTURE, THIS IS JUST “OVER THE TOP, out in left field, WAY out of line: GOT IT?” You want to murder her, and then participate in some decision-making process about your kids? No!!! Not only will we not follow your suggestions, we are not interested in them. Someone who hasn’t murdered recently, or been accused of it, will make decisions regarding your children. I know we aren’t all perfectly insightful, but I suspect you likely aren’t at this point, OK?
Then maybe the next person who had a domestic dispute, or felt a sense of loss when she left, or it was the economy — (or maybe it was overentitled narcissism? ??? In action? Or, maybe misogyny, I mean we had a single man elsewhere just walk in a gym and start spraying bullets at women — not men — hitting some and killing them….. to assuage his feelings of rejection. Until he also killed himself…)
So, it’s – – – No, No — you kill your wife, you lose custody privileges. TIME OUT!!! It’s called a deterrent to the next asshole. (Am I allowed to call someone who (allegedly) ran over his wife and killed her with a car a bad name? If he’s innocent, then I retract the appellation. If not, then I don’t. )
Has this yet been tried, consistently, across the board, across the nation? YOu kill the woman, you lose visitation privileges AND any whiff of joint legal custody. What, is the man now suddenly (how suddenly?) repentant and “concerned” for his kids? Was killing the wife part of how he expressed concern for his kids?
Has anyone posed these questions at a conference of experts yet? I know Jack Straton of Nomas did in 1992 re Supervised Visitation. Was he not on the list in the ones deciding these things? He had a Ph.D., isn’t that an entrance requirement? (or, MFT, or being in law enforcement, or Esq., etc.)
This culture is expert at turning its backs on and shunning mothers trying to leave, particularly women from communities that base a lot of emphasis on families (as mine did, although I had a leg in the professional world, which I FOUGHT to keep in there). I mean, as I’ve pointed out before, the white house was real good at shunning the word “mother” and “motherhood” from its game plan (except in the context of home visitation nurses, or getting the kids back to Early Head Start and Mom back to school). LOOK: just TRY it, try turning the back on men that murder — at least for a LITTLE while. Give them some alone time to think about what just happened.
LADIES: I can be wrong, but I recommended (based on some headlines that keep popping up in this topic) sticking to men within 10 years of you. It’s not a guarantee, but it MIGHT be a deterrent to being used as a baby-maker. I know prime time is prime time (apparently she was 21 for the first daughter by him, and he? had previous children too). But, in the U.S., there should be other situations you can help develop yourself in, for the kids’ sakes.
Not just into, but over. Not his “estranged” wife, but his wife.
He sounds very coherent and organized for someone who did such a deed. I wonder if he got help from a “healthy marriage promoting responsible fatherhood” funding, or whether he will get help from “mentoring children of prisoners” programs either to encourage father/daughter/son contact in accord with our national policy that the TRUE social crisis of our time is “fatherlessness.”
Well, this is part of its face, and part of how SOME fatherlessness gets started.
After the emotions surrounding the latest femicide, homicide, aghast, we didn’t know, surprise, shock, grief, etc. (if there’s still some lost in the public bloodstream/ psyche), THEN what. What action to take? What insight to gain. What policies to question. What prevsiou assumptions to question about who you know how well? Any – – – or none? What’s the bottom line.
Here’s what the Bible says. Of making many books there is no end, much study is weariness of the flesh. Hear the words from a wise masterbuilder:
Fear God, and keep his commandments: this is the whole (duty) of man.
Ecclesiastes 12, end of the book.
From the mouth of Solomon son of David, whose father set the way for him to build the temple, lived a lavish life, possibly leaving descendants (more than possibly) in Ethiopia, had no end of women (wive and concubines both), even with all that concluded “vanity of vanity, all is vanity” and in the end helped burden and take down his kingdom, in great part through burdensome debt.
He then had a son, Barack (EXCUSE me, Rehoboam), who when cautioned to ease up on the federal spending said, listened to his younger, progressive, utopia-minded advisors and retorted, “you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet, we will stimulate yet more economy” and under whose realm the kingdom split, possibly because of this. Or because (it’s said) of all the other gods all those wives, making allegiances with other kingdoms, brought in.
It’s possible I have the facts (and probably I have the quote) quite wrong: feel free to look them up, almost any version,or language, at
http://bible.cc.
I’ve been in the legal system now almost 10 years. One thing I have noticed — there are very, very few situations that don’t correlate to situations already described in the Bible, if you understand principle, the heart of the matter. Our culture is in many ways as polygamous as any other, and as sexist. There is still war, there is still poverty, there are still many gods, and there is still no utopia.
BUT – – – BUT – – — in looking at the 10 Commandments (Exodus or Deuteronomy), nearly every one of them has a correlative in some criminal law, except the sabbath. There is no law about adultery, that I know of, but men still kill when they feel cheated on, so I’d say that’s a caveat. This is not related to whether or not they themselves may or may not be cheating.
AND, moreover, a person who does not believe there is a God, or there will be a judgment and that their secret places are going to remain secret – — who really, really doesn’t think that someone will find out, or if through cleverness, deceit, immunity, or simply accumulating cronies, and power — criminal behavior won’t be caught — that person is dangerous.
$2.4 million for designer families in California, and cut the shelter money (but not the money to the DV coalitions nationwide).
I found out yesterday that of that $2.4 million, it was taken from TANF funds. Go figure!
Oh, and that about $2 million was going to a Poverty Court for the homeless in SF, rather than, say housing. They have holding cells though (see “poormagazine.com”), for homeless people who are being a nuisance and committing crimes or misdemeanors. This should of course be a blog.
We are supposed to have as a nation a degree of self-discipline and self-control. To encourage that, we are so confused about religion in the public schools, we supposedly eliminate this. Then put back in Character Education to replace it. The 10 Commandments are thrown out of a courthouse (after a lot of arguing), but the faith-based groups have a welcome home when it comes to both making and enabling policies.
Whatever happened to inalienable rights, and let us figure the rest out, for example how to get up, sit down, go out, come back, and raise our kids? If we break a law, then punishment, if we don’t, then none.
Although I did vote, and did catch a good deal of the last Presidential Election, I have not had a reprieve from “family court matters” yet. I did, however, notice the Messianic promises of our current president (for whom, by the way, I voted. And by whom, presently, as a former single “female-headed, father-absent” household, I feel betrayed. I did not expect this person to confuse his background with the background of women who left because of violence and don’t feel like re-engaging.
For one, we also don’t, some of us, want to end up like the woman on the road above, or the woman in the tollbooth. We don’t want our children to be emotional OR literal orphans as to their mothers. WHAT is so hard to understand about that, National Fatherhood Initiative (and your nonprofit, governmental-agency offspring)? And why is the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) curtsying towards this movement, as I last heard in an NCADV policy alert about funds to shelters being cut — a high-ranking woman in the office visited President Obama’s Town Hall on Fatherhood. Take a stand with the rest of us and stop giving an audience to doctrines that get women killed. Stop talking about “preventing” violence and do the right thing once it happens – – stop TALKING about accountability and let’s say that killing and beating and stalking and all this really IS wrong.
And let’s get that message into the family law system, or get the people running the place out of their offices and make them spend a few days in a shelter, or in a soup line, and ask women there how they got homeless. (The former was done, at least an overnight, once in NYS, I heard). OR, let’s get the homeless and others from the shelters (not just a single, sanitized spokesperson, or maybe two) and see what they look like, into these conferences — EVERY one of them — on what to do about all the poor folk. We will personally explain (without threats) what we think of all this, and about being threatened ty the system after we have been threatened by individuals for thinking that we can think, and THINKING that it would be better to totally separate the batterer — not the reporter — from minor children for a least a very significant season, and too bad if this is sad for him, he should’ve thought before lashing out with kids around. Or without them.
A recent joke (well, not that recent) going around a certain county, where they help people who lack food EAT, that the county was seeking volunteers to count the homeless. They felt that this count might be better done by a few of them (and for pay, too).
While I realize that there’s not an identified presence in any system for Burris, or that I know of for the other person here, I still say, let’s re-route some of those diverted funds that discuss “what to do” into “doing.” For example, a year ago, I would’ve been content with a SINGLE (let alone 3 in a row) unemployment checks. All I wanted then was phone and internet sufficient to keep going in a business I was already jumpstarted. Years of living so marginalized through this system (NOT “the economy, I guarantee you in this case”) and with total chaos in relationships made building anything much up (with weekly visitations, any one causing an incident?) a moot point.
To “solve” this I now have no access to either child and am expected to buck up and do it again, and forget that for the past many years, each successive time I did so, it escalated and was stopped. What was that, family entertainment?
(end of whine).
The question is not, is the topic getting national attention. It is. The question is, what use is being made of all the funds that follow the loudest, or best connected, speakers? A nation of non-investigating sheep is going to get sheared. Then complain about the cold. Complaining about the cold doesn’t make it much warmer. Find out who are the sheep-shearers, and take the scissors.
http://usaspending.gov
http://taggs.hhs.gov
And your local county business offices, etc.
Cross-check data between the two databases (which ain’t easy; yesterday I saw a missing $2.342 million in one state, marriage funding, from one database, different recipient names, one listing of programs is by program number, the other alphabetical by program name, but done inconsistently. The years covered are not the same. A program which receives MILLIONS in funding, and has for many, many years is not searchable in one. The other one, you can search awards by number, but not get a description, however it appears to have more spreadsheet type functions, the other alllows one to sort on many more fields, but not total reports, etc.
(that’s only a start)
etc.
Ah well, of making many books . . . . . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Context of Custody Switch, Fatal Assumptions, Lethality Indicators - in News, Where's Mom?
Tagged with custody, domestic violence, fatherhood, Intimate partner violence, Manhood, men's rights, social commentary