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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Access and Visitation, only $10 mill/year (annually, since 1997).

leave a comment »


Oh No!

 

I just lost the top half of my last, colorfully-illustrated, and highly annotated, sarcastic scatalogical post,  “Thrusting Abstinence Education on the Unwary Public”  (as summarized, with links, by Wikipedia, in about 2005).  It’s coming.  I’ll expose it soon.  It exposes the money that traded hands in private before the PR professionals, using their media connections, pushed two policies that are now coursing through the bloodstreams of the 2 largest United States Executive Branch departments and affecting, I say, all of us.  These were the Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence Education initiatives (as to HHS) AND . . .. AND . . . .the “No Child Left Behind” policies (as to Educ.)  

 

Regarding that. . . . .

I figured, since the Bush Admin public servants want to Push its way into the public’s thoughts (first) and pants, skirts, or burqas, etc.  as to trying to regulate whether (let alone with whom!)  we (or our children) do or do not engage in sexual intercourse, whatever they find where they don’t belong is their own problem, and any tone of response communicating “get out!” is appropriate.  The moral being, #1, don’t take rides from strangers promising Health, Human Services, or any other ecstatic experiences or transportations, or accept candies from them, either, and #2, more of us need to restructure our lives so as to keep better track of our track of our Congressmen, and whatever % of them are Congresswomen who vote on how to dispense $$ collected from us through taxes.  If these are being used Inappropriately (and failing kids K-12, then trying to back track and teach an abstinence Congresspeople themselves do not exhibit, either as to finances or their personal sex lives (not unilaterally for sure is most definitely INappropriate).

Who knows, the candy {whether in form of ideas, or psychotropic, as in Ritalin, etc. through the school systems, etc.) might have drugs.  Besides which, anyone calling you, or people in general “Human” probably isn’t.   Would such a person call their own offspring, or spouse, a “human”??  Then how come other, more distant people of the same species become suddenly “humans” and need “servicing.”  

 

Marriage affects health, sure, but in definition is a commitment between two individuals who have exchanged vows, generally in front of witnesses in their community, and have also a certain public document.  By definition, and usage, it’s private!  Where it becomes public is only where an individual in it breaks a law, particularly as to domestic violence and child abuse, but also any others.  

 

Similarly, a nation is not a living, throbbing organism to be run from the top and have its temperature taken by elected officials and parts re-arranged at (its will).  We are not bees, we are not ants, we are not to be treated like them either.  Our elected and/or appointed officials are not bee-keeprs or ant farmers, even if and (when) they may think they are and such activities have apparently given their otherwise meaningless lives purpose, by labeling others misery or happiness.  

 

In PARTICULAR, we mothers are not to be bred for our children, and then judged as to our health by virtue of whether the “sire” of the kids is in the house or out of the house.  And that, friends, is what this nation is currently (at our own expense) in the business of.  Studying itself.  The top half is studying the bottom half, only it’s not even close to “half.”  The bottom half (sic) exists to serve, and pay the top half (sic) to study it.

 

That’s how I read the situation currently, anyhow.  I may be jaundiced by my particular run through the last 20 or so years, but I have networked, read, studied, and collaborated plenty, as well as read what others are networking and collaborating about as well.  When it’s one own’s life & kids (as opposed to, say, job) at stake, one tends to study more closely.

 

Moroever, the columnists promoting this already had their hands in the till by taking money from the public in the form of grants.  So the hand was ALREADY in our pockets financially.     Moreover, it appears the infamous (to me at least) “No Child Left Behind” (which takes the cake for vague, amorphous rallying cry if I ever heard one.  First of all, it’s false — what about private schools?  What about where are we going?  what about the talented children already being held back in the schools, which is from what I can tell, probably the majority of them.  What about keep your hands off my kids too, until you can talk sense?  This initiative also started in similar manner — a man was paid to promote it, but failed to mention the pay.)

So, as to Abstinence Education, thus I figure anyone (promiscuous, married and faithful, or married and hot-Mike-Duvall, or abstinent, or celibate, or in fact ANYONE) should be able to give them a hard time about this.  Especially because what was NOT exposed was whose $$ (ours — federal grants) was in whose pockets before the inspired (by $$) PR eulogies began.  I guess you get the general idea of how I felt about that.  The moral there, and with this Access and Visitation grandiose talk is, when someone on the federal dole comes up to you UNSOLICITED especially, saying “you need a ride?  You look lost, you need some direction?  You look poor!  I’ll help you — just sign on the line (and give me your offspring) here.  Come, let me give you a (mind/face/family-) lift — then the appropriate response is to ignore the talk and survey the surroundings, particularly for the closest exit.  And any other strangers (to you) in the vicinity behaving oddly.

ANYHOW, another post.  THIS one, is on a grants system set up back in, I gather 1996:

  •  2  years after National Fatherhood Initiative (1994)
  •  One year after Clinton wrote the (in)famous, “let’s revamp the Exec. Dept. to include more Dads (1995).  
  • 3 & 4  years before Congress voted”inexplicably” that the true crisis for the United States was fatherlessness, and they “resolved” (National Fathers Return day being one such resolution) to DO something about it  (in both houses:  1998/1999)
  •  only 5 years before the half-bald, mustached, slightly-smiling, white guy to the right (see photo) was “unanimously” appointed Secretary of the HHS (2001-2007), and I gather in 2007, he kinda sorta was encouraged (??) to step down.  At least he resigned.
  • But not before the ball was really rolling on this idea that the REAL problem is Kids Minus Dads.

 


 Since he’s white, middle-aged and half-bald,(and right-wing conservative), (and apparently well-off)  why doesn’t he limit his concern to what he actually has lived?  But know, he and his NFI prominent thinkers are going for the usual suspects, African American mothers who aren’t married to their children’s fathers.   But attacking African American mothers, unmarried, isn’t QUITE PC enough, so the circuitous route is to express for or the kids lack of ROOTS (as defined , to their Dads).  

File:Horn, Wade F.jpg
Psychologist Wade Horn, from NFI to HHS, and out again.).  

DO YOU think I’m kidding?  I’m not!

 

JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)

Topic:  National Fathers Return Day

Mr. LIEBERMAN. (speaking)  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. 

(in some cases, those fathers got shot, in some cases those fathers were not interested in them to start with.  In some cases those Dads may have been in a war and gave their lives for the country.  In some case those fathers were violent.  Perhaps in some cases those fathers may have been sports idols and are on the road.  Does THAT put them at risk, per se?  In some cases those fathers were womanizers.  Should we put the Dads back with their sons and daughters to learn that this really doesn’t matter, when it’s Dad?  In some cases, perhaps Mom OR Dad had a religious awakening, mabye like Mr. Horn’s, in which case the uninterested (in that brand of God) spouse may wish to continue (or re-act) by doing drugs or watching pornography, or being promiscuous.  

I know one family (not African American) whose Dad decided to come out of the closet, with his new paramour, while his offspring were adolescents.  Guess what.  Those kids didn’t sleep in his home.  Those poor (well, they weren’t poor) kids would have fallen under the Access Visitation grants definition programs.  They had a noncustodial parent.  If their Dad were nasty, or either parent poor, he could’ve been recruited through the child support program to further harrass her or impoverish the kids.  It only takes one bad apple to get the whole family ensnared til kids reach age of majority.  

Suppose Mom finds a second, healthy marriage.  According to these theories, the kids are still at risk, because it’s not “Dad” in the home.

 

(LIEBERMAN, to CONGRESS, 1999, con’td.) 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.

 

We are NOT amused at what’s actually taking place in government grants la-la-land. 

The first attempted post  was about a Wikipedia article (about 2005) highlights who was paid what to screw us nationally, and that’s not much of an exaggeration.  I’m talking about grants and initiatives that ended up transforming the role of the courts, and there was also a reference to the illicit origins (i.e., a PR person was PAID off from  Dept. of Educ. Fund) to start “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.”  Which, in my state, last I heard, means that approximately 42% of them are up to snuff, and this is considered “good,”  however, if a child came up wit 42% on a test, that was considered failing.  WHich pretty much describes the difference of standards between “government” behavior and our own.  Also, if I only got 42% of my children actually literate after they’d been in my care for a few years (versus K-8, let alone K-12 years), I’d give myself a failing grade too.

Well, since all my technical (wordpress) wits was far below the level of the rhetorical wit, this crudely dropped the readers midstream, with no buildup or momentum, into the usual back-story commentary on the Wikipedia entry on the not-exactly-breaking-news that columnists and PR sorts sometimes do pay attention to what side their bread is buttered on be for buttering up the ideas of the person with the butter.

Ah well. . . . . 

 So I decided to “punt” and go to this topic:  ACCESS & VISITATION GRANTS, where the real “conflict of interest is” in the courts.  

 

Anyone that doesn’t like my profiling Wade Horn according to his race, gender, state of follicle challenge, age, and demeanor can go jump in a lake.  I don’t like being profiled according to my gender, or having my household profiled according to how many adult males biologically related to my children in it, rather than to whether or it has a violent, battering, assaulting, property-destroying and chaos-inducing male (biologically or not biologically related to my children) in it.  He can’t change his race, I suppose.  He could even change his gender, if this were part of his right-wing religious preferences which I bet it ain’t.  

I can’t change my DNA, nor can my ex, nor can my kids.  But what I CAN change is whether or not I am going to sit around my home being slapped because I’m female in front of children, and mine happened to be female.  Then let some (male) _______  (or female) come to me, after having ignored years of that, and then push this dogma that the real problem is, there’s not a “man” in the house.

There WAS a man in the house, and that was solved with a restraining order, temporarily.  

I don’t feel like changing my gender either.  And it makes equally as much sense (i.e., NONE) for a bunch of men (and some women) to get up there and saying, it’s a GENDER problem, starting with African American children (of either gender) — and they did!  See below! —  not having their OWN fathers living with them as it does to say it’s a RACE problem.  I dare a bunch of Congressmen to get up there and have a national white folk day.  And get it nationalized, with a straight face.  CALL it that.  Push it all over the state, county, and nonprofit institutions just like fatherhood and healthy marriages has been.  State that as a lot of black folk are in prison, obviously the problem is their race — not the prisons, not poverty, and  not communities, not behavior.  And not racism.  I am waiting for the day.  

With President Obama now, no one would dare (let’s hope!)  But one profile we CAN all gang up on is mothers, especially single mothers.  Good grief!  In another day and time, this would be Jews.  In another, Tutsis.  In another Hutu.  In another Armenians.  But the gender for all times to hate (and particularly if it stops hating its own, or protests) is for sure female.  They must give up their kids and make sure that they have contact with Dads, even if Dad kills them (and this has happened), kidnaps them (and this has happened) and even if the ongoing conflict with a chaotic or controlling personality introduces years of needless conflict — AND more poverty — into the children’s home.  And if Dad can’t restrain himself, or might rape, kidnap, beat, or hurt the kids during a visitation, no matter.  There is ANOTHER government-funded and/or free-market-niche to make sure they still have contact:  “Supervised Visitation.”  

Now that’s not really safe either.  No matter.  There’s ANOTHER program to train the supervisors.  How’re they going?

2008:

 

Danger Zones:  Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation

Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidly across the United States. Increasingly, courts are restricting contact between abusive intimate partners and their children by ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This article describes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18 months of planning and then another 18 months of implementation at a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domestic violence was their primary reason for referral. The authors have organized their experiences around five major themes: (a) battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continues during supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolved over the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importance of well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCs within a larger context of coordinated community responses to domestic violence.

 Key Words: battered women • batterers • children • supervised visitation centers

 This version was published on November 1, 2008

 

2004:

Six Crucial Issues in Supervised Visitation

There is no way to predict whether a specific batterer is likely to kill his partner. {!!}}  Even though data are available about batterers who actually commit such murders, the batterer’s violence behavior alone does not provide enough information about accurate predictions about which batterers will go on to kill the partners. Psychotherapists can use a variety of checklists and other instruments to help determine the level of risk for a lethal incident, but these assessment devices have not been validated by empirical research. [16]

Who conducts risk assessment?

Despite their close ties with domestic violence shelters in their communities, many supervised visitation program staff do not have the level of expertise necessary to conduct formal risk assessments. Therefore, it should be domestic violence professionals who should conduct the assessments, not visitation personnel:

 

For those who haven’t “got” this yet, the majority of these studies are, (I finally “got” this) not about our safety or our children’s safety, or our children’s best interest, or to prevent family violence.  From the front lines, and a front lines person who knows many families going through this AND has attended conferences, and probably reads as much as a lot of the professionals (at least to pass for one in a number of situations; all I lacked was the degree) on this, and has a REAL vested interest — my life, my family’s lives, my livelihoods, the safety and well-being of the communities I was in during all this stuff (before and after separation) and so forth — I pay attention, and try to place accumulated information in a growing database and I refile as necesary when stuff “doesn’t fit.”  

It’s not about our lives, it’s about the professions.  Here is a statement from a real well-respected site, now 5 years old, saying that the issue is not that we are bringing supervised visitation into the picture at all, but that it’s just that the visitation personnel are not properly trained by professionals, domestic violence professionals.

Here’s a question raised (finally!) by someone addressing a(nother) conference of ALL kinds of professionals associated with this topic about preventing violence, protecting children, and all kinds of REALLY nice healthy topics.  I am thinking that PROBABLY the conference (Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming?) might have been an clean safe place. This (male) professional in the field started the first Domestic Violence Unit in Washington, D.C., he says in his opening remarks.  

He broaches again the question I’ve twice posted on this site, in articles from 1989 and 1992, as to whether children need relationships with their (abusive) fathers.  Let’s see if he qualifies in our eyes as a Professional.  But first, the quote.   

 

2009, June 2:

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?


 

Even the question is a little “framed.”  “have been abusive . . . in the past” is not the typical situation of a woman trying to leave abuse with her children.  This mindset implies it was “over with” and that while broken bones, teeth, bruises,  and blood may indicate “being abusive” (i.e. COMMITTING a pattern of misdemeanor or felony-level domestic violence), stalking, property destruction, intimidation of relatives, or keeping one’s ex in a nonstop pattern of defense against allegations in family court arena do not.

Oh yeah, incidentally this was the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and his short speech is on the date link.

It appears to me to be the present policy (I include practice) that mothers moreso than fathers, are considered dispensable to children.  

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?

 

Actually, by the time one sorts through how contradictory one policy is from the otehr, and then read about the conferences where organizations sponsoring BOTH sides of the contradictory policies collaborate together (but the parents involved are not invited, generally, nor their kids) I’d have to say that in the long run, one concludes that when it comes to dispensing TAX DOLLARS (my shorthand for grants, federal, local, state, and private) what’s really dispensable, and is being lost, are:

1.  Justice.
2.  Children.
(With justice, children will be safe, as long as laws against domestic violence and child abuse remain on the abuse, and SHOULD they ever start being consistently defined, and enforced). 
and
3.  OPM.  Other People’s Money AND OPL.  that’s other People’s Lives.

 

What really seems INdispensable, once underway, appear to be the systems dispensing 1, 2, and 3, above.

 

I am going to (re-)introduce you this concept  “Access and Visitation” and its costs, starting with the HHS own site describing it.  If the prose is lame and lacks vigor, just understand that I blew my wad on the first topic, so this is a pale second offering from a drained commentator.

However my commentary cannot possibly be as lame, nonsequitur, and incoherent as the concept of Designer Families at Public Expense, as executed by a centralized opaque bureaucracy  in cooperation with private and nonprofit businesses, not to mention religious organizations that haven’t quite yet “got” that hitting women ain’t legal.

This is where “Access Visitation” concepts meets the “Supervised Visitation” concept.  One encourages and ALLOWS certain services (this is the HHS source of grants) and the other DISCOURAGES but does not forbid, practically the same types of activity (this is the DOJ/VAWA source of grants, as I recall).  

 

One is the government paying a LOT of government institutions (you have no idea, but I assure you, I do!) to make sure “NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS” have “ACCESS AND VISITATION” to their children, even if it means getting them free legal help while in prison to modify their custody orders, something I don’t recall getting of one second past the time our case hit the family law venue.    

The converse of this is, when a parent is really bad and needs to be “spanked” or “supervised” somehow, then there is SUPERVISED VISITATION.  I could’ve used solme of this and requested it, in fact, one reason was, I didn’t want the kids kidnapped.  i asked for this in 2005 and was told No.  Then when my kids were taken on an overnight in 2006, and we show up in court, I asked for it again, and was curtly told, there’s no money (meaning WE didn’t have some to fork over) for this.  The result was, visits were so traumatizing I was hard put to get them.  There was also no real exterior witness or regulation of the fact that the second this man got our children, theyw ere basically, not going to be seen by me again, even when a court order had stipulated, every othe rweek.  So there you have it on SUPERVISED VISITATION.    

 

Sometimes this also is used to punish mothers by forcing them to pay to see their chlidren after they speak up about something (seems like it could be almost anything — child abuse, harm done to the kid by the other parent, or some other violation of existing standards) and are silenced by having their kids switched, SUDDENLY, to the other parent.  This has been described elsewhere better than I am summarizing here.  

 

But, til I find the missing witty intro to a version of BUSH-WhACKED around MARRIAGE INITIATIVE type post, I give you:

OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information

 

I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview

With an annual appropriation of $10 million, 54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) have been able to provide access and visitation services to over a half million non-custodial parents (NCPs) and their families since the program became operational in 1997! In FY 2006, States contracted with over 300 court and/or community- and faith-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to NCPs and their families.

 

NCP is a “NonCustodial Parent.”  Primarily, fathers.  Note, that the CP (which obviously is another adult) does not even exist as an entity.  it’s NCP’s and “Families.”

“STATES CONTRACTED” — Yes, the feds pay the states, and we’re not yet QUITE sure what happens once it hits state level, although some diligent research DOES ascertain that it’s pretty darn hard to track after that.

 

I. Enabling Legislation

The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Goal: “..to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”

 

Cognitive dissonance:  “It’s about money.  It’s not about money, it’s about the children.  It’s about reducing welfare distributions.  No, it’s not, it’s about noncustodial parental access.  Aw heck, Im not really sure!  No it’s NOT a pay-per-hour-per child scenario (i.e., children as property), it’s about families.  Well, on the other hand, though we really need to entreat these men to get on the stick and get some work (including after they get out of jail) so we will help them for free, LEGALLY, to get back at those Moms, get more time with their kids, in exchange for which we will then lower child support obligations (but, listen closely, this is NOT, we repeat, NOT a pay per child per hour arrangement) (unless it refers to SUPERVISED visitation) and maybe then, if we treat the disgruntled — or unemployed — or incarcerated — NCPS nice, they will respond in kind, step up to the plate and pay the past due child support.

Alternatively, we can switch custody and put HER in jail if she doesn’t pay, because women don’t need to be BRIBED to support their own children, generally speaking.  And, again, we’re not ordering, we’re just “supporting and facililating’ (modification of custody orders).  Without telling the custodial parent in advance, of course.  

 

II. Allowable Services

According to the statute, States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

  • Mediation

Mediation is “premitted” for the States, but “mandatory” for the parents in many states, including mine, and that’s a PROBLEM when violence has been involved, already.  Typically by the time the order was obtained (at least I know my case and many others), attempts to “mediate” the concept of not being hit, abused, threatened, etc., have already failed.  Hence the protective order to start with.  For protection, not negotiation!  Well, mediation puts two parents in front of one mediator, which typically (given the little time he/she is going to have) will pick a side and stick to it, throughout the course of the case, which, given these factors, will probably stop when ALL kids hit 18.  Or one parent has worn out, given up, or simply gone homeless, meaning, can’t fight back.

Moreover, all the opposing, “NCP” has to do is start a debate on almost any issue between them, and then it goes to mediation. This is simpler than presenting facts and evidence in the courtroom, adhering to all those rules of court, etc.  All he/she has to really do is win the favor of the mediator, who then (although this isn’t strictly legal, it’s practice) sways the judge who then upends whatever the last status quo was.  Note, abusers are great manipulators, it’s kind of their profession, that two-sided thing, or the abuse couldn’t be kept up for so long.

  • Development of parenting plans
  • Education

(And a REAL market niche for the would be parent educators, therapists, and counselors (see next item)

  • Counseling
  • Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
  • Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
  • In other words, as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, once we figure out whether money, or the child’s best interests is the issue, we will — again, outside the vision and awareness of the CUSTODIAL parent, bargain with the NON-custodial parents and help them de-stabilize the children’s life, repeatedly, and on a proceess that takes place outside the courtroom.

    (Responsibility/Opportunity/Responsibility/Opportunity — which is it?)
         

    III. Annual Funding

     

    • $10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
    • Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”
    • Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.
  • Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.
  • This isn’t a section I’ve examined too much.  I HAVE searched for the funding to states under these grants, and was appropriately shocked at amounts, and who was getting them.

    IV. State Administration

     

    • Designation of State Agencies Following enactment of the AV Grant Program in 1996, the then-Governors of States were asked to designate a State agency that would be responsible for receiving the grant funds. Roughly half of the State AV Grant Programs are administered by State Offices of the Courts and the other half by State IV-D Agencies.

    In California, it’s the California Judicial Council, which is THE policysetting arm of the Judicial branch in the state.  Then it goes to the Administrative “office of the Courts,” and so forth.  So we have pretty much a socialist type setup here.  Read on.

    • Funding Responsibilities States are required (that’s “REQUIRED“) to ensure that funds expended under the Access and Visitation Grant respond to and support the program goal which is “…to establish programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”. 

    Comment:  The thing that facilitated noncustodial parents’ access to their children PRIOR to this was called a court order.  It was signed by a judge, stipulated some terms of custody & visitation, and people who interfered with this were (depending on when the law I am thinking of was passed) to comply, or suffer possible contempt of court (order) sanctions, and fork them over to the otherr parent.  The thing was done in a process called, formerly, the “LEGAL” process, also casually referred to in some circles still as “DUE process.”  It’s what our country is about at its most basic denominator:  Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth.  Remember those?  So, these grants and grant programs can’t quite come out and say “ORDER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT ACCESS” because, after all, they come from the U.S. Exec. Dept., which is supposedly separate from the Legislatives, which is supposedly separate from the Judicial.

    This was actually intentional, from what I understand of the ffounding fathers.  They wanted these strong powers distributed among different players.  NOT centralized in one or just a few players, in which case we’d be an oligarchy, not a republic (cf.  Pledge of Allegiance, US Citizens, if you forgot what that means).  “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.  And to the republic for which (this flag) it stands, one nation, under (expletive deleted, according to some sources), indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice, for all.”  While we know it doesn’t exist yet, this is the pledge and that is the gol.  Notice:  “Justice” not “program goals.

    JUSTICE is a process.  It is a MEANS.  “Program Goals” is an end, and apparently the end justifies the means here.  

     

      1. shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;
      2. shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
      3. shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs
    • Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:
      • State agency contact information;
      • Services funded;  {{Note:  “permitted activities,” above.}}
      • Provider agency contact information;
      • Number of parents served;  {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}
      • Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and
      • Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).
    COMMENT #1.  McDonalds “serves.”  (1 billion served — did they mean hamburgers, or patrons?)   But the fact is, the desired OUTCOME of these grants is to modify custody orders, basically, or make sure unenforced ones then get enforced.  
    I have looked at one of these reports.  It ain’t much.
    Here’s a Self-report on this (Margot Bean, from the Child SUpport commissioner.  i STILL think it odd that the child support agency should be enforcing a grant whose design is to influence the judicial process.  I have experienced this personally, and saw the connection, although in the courts involved, a pretense of separation is maintained.  It’s a “DEAR COLLEAGUE” letter.  As a litigant, of course, I am not a colleague and went forward like a lamb to the slaughter, not knowing how many millions were going to my state (approximately $10, over the years), to get a “required outcome” to what I myself wished and wanted to be a law-and-evidence-based process.  Guess if you ain’t “in the IN crowd,” forget it!
         

     

     

     

    DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

    DCL-07-15

    DATE: May 24, 2007

    TO: STATE IV-D DIRECTORS AND STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS

    RE: New publication which assesses selected State Access and Visitation programs client outcomes especially with respect to subsequent payment of child support

    Dear Colleague:

    I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report entitled: “Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes.”

    Since 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has been responsible for administering “Grants to States for Access and Visitation.” To date, OCSE has awarded $100 million dollars to states ($10 million per year) to “…establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children,” as mandated by Congress.

     

    I cannot speak loudly enough to express how profound a conflict of interest this remains.  Parents are recruited through jails, through child support offices (when in arrears) and sometimes flat-out through courtrooms by flyers, to participate in programs that are intended to sway the legal process, and THROUGh these programs.  Many women leaving violence, or protective mothers, protest that the safety of their children should be left in the hands of someone who is having business funneled to them through these courts and through government mandate (and how are we to know whether or not actual money?  It has happened, from what I understand) to tip the balance in the courtroom.  THIS PROCESS makes a farce of the courtroom process.

     

    In order to achieve this end, States are allowed to fund a range of services including  (hint, hint, hint…) : mediation, development of parenting plans, education, counseling, visitation enforcement (including supervised visitation and neutral drop off), and the development of alternative custody and visitation guidelines. Between FFY 1997-2005, over 400,000 parents were recipients of AV services.

     

    I’d estimate then, about 50% of them unwillingly, or unwitting that they have a right to refuse.  Moreover (personal experience), quite often the mediator’s report is not even received before the hearing!  I have twice out of three times received it IN the courtroom, which is hardly the place and sufficient time to reply and consider its ramifications!  

    This study assesses participant outcomes resulting from the Access and Visitation Program in 9 states for mediation, parent education and supervised visitation services. Mediation was studied in Missouri, Rhode Island and Utah. Parent education was assessed in Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. Supervised visitation was looked at in California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The primary findings for the 970 cases studied are as follows:

     

    Let’s review this report here. Out of, in their own words “54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands)”  only 9 (literally, only 1 in 6 states) were studied, and only 970 cases total.  That’s approximately how many per state, and now we have math lesson #1 about this department:  DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE — hardly any.  APPLICATION FROM DEMONSTRATION (or even EVALUATION) SAMPLE — to the rest of the country. This study was in 2007 (10 years after program started).  

    • Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}
    • Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.

     

    (I’M A DIVORCE CASE, AND THE REDUCED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS WAS BASICALLY TREATED AS A JOKE AFTER THIS PROCESS.  IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE A PERSON WHO ISN’T IN COMPLIANCE AN INCH, AND THE DOOR THEN OPENS WIDE TO NO COMPLIANCE.  THIS IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE SEPARATION, I WAS TRYING TO STABILIZE ADN INSIST ON COMPLIANCE, AND AT EVERY TURN, I WAS DISCOURAGED FROM THIS, AND EXHORTED TO GIVE.  FINALLY, I HAD TO “GIVE” MY CHILDREN.  WELL, NOT FINALLY, ALSO A LOT MORE, INCLUDING THE SENSE THAT ANY COURT ORDER HAS ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE.  THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF JIMMYING THE COURT PROCESS FOR A DESIRED OUTCOME, I BELIEVE.}}

         

    • The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.  (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)
    • The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.

     

    WAS THIS ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITY OR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (REFERRING TO ADULTS!), OR ABOUT GRADING CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR?  LET ME RE-READ THE LEGISLATION.  ALSO, I KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF WHO IS MEASURING KIDS’ BEHAVIORAL PERCENTAGES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT, AND SUPPOSE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT EXAGGERATED?  GOOD GRIEF!  “MY KID WAS 10% BETTER, THE OCSE SHOULD KNOW….”

         

    • Twenty-five percent of both parents reported an improved relationship in the 12 months after service provision. The rate was the same for all service types.

     

    Another way of stating this is that “75% of parents reported it didn’t make a damn bit of difference as to their relationship, high-conflict, violent, or casually friendly.

         

    • Seventy percent of parents who mediated a visitation/custody agreement reached agreement.

     

    If some of these cases were anything like mine, a good deal of threat was involved in the process.  For example, when my kids went missing, I wasn’t about to be allowed in front of a judge unless I went through the gatekeeper, the mediator.  I requested another one, but no one available for over  month.  So what would you do?  Let the kids stay MIA or try to get it to court?  That’s called extortion! it’s not a real choice!

     

         

    • Nearly all of the parents who received parent education were satisfied by the education.

     

    (or so they said, supposedly).

         

    • Ninety percent of parents who participated in supervised visitation characterized this service as a safe place to conduct visits.

    Applying the findings in this study should help states design, fund and measure better programs. For additional copies of this report, please contact OCSE’s National Reference Center at 202-401-9383 or OCSENationalReferenceCenter@acf.hhs.gov

    Sincerely,

    Margot Bean
    Commissioner
    Office of Child Support Enforcement

     

    (whatever.  YOu see about the level of reporting).
    That’s all I have time for today, but i have been meaning to bring up this topic again.  So I just did.
    Again, the financial picture is $10million/year to compromise due process in the courts and force the above programs on parents trying to divorce. This is NOT mentioned in the court facilitators offices (at least for Moms, that I knew of).  As many times as I was in that child support office, also, not a whiff of it.  All I could smell was the dysfunction.  I just didn’t know where it was coming from.
    2008, summarized, on this site;
    Office of Child Support Enforcement
    State Access and Visitation Grants – FY 2008
    State/Jurisdiction Federal Allocation State Match Total Funding
    Alabama $142,379 $15,819.89 $158,199
    Alaska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Arizona $169,198 $18,799.78 $187,998
    Arkansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    California $957,600 $106,400 $1,064,000
    Colorado $125,800 $13,977.78 $139,778
    Connecticut $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Delaware $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    District of Columbia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Florida $497,059 $55,228.78 $552,288
    Georgia $295,222 $32,802.44 $328,024
    Guam $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Hawaii $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Idaho $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Illinois $344,357 $38,261.89 $382,619
    Indiana $191,496 $21,277.33 $212,773
    Iowa $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kentucky $122,440 $13,604.44 $136,044
    Louisiana $139,592 $15,510.22 $155,102
    Maine $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Maryland $166,481 $18,497.89 $184,979
    Massachusetts $161,374 $17,930.44 $179,304
    Michigan $292,451 $32,494.56 $324,946
    Minnesota $133,277 $14,808.56 $148,086
    Mississippi $109,483 $12,164.78 $121,648
    Missouri $171,561 $19,062.33 $190,623
    Montana $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nebraska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nevada $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Hampshire $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Jersey $217,801 $24,200 $242,001
    New Mexico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New York $549,720 $61,080 $610,800
    North Carolina $271,792 $30,199.11 $301,991
    North Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Ohio $349,127 $38,791.89 $387,919
    Oklahoma $108,016 $12,001.78 $120,018
    Oregon $100,213 $11,134.78 $111,348
    Pennsylvania $327,030 $36,336.67 $363,367
    Puerto Rico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Rhode Island $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    South Carolina $142,115 $15,790.56 $157,906
    South Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Tennessee $188,867 $20,985.22 $209,852
    Texas $687,405 $76,378.33 $763,783
    Utah $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Vermont $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virgin Islands $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virginia $207,722 $23,080.22 $230,802
    Washington $175,056 $19,450.67 $194,507
    West Virginia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Wisconsin $155,366 $17,262.89 $172,629
    Wyoming $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Total $10,000,000 $1,111,108.34 $11,111,108
    How this translates elsewhere, CFDA Code 93597.
    TAGGS, interactive search, year 2008 only.  First, you can click on the Grant #.  This will then show you this year, and a particular designated state agency.  Then click on that agency, and see what else it’s doing.  
    What you will see is centralization, I believe, and a whole panorama of events and activities you were possibly aware of (or, I was just a babe in the woods in this category, DNK):
         

         

     

    Number of rows returned: 54
    Rows 1 through 54 displayed.
    Records Searched: 147753

    Award Number Award Title OPDIV Program Office Sum of Actions
    0801GUSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801VISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801AKSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801ALSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 142,379 
    0801ARSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801AZSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 169,198 
    0810CASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 957,600 
    0801COSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 125,800 
    0801CTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801DCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801DESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801FLSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 497,059 
    0801GASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 295,222 
    0801HISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801IASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801IDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801ILSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 344,357 
    0801INSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 191,496 
    0801KSSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801KYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 122,440 
    0801LASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 139,592 
    0801MASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 161,374 
    0801MDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 166,481 
    0801MESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801MISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 292,451 
    0801MNSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 133,277 
    0801MOSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 171,561 
    0801MSSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 109,483 
    0801MTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 271,792 
    0801NDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NHSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NJSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 217,801 
    0801NMSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NVSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 549,720 
    0801OHSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 349,127 
    0801OKSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 108,016 
    0801ORSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,213 
    0801PASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 327,030 
    0801PRSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801RISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801SCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 142,115 
    0801SDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801TNSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 188,867 
    0801TXSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 687,405 
    0801UTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801VASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 207,722 
    0801VTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801WASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 175,056 
    0801WISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 155,366 
    0801WVSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801WYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 

     

    NOW, the THEORY behind “access visitation” includes the concept that doing this will help the deadbeat NCP (Noncustodial parent) to be more warmly inclined, or able, or less discouraged, or have incentive, to pay up.  This is why it’s related also to welfare reduction.  So, basically, it’s a project about reducing outstanding deficits, and is of course administered by the OCSE.  So we should presume that its purpose is somewhat related to the OCSE, which is child support collection.  

    SO, at $10/million/year for (so far about 12) years, is this enough?  NO, there is still more unexplored territory when it comes to Child SUpport Demonstration projects.  Even after they reported on a whole 970 cases nationwide in 2007.

    I just  looked under a different code (see chart) and here are the new explorers:

    WELL, the first one below, Center for Policy Research isn’t exactly new, in fact Jessica Pearson is behind a whole lot more in these matters, and in the family law field, than meets the average eye.  (See website).  She most definitely qualifies as a heavyweight, along with her (and six other’s) “Center for Policy Research” and an apparently? related “Policy-Studies.com which (I have to double-check, but it’s already posted recently) got a whopping $4 million (one year) recently for abstinence education too.  Coincidentally, both organizations out of Denver.  When you click on the site, it reads (on the URL address frame, at least on my computer):  “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”

     

    POINT BEING, if we already have all these other Child Support, Child Welfare, and other special demo projects going on, why all the extra, extra funds for Access Visitation?

     

     

    About PSI   

    PSI improves the lives of people every day by helping health and human services 

    organizations reach out to the people they serve; qualify them for essential services; and 

    manage caseloads with precision, speed, and superior customer service. With more than 

    1,400 employees spanning 57 programs in 28 states and the District of Columbia, we help 

    our clients significantly improve program performance. For more information, please visit 

    http://www.policy-studies.com. 


    Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) provides outsourcing, consulting, and information technology services to government clients. PSI also supports private sector health organizations in their efforts to strengthen strategic performance and growth. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, the company has more than 1,200 employees in over 40 sites nationwide. In 2003, PSI was named the sixth fastest growing private company in Colorado by the Denver Business Journal. For more information about PSI’s products and services please visit 
    http://www.policy-studies.com.

    View Jobs for Policy Studies I

     

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Policy-Studies-Inc-Reviews-E22614.htm

    (Funny review from two employees:  

    Its not just a job, its only a job!

    Pros

    A stable paycheck and the coworkers are usually pleasant. A great place for people looking for just a job and who don’t want to work too hard.

    Cons

    Some of the technical folks seemed hesitant to make changes or use newer technologies. Bureaucracy was rampant and individuals could not make changes or improvements. Communication was completely lacking, and senior management would decide what they though was best rather than listen to the folks who were doing the job.

    Advice to Senior Management

    Be more open to the experience of the people in the remote offices. Discuss ideas before making broad policy and business practice changes.

     

    “Proceed with caution

    Pros

    Work with human services agencies, the people at the project level are usually very talented

    Cons

    Sr. Management has driven off key staff, few opportunities for advancement, poor communication about important events, high spend on initiatives that are risky

    Advice to Senior Management

    Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.

     

     

    Fiscal Year OPDIV Grantee Name City State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0085 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0098 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2008  ACF  CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL  GRAND RAPIDS  MI  90FI0087 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CANDACE COWLING  $ 124,674 
    2008  ACF  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office  CLEVELAND  OH  90FI0093 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION FRANCINE B GOLDBERG  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS  DENVER  CO  90FI0094 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  BEN LEVEK  $ 99,800 
    2008  ACF  Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.  SAN ANTONIO  TX  90FI0086 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION RICHARD M DAVIDSON  $ 125,000 
    2008  ACF  IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES  DES MOINES  IA  90FI0095 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  MARIE THEISEN  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0088 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0097 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS  RALEIGH  NC  90FI0099 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KRISTIN RUTH  $ 78,842 
    2008  ACF  NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM  NEW YORK  NY  90FI0092 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL MAGNANI  $ 24,325 
    2008  ACF  OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  OKLAHOMA CITY  OK  90FI0100 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KATHERINE MCRAE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT  SAN JOSE  CA  90FI0101 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RALPH MILLER  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE  TOKELAND  WA  90FI0089 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DEB DUNITHAN  $ 49,934 
    2008  ACF  Sagamore Institute, Inc.  INDIANAPOLIS IN  90FI0090 DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL $ 24,995 
    2008  ACF  TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  AUSTIN  TX  90FI0091 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)  WASHINGTON  DC  90FI0096 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RENEE HENDLEY  $ 68,355

     

     

    Search on “Center Policy Research”  (modest results, really).

         

    Fiscal Year Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2009  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 50,000 
    2008  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2007  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,820 
    2006  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 24,730 
    2006  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 198,664 
    2005  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 100,000 
    2004  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DR JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,926 
    1996  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  SYRACUSE  NY  HOW POOR HEALTH INFLUENCES WORK AND RETIREMENT  Aging Research  SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS)  NEW  DWYER, DEBRA S  $ 35,910 

    And here, FY 2000-2009, is a cute little chart showing the top 10 states for receiving these Access/Visitation grants from USASPENDING.GOV.  IN 2002, apparently someone was very enthusiastic or reported differently, whereas in 2006, the data (or its reporting) took a nosedive.  However, it’s at least a resource for CFDA 93597, “Grants to States (again, to designated agency in each state, and then distributed locally to get the PROGRAM GOAL OF MORE TIME FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH THEIR KIDS.”

    I’ve been noncustodial for some time now, and was in the court many times the first year, none of which visitation was happening as order, which I repeatedly brought up.  I didn’t see anyone too concerned about this in the various courts (including custody & child support hearings) I was in, or the mediator’s office (see above, mediation was supposed to help).  Hmmm. 
    WELL, this is enough for one post!   And another long one, alas!

     

     

     

     

     

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    martinplaut

    Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

    'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

    iakovos alhadeff

    Anti-Propaganda

    Red Herring Alert

    There's something fishy going on!

    The American Spring Network

    News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

    Family Court Injustice

    It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

    The Espresso Stalinist

    Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

    Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

    Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

    %d bloggers like this: