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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

It’s 2020!  Are You Still in Denial or Unaware That US Gov’t HAS BEEN Funding Both Sides of a Gender War (Unequally?) for 20+ Years; and That Domestic Violence (Prevention & Services) + ‘Family Court Reform’ Orgs (and Their Local/Vocal Professionals, So Active on Social Media) HAVE KNOWN This All Along, But Still Hope YOU Don’t Yet? [Pg. Published April 13, 2020].


Page Title, March 2, 2020, version, and as published over a month later:

This will not appear on the “Most Recent Posts” widget because it’s not a post…

What I outline here is already known by the key players in fields mentioned in the page’s title: domestic violence prevention and services providers (leadership if not front-line service providers), and family court reform organizations (typically nonprofits) and some academics, which is to say, degreed professionals in (primarily) law and psychology, sociology (but also in education, economics).

I say this with confidence having checked and continued to check over the years.

Their awareness of the funding infrastructure I will put to a SHORT summary page here, updating some websites which I see have been recently stripped down (major swaths of text and details removed) and where some organizations whose (about a decade back) intentional “transformation” of leadership shows their agenda, putting the lie to their stated purposes — to fix a problem while continually refusing to analyze according to documentable reality stated by the United States’ federal government as its own intentions.

From one perspective, its policies are working — from another perspective, that its policies are working is causing mayhem — both centered around whether or not to let women and children leave — REALLY leave and stay away — violent, abusive, and potentially lethal relationships, which a trail of headlines shows, these indeed were — it certainly is not.  I think the real issue is public assumptions that the U.S. government’s results don’t actually reflect the U.S. government’s intents.  [<==green text, copyediting to complete an originally incomplete sentence, and for clarity].

How this topic came up:

In seeking an example to illustrate a point, I remembered a website ((https://www.healthymarriageinfo.org), revisited it, saw its recent changes, searched (on Google) and found another link which I’d like to publicize — mostly because it’s:

short but is still a summary statement, and

contains several basic names to know in the “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Field.”

Categories of names include: owners or originators of curricula (programs) promoted; names of the curricula promoted; for-profit and non-profit grantees listed by state, and, lastly, an undeniable, clear admission that the DV organizations (specifically “associated with and referred to by those organizations within the USA) have known about this field all along.

The page developed from one I was writing concurrently emphasizing how vital it is to look closer when the website ends “*.org” to determine who’s backing it.  This quote is from the main link which came to mind as an example of a website ending *.org which in effect might as well read “*.gov” as that’s who’s backing it.  

Short summaries provided (paid for) by government grants can  be helpful but comprehending them also requires becoming familiar with some of their points of reference.  For example, this paragraph from “healthyMarriageInfo.org” references a year and a part of government:  the “Administration for Children and Families.”  How many people understand “Administration for Children and Families” is underneath (a Program Office of) the Department of Health and Human Services, or what the term “Program Office” means in context of HHS’ role?

(A Program Office organizationally is underneath “OpDiv” (Operating Division), but there are also “Staff Division.”)(

Healthy marriage policy and programs are the “new kid on the block” in social policy. In the mid-90s several states and communities began to engage in marriage-related reforms and services designed to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce rates. In 2002, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) launched a Healthy Marriage Initiative and began funding research and service programs. This Introductory Guide provides a descriptive summary of the ACF Initiative in three parts:  …

(https://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ACFGuide08.pdf)**  [cont’d on next quote in same format…]

(**Though it looks like the uploaded date is Dec., 2017, the material uploaded isn’t that current.

I also find it interesting that the website seems to be somewhat current up until about 2016; I think we are looking at the beginning of the Trump Administration for letting at least this resource slide.

Interesting how as to fatherhood, the url “Fatherhood.gov” makes it clear who the backer is: government, while “HealthyMarriageInfo.org” doesn’t until you probe further, yet the basic source of funding for both is the same.

Funding “research and service programs” is, basically, building a field… How it was built is key to understanding why its influence while felt is rarely identified in mainstream media when complaints about the outcomes of family law proceedings, or failed attempts to protect children form abuse or even murder, and women from being assaulted and even murdered by their exes, that is to say, with the dramatic headlines accompanied by appeals, typically, for more government-training in domestic violence.

Why this family values (“healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood”) federal funding doesn’t receive much attention in domestic violence advocacy groups, however, is another matter, not easily explained away as “most people don’t delve into the depths of HHS subdivisions in part of their basic daily consumption of “current events” and overall awareness of how government works.”  It was designed to be in the background at the service-provision level for the certain types of clients.

I added footnotes “a,b,c,d” to the next quote to call attention to under what parts of HHS these grants were funded and since when, according to this quick description in a “Guide” I’m posting about today.

I don’t believe these parts of HHS or the hierarchy of Department / Op Div / Program Office is common knowledge, let alone awareness of how the authorizing legislation led to this type of activity, although most people I’m sure have heard of what those offices tend to do by subject matter! (Examples: Child Support Enforcement (services); TANF — Cash Aid and Food Stamps, i.e.  “welfare,” generally; Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).  Continuing the same quote, same page; I’ve marked it up and added some “footnotes” (a,b,c,d)…

(i)  Demonstration grants funded under existing discretionary programs administered by several offices and bureaus in ACF [a]from 2002-2007;

(ii)  Demonstration grants funded in 2006 under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Act provisions of the Defcit Reduction Act (2005), administered by the Office of Family Assistance [“OFA”]; [b] and

(iii)  Research and evaluation activities funded since 2002 and administered by the Office of Policy, Research and Evaluation [“OPRE”] in ACF, [c] designed to inform, improve and assess healthy marriage programs. Also included is a selection of research activities funded and administered by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation [“ASPE”] [d]that relate to, and support, the goals of the ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative.

[All emphases above are mine..]

“Footnote a,b,c,d comments for this quote:”

[a] How many people were watching ACF that closely between 2002-2007, most notably when as a nation we were dealing with: a contested Presidential election, the recent demolition/destruction of The World Trade Towers in NYC and resultant “Patriot Act,” other aftermath of “9/11,” not to mention (another) US War, in Iraq? and repeated shocks to the national psyche.  (Below, it comes up, also for many, the “Tech bubble” or”Dot-com” economic bust)…

Even if people outside those directly employed by HHS or involved (i.e., as leading the various grantees or contractors) were watching and perhaps ran across this summary somehow, it still might’ve been a hard to navigate “discretionary programs” across “several offices and bureaus” within ACF (itself a new section under HHS only about a decade old).  Being “discretionary” it doesn’t seem that the mandated funding streams specific to this subject matter had yet been set up — but by 2005, it’s clear they were…

So technically, if this type of information was somehow made available, it was not broadcast to the sectors that needed to know the most about it — the women and children (primarily) seeking domestic violence or child abuse prevention services from funded providers.  Not to mention the taxpayers, in general.

[b] “Demonstration grants funded in 2006 under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Act provisions of the Defcit Reduction Act (2005), administered by the Office of Family Assistance [“OFA”].”

Before the HMRF (Healthy Marriage..Responsible Fatherhood) Act provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, legislation was already in place by 1996 as a primary purposes of TANF:  “Family Values”  and “Marriage.”

But to build an entire field requires some significant infrastructure support, and evaluation and testing of what (behavioral modifications for low-income families, especially) “works.” Hence, “DEMONSTRATIONs.”

Underneath HHS, and ACF, the OFA administers welfare: a major budget item.  The ramification here is huge:  It means that, to the extent people (including women) may be accessing social services help for such POVERTY-relief, like food stamps or cash aid, they would be at this point forward dealing at the local government entity (subject to state and county support typically) but that local entity is economically backed by and because of that, philosophically and policy-wise aligned with a U.S. federal HHS Program Office (under “OpDiv” ACF) with a marriage/fatherhood promotion agenda.

Such women typically would not be knowing this, either. That’s not part of the normal screening/application process for emergency assistance for food or cash, even when the need for that assistance arose from control tactics of batterers and abusers who maintain control economically, not just through physical threats or assault-and-battery activities to back it up.

This clientele would naturally include domestic violence survivors with children, often mothers, where part of that abuse included interference with work or access to credit, bank accounts, or things relating to sustaining work (transportation, communication, etc.). I was of that type when I first sought what was and should always have been only some very TEMPORARY, one-time assistance while under the boundary-setting protective order.  I was not without work skills, some remaining connections, or the ability to self-support so long as I had safety (legal boundaries, enforceable and enforced).  

[c] [See “My OPRE Notes,” below; next paragraphs describe some of the organization of HHS for purposes of locating the references above as in either “Operating Divisions” or “Administrative Divisions” of HHS. A little vocabulary…

Those three brief statements show that all listed “healthy marriage” activities are under different program offices within ACF (which is an HHS Operating Division [“OpDiv” ], ACF so named only in 1991) and/or, item #3, the ASPE, which in the HHS organization chart is not an Operating Division but under the administrative sections.

“What’s the difference?”

Several “Operating Divisions” are marked by instantly recognizable subject matter:  the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, the CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services), IHS (Indian Health Services), SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin).  I still wonder how many people recognize “ACF” although it’s “only” handling major functions such as shown here. {<~graphic of ACF Program Offices:  print is small though}. Also remember that as these are called “Program Offices;” these are “OFFICEs” so their acronyms often start with “O”)

  • Early Childhood Development/Head Start & Child Care;
  • [Office of] Community Services (OCS)
  • [Office of] Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) [handles the access visitation grants to increase noncustodial parent involvemt.]
  • [Office of] Family Assistance (OFA)  […Food Stamps, Welfare, and appropriations to fund Marriage/Fatherhood media campaigns]
  • [Office of] Refugee Resettlement (ORR) (“HMRF” programs target immigrant populations too).

Those are the programs. and each one has its own “Office of.”

“But there are two “ACF” categories” “HHS/ACF/ACF — Huh?”

Yes there are.  What also might be a little confusing, which preposition goes where:  There’s the OpDiv (larger subdivision) called the Administration FOR Children and Families, and under it (would show on the bulleted list above, but I wanted to clarify this first), an Administration ON Children and Families, which is 00.  You can see this on the HHS page labels, and within an advanced search under TAGGS, it eventually becomes clear on the filter “Program Office” drop-down list.  On the flow-chart level (hierarchy), then, the secondary Administration ON Children and Families is parallel to the “OPRE” shown on this image below.

[c]My OPRE Notes” — I recognized the initials, but did not remember offhand where on the HHS organization chart OPRE fit. It’s as you see under [OpDiv] ACF, and I just learned through OPRE’s “fact sheet,” it was established in the federal register only August, 1995, for this purpose:

OPRE studies ACF programs and the populations they serve through rigorous research and evaluation projects. These include program evaluations, research syntheses and descriptive and exploratory studies. Learn About OPRE

It also administers grants:  in 2019, it administered (says the page dated Oct. 2019) $198MM.  That’s not a lot comparative to other programs, but it’s still $198M.  Notice they described “grants and contracts” combined for this figure.

OPRE conducts it work primarily through competitively awarded grants and contracts.

BUDGET: OPRE administers funds that Congress provides through a number of separate authorities.Most of these are linked to specific ACF programs including Head Start, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child care, Health Profession Opportunity Grants, the Maternal Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (jointly administered with the Health Resources and Services Administration), pregnancy prevention, sexual risk avoidance, and child welfare programs. OPRE was responsible for $198 million in grants and contracts in fiscal year 2019.

Update Regarding my missing information for my earlier footnote “[d]” on the ASPE:

as in…

…Also included is a selection of research activities funded and administered by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation [“ASPE”] [d]that relate to, and support, the goals of the ACF Healthy Marriage Initiative.

Before my laptop went down (Feb/March 2020) I’d not completed this reference. However, anyone can look it up under the HHS organizational chart (links provided above).  It’s just a footnote and any explanation of it would be primarily just adding a definition of ASPE and perhaps a quote from HHS.gov about its purposes, date of origin, and where it is on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) organizational chart: all information anyone could get on their own.

In the interest of publishing this page (in order to  get a shortlink for it, as it footnotes a related post I want to (and later did) get out today (<~short-link ending “-cdj”) about the importance of followup when quoting or even consuming information from websites ending “*.org”), and in light of major change of global/national/statewide (and my personal) circumstances inbetween (i.e., state-by-state national shut-downs for “social distancing” establishing in effect, martial law on behalf of public health to “flatten the curve” of the coronavirus, i.e., COVID-19) beginning, as I recall, in March, I’m opting not to finish the definition, which would require reconstructing or retracing my original steps on this.  It’s subsidiary information to raising awareness about the grants stream in general, the organization of HHS in general, and that such grant streams while part of larger trends, most specifically stem from 1996 Welfare Reform passed in a certain political context.

You have the link to the guide and can engage in an “Advanced” search for such grants administered by selecting on the category ASPE (or whatever this guide was referring to in that summary) on your own.  TAGGS.hhs.gov (Advanced search), however their labeling is so inconsistent, the broader search filter on specific grants streams (CFDA numbers) may be better. Thanks for understanding.//LGH April 13, 2020.

So, when it comes (from the Guide, as I quoted above, the second item):

(ii)  Demonstration grants funded in 2006 under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Act provisions of the Defcit Reduction Act (2005), administered by the Office of Family Assistance [“OFA”]; [b]

[b], continued….  this brings us right back to Welfare Reform of 1996.  The “guide” just neglects to say so. Welfare Reform of 1996 brings us also back to a certain (Democrat) U.S. President, and his consultant/campaign advisor closely connected with the eventual version of Welfare Reform passed in 1996.  

The Clinton-era (1990s)”Dick Morris” factor in passage of Welfare Reform 1996 (“PRWORA”)

The famous Dick Morris, however had been working for Republicans. Is that where his heart is, or just where the money was at the time? 

And that it’s been going on since at least as far back as 2002, and (as to statement 2 only) that this was under provisions of a “Deficit Reduction Act (2005:  George W. Bush Administration).  Not mentioned in this summary, that the “demonstration grants under existing discretionary programs” by definition must’ve existed under a prior version of the “Deficit Reduction Act” commonly known as “Personal Right To Work and Opportunity Reconciliation Act” of 1996, a.k.a., “Welfare Reform.”

President Clinton’s second term was being held hostage in part to handling a Republican-controlled Congress’s demands for federal budget, that he could live with (searchable term:  “contract with America” or try Newt Gingrich, generally).  Oddly, Clinton’s “ringer” campaign adviser Dick Morris, brought on to handle the crisis, had previously worked for Republicans and to help Clinton reclaim some Republican issues for his own.

(Chicago Tribune 1996; the Dick Morris involvement is now history and easily searchable; it’s been featured and I believe I posted something on it here many years ago, quoting a PBS special also.

More revelations about this particular advisor and his attitudes and practices towards, for example, women (an attempt by others to call out his own “scandal” may be out of proportion, however, it does seem he was using a call girl… )  The word “amoral” comes up, and in this context, I note that both Dick Morris and former U.S. President (and Arkansas governor) Bill Clinton had Rhodes scholarships — time at Oxford University — in common.

The Dick Morris Story: An Affair To Not Remember (by Clarence Page. Sept. 1, 1996 in The Chicago Tribune)

..The campaign of Bob Dole, Clinton’s Republican opponent is eager for any issue, and jumped on it as a return of the “sleaze factor,” forgetting for the moment that Morris came to Clinton 19 months ago after years of serving only Republicans, mostly conservative ones.

In fact it was liberals, enraged by Morris’ success at moving Clinton toward the political center, who had been urging Clinton to dump Morris all along. A day before the Morris story broke, Jesse Jackson called him “amoral,” a term from which Morris had not shied away. After the story broke, Jackson added that Morris “might be immoral as well as amoral.”  …

…Contrary to the GOP stereotype of Clinton, the president did not do everything his consultant advised. When Morris advised Clinton to turn against affirmative action, scrap civil liberties in cracking down on civilian militias and launch massive roundups of illegal immigrants, Clinton said no.

As a recent Time magazine profile of Morris sagely noted, “The lesson of the Morris years may be that it takes an insider with no core ideology to make Bill Clinton search for his own,” the article said. Morris was the bad cop, the ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian, who brought out Clinton’s good cop.

Perhaps Dick Morris’ true colors began to shine through (apart from the above, 1996, article featuring some scandals from the 1990s over Morris’ $200/hour call girl… which paled in comparison to Clinton’s affairs..):

From 2012, Dick Morris has now been complaining about the Obama administration’s handling of Welfare because it allowed education and training activities instead of work.  I quote up to the part where it references “The Heritage Foundation…” Notice also the article’s signature block, which I’m including.

It seems Dick Morris here was back to (and may still be) name-calling for the Republicans and calling Welfare Reform a “signature achievement.”  In hindsight, as a woman, in my opinion with what I know now, and went through for the last two-to-three decades, Welfare Reform alone would be a great reason not to vote for ANY Clinton, ever, in the future.  Welfare Reform effectively turned back the clock on women’s rights and our safety when we happen to also be mothers and need separation for safety reasons — yet even back in 2012, mid-Obama Administration, Mr. Morris — not alone and not the worst offender, but still utilizing the services of a call girl back in (at a minimum) the 1990s — declares he thinks otherwise….

In “The Hill,” 7/17/2012, by Dick Morris:Obama Kills Welfare Reform

Determined to destroyBill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.

The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.

The Heritage Foundation explains that: {{“yada, yada….}} …

Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee Jim Jordan (Ohio) rightly protested that the action is a “blatant violation of the law,” and Mitt Romney has attacked it, saying “the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”

[Bottom of article:] Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)and President Clinton, is the author of Outrage, Fleeced, 
Catastrophe and 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan. To get all of his and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their latest book, Revolt!: How 
To Defeat Obama and Repeal His 
Socialist Programs — A Patriot’s 
Guide, go to dickmorris.com

The lovely Heritage Foundation… “Just 1,000 Steps from the White House” … (since 1973), Heritage has won Victories for Conservative Principles (under “About / Impact”).  “Donate to The Heritage Foundation” (no financials posted, but it does cough up (fine print) on the “Donate” page the EINs for the 501©3 and admit to a (no doubt related) 501©4, but not (at least there) its EIN#.

Donations to support the activities of our sister organization, Heritage Action for America, may be made after making your donation to The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Action for America is a section 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization under the Internal Revenue Code. As such, contributions to Heritage Action for America are not tax deductible as charitable contributions. State Registration Disclosures

(There are actually two, not just one, related tax-exempt orgs to The Heritage Foundation, three ‘disregarded entities’ (LLCs, for housing and real estate), and one Corporation Table (American Dream Broadcasting). Basically, its tax return (FY2017, latest in this table) shows how quickly it can get rid of its donations, and to whom, between 525 employees, many officers (one, Edwin J. Feulner, paid nearly $1.4M + benefits, another, James W. DeMint close to $600K, and many other officers– very few of them women — over $200K/year) — and “Other Expenses” while holding on to most assets in “mutual funds and limited partnerships.” (See Part VIIA, don’t forget to drop by Part VIIB details too — 34 independent subcontractors earning over $100K, the top one listed, over $2M… etc.)

Total results: 3. Search Again.  The Heritage Foundation, EIN# 23-7327730 (checked Mar. 2. 2020), a 501©3.

The Heritage Foundation DC 2017 990 79 $315,910,900.00 23-7327730
Heritage Foundation DC 2016 990 71 $289,026,227.00 23-7327730
Heritage Foundation DC 2015 990 55 $269,606,608.00 23-7327730

Its two related (tax-exempt) organizations; their names and EIN#s may be found in a Schedule R; these were found in FY2017’s return.  Why FY2018 isn’t showing yet, I don’t know… It’s a common situation.

EIN#272244700 = for the 501©4; EIN#521193835 = The Heritage Institute.

For the latter, no full-sized tax return found, possibly because it was Auto-revoked in 2010 (which requires not filing at all three years in a row), however the IRS didn’t reveal this, as it often doesn’t, til about a year later, when it was “re-instated,” and a Determination Letter dated 2012 is shown.  Thereafter (FY 2012/13/14/15/16/17 and 2018) it has only filed Forms 990-N (electronic postcard declaring no revenues over $50,000, and the field “URL” left blank).  I printed those results to pdf. Click on the blank page icon (after clicking on the link) to view it~~>Heritage Institute (EIN#521193835) listed by its Big Sister(?), per IRS’gov | Auto-revoked 2010, posted|reinstated 2011, new ltr 2012, Forms 990N ever since, No Website admitted to(2020Mar2 check)

For “Heritage Action for America” (inc. it says in 2010 only), these are the last three years’ results from the same source (Candid.org, which includes “Guidestar” but is a rebranded “Foundation Center”):

Total results: 3. Search Again. Heritage Action for America (2010ff) EIN# 272244700, a 501©4.,

Heritage Action for America DC 2018 990O 43 $6,308,934.00 27-2244700
Heritage Action for America DC 2017 990O 40 $6,298,625.00 27-2244700
HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA DC 2016 990O 40 $7,154,426.00 27-2244700

Principal Officer Timothy J. Chapman who (HAFA Press Release Feb. 19, 2020) will now go work for Nikki Haley’s ‘Stand for America‘, which appears to be a New York entity I’m not looking into just now…

Prior to joining Heritage Action, Chapman served in different roles at The Heritage Foundation, including as chief of staff to Heritage founder and former president Ed Feulner and director of the Center for Media and Public Policy. He also spent time working in the Senate as a communications advisor.


Another take on the 1980s — major revision of the US Internal Revenue Code (to the point that most nonprofits now refer to its’ version of “1986”), an era known to involve major Leveraged BuyOuts (“LBOs”) and exponential profits for those so-engaged, to the detriment, eventually, of companies loaded with debt (and of their workers), the Savings & Loan Scandals and (related) child trafficking and murder alleged involving the highest levels of (as it so happens) Republican Leadership, sometimes called (see John DeCamp) “The Franklin Coverup.”

Several references to those 1980s in terms of LBOs and Junk Bonds (and updates referencing 2002-2003 “DotCom Bubble” and “2008 Subprime Mortgage Meltdown,” all of which obviously affected the US (and some, global) economy, resulting in bankruptcies of debt-burdened bought-out firms, and –naturally — their “rank-and-file” employees) are readily available, especially to any US Congressman or woman.**

**The next mini-section quotes some of them, “for your information” because I’ve made that claim:  Other possible explanations exist than lack of two-parent income households, i.e., the existence of single-parent households per se (with a focus on “female-headed”) to the perpetuation of poverty in the USA.  Or to individuals’ need to ask for help from welfare.

Nevertheless, it was somehow in the 1990s felt more appropriate to blame family structure and female-headed households, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and so forth, for the nation’s problems to the point that solving this ‘FAMILY STRUCTURE’ scourge became a way to resolve a mid-1990s Republican-originated “Contract with America” Budget Blockade.

Only problem is, we’ve had that solution since then, and have it still, transforming the intent and purposes of social services — but failing to properly inform about one-half of the clientele (i.e., the female halves) of the sea-changes.

Personal recall: As my separation (due to domestic violence) happened — I filed for protection — just a few years after welfare reform, I recall hearing talk of the shift in priorities (i.e., away from protecting women with children through issuing domestic violence (civil) restraining orders creating at least some temporary safety zones). but no domestic violence attorney, group facilitator, legal assistant or office staff ever explained this to me, then, or (when I had causes periodically to call them — again) at any time thereafter).

So this mini-section deals with some other financial factors than single Moms or Uninvolved “noncustodial fathers” that just MIGHT have impacted the national economy of the time.  Like those LBOs, and how it related to the Savings & Loan Scandal — which ALSO we heard, tied into child trafficking, specifically some originating in the State of Nebraska, but certainly not confined to it.  The bulleted titles are also active (while still in effect) links:

…”I think it [referring to a specific bankruptcy of the time, Campeau] is a metaphor for all of the wrongs in the world of financial excess and top-heavy leveraged buyouts of the 1980s,” said Mary Bechmann, a partner in the investment firm of Weiss, Peck & Greer. “A handful of things went wrong. The deal was put together by a group of people — investment bankers, commercial bankers and investors — who were fundamentally fee-driven guys as opposed to long-term {stock} appreciation guys.

“That is absolutely one of the Achilles’ heels of leveraged buyouts done in the 1980s. After the first wave of buyouts in the early part of the decade, a lot of people jumped in thinking anybody could do buyouts and a lot of deals were consummated, driven not by fundamental economics of fixing businesses but rather by young, 30-year-old MBAs who saw getting deals done as the way to make a six- or seven-figure bonus.” …

At the same time, no one on Wall Street thinks Campeau is the last company built on risky, high-yielding junk bonds that will end up in bankruptcy court in the 1990s.  Some of the same Wall Street executives who earned millions of dollars in fees arranging the takeovers of the 1980s expect to garner millions more by resuscitating the corporate carnage of the 1990s. Investment firms have shifted from building up their merger and acquisition departments to expanding units specializing in the finances of troubled companies.

As the trademark deal of the 1980s, the junk bond buyout was the weapon used for raids on corporate giants. Now, it looks poised to make a comeback as financiers seek funding for bigger, costlier targets.

A $268-million junk bond sale last week by ConAgra Foods Inc. unit Swift & Co., part of the financing for a $1.4-billion leveraged buyout of the company, could be the harbinger of a raft of such deals to tap the recovering junk bond market, experts say. …

Qwest Communications International Inc.’s phone book unit QwestDex plans to sell up to $1 billion in junk bonds to help pay for its $7.05-billion takeover by two buyout firms. That deal would be the largest since Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.’s $31.4-billion buyout of RJR Nabisco in 1989.

As leveraged buyout sponsors circle bigger targets, the dollar volume of deals has surged. …


British-based drinks firm Diageo in July sold its U.S. hamburger chain Burger King for $2.26 billion to Texas Pacific Group, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners. Burger King is expected to issue high-yield bonds to help pay for the buyout.

This type of deal uses far less debt than in the no-holds-barred 1980s. LBO firms on average fund their deals with about 62% debt, compared with 93% in the late 1980s.

(See nearby image from this source,  “Notable Historical Crises”  – He lists these three — I think most would agree — “Savings & Loan Crisis (1980s),” “Dot-com Bubble (2002-2003)” and “Subprime Mortgage Meltdown (2008).”

LBOs, for my new Page on HealthyMarriageInfo (from Investopedia Nov5 2019,) ‘Notable Historical Crises’ Screen Shot 2020-02-28…

See also next inset quote (some definitions):

High-yield corporate bonds (also known as junk bonds) have existed for nearly as long as most other types of corporate bonds. Some investors, however, consider junk bonds to be a product of the 1970s and 1980s when the bonds had their first major growth streak

Just like an investment-grade bond, a junk bond is an IOU from a business or corporation that details how much it will pay back (the principal), when it will pay back (the maturity date), and the interest it will pay (the coupon).

The main difference between investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds comes in the form of the issuer’s credit status. Because issuers with poor credit ratings have few other options, they offer bonds with far higher yields than issuers with better credit ratings do. These higher yields come with greater risk for investors—there’s even potential that investors may wind up with, as the bonds’ name suggests, junk.


[1980s, back to The Franklin Coverup, which tied into the S&L Scandals, directly, as in “Franklin Credit Union”involved….]

Basic (criminal) business model — vulnerable children delivered to exploitation; politicians with a weakness (!) for violent and cruel sex with minors (both boys and girls, underage), who by virtue of being photographed, could thus be blackmailed, and $40 million disappearing from a certain (Nebraska) savings and loan; at least EIGHT people, including minor witnesses and the photographer (and his son) blown out of the sky on a return trip (with photographs) died under mysterious circumstances.  [My other blog:  “Cold,Hard.Fact$” has more on this].

Underage youth were also used as drug mules.

But, if national debt or increase in poverty or criminal behavior is to be blamed on anyone — who safer to blame it on politically and culturally than:  (a) the LAZY poor, and specifically (b) poor, unmarried/single mothers, and beyond that, (c ) poor black women, i.e., the “welfare queen” mentality.  Framing it sociologically rather than looking at the collective governmental CAFRs and comparing balance sheets to budgets across the board, was just too tempting.

In this, at least both political parties could get along well, before returning to calling each other names, constantly.


“Unfortunately” in noticing how a previously complex and informative web page I remembered visiting, exploring (and posting parts of) years ago had been stripped down and degraded to a basically dysfunctional, poorly maintained website, I explored Internet Archives/WayBack Machine (a searchable database) for the basic domain name to check my own memory (which was accurate — it used to be far more informative, even listing which HHS grant # supported it.  Who knows how much information disappeared that Internet Archives didn’t happen to save by crawling and taking snapshots of it over time? (Click here for Wayback Machine search results for the main domain name there).


NHMRC, PCADV + NRCDV, The WayBack Machine, and Fathers’ Rights Leadership in DV Organizations.

Between the WayBack Machine page archives and current version of the main domain name and eventually the short summary, I also was reminded how one website clearinghouse (NHMRC) apparently without an associated, similarly-named nonprofit to go with it had been coached by a “Domestic Violence” clearinghouse (NRCDV) which did.

I recalled (and double-checked) that the latter’s nonprofit had begun as a project underneath the nonprofit “PCADV” (Key player in the original setup of the DV field, USA).  It spun off in 2011, from that point chaired by a known fathers’ rights advocate and (I learned through double-checking) now that the original key connective person between PCADV, NRCDV and (as it turns out) NHMRC — Anne Menard — has moved on in life, and along with her (NRCDV’s) replacement executive director, Farzana Safiullah and a Transformation approach, it seems the NRCDV’s website has also been stripped down.

An undated (has a date, just no year; reads”25 years of service”) open letter from Board Chair Johnny Rice II, Dr.PH welcomes the NRCDV’s Exec Director.  NRCDV doesn’t post its financials, and the latest ones I could find on Candid.org (as of this date) are FY2017 (Search results read “2018” because the fiscal year ends Sept. 30). New mission purpose (from the latest tax return) reads, notably:


April 2020 page update, now that I again have a functional input device (laptop):  The NRCDV’s sea-change should be further looked into and publicized.  I don’t know that I’ll get to it soon, but it can be looked at the way any nonprofit can be, as I keep showing on this blog.  If interested, submit a comment on this post, or to me on Twitter, @LetUsGetHonest.  The context would not be apparent without posting enough screenshots and comparing tax returns over time, which is its own project or separate post (or page). This is consistent with ongoing “sea-changes” within the DV networks overall, yet I know from observation that the “DNA” of this system was set in place decades ago, even before welfare reform….

Farzana Safiullah’s background outside of NRCDV mentions she is founder of “U.S.-based Muslim Advocacy Network Against Domestic Violence” (“MANADV”) which I naturally looked up.  It’s unclear (yet) whether this may represent its own entity, but one reference was found (dated Oct. 2016) on a “PEERTA.ACF.HHS.gov/ (etc.)” url which (see logo) refers to PEER “TA” (Technical Assistance) and you can see by exploring also deals with administration/administrators of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). In other words, the same network I’d already seen, and under the same basic auspices and rationale, promoting marriage and especially fatherhood as a national policy.  The “PEERTA” link I posted just above reads, of MANADV:

The Muslim Advocacy Network Against Domestic Violence (MANADV) is a national network comprised of predominantly Muslim advocates addressing domestic violence in Muslim communities through diverse faith-based and mainstream approaches and agencies. The aim of MANADV is to bring together a national network of advocates, service providers, legal and health care professionals, activists, researchers, scholars, and community based organizations to strengthen culturally appropriate advocacy, encourage dialogue and collaboration, develop models and analyses, and disseminate resources.

I fail to see how calling something “a national network” which is already named The … Advocacy Network..” and providing no –not one! — specific link to any outside definition, or a better definition on the page (for example: is it or is it not overseen by a nonprofit, or is PEERTA running it solo with the UNnamed participants described just above?).  The question to be answered is what does the name (MANADV) actually represent?

Under “PEERTA’s About Us” (see nearby image) there is a big heading, “OUR SPONSORS” with three sub-headings:  HHS, ACF, and OFA.  [HHS Organizational Chart Page: see top right, “Operating Divisions” with Administration for Children and Families” at the top.  Click on it to see (very fine print on the flow-chart) how 11 functional (program-purpose) and 10 regional (by geography) offices including “OFA” (Office of Financial Assistance) as well as Children’s Bureau, Child Support Enforcement, Head Start, etc.

This is more than (and intentionally) mis-leading.  In fact, in short there is ONE sponsor — the public, in that we support federal government (through taxation, etc.) and when Congress appropriates money for a budget that is allocated to the various departments under the EXECUTIVE branch of government, HHS is one of the largest.  HHS is also, as this same page admits (but only to people who finish scrolling down) administering Social Security Act funds under welfare, and thanks to 1996 Welfare Reform emphasizing marriage and fatherhood, those programs too. It’s hard to imagine how further down on the page it is possible to bury the ($150M/year) other programs or initiatives the “OFA” (OFfice of Family Assistance) runs than, in passing, in the middle of a sentence, LAST paragraph (and no links to any).  I added the bold and font color change; I doubt it’d be noticed otherwise!

OFA also administers the Native Employment Works (NEW) program, the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood discretionary grant program, the Tribal TANF- Child Welfare Coordination discretionary grant program and the Health Profession Opportunities discretionary grant program.

Or, as seen on the page (with some of my notes/nearby image):

REGARDING stripped-down version and scant Wayback Machine crawlings of “HealthyMarriageInfo.org” page (topic near top of this page), I wonder how often that page would’ve been accessed by more people and possibly “crawled” more often by Internet Archives had people who OUGHT to have publicized this information to survivors of abuse and people struggling through the family court systems whether accused of abuse or subjected to it year after year.

HealthyMarriageInfo.org “ACF Guide

This guide* gives a broad overview of the different types of activities that have been funded, the diversity of populations being served, and the various program settings in which these healthy marriage services are being offered. For more details about specific programs and funding information see www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage.**

*At another place in the same guide it’s called a “snapshot.”  **By now, this links to a page stating it’s an Archive (dated May, 2012) with references on the right side no later than 2016.

This concept and the funding to go with it has been and still is part of (US) federal social service delivery since the 1990s (at least), spanning at least three White House (i.e., different U.S. Presidents’) administrations. Its reason for being was allegedly to have a positive impact on family structures nationwide, as defined by how involved are the Dads, and how much child support are they paying, so in what kind of “La-la-Land” are we supposed to be living mentally, conversing in public and on social media — one where this just doesn’t exist?  .

The purposes included influencing decision-making in family courts nationwide*** though those courts are under state NOT federal jurisdiction — should we be listening to or in any way promoting and sponsoring people who wish US to pretend (which they aren’t; enough evidence shows the awareness)  — that it does NOT exist and is NOT relevant?  It included building a field named after the theme and the “capacity” to keep it going.

***Especially when combined with a different program stream “Access and Visitation Grants to States” which by definition must go in each state to a single state entity (not a nonprofit) for certain types of services which it just so happens that at least one of the major nonprofit organizations originally pushing for the formation of family courts (I refer to AFCC, of course) happens to specialize in.

The (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) purposes also included shifting entire population values — targeting many demographic and geographic niches to be more culturally relevant (which is to say, profiling the nation and seeking a wider platform and market niche for those programs, curricula, and of course, over time, technical assistance (coaching…), evaluations — and perspectives regarding children and families. Language usage was to be changed to reflect more fatherhood involvement at ALL levels of service provision.

In this context, why should we take serious similar funding and sincerely empathetic, seemingly sensitive “feminist” men who insist on leading the charge — or the women in DV leadership who continually accommodate them, run their trainings and publicize their books, terminology (etc.) to the exclusion of admitting that the United States of America has a “family values = actively promoting fatherhood” policy, and isworking it internationally at the university level (as I’ve showed repeatedly as to Princeton,(NJ) Columbia,(NYC) University of Texas (Austin), now Temple University (Philadelphia, PA), and elsewhere.

IF these prevent-abuse, fix the family courts, protest ‘Parental alienation” as junk science, and set precedents for the appellate level in handling of domestic violence IN the family court systems leaders and their associated nonprofits and various academic (in varying degrees) journals, would have EVER in their writings and publications AND on respective “for-public-consumption” websites incorporated into their theories (analysis) and strategies based on those theories, ANY admission of and understanding/awareness of this documented national policy funded federally, then I might have respected, potentially even have trusted them.

It also might’ve helped earn my respect and/or trust (1) had any of the abuse-prevention policies addressed the underlying agenda of the family courts as propagated particularly by “AFCC” leadership. (However AFCC is not, the topic of this Page), or their promoters — whether directly on the federal DV-prevention and services (or, VAWA-based) federally-funded food chain** — (2) refrained from exploiting for publicity and further propagation of their deeply flawed theories,  the lives of murdered and/or missing women and children through the agenda of “training judges to become more aware of domestic violence.”

**Some are, some are not particularly. Those “not particularly” however seem to love quoting those that are, and imitating their “Don’t Ask Us, We Won’t Tell” behaviors in critical areas.

As things are now, practically any murder or head-count of murders or outrageous headliner seems to be paired in reporting with some sort of legislative change that (at least in USA and Canada) comes up in some state-level “custody commission” with proposals to change legislation — none of which, that I’ve seen, indicates any criminal elements may be in play, or questions the federal governments’ official “fatherhood” policies.

I addressed this at length in some of my top sticky posts on the blog, but cannot personally follow up (do AND publish drill-downs on each one) solo.

What’s different: This is a blog Page not a Post as far as WordPress and the theme I’m using is concerned, so it won’t show up on the “Most Recent Posts” widget, be automatically tweeted (though I’m going to do so manually) and is unlikely to be added to the blog sidebar.  Its contents are useful, but I’ll not be doing major hand-holding for readers by posting or annotating illustrations.


If you can read from a link and think about the content, maybe take a few notes, have SOME idea what’s going on between governments as granters and nonprofits (for the most part) as grantees, and that someone is funding domestic violence organizations providing services (or advocacy) where their names are pretty well-known, then the links I’m providing here again shows that something specific to the USA has been taking place.  (negatively) affecting outcomes in family court procedures, and the safety of women and children fleeing abuse.

This “something specific” is large enough and involves enough public media campaigns and indoctrination of social service providers to both men and women that ignoring it is a form of insanity.  It’s irrational IF purposes of many service providers are to be taken at face value as seriously, and I particularly mean those referenced in the Page Title:

DV and Family Court Reform Organizations (and Their Local/Vocal Professionals Active on Social Media)

and in nature and scope seeks to sabotage and undermine the right to separate from abuse.  It’s absolutely unfair when a case is in the family courts for government to be recruiting men to participate in programs designed to also offer them — not the mothers — free legal help with their custody cases, and establish this as a basic part of the federal/state and federal/direct nonprofit grantees infrastructure.

Economic distribution network of social services was radically re-organized in the 1990s.  Its radical restructuring didn’t just have effects — it had an underlying rationale.

You CANNOT understand domestic violence advocacy in the USA, and I feel it’s fair to also say you DO NOT understand what professionals from or around that field (whether academics, published authors or both) are doing pushing their programming “abroad” (outside the USA in countries structured differently as to people’s relationships with their central government, as to countries who require corporate and/or charity registrations but tend to TAX them (and the people) differently if you do not understand these basics.

There is a reason these professionals have chosen (increasingly) to take their show and publications, conference-circuts, and trade-marked language on the road,  not to mention (another trend I’ve noticed) getting published by Oxford University Press (though in New York).

These individuals reasonably understand that certain kinds of transparency, and certain programming — this Page names it, my blog has been featuring it for years — so long as it continues, makes a mockery of “stopping violence against women.”

These individuals also should reasonably understand that attempts to re-structure how domestic violence is handled within the family court systems (here or elsewhere) can be somehow corrected with “more, better training to recognize it” without even mentioning, let alone dealing with, the USA’s 1996 Welfare Reform economic restructuring and “fatherhood.gov” factors

This issue gets to the CORE of “what is” domestic violence (or, abuse) prevention and provision of services.  I’m not saying that services are optional, there’s not hard work and risk taken by front-line workers at battered women’s shelters or those who help them file for protection. (I used them long ago, briefly).

I AM saying that when the whole theme in building a “unified” or “coordinated” field and response to what’s called “domestic violence” without paying attention to and educating the public (along with this) the reality and existence of specific funded infrastructure to counter the same thing — IN the family courts and impacting the criminal justice sector too — IF and WHEN that unity or “coordinated community response” with training to standardize it (tweaking response types for demographic differences by sub-niche of population) — is off or is missing a major foundational principle (or, practice — like honesty) — then the end result will be worse, not better.

If and when the leadership of a field [USA and/or elsewhere] is stuck in “group dynamic” groupthink and overly invested in their own career-curve, conference circuits, PhD theses within (typically, sociology) and justwill not listen to or seriously consider what smart, experienced earlier survivors from the USA are documenting about the infrastructure and federal/state/nonprofit grants incentives, it’s time for new leadership, including to the extent possible boycotting the “deaf-and-dumb except in our shared terminology” mutually self-appointed thought-leaders.

What we seem to have now: only the “degreed” or consistently published individuals from the US need be listened to, only those from within similar professional tiers (castes, classes) need really be heard; apart from this, the survivors and traumatized are great fodder for news articles citing their disasters — and sprinkled in with quotes from experts about recommended solutions, including legislative changes.  If you’re not running a nonprofit, haven’t published a book, aren’t being quoted frequently in mainstream media, than your message just isn’t important.

MAIN PAGE CONTENT is referenced on another post (this was off-ramped from it), available here, published the same day:

I am about to post (and now have//LGH April 13, 2020) on websites ending “.org,” and in passing at the top, mentioned that most people understand what websites ending “*.edu” and “.gov.” signify, but that governments hire others to run “*.org” websites may be less clear.

One example came to mind, I looked it up, found the website had been let slide (significantly) since the last time I saw it.  Looking for a version closer to the one I remembered, I found a short summary pdf of the programming which would be useful for people who fit the categories in this page title:

TITLE: Like SHORT summaries? Still in Denial that US Government HAS BEEN Funding Both Sides of a Gender War (Unequally?) for Over 20 Years, and That DV and Family Court Reform Organizations (and Their Local/Vocal Professionals Active on Social Media) KNOW This but Hope YOU Don’t? [Feb. 25. 2020].

([1] Like this one, which also cites private foundation backers starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and a short-list called “our panel of marriage experts“. A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “Our” without identifying who’s meant is basically dishonest.

(Like this one, which also cites private foundation backing starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and its short-list of “our panel of marriage experts.”  A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “our” without identifying who’s meant is basically dishonest.  “Our” indicates mutual possession of what ever it describes.  Someone should claim ownership of any following noun, like “panel.”

Maybe get out a notepad or notecards or any device which could capture, help you remember, and take down a few names; I already recognize most of them and have blogged several, done drill-downs, talked about the curricula.

From the same basic domain name ending “*.org,” here’s a (SOMEwhat) more coherent summary (<~URL indicates Dec. 2017) which I found through Google — it’d be very hard to find starting at the main domain name “healthymarriageinfo.org“).  It’s is an easy (though a bit odd and incomplete) 14-page pdf I found just swimming through Internet Search Results and a good starter for whoever may still NOT be familiar with the concept of Welfare Reform by Presidential Administration, amounts of grants, etc.  May it light a fire under your behind on this topic if one is not already lit there (i.e., “starter fluid for starting a fire, often used in camping or outdoor grilling”)..

It’s one place to start an ongoing awareness of these ongoing grants and programs still affecting the social services landscape, and not exactly reducing their momentum or expansions.  University consortia exist.  Follow me on Twitter for more leads (“#HMRF” or “#CFDA93086” will bring up some threads with other links).//LGH.

The main website for the “NHMRC” [National Healthy Marriage Resource Center] seems to have been let slide since about 2016; it’s poorly organized (I seem to remember it much more organized). In case there are any residual questions whether the US government is promoting marriage and fatherhood, since when, under which laws, starting in which Presidential Administration (can you spell “Clinton,” at the start of his second term), eagerly pursued by G.W. Bush  (eight more years), continued by Obama (eight more years), and I haven’t kept strict tabs (i.e., continued researching individual grantees through TAGGS.HHS.gov), presumably also Trump, for at least four years.

There are only two footnotes on the pdf, also showing how informal the summary communication is. (Who received it or was sent a link, at ACF or among HMRF grantees?) Footnote #1 references “CLASP,” Theodore Ooms and others; Footnote #2 references Ron Haskins and The Future of Children publication.

Who got this summary or when it was published isn’t clear; it’s not any academic format for publication in a professional journal or law review.

This guide also refers to the domestic violence resource center (“NRDVC,” federally funded) works consults with the healthy marriage center (NHMRC, also federally funded) to help the healthy marriage grantees and even distinguishes between formerly required “has a protocol” and now just must “consult.”

14 pages isn’t much to read, you might want to try it…. The contents also in summarizing acts of law authorizing the programs reference Wade Horn as head of USDHHS ACF in 2001, Bush Administration and his connection to “National Fatherhood Initiative” a nonprofit.

(Update, post-publication:  I re-pasted the same pdf link to this guide here just now, and it displays (at least on my device) as a full-page view, all pages visible, you can scroll through.  Probably a feature of the updated laptop operations; and a nice one I must say!). Without the connectivity (i’m adding spaces in appropriately so it won’t load and you can see that url), the url reads:

http:// www. healthymarriageinfo .org / wp-content / uploads / 2017/12/ACFGuide08.pdf.

Please notice the first two footnotes (and there aren’t many) reference Ron Haskins and “The Future of Children,” along with Sara McLanahan, i.e., that Princeton-Brookings connection I keep talking about.  That connection also sites overseas partners (in the UK and Europe) which I believe I’ve already blogged so won’t belabor more here.

Talk about elitist oligarchy seeking to dominate public policy for cradle-to-career-(sometimes to-grave, considering the impact it has on family law proceedings) for the entire nation and, eventually, globe, at least in the developed countries….

Click to access ACFGuide08.pdf

I wonder how many hints must be dropped before people pick up on this, as well as on why domestic violence organizations on that funding stream, typically won’t talk about it or where they stand on the food chain.

And people still don’t respond, much, when I say the US government is funding both sides of a gender war.  It’s my impression that one side is still dominant — but I doubt many fathers in family court or having been charged with abuse, including wife-battering, would agree with that. Whether or not they agree, documentation of program resources CAN be tracked, to a degree, and names of grantees can be taken.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 13, 2020 at 4:30 pm

%d bloggers like this: