Archive for June 2011
Let’s Talk Child Support — HHS series “90FD” Grants to states: (Research and Demonstrate)
The size of Child Support Enforcement in some states in phenomenal. Within this phenomenally large infrastructure, there is not just enforcement activity, but a subset of grants to encourage certain activities — research and demonstration to improve one of the many purposes of “OCSE.” I’m reporting on a smaller subsection of this today.
Nationwide $4 BILLION per year payments to states for family support and child support enforcement — how much per state, and for what? The child support itself comes from the parent’s earnings (or assets, income) — the funds to pay the $4 billion per year are of course public funds, also collected from taxes via the IRS, distributed to the various government branches, and then different departments within those branches. Health and Human Services encompasses welfare (“TANF”), Early Childhood/Head Start, a lot of funding of medical research and institutions, all kinds of things. But the ability of the OCSE / Child Support system to make or destroy an individual, to support or tear down (depending on how administered) and if payments are not made, to potentially get a parent in jail — and this does happen, check your local arrest sheets — makes it a huge United STates Institution affecting most families, it would seem.
Privatized Child Support, some principal players:
While revising/expanding this post, I ran across a site, GuidelineEconomics, for what it’s worth, summarizing some players in
The Child Support Industry
- Policy Studies, Inc., Denver, CO.
- Also see PSI’s timeline for expansion of their contracted services in early 2004, and their description of their enforcement and collection services.
- Maximus, Inc.
- Systems & Methods, Inc
- SupportKids, Inc.
- Private child support collection agent.
There is no question that this person appears to be “fathers-rights” oriented, there’s a link to David Levy & Sanford Braver, to Father’s organizations — but he’s an economist. Robert G. Williams of PSI, after Princeton, etc., apparently branched out into his own business while working with a nonprofit on a government contract. (My “to do” list included finding out where this person was coming from, philosophically). … MAXIMUS has a large (and very disturbing) section on my post here. I don’t know “Systems & Methods Inc.” and I’ve run across a networked group of mothers complaining that when SupportKids, Inc. changed hands (?) they simply stopped receiving their checks, with no recourse. That’s as I remember it — don’t quote me…. NCSC: 
SupportKids — “ripoff report” — after the mother contacted (private co.) SupportKids, the County gets its act together — and the checks on $20K arrears are finally coming through the Florida County, then they stop. Finding out why, SupportKids had falsified an order, and had the money redirected to them!
Submitted: Monday, May 19, 2008 Last Posting: Tuesday, June 07, 2011Support Kids.com withholding child support paid to me including ex- husbands tax return that was garnished by the State of Florida and no one from Support Kids management will even call me to discuss this Austin Texas
My ex’s tax return is garnished (because he is SO in arears) AND SUPPORT KIDS GOT IT!!!! WHICH IS ILLEGAL!!!! When I call Support Kids to discuss this matter (IF they EVER ANSWER THEIR PHONES!!- well I take that back-THEY do answer their new application line BUT RARELY ANSWER THEIR ESTABLISHED CLIENT LINE) they tell me they do not know when they will send my checks!!!! I left a message for a supervisor (someone named JoAnn), and she does not return her phone calls. I have emailed supportkids many times and all I get is an automatic response!! I went to Hillsborough County Child Support Enforcement for the State of Florida and they are aware of reports and complaints regarding support kids and told me to contact the Florida State Attourneys office (which I plan to do tomorrow). I also checked out the BBB, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST SUPPORT KIDS!!!! Please do not sign up with them!!!!! I do not know how long it will take to get this fixed. (or if it ever will) they are going to sit back collecting my son’s child support AND THEY DID NOT EVEN DO THE WORK (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DID) TO EVEN GET THEIR 10%…AND NOW I GUESS THEY WILL KEEP COLLECTING MY CHECKS. Please, please do not do business with this company, YOU WILL SO REGRET IT. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT- STEALING CHILDREN’S CHILD SUPPORT. THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION OF HOMELESS ARE SINGLE MOTHER’S WITH CHILDREN!!! DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM!! Kj Tampa, Florida U.S.A.This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 5/19/2008 4:08:21 PM
Support Kids.com NOT only are the Custodial parents being scammed so are the NON Custodial parent!!! Ripoff Austin TexasAuthor: Cypress TexasCollection Agencies: Support Kids.com 8/10/2007 5:44 PM (Private company lied, fabricated child support amount due. “A lawsuit by the State of Virginia is challenging the business practices of an Austin-based company that collects money from parents who are behind in child support payments” (2008) Law firm posts news article reviewing criminal lawsuit against SupportKids for violating state law. discussing the 34% cut SupportKids is allowed to take, and how it helped draft legislation in California which had no cap on the % it could take. Austin-based company does business in 47 states and has 40,000 open cases.
And this appears to be the blog I saw earlier. The mother says she started the blog to put SupportKids out of business; that it’s been bought by another (who is similar in its practices):
“Singleparentsunite: District Attorney v. SupportKids” {{meaning, use the DA for enforcement, not this private agency}}
After 16 years of battling the system, it finally worked! I was informed 4 months ago that I was going to get the back child support that was owed to me and my children (who are both grown adults now). My ex husband inherited a house that he put on the market. When it sold, the DA put a lien on the house and guess who got the first cut of the profits? I did. My suggestion to all struggling single parents who are going thru that same fight? File your case with the DA’s office. They keep track of everything and it NEVER goes away. Not only that, collects interest. If you sit back and wait for your ship to roll in without researching your options, you’re going to be waiting a long time. Companies like SupportKids are the wrong way to go. They may collect money for you but they take 34% (or at least that is what is use to be) off the top and send you the rest. The DA’s office doesn’t make a profit off of your case, they fight for you for FREE. When they cut my check it was for the full amount that was owed.
I started my blog to put Supportkids out of business and get out of my contract. Both were accomplished. Supportkids has since been bought by another company and have proceeded to do business as usual. During that time (when the company was bought and in transition with the new owners) was when I put up the biggest fight and won. Supportkids was going out of business and the new company was clueless. I started my blog in 2007. 4 years later, I’m out of my contract with Supportkids and received full payment of my back child support. That may seem like a long time but is it really? Not compared to the years I spent trying to collect the money.
By the time you finish reading the Maximus information, or some of the Canadian person’s commentary on having Canadian health information handled by the US company, with the US under the Patriot Act (which allows governmental snooping), you JUST might agree with me that the OCSE ought to be eliminated, period — and whatever proper functions it might have left to fulfil, to be transferred to another dept. of the US. If this post doesn’t convince, there are more. BELOWTHAT, and with the title to this post, my chart shows some of the various discretionary uses to which child support is put, and for how much, although why — you’ll have to ask the principal investigators of the HHS-funded projects. And finally (with a little more commentary), I post some of the “Section 1115” US law that permits the bending of the law, the creating of various exemptions, and complain some more about ONE person, in the US, (Secretary of HHS) having so much power to approve what might be termed behavioral modification projects up on (the poor, among others) through the child support system, and at public expense. Happy reading. Alas, this all seems to be nonfiction.. .
“MAXIMIZING” CONTRACTS, MINIMIZING ACCOUNTABILITY:
(Circus) Maximus, Inc.
In addition to what the IRS powers to collect and enforce gives to the states, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing, we know that also outside private contractors are also paid by the US Government to do the same thing, such as Maximus,and others:
MAXIMUS helps Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity and support orders, and enforce payments to families. Since 1975, we have partnered with CSE agencies to improve the lives of 940,000 families throughout the United States and Canada. Effective CSE operations demand more than business as usual. Innovative solutions, together with a highly skilled staff, are critical to achieve successful outcomes. We support our comprehensive services with technology solutions that enable us to serve participants more efficiently, effectively, and economically.
MAXIMUS. Because Children and Families Come First.
MAXIMUS improves the lives of children and families through a variety of services:
- Full service child support enforcement
- Establishment of support and medical orders
- Administrative remedies to establish orders {{This sounds like the outside contractor establishing a legally-binding order without proper legal protections to the payee or payor parent.…The remedy to establish any court order, other than ex parte ones, is called a motion and a hearing so the other side can be heard. These guys adjust (reduce) arrears based on a contract with the noncustodial parent only; without notifying the other parent, at least that’s how it went down in our area.}}
- Paternity determination
- Location
- Enforcement
- Financial Services
- Legal Services
- Reduction of undistributed collections {{So, what happens to $$ collected but not actually sent to the kids’ custodial parents? After it sits around earning interest, as it did in Los Angeles County DA’s office previously…}}
- Customer service call centers
- Employer repository verification and maintenance
- New hire compliance
- Medical support enforcement
- Income withholding enforcement
- Early intervention/delinquency prevention programs
- Review and adjustment of orders
- TANF arrears case management and collection
- International full service child support enforcement
- Business process analysis, testing, training, and documentation
All our services are supported through a team of CSE experts, which includes former state and local IV-D directors and others with significant child support legal, policy, and operations experience.
Program Consulting
MAXIMUS also offers a variety of child support program consulting services. “We also remove barriers to non-payment {?}, allowing NCPs to consistently pay on time” “MAXIMUS experience in designing and implementing early intervention/delinquency prevention programs and operations is unequaled. We can assist any IV-D agency, whether state or local, in establishing a successful early intervention/ delinquency prevention program…” It is affiliated with these nonprofit agencies, which it so happens, I blogged on (some) recently:
As a corporate member of several civic associations across the nation, MAXIMUS is dedicated to the business areas and communities in which we operate. These are nonprofit organizations whose membership appears to be CSE professionals.
Child Support
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association National Child Support Enforcement Association Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council
[Corporationwiki of Maximus Federal in Reston, VA -gives a visual]
Check it out @ usaspending.gov (DUNS# 08234747 is Maximus Inc.; ($684 million overall of which $260 million HHS contracts. it administers Medicare & Medicaid….) Also has locations? in 4 countries; DUNS# 36422159 Maximus Federal Services — shows $27 million, 71 contracts or grants.) I googled “Maximus Fraud” (knowing of some high-profile instances) and got this scathing “Rip-off Report,” which goes far beyond fraud. Rip-off reports are personal filings, but listen to this laundry list and compare with “Prospecting among the Poor” and other records. it’s just too (damn) large, for one:
Maximus Inc. employees are stealing Medicare, Medicaid, child support, child welfare monies etc. Maximus Inc employees are blackmailing the poorest of the poor so that they can get their child welfare checks. Maximus Inc. employees are sexually abusing clients so that they can get their child welfare checks/child support checks.
Maximus Inc. hiring persons without background checks for caseworkers. One caseworker was a convicted forger, with an arrest record that included kidnapping, battery, and impersonating a police officer. Maximus Inc hired him while he was on parole. He blackmailed child welfare clients into giving him monies or he would cut off their benefits. Maximus Inc. hired one caseworker that pushed his clients to help him sell drugs, and another who told women they would lose their benefits unless they had sex with him and her children were present at the time. Maximus Inc. hired sexual predators as caseworkers who pressured their clients for sex. Maximus Inc. employees were extorting monies under blackmail from women on child welfare/child support, and these employees were sexually abusing these women. In addition, they wanted these women to prostitute themselves on the streets. They were also getting these women pregnant after they were blackmailed into having sex. Maximus Inc. massive theft of monies from child welfare, child support, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, etc. Wire fraud, bank fraud, theft of States monies etc. Maximus Inc theft of clients monies and diverting the monies to other bank accounts so that clients do not get any monies. How do these women pay their rents, and other bills? Children go without food and other necessary things in life. Blatant fraud. Maximus Inc steals welfare funds, and they overlook the victims of this crime. Maximus Inc. steals monies from impoverished mothers, children and people with disabilities who sought assistance and were illegally turned away, sanctioned, and terminated. Maximus Inc. has so many formal gender or racial discrimination lawsuits filed against it to be unbelievable. Maximus Inc has corporate malpractice, including inadequate and poor provision of services; misappropriation of funds, cronyism, and other financial irregularities; and discriminatory practices at company offices. Maximus Inc. used welfare funds intended for the poor to pay consultants who gave campaign contribution advice and solicited new business for the firm. Maximus Inc. spends child welfare monies lavishly on themselves, and they were illegally denying eligible families cash assistance, child care assistance, and even food stamps. So that they can steal the monies. (Reported By: Dr. anthony — Columbia Maryland USA Submitted: Sunday, September 06, 2009 )
This is not just one disgruntled complainant: Hear this from a Whistleblower Law Firm, on Maximus, Inc.:
Posted on July 23, 2007 by LaBovick LawMaximus, Inc. pays $30.5 Million to settle False Claims Act Case
“Helping the Government serve the People” is the tagline of Virginia basedMaximus, Inc., latest corporate citizen entangled in a Medicaid fraud scam. Unfortunately, this company needs a new tagline. The DOJ announced today that Maximus has agreed to pay $30.5 Million to settle qui tam lawsuit. The company admitted to their part in submitting fraudulent Medicaid claims for children who may not have received foster care services. … http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2007/July/07_civ_535.html The Whistleblower was a Division manager at Maximus; it took guts!
it goes on and on. This is a DIFFERENT $30+million fraud case — same company:
FORMER MAXIMUS EMPLOYEE INDICTED FOR $32 MILLION FRAUD…
August 16, 2007
A federal grand jury has indicted a Alan B. Fabian, a Baltimore corporate executive, over allegedly running a scheme that made $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment.According to prosecutors, Fabian’s alleged scheme defrauded his former employer, the government consulting company Maximus Inc., as well as an equipment leasing company called Solarcom….Fabian has presented himself as a successful entrepreneur, who started an activity-based cost and information technology consulting company which was later sold to Maximus in 2000. While at Maximus as an executive he supposedly made fraudulent sale-leaseback transactions for purchasing computer hardware and software. Prosecutors allege the equipment was either never purchased or much cheaper products were purchased.
Submitted by Robin Mathias on Mon, 12/16/2002 – 5:21pm. Fraud Cases | Medicaid Fraud CasesRayonne Clark pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud for her role in fraudulently obtaining admission into the Medical Family Care Program. She worked for Maximus, a contractor hired by New Jersey to assist eligible residents obtain health insurance and other medical benefits. Seven other Maximus employees were also indicted: Ifeanyi Akemelu, Kattia Bermudez, Victor Cordero, Lenora Grant, Iris Sabree, and Akbar Oliver. Clark admitted that she enrolled herself and family members into the Medicaid Family Care Program by providing false applications and personal information. “The investigation determined that the defendant was hired to assist those in desperate need of health insurance. Instead, she abused her position and enrolled herself into programs she was not eligible for,” said Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Greta Gooden Brown. “The defendant withheld the fact that she was gainfully employed to make herself appear in need of assistance.” The Consequences Rayonne Clark will be sentenced in February 2003. She was found guilty of 3rd degree Medicaid fraud, which is punishable by up to five years in state prison and a criminal fine of up to $15,000. The other Maximus employees who were indicted must serve 50 hours of commity service as part of a Pre-trial Intervention Program.
09/13/2007 | 06:00 amMaximus Inc : New York Awards Medicaid Fraud Contract to MAXIMUS
MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS), a leading provider of government consulting services, announced today that it has been awarded a five-year contract with the State of New York, Office of Medicaid Inspector General to provide Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Recovery and Retention consulting services. MAXIMUS will work as a strategic partner with the newly-formed New York State Office of Medicaid Inspector General to assist the State in combating fraud, waste, and abuse in the State’s $45 billion Medicaid Program. MAXIMUS will assist the State in developing and implementing strategies to supplement its efforts to combat Medicaid fraud and abuse. The efforts are expected to improve the efficiency of New York’s Medicaid program and allow them to better serve their citizens.
Well if anyone ought to know about Medicaid fraud and abuse, it ought to be this company…. and finally,
You’ve Got to be Kidding Me! This blog appears to be dedicated to Maximus’ role in the TN Child Support system, and the post is April 18, 2011. There are plenty of comments, and it’s a good discussion.
State of Tennessee and Maximus Privatization Contract Largest in United States
I came across this article on Business Wire. The article was written in 2009. The title of the article is MAXIMUS AWARDED 49 MILLION CHILD SUPPORT OPERATIONS CONTRACT IN TENNESSEE. This article is sure to get your biscuits burning, since it hails the Tennessee/Maximus Contract as being the “LARGEST CHILD SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION CONTRACT IN THE U.S.” The most sickening statement comes from one Virginia T. Lodge, who is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services. She states in the article that the renewed contract with Maximus in Shelby County is part of their “primary goal” to ensure that all children throughout the State, especially Memphis and Shelby County, “receive the support to which they are entitled”. Maximus CEO Richard Montoni puts his two-cents into the article, but only to brag about the fact that by signing this contract with Tennessee, it allows Maximus to “build upon its portfolio”. His statements almost made me lose my lunch, since he mentioned nothing about the importance of collections, and only talked about the building of their portfolio and gaining a “market-leading position” in child support collections. This article proves my point about Maximus and their contracts. They are only in this business to gain contracts. After all, 49 million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to put back into the “market”. This simply proves that Maximus could care less about the collections of child support, once they have that contract, they already have THEIR MONEY. Why would they give a rats behind whether or not some poor single mom, or dad, in a town in Tennessee gets their child support payments?
And one of the comments on this: I think the blog author is a man; another article talks about paternity fraud:
Well, they (Maximus) do have the contract, but their performance has been absolutely atrocious. A couple of the TV stations in Memphis have produced “expose’s” on just how bad their child support collections have been when compared to the rest of the State, the prior years and the prior vendor (Shelby County Juvenile Court). One has to wonder why maximus still has the Shelby contract. Is it the 4 in state lobbyists on their payroll??? None of their competitors for these contracts have in state lobbyists. Why FOUR lobbyists??? Is someone’s palm being greased???? Just wondering why a company performing on a very sub par basis has not been sanctioneed. Hmmmmm???? Does Tennessee Department of Human Services personnel not have eyes in their heads??? Juvenile Court had 242 employees working on child support collections, maximus has nothing close to that number. Was Juvenile Court overstaffed??? … Perhaps, but they had much better collections that maximus. Something bad wrong with this situation … very bad wrong!
(I have seen large contracts to Maximus in various states, still, despite all this. Makes me wonder sometimes, how much it relates to “birds of a feather fly together.”)
And that was just a sampler of the articles on this corporation… A nuclear physicist claims his life was destroyed, they couldn’t get mistaken orders corrected; I am wondering as an American (USA), what we are doing having an internationally-connected company deal with USgovernment services. Well, here’s a Canadian person wondering about confidentiality issues now that his country has given a health care contract to an American company. A logo, for some visual relief: 
Our Opinions, Thoughts, & Ideas* {{*at least the person qualifies it as opinions. That’s a far cry from the fatherhood theorists. or many custody evaluators…..}}
ARE CANADIAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS HANDING OVER YOUR PERSONAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION TO CORPORATIONS?
From my own reading, research and listening to alternative talk radio, I am, like so many others, fed up of being referred to by family and friends as a conspiracy “theorist”, when the facts to back up the reality, that we are rapidly descending into a global fascist tyranny, are everywhere, for anyone who cares to open their eyes.
(Lets Get Honest just has to interject . . . . .. )
The word “fascist” is at root binding of separate strands to make a stronger whole: the fasces — there are Bronze “Fasces” in US House of Representatives — it represents the binding of the various individual states into a federal government, making it stronger (link contains explanation/photo courtesy Office of the Clerk). what is beginning to happen again — enabled by technology / internet — is that this “fasces” is literally becoming the strong, bound branches of US governmt (designed to be separate, originally) into an impenetrable (almost) unified whole such that individuals in the various states cannot stand up to it alone. The symbol was in conscious reference to Republican Rome. Well, Rome later became a dictatorship, an empire, also. This URL summarizes the years 28 – 23 (BC):
8 The Senate, its numbers already somewhat reduced by Octavian, grants him the title of Princeps Senatus. Census held by Octavian and Agrippa. Mausoleum of Augustus begun. 27 January 13, Octavian makes the gesture of returning command of the state to the Senate and the people of Rome, receiving in return vast provinces and most of the army as his own. Three days later the Senate confers on him great powers, numerous honors, and the title of Augustus 27-25 Augustus directs the final subjugation of Spain and the administrative reorganization of Spain and Gaul 23 The Senate grants Augustus the titles and powers of Imperium proconsulare maius and tribunicia potestas for life, thereby turning over to him complete control of the State and ending the Roman Republic
Probably happened already here, or just about…. Back to our Canadian friend, astonished that his/her private health information might end up in the hands of a US corporation and thus subject to the US Patriot act, allowing snooping without warrants into company’s records ,and forbids the company from revealing that its records have indeed been snooped upon. This writer goes on to note that many of Maximus’ leaders came from the Pentagon, or military backgrounds:
(After naming several entities. . . . . ):
On and on it goes in ties between Maximus and the US military industrial complex. Very little of their military background seems especially suited to the task of managing storage and dissemination of health and pharmaceutical records of BC residents. They are instead more suited to services like surveillance, monitoring, and tracking of individuals-exactly the sort of thing the government says is its priority to avoid.“
“It is the Patriot Act that turns all information management companies working in the US into de facto arms of the sprawling US intelligence gathering monolith.”
Hmmm…..
As a senior, I was appalled to learn recently of the BC Government’s decision to award a ten year contract to outsource the administration of the BC Medical Plan and Pharmacare to a private, for profit, American corporation, and the implications of such to sovereign Canadians.
Wanting to understand fully the implications of this outsourcing, I began in late December by calling my local BC member of the legislature’s office. I asked the assistant who answered my call, was it true that my private medical information was to be handled by a private American corporation, to which she answered “yes.” . . . .
This information is compiled from searches of 3,000 of 21,200 links listed on Google, and 2,000 of 13,100 links on Yahoo for the term “Maximus Inc“.
! That’s one motivated (or retired / unemployed / alarmed) person! to do 5,000 searches on one company.
I urge you to do further research on this company, and perhaps all of the companies mentioned herein. Here goes.
ARE CANADIAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS HANDING OVER YOUR PERSONAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION TO PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, CORPORATIONS OF THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?
Beginning at the B.C. Medical Plan Services web site: http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/msp/ which states:
“The Province is moving to modernize and improve the administration of MSP and PharmaCare, and to enhance the timeliness and quality of service to the public and health professionals. After a year-long procurement process, MAXIMUS BC has been selected to provide program management and information technology services to government. This will help to improve B.C.’s health benefits operations services, which include responding to public inquiries, registering clients, and processing medical and pharmaceutical claims from health professionals. Direct health care services to patients are not involved. Under the 10-year, $324 million contract, the operations will remain in Victoria.
“Operations will remain in Victoria” seems to refer to the fact that this giant swallowed up a Canadian company:
MAXIMUS Canada was incorporated in 2002 when it bought THEMIS Program Management & Consulting Limited, the Victoria-based company that has delivered the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General since 1988.”
MAXIMUS just bought ’em out. .. .
We are on the edge of a new and frightening era in which surveillance of citizens by governments and their private-sector partners could become the dominant reality of our society in other words, an era in which Orwell’s “Big Brother” vision could actually be realized. Whether or not we go over that edge and create what has been called a “surveillance society” will depend on how willing citizens are to draw a line and say “no further” to government attempts to probe into and record the facts of our private lives, said Darrell Evans, Executive Director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.”
SERIES “90FD” GRANTS TO THE STATES FOR
RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, HEALTHY MARRIAGE, YOU NAME IT….
An exhibit of the many uses to which child support funds can be put, with a little creativity. Just calling attention to a grant series that caught my eye in one state’s stupendous OCSE enforcement bill.
INTRO — the continued growth of child support* and emotional involvement of fathers, @ Texas Attorney General’s Office.
*aka “Don’t Fence Me In” (=AUDIO link) to actually collecting child support with a view to distributing it to children…
Required reading for this post — the whole post, here, and if you’re into it, I also added some comments. The post mentions the “Section 1115” grants we’ll see below.
Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support
(source: Randi James blog)I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand ofpsychologypseudoscience and court litigation.Well, who is Michael Hayes?I’m glad you asked.
. . . after a brief chart (Here’s the 2008 section of OCSE grants to the Texas Office of Attorney General — which is who handles Child Support in Texas):
2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008 OCSE $ 157,717,616 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008 SAVP $ 687,405 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER $ 703,000 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) $ 60,000 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
| $ 25,000 |
(Obviously this little “$ 25,000” escaped its box and belongs in the bottom right of the chart above. I don’t feel like fighting wordpress over this tonight.). Notice the variety of grants? The OCSE — $157,717,616 was just to collect or enforce child support. SAVP is access visitation funding (mentioned below, and I mention it MOST posts), then there is a 1115 Waiver, whatever that is, and then a “section 1115 (PA-3)” and last, just in case we missed something, $25,000 for “Special Improvement” as opposed to regular enforcement, increasing access of noncustodial parents to their kids by farming the out to parenting education, counseling and supervised visitation (and thereby encouraging or enabling noncustodial parents to get their act together and actually pay support) etc. It took me a while, but I finally figured out (as it occurse below and above) that “PA-3” stands for “Priority Area 3″ probably indicating the OCSE is getting ready to pilot some other project and then go nationwide with it based on the fact that their own reviews of the pilot were positive. this is how we became a ‘research and demonstration nation.” more from Randi James’ post, here, quoting Mr. Hayes:
The current national child support enforcement strategic plan (for 2005 – 2009) clearly describes this emphasis on both emotional and financial support and the involvement of both parents. …
I also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP {Special Improvement Program} grants have had for the evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.
Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.
OK, NOW THIS CHART — This section here is a small sector – SELECTED: I had noticed a certain grant series with the letters 90FD in them, on TAGGS.HHS.GOV “Search Awards” — I did not select year, state, or almost anything except two program categories: 94563 (Child Support Enforcement) and 93562 (Child Support Research). This produced a printout below: (it’d be better to view, Selecting & choosing the columns below (and/or others) under “Awards Search” –because of the clickable links, but this is a sample). These are 406 records, alpha by state as you can see. Use the scroll bar, notice how some are Healthy Marriage, some are Fatherhood, some are “Noncustodail” (mis-spelled). The Action issue date keeps the chrono, and while the amounts are small — what is being demonstrated? What’s the benefit? Also, I notice in various states, different agencies are getting these grants (enforcing Child Support?) — anyone want to tell me why in OHIO, that’s 3 different entities? Would this, perhaps have anything to do with the Commission on Fatherhood, legislatively created in about 2001?
|
Grantee Name |
Award Number |
Award Title |
Budget Year |
AcT’n Issue Date |
CFDA Number |
Award Activity Type |
Award AcT’n Type |
Principal Investigator |
Sum of AcT’ns |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/29/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
GLENDA STRAUBE |
$63,063 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$63,063 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
02/23/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$63,063 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
05/16/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
05/12/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
-$6,054 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
1 |
09/17/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
BARBARA MIKLOS |
$30,491 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$30,491 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
2 |
02/04/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$30,491 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
3 |
05/18/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AZ ST DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY |
90FD0065 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN L CLAYTON |
$99,596 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORC |
1 |
09/19/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PEGGY JENSEN |
$72,500 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PEGGY JENSEN |
$72,500 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST |
3 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PEGGY JENSEN |
$72,500 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PEGGY JENSEN |
-$73,983 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0047 |
OCSE – 1115 DEMOS – URBAN HISPANIC OUTREACH PROJECT |
1 |
09/13/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RICHARD A WILLIAMS |
$50,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0083 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
09/15/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LEORA GERSHENZON |
$60,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
08/24/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DANIEL LOUIS |
$150,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
2 |
09/19/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DANIEL LOUIS |
$75,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
2 |
08/29/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
LESLIE CARMONA |
$0 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
3 |
09/09/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LESLIE CARMONA |
$75,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
3 |
10/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
KATHY HREPICH |
$0 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0158 |
SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORAT’n |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MR BILL OTTERBECK |
$29,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
1 |
09/16/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$72,500 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$72,092 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
2 |
02/11/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAULINE BURTON |
$0 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$72,500 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0028 |
NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$75,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0028 |
NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAULINE BURTON |
-$75,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0069 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$100,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0080 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/10/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$55,023 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0080 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/17/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$80,108 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0080 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/01/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$64,869 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0096 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/14/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$125,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
1 |
07/12/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$114,741 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DAN WELCH |
$174,845 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
3 |
07/31/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DAN WELCH |
$125,579 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
3 |
04/30/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
DAN WELCH |
$0 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$99,815 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
2 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$74,998 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
3 |
07/20/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$49,923 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
3 |
04/27/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JOHN BERNHART |
$0 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0132 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$30,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0166 |
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS |
1 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$52,443 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0168 |
TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$84,783 |
|
CO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0033 |
COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$80,000 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0005 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN FORD |
$66,862 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0005 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DIANE M FRAY |
$66,862 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0005 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL |
3 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DIANE M FRAY |
$66,862 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0037 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration, SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/01/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DIANE M FRAY |
$50,000 |
|
DC DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
1 |
09/01/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CORY CHANDLER |
$135,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0072 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOE PERRY |
$52,525 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0072 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
02/16/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JOE PERRY |
-$31,189 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0072 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/21/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JOE PERRY |
$0 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0100 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/20/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LYNNE FENDER |
$86,574 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
1 |
08/28/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CORY CHANDLER |
-$135,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
1 |
10/12/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CORY CHANDLER |
$135,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
2 |
09/27/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CORY CHANDLER |
$65,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CORY CHANDLER |
$60,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
07/14/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TANYA JONES BOSIER |
$50,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TANYA JONES BOSIER |
$37,500 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
06/07/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TANYA JONES BOSIER |
$0 |
|
DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0091 |
STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
1 |
09/22/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ART E CALDWELL |
$50,000 |
|
DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0091 |
STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
2 |
09/15/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ART E CALDWELL |
$50,000 |
|
DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0091 |
STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
2 |
09/29/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ART E CALDWELL |
$0 |
|
DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY |
90FD0040 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/31/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ANNMARIE MENA |
$50,000 |
|
DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY |
90FD0112 |
DEVELOP & IMPLEMENT A WEB BASED ARREARS CALCULA TOOL THAT WOULD ALLOW COURTS, .. |
1 |
06/28/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LEONA HODGES |
$120,000 |
|
DEPT of Children and Families |
90FD0159 |
ENHANCING THE CHILD SUPPORT POLICY KNOWLEDGE OF TANF-ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AND TANF CASEWORKERS: A COLLABORATIVE STRATEGY FO |
1 |
09/20/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RON HUNT |
$99,985 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0098 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
09/14/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NANCY LUJA |
$99,853 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0099 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
09/20/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
VELVA MOSHER-KNAPP |
$124,144 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HEATHER J SAUN |
$14,619 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
2 |
09/19/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$12,202 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
2 |
02/25/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
3 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$12,202 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
3 |
02/08/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
11/23/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
08/26/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
2 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$13,237 |
|
Florida DEPT of Revenue |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
09/19/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$16,713 |
|
Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen |
90FD0165 |
NON-CONVENT’nAL SEARCH & IDENTIFICAT’n OF DELINQUENT PARENTS |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
SHARON KERI |
$97,872 |
|
Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen |
90FD0173 |
CHILD SUPPORT AND ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE COLLABORAT’n |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MARILYN MILES |
$60,363 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0090 |
GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
1 |
08/27/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$125,000 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0101 |
STATE OF GEORGIA |
1 |
09/16/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RONNIE BATES |
$43,000 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0156 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$99,000 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0156 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
01/28/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
-$55,500 |
|
HI ST DEPT of VOCAT’nAL EDUCAT’n |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
06/30/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JAN IKEI |
$108,400 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
07/27/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JAN IKEI |
$108,400 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
05/07/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE |
$0 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE |
$108,400 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
03/27/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SHERI WANG |
$0 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0133 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 |
1 |
11/13/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
MS SHERI WANG |
$0 |
|
HI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM |
90FD0133 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MS SHERI WANG |
$30,000 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0086 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
1 |
08/27/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JEANNE NESBIT |
$58,000 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0086 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
1 |
05/04/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JEANNE NESBIT |
-$2,205 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0093 |
IOWA DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/02/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL EATON |
$29,000 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0130 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LORI WETLAUFER |
$30,000 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LOIS RAKOV |
$63,318 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
08/28/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LOIS RAKOV |
$64,000 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
03/09/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LOIS RAKOV |
$0 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LOIS RAKOV |
$64,000 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
3 |
05/05/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LOIS RAKOV |
$0 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0007 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/29/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBERT LYONS |
$56,145 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0007 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
10/06/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ROBERT LYONS |
-$56,145 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0057 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOSEPH MASON |
$193,268 |
|
IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0075 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN J BOYCE |
$100,000 |
|
IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0076 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
THELZEDA MOORE |
$100,000 |
|
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services |
90FD0144 |
LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
HAROLD B COLEMAN |
$50,000 |
|
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services |
90FD0144 |
LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/06/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
HAROLD B COLEMAN |
$50,000 |
|
KS ST REHABILITAT’n SERVICES |
90FD0068 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JAMES A ROBERTSON |
$59,558 |
|
KY ST HUMAN RESOURCES CABINET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY |
90FD0149 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT RESEARCH |
1 |
09/23/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVEN P VENO |
$45,295 |
|
Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services |
90FD0145 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KELLY POTTER |
$15,272 |
|
Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services |
90FD0145 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MONICA REMILLARD |
$14,946 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
09/01/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$49,981 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$0 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
03/19/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$0 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
09/21/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$37,445 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
05/05/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$0 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0160 |
PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$99,570 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMIH |
$72,500 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$72,500 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
3 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$72,500 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
3 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$3,706 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOME |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMIH |
$34,078 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$64,355 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
2 |
02/04/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$80,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$2,045 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0030 |
ENHANCING INTER-AGENCY COLLABORAT’n & CLIENT COOPERAT’n IN MASS. |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$80,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0030 |
ENHANCING INTER-AGENCY COLLABORAT’n & CLIENT COOPERAT’n IN MASS. |
1 |
04/13/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$16 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0049 |
OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
02/16/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$3,019 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0049 |
OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
09/21/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0067 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 4 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$100,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0067 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 4 |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$6,479 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0094 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS – PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
09/18/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PUAL CRONIN |
$100,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0141 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
01/24/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0157 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN RAY SMITH |
$100,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0162 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KAREN MELKONIA |
$38,060 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF E |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DENESE F MAKER |
$78,677 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DENESE F MAKER |
$79,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DENESE F MAKER |
$78,677 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
3 |
11/10/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
DENESE F MAKER |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
DENESE F MAKER |
-$2,045 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0011 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR |
1 |
09/09/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN |
$22,030 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0011 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN |
$20,200 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0011 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR |
3 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN |
$20,200 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0034 |
CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TERESA L KAISER |
$127,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0034 |
CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
TERESA L KAISER |
-$50,677 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0066 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT- P.A. 4 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TERESA L KAISER |
$100,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
3 |
07/27/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$102,414 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
3 |
01/11/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0116 |
PROJECT FRESH START |
1 |
08/24/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOSEPH A JACKINS |
$135,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0116 |
PROJECT FRESH START |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$64,998 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0116 |
PROJECT FRESH START |
2 |
05/08/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SARAH BRICE |
$150,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
07/18/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$100,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
03/05/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
05/11/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
08/31/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$74,706 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
05/20/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0154 |
PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHNNY RICE |
$99,962 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0164 |
EXCELLENCE THROUGH EVALUAT’n: ASSESSING ADDRESSING AND ACHIEVING – AN ENHANCED PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN MARYLAND???S |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SARAH BRICE |
$267,063 |
|
MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0041 |
CHILD SUPPORT WORKER CERTIFICAT’n IMPLEMENTAT’n PROGRAM |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TERESA KAISER |
$49,979 |
|
MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
BRIAN D SHEA |
$105,562 |
|
MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
2 |
07/27/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BRIAN D SHEA |
$102,421 |
|
ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS |
90FD0009 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$67,294 |
|
ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS |
90FD0009 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$67,000 |
|
ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS |
90FD0009 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
3 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$67,002 |
|
MI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, BUREAU OF MGNT & BUDGET |
90FD0170 |
REACH-REFERRAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSET DEVELOPMENT, COOPERAT’n, AND HOPE |
1 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$85,000 |
|
MN DEPT of HEALTH |
90FD0048 |
SECT’n 1115 OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$50,000 |
|
MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0042 |
SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$50,000 |
|
MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0045 |
SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
1 |
09/09/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$59,606 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$96,570 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
2 |
01/20/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LAURA KADWELL |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$96,570 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0015 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/22/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$29,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/22/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$46,110 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
08/28/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$46,110 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LAURA KADWELL |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$46,110 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LAURA KADWELL |
-$38 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0059 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT (PRIORITY AREA II) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DENNIS ALBRECHT |
$65,250 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0071 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DENNIS ALBRECHT |
$43,500 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0089 |
STATE OF MINNESOTA |
1 |
09/23/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
WAYLAND CAMPBELL |
$43,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
1 |
09/11/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$100,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
09/07/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$75,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
05/05/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
04/08/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
3 |
09/26/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
3 |
04/27/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0140 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
PATRICK M KRAUTH |
$78,735 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0140 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JILL C ROBERTS |
$75,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0140 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS |
2 |
06/02/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JILL C ROBERTS |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0147 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
SOCIAL SERVICES |
NEW |
MOLLY CRAWFORD |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0147 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
SOCIAL SERVICES |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MOLLY CRAWFORD |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0147 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE |
2 |
04/06/2011 |
93564 |
SOCIAL SERVICES |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MOLLY CRAWFORD |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARL BLANCHETTE |
$38,896 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$39,539 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY BURKS |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$24,190 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
3 |
08/18/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CINDY BURKS |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0018 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARL BLANCHETTE |
$29,015 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0018 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKE |
$29,015 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0018 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
DORIS HALLFORD |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARL BLANCHETTE |
$43,738 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$51,282 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY BURKS |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$27,817 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0062 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
GARY BAILEY |
$192,607 |
|
MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV |
90FD0036 |
A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ANN STEFFENS |
$50,000 |
|
MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV |
90FD0036 |
A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ANN STEFFENS |
-$925 |
|
Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services |
90FD0043 |
SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$50,000 |
|
Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services |
90FD0044 |
PHASE II: MAINE’S NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OUTREACH & INVESTIGAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
|
$84,640 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$60,000 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
2 |
05/22/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$0 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
2 |
01/22/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$0 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
3 |
09/02/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$60,000 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
3 |
01/25/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$0 |
|
ND ST Office of the Governor |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
1 |
08/28/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$75,000 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0097 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
09/14/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARGARET J EWING |
$72,466 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
1 |
08/24/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NANCY MONTANEZ |
$51,005 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR SCOT ADAMS |
$48,487 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
2 |
04/08/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MARGARET EWING |
$0 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
3 |
08/31/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARGARET EWING |
$50,269 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0020 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/22/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARY WEATHERILL |
$24,928 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0020 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
08/28/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
NEAL BOUTIN |
$24,928 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0020 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
NEAL BOUTIN |
$24,931 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0070 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
THOMAS PRYOR |
$44,868 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0038 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES DEMONNSTRAT’n, SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/31/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$50,000 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0060 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$127,600 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0122 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
2 |
08/26/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$78,852 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0122 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
3 |
09/19/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$71,797 |
|
NJ ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0122 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
08/24/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$150,000 |
|
NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0055 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HELEN NELSON |
$217,667 |
|
NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0055 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
HELEN NELSON |
-$217,667 |
|
NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0136 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CYNTHIA D FISHER |
$99,320 |
|
NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0136 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CYNTHIA D FISHER |
$74,671 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/16/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBERT DOAR |
$187,640 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ROBERT DOAR |
$188,000 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ROBERT DOAR |
$0 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
09/24/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ROBERT DOAR |
-$375,640 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0142 |
OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
12/10/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
ATHENA RILEY |
$0 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0142 |
OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ATHENA RILEY |
$50,000 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0152 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
12/10/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
CARRI BROWN |
$0 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0155 |
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE SUDDEN AND PROLONGED EFFECT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON IV CASELOA |
1 |
09/23/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARRI BROWN |
$60,000 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0174 |
OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT’n WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU |
1 |
09/24/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
ATHENA RILEY |
$85,000 |
|
OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0142 |
OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CARRI BROWN |
$50,000 |
|
OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0152 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARRI BROWN |
$104,663 |
|
OH STATE SEC. OF STATE |
90FD0095 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/18/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARRI L BROWN |
$50,000 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
1 |
02/27/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
-$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
2 |
02/27/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
-$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0084 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 |
1 |
09/01/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HARRY BENSON |
$79,750 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0084 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 |
1 |
02/16/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ANTHONY L JACKSON |
-$79,750 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0146 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KATHERINE MCRAE |
$31,708 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0146 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
KATHERINE MCRAE |
$30,300 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0146 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
04/07/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TERY DESHONG |
$0 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0151 |
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE SUDDEN AND PROLONGED EFFECT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON IV CASELOA |
1 |
09/23/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MS KATHERINE MCRAE |
$36,681 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0163 |
1115 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT MEDICAL REFORM STRATEGY PROGRAM |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KATHERINE MCRAE |
$37,728 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0167 |
GET PAID! COLLABORATE TO COLLECT |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
ANTHONY JACKSON |
$100,000 |
|
OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE |
90FD0135 |
EMPLOYER PORTAL |
1 |
08/30/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
BECKY L HAMMER |
$87,483 |
|
OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE |
90FD0135 |
EMPLOYER PORTAL |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BECKY L HAMMER |
$61,347 |
|
OR ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES, ADULT & FAMILY SVCS DIV |
90FD0023 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SHIRLEY IVERSON |
$72,500 |
|
OR ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES, ADULT & FAMILY SVCS DIV |
90FD0023 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
1 |
04/05/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
SHIRLEY IVERSON |
-$72,500 |
|
PR ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT |
90FD0046 |
SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/30/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MIGUEL A VERDIALES |
$145,000 |
|
RI ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0153 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SHARON A SANTILLI,ESQUIRE |
$105,000 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0024 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
BOB BRADFORD |
$17,998 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0024 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL THIGPEN |
$14,835 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0024 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL THIGPEN |
$15,050 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0056 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
R. ROSS JOLLY |
$106,801 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
1 |
09/08/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARK JASONOWICZ |
$145,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
2 |
09/18/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$145,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
2 |
01/19/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
3 |
09/15/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$145,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
3 |
02/07/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
3 |
11/22/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0150 |
CHILD SUPPORT PROJECTS TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$103,221 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0161 |
MICHIGAN MEDICAL CHILD SUPPORT STRATEGIES |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
PAMELA G MCKEE |
$50,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0170 |
REACH-REFERRAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSET DEVELOPMENT, COOPERAT’n, AND HOPE |
1 |
01/07/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF TENNESSEE |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$82,853 |
|
State of Louisiana, DEPT of Social Services |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$59,983 |
|
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
07/20/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$108,112 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0077 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 |
1 |
08/26/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$60,000 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0102 |
TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/16/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LINDA CHAPPELL |
$62,300 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$101,427 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
07/27/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$100,688 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
03/06/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
02/24/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$54,612 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
08/09/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$52,034 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
07/12/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
05/13/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$50,000 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
05/18/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0139 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$100,000 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0139 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$71,240 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0139 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
03/14/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0148 |
TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$49,300 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0148 |
TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$49,300 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0148 |
TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
03/14/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0171 |
BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$85,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0052 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
WILLIAM H ROGERS |
$105,254 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0052 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
WILLIAM H ROGERS |
-$8,058 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0064 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CYNTHIA BRYANT |
$71,630 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0073 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$100,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0073 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MICHAEL HAYES |
-$6,976 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0078 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5 |
1 |
08/26/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$80,040 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0085 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 |
1 |
08/26/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$60,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
08/29/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
WILL ROGERS |
$196,555 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/27/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICIA CAFFERATA |
$196,555 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
01/08/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
KAREN HENSON |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
08/16/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
KAREN HENSON |
$196,555 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0092 |
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
1 |
09/09/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL D HAYES |
$125,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
07/27/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$108,400 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
03/19/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
06/26/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
07/31/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$108,400 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
06/27/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
1 |
08/29/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HAILEY KEMP |
$60,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
2 |
08/11/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TED WHITE |
$60,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
3 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TED WHITE |
$50,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
3 |
03/30/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TED WHITE |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0134 |
OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER |
1 |
09/29/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$703,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0137 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE |
1 |
08/16/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
KAMMI SIEMENS |
$100,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0137 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE |
2 |
09/07/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$75,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0137 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE |
2 |
01/13/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0169 |
URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$85,000 |
|
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS |
90FD0049 |
OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
08/31/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$167,748 |
|
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS |
90FD0141 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$99,348 |
|
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS |
90FD0141 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
09/19/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$75,000 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
1 |
09/01/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$150,000 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$75,000 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
2 |
08/10/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JOHN BERNHART |
$0 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
2 |
06/15/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JOHN BERNHART |
$0 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
3 |
08/31/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$75,000 |
|
UT ST DIV OF AGING |
90FD0104 |
UTAH DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARK BRASHER |
$120,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0029 |
NEW APPROACH TO COLLECTING ARREARS |
1 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$96,396 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0032 |
INCREASING THE COLLECT’n RATE FOR COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$80,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0050 |
SHARED PARTNERSHIP: INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS LOCATING NCP’S & ASSETS WITH ON-LIN |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$70,265 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0051 |
SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/30/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$50,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0063 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG, JR. |
$100,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0074 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL YOUNG |
$150,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0074 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
NATHANIEL YOUNG |
-$6,421 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
08/29/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. |
$200,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/17/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD W ARESON |
$200,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/22/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TODD W ARESON |
$0 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/15/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD W ARESON |
$200,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/22/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TODD W ARESON |
$0 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0087 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 5 |
1 |
08/27/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. |
$81,000 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JEFF COHEN |
$72,500 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JEFFERY COHEN |
$72,500 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
2 |
01/27/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JEFFERY COHEN |
$0 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JEFFERY COHEN |
$72,500 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JEFF COHEN |
$199,941 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
$199,941 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/08/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
$0 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
-$42,007 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/12/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
$199,941 |
|
VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0106 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
06/29/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBERT B BUTTS |
$118,607 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0027 |
DETERMININGTHE C0MPOSIT’n AND COLLECTIBILITY OF ARREARAGES |
1 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$75,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0031 |
EXEMPLARY COLLECT’n PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ELLEN NOLAN |
$80,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0031 |
EXEMPLARY COLLECT’n PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY |
1 |
03/12/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ELLEN NOLAN |
-$47,987 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0035 |
A STUDY OF WASHINGTON CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$50,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0079 |
DEMON. AND EVAL. OF CENTRALIZED MEDICAL SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
1 |
09/10/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVE STRAUSS |
$80,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$60,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
08/13/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$60,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
09/20/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$50,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
01/21/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0131 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/24/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$30,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0172 |
BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES |
1 |
09/26/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MICHAEL HORN |
$85,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$200,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
08/31/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$200,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/12/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$200,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
03/22/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$91,381 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
2 |
11/06/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
3 |
07/31/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$91,390 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
3 |
05/26/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0138 |
FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$100,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0138 |
FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE |
2 |
09/02/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL HORN |
$75,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0138 |
FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE |
2 |
02/08/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH KOLLIN |
$0 |
|
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$108,400 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RONI HARPER |
$72,500 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SUSAN MATHISON |
$72,500 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SUSAN MATHISON |
$72,500 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
3 |
06/30/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SUSAN MATHISON |
$0 |
|
WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TODD KUMMER |
$166,619 |
|
WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAUL SAEMAN |
$175,871 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
02/04/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAUL SAEMAN |
$0 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/23/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAUL SAEMAN |
$172,724 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
1 |
07/11/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SUE KINAS |
$108,400 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
TODD KUMMER |
$0 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD KUMMER |
$108,400 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
3 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD KUMMER |
$108,400 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
3 |
07/07/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TODD KUMMER |
$0 |
|
WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0039 |
“PARENTHOOD AND YOU” (PAY) |
1 |
09/05/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SUSAN HARRAH |
$50,000 |
|
WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0103 |
WV DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/22/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ELIZABETH JORDAN |
$43,000 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NANCY Q ROBERTS |
$124,993 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
HOLLY CLARK |
-$4,377 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOANNE MADRID |
$102,511 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
10/01/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
HOLLY CLARK |
$0 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
HOLLY CLARK |
-$11,272 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/23/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOANNE VERMEULEN $ 71,967 |
|
~ ~ ~ (TOTAL — per my export to Excel and using the “sum” function — is over $22 million — a spit in the bucket to the larger system, is over $22,000,000. For a contrast, the Florida (only) Dept. of Revenue HHS grants for child support (all categories, not sorted by year) shows as: $ 2,213,325,477: two billion, two hundred thirteen million, etc. This is what caught my eye. Did you notice Maryland, “Baltimore Healthy Marriages” — if only marriage were healthier, maybe there’d be fewer poor people on welfare…. (?) Indiana I didn’t see anything catch my eye, but I already know their Child Services Dept. not Child Support, but Child Services — got to serve the whole child, right? — on the page referring to child SUPPORT links straight out to Fathers and Families and recommends it apply for a grant. One can hardly distinguish the two. And Indiana is ALREADY fatherhood land, through Evan Bayh (jr.) and many more entitities. I would bet that most of these projects are labeled “Discretionary.” At any rate, one can see the variety of Institutions getting them, and perhaps the investigators backgrounds may or may not be interesting (Mr. Hayes sure was, I found him conferencing up in MN with a Fatherhood Summit, fascinating — as with the increasing success of the “parental alienation” theory in custody-switching, more and more MOTHERS are going to be the noncustodial parents and subject to a child support order, wage garnishment, etc. I know one Mom like that, presently, who was made homeless while working FT, and a DV survivor too. Fancy that. So how will it work for the mothers when the entire structure, mammoth in scale — has been geared to fathers on the basis that the courts are biased towards Moms and theres a fatherlessness crisis in the land which child support system could fix?
“Section 1115″ of the Social Security Act: Means, “Let’s Demonstrate!”
(a)
Sec. 1115. [42 U.S.C. 1315](a) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I, X, XIV, XVI, or XIX, or part A or D of title IV, in a State or States—
Hence the term flying around in our custody, divorce, child support circles, “TITLE IV-D” — which kicks in a different set of standards (and removes some protections) for example, if a person leaving domestic violence has to resort to welfare in any form. This becomes a “Title IV-D” case up front and is flagged, from what I understand, for potentially different treatment — IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY IN THE CUSTODY PROCESS. WHY — because other funds can be freed up. For example, funds in this particular divorce or separation to promote healthy marriage… Note: one person — the Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (I think, as I read this) — has the discretion to justify projects that do not have to ACTUALLY assist Title IV-D purposes, but in this ONE PERSON’S judgment, be LIKELY to. No wonder the place is full of demonstration experiments.
(1) the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 2, 402, 454, 1002,1402, 1602, or 1902, as the case may be, to the extent and for the period he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry out such project, and
The current Secretary of Health and Human Services is a woman…. with power by this Section to waive the lawfor demonstration projects. Kind of sounds like kingly (queenly) powers, doesn’t it? Is the public notified how often, how much, and why these laws are waived? (The grants lookups gives a clue as do other publications).
(2)(A) costs of such project which would not otherwise be included as expenditures under section 3,455, 1003, 1403, 1603, or 1903, as the case may be, and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110, shall, to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as expenditures under the State plan or plans approved under such title, or for administration of such State plan or plans, as may be appropriate, and
Permission granted to Secretary to knight certain expenditures as crusade-worthy and bill the public. Just trust us, it’s a good idea, or likely to be a good idea.
(B) costs of such project which would not otherwise be a permissable use of funds under part A of title IV and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110, shall to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as a permissable use of funds under such part.
Permission granted to the Secretary to alter perceptions of project costs.
In addition, not to exceed $4,000,000 of the aggregate amount appropriated for payments to States under such titles for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1967, shall be available, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may establish, for payments to States to cover so much of the cost of such projects as is not covered by payments under such titles and is not included as part of the cost of projects for purposes of section 1110.
Permission granted to the Secretary to add up to $4 million aggregate (per project? Per year?) just in case previous mind-bending, law-bending 1115 exceptsion weren’t quite enough. I imagine “payments” means, up-front? because in most projects, for the rest of us contractors, costs come later, or are billed at the end of the project after a certain amount down.
(b)
(b) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project undertaken under subsection (a) to assist in promoting the objectives of part D of title IV, the project— (1) must be designed to improve the financial well-being of children or otherwise improve the operation of the child support program; (2) may not permit modifications in the child support program which would have the effect of disadvantaging children in need of support; and (3) must not result in increased cost to the Federal Government under part A of such title.
WELL, who is going to see that (b) (1-3) is adhered to, as most people are too stressed to even know that these projects are taking place, and what impact it has had on the target, pilot, demonstrated upon population? It’s a lucky person who happens to notice they are in place, outside of the professions involved in demonstrating (etc.).There’s anecdotal evidence in the form of newspaper headlines and other protest movements that some of this fatherhood agenda is getting kids killed and keeping them in the custody of batterers (convicted) and molesters (convicted), they are experiencing abduction, and in some cases child support and contact with the other (originally caretaking) parent is totally eliminated. However section (b) doesn’t say it actually HAS to improve the financial well-being of the children, just that it must “be designed” (in the opinion of one person — the Secretary of the HHS, when you look at who approves it) to do so. Perhaps there is some leeway here for upstanding and alert citizens to protest some of the more egregious SECTION 1115 PROJECTS above… Although they are small compared to the total enforcement costs — what are they being used for?
(c)(1)(A) The Secretary shall enter into agreements with up to 8 States submitting applications under this subsection for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects in such States to test and evaluate the use, with respect to individuals who received aid under part A of title IV in the preceding month (on the basis of the unemployment of the parent who is the principal earner), of a number greater than 100 for the number of hours per month that such individuals may work and still be considered to be unemployed for purposes of section 407.If any State submits an application under this subsection for the purpose of conducting a demonstration project to test and evaluate the total elimination of the 100-hour rule, the Secretary shall approve at least one such application.
The entire welfare system is based on a concept of the 40-hour week as a means to financial well-being, even though the wealthiest people in the country, while they may work 40 hrs a week or more, if they love their work (or have chosen to run businesses, or a business, that requires this) do not HAVE to. This is why they have time to run around and make sure the rest of society is occupied with the 40 hour week standard. School is based on this general concept too — quantity versus quality and efficiency. Crowd control. Perhaps this is why we have such masses of peasants, etc. that need to be managed — because they are viewed and treated as unable to manage their own lives, direct their futures, LEARN significant things, and achieve beyond middle management level in life. So, the goal is to see if the 100 hour rule can be totally eliminated? This section is a little unclear, the reasoning that was behind it. Perhaps I haven’t spent enough months or years on welfare to understand this fully. I DO understand the concept of hours spent waiting in lines at government offices of all sorts. The 2nd “shall” seems to mean that if not even 1 state came up with a decent plan (unlikely, but if this were so), the Secretary had to approve at least one, anyhow.
(B) If any State with an agreement under this subsection so requests, the demonstration project conducted pursuant to such agreement may test and evaluate the complete elimination of the 100-hour rule and of any other durational standard that might be applied in defining unemployment for purposes of determining eligibility under section 407.
Sounds like when unemployment figures are circulated in the newspapers, these may not be included — people being demonstrated upon and participating in special projects proposed by states, and baptized by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources (IF I’ve named the right Secretary – if not, it would be some other single person over a huge dept.) — so the figures are actually higher than reported if so. New Deal, much? All of us must pay for the projects of some of us. This is called Taxation, but not exactly representation. It’s not so much the amounts (relative to the CSE enforcement budget) but the principle, and the fact that it’s acceptable to demonstrate simply because people got a Title IV-D status at any point in their lives, or were born into such a household. In the case of Child Support system, it has already been declared by the past three (male) presidents that FATHERHOOD is the thing, and worthy of investment. So of the approximately half the population (females are 50+% of the US) existing here, and paying taxes here (of the working population, I imagine that’s safe to say. How many stay at home 100% of the time Moms are around any more?) — of that %, we are paying for projects aimed at teh other gender, and which may benefit us -and our female and male children — if they do at all — only INdirectly. Is that really good for the men, either? Does it make them better men to know that they can either pay child support or enroll in a program or go to jail? (which is often the case — see Kentucky Court system, for example). Or that they can beat the system through these programs and get “even” with their ex, to the detriment of the public? Is a Section 1115 activity good just because the Secretary of the HHS (you gotta admit,a busy person) says it is? How much discretion are we going to allow? Take your head off the next Presidential candidates every now and then, and look at some of these things. Future posts I hope to just put up a few figures (charts) for people to get a mental image of the scope of this OCSE. When I said, it ought to be eliminated, I meant it. There are so many practices which undermine the legal system – — unbelievable. And, I repeat, people are being killed over these things. When there are hotly contested divorces and separation, one of the things we hear the most griping about is child support system — whether from the Mom’s side or the Dads. Remember Silva v. Garcetti. Remember Maximus…~ ~ ~
SHARE THIS POST on...
CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center & Fatherhood pending legislation
This post first published 6-25-2011. Being formatted/broken-links checked in prep for a 3-2017 quote, as this font and the border, plus posting title with link, indicates. In 2011, I didn’t know how certain formatting techniques which would’ve made for easier viewing…//LGH.
CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center & Fatherhood pending legislation (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-L3”)
AN Ex-NOW (California Chapter) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Just a little reminder of an old 2006 missive on the use of Fatherhood Funds from HHS
[“http://www.now.org/issues/family/law/HHSletter.pdf” no longer valid. The letter was found under Internet Archive, and was only saved in a single snapshot SIX YEARS after its writing. This version is now uploaded as a pdf and will not disappear; it’s only 2 pages long. //LGH 3-30-2017]
WayBackMachine (Internet Archive) showing that as of March 2017, there was only ONE screenshot of this ltr (in all years). It apparently was not a high-traffic site, or was taken down after being posted earlier.
For broken or missing links, sometimes Internet Archive may have the answer (I used it this time…)
(Click to read; I’m also posting the two full-page screenshots below): 2006 to CalifMembersCongress re HHS (ltr fr CA NOW (signed HGrieco) per WayBackMachine (sole snapshot only 3-22-2012),re-loaded 3-30-2017byVEnglund 2pp
Click here for both pages full-sized (no annotations other than to label the URL (p1 top) and filename (p1 bottom, yellow).
See link in above caption to view this page full-sized.
There are some developments that I report on (and some others) which are not covered in this letter, but it sure has the basics. I am not (FYI), a NOW member and never was. However, I do endorse this letter. Because California NOW is moving its pages around and appears to have dropped or eliminated some of its Family Law Links, I’ll also post the entire letter, below.
Just a little reminder, the origins of the “fatherhood”movement were in part to counteract the perceived threats of feminism and NOW.
Every “now” and then someone trumpets that they have got a reformed or converted feminist in their ranks. Warren Farrell, Ph.D. is one, and another one I discovered recently (although the activities were in the previous century) is a Karen DeCrow, who is a member of the Family Advisory Task on the Children’s Rights Council, which the author of the 2006 letter cites as a fathers’ group (which it is). I have blogged far more on AFCC than CRC, but they are related, have personnel in common and as the next link will show, are Richard Gardner-favorable.
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS COUNCIL – FAMILY BOARD
A reminder: this is not a Republican/Democrat issue. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as in “It takes a Village to Raise a Child,” back in 1997 endorsed this group. In looking into WHY, I ran again into the network of secretive meetings around “The Family” which have involved many U.S. Presidents and other world leaders, among them senators which are definitely pushing fatherhood funding (Santorum, Brownback, Grassley).
(OK, here is that 2007 Mother Jones article: Hillary’s Prayer: Hillary Clinton’s Religion and Politics )(and another one detailing how Hillary got involved, under the title The Family: Hillary Clinton’s Fascist Spiritual Guide) The Family’s connections with anti-Communist dictators (the key word being “dictators” and racist groups mentioned in 2008 article by Barbara Ehrenreich.)(<==hover cursor over the second link for summary text).
Just because someone is a powerful woman doesn’t mean she is in favor of doing something to remedy the family court situation, in which people are dying around exchange of children after or during divorce, or even a rumour of divorce sometimes. The system is unfair to both men and women because it is indeed “fascist” — it ties systems of control together and holds them at the top policymaking levels. This is why such organizations are so focused, perhaps, on training judges and training workers and training practitioners of this and that.
(All these images from the CRCkids.org “About us” page — thank you).
Family Board has some familiar names:
Although without governing authority, the Family Advisory Board plays a vital role in helping to recommend advocacy initiatives, strategic planning and policy development to the Board of Trustees. Serving members include:
- Ms. Jeanne Phillips (Dear Abby);
- Karen DeCrow J.D., former President of the National Organization of Woman (NOW);
Karen DeCrow is a nationally recognized author and attorney specializing in Constitutional law, gender and age discrimination, and civil liberties. Her long involvement with the National Organization for Women goes back to 1967; from 1968 to 1974 she served as National Board Member of NOW, and from 1974 to 1977 as its President.
In 1988 she co-founded (with Robert Seidenberg) World Woman Watch. Karen is based in upstate New York (picture to left)
Being nosy, like I am, about these things, I googled, and found Ms. DeCrow presenting — alongside David Levy (CRC Board) and Richard Gardner, Sanford Braver, etc. at a 1998 conference by the On Step Institute,* a 1992 nonprofit in NY founded by Mental Health (practitioners Ph.D.’s):
[*2017 UpdateThat link gone without a redirect, Internet Archive Results Screenshot show who are the founders and early discussions of men’s rights in divorce. The bottom entry of that 2nd “Conferences” screen shot may have been the same 1998 conference but (clicking on it), no screenshot of that page was taken:]
(Other links below that look like “ONStep Intitute” filenames are to one of the images (screenshots) on ONStep provided below, all from the WayBackMachine). I didn’t find any specifically referencing Karen DeCrow, but they do give an idea of the discussions professionals (such as the two founders profiled) were having during those years, under the label of “Mental Health.” (The links are separated by “|x|” this time but click the filename, not the “|x|”))
Whitepapers
Conferences (1998 one on Divorce at bottom)
OSi (OnStep Institute) past conferences, 1999-2011 (frm WaybackMachine)
Update (as I’m getting ready to reference this post in 2017 because it refers to that SB 557 Family Justice Center). In the interim, Karen DeCrow (nee Lipschultz), the third President of N.O.W. and longtime also supporter of men’s rights, died in 2014. Some of her obituaries characterize her position including, as some feminists are (but at the time apparently absolutely were not) in favor of shared custody for men, and de-emphasizing the male violence against women | domestic violence factors as exaggerated or somehow over-emphasized.
Speaking as a formerly battered (while pregnant and married) wife, I obviously do not agree.
However some updated images and texts FYI; this first one is from Warren Farrell:
“In the early 70s, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Karen and I would often say, “what the world needs is more women at work, and more dads at home.” This was N.O.W.s position until about 1973. However, as divorces increased, NOW started hearing from moms who were dropping their memberships because, as the complaint usually ran, “I know my child best; I know what she or he needs. If I don’t want the dad involved, it’s for a reason—he’s either a bad dad or we’ve had a bad experience and I just need to take my children away and start a new life.”
N.O.W. was caught between supporting equality versus jeopardizing its base. It chose to not jeopardize its base. Gloria and Betty, while not changing their position rhetorically, looked the other way as NOW intensified its efforts to portray men either as deadbeats or self-interested (“they just want the money”) or prone to domestic violence. Karen was the only other leading feminist who not only spoke differently, but agreed to speak at fathers’ conferences. Karen’s courage marginalized her from the feminist leadership and the millions of dollars of speaking fees she could otherwise have obtained.
[2017 comment, “Ahem — fathers’ conferences have speakers’ fees too…!”]
I knew what Karen was enduring, because I took the same road she took. While my break was cleaner, Karen tried to walk the tightrope of the balance between integrity and retaining feminist colleagues and friends.
When she agreed in 2005 to write the foreword to my Why Men Earn More: the Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap–and What Women Can Do About It, she shared with me some of her lifetime of worries about losing feminist support. It wasn’t just the lost speaking fees. It was the isolation. It was desiring to lead, but being kept at arm’s length by feminist leadership.
As Karen shared that, I recollect envisioning a devil and angel fighting inside her. In the case of the foreword and in other cases I witnessed, Karen almost always chose the angel of integrity.
That was by Warren Farrell, In Memoriam of (A Karen DeCrow Appreciation), image here (to read the 91 comments, click that first link). Also the closing sentence (next to last sentence is in the quote above):
With Karen’s death passes a feminist who, were her leadership allowed to be the guiding light, would have allowed millions of children to have a dad to guide them and love them.
Image by Karen DeCrow
Editor’s note: This article is also available in Italian.
To claim this in 2014 after both the 2006 and 2011 rounds of $150M/year “marriage/fatherhood” HHS funding (CFDA93086) as though it didn’t exist, is really a testament to the power of pretend exercised by Farrell at this time. This type of funding began as welfare diversions back in 1996, too….and as I said, CA NOW was reporting on it, at least a few public attempts, as of 2006….
K Decrow 2014 Obituary (from funeral service LLC) Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 8.41PM shows affiliations: NOW, Chamber Music (in Syracuse), Planned Parenthood, Central NY Women’s Bar Association, or NY Chapter of ACLU.
[[picking up the post from before 2017 updates and inserted images on OnStep Institute and Karen DeCrow…]]
Richard Gardner’s presentation was on. “Criteria for Differentiation between True and False Sex-Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Disputes (Part II)” The entire conference (I am looking at the pdf but can’t get the computer to copy the phrasing) is about “changing the paradigm” The conference was “in invitation to [note order of professions listed] mental health professionals, legislators, attorneys, mediators (an AFCC emphasis) and members of the judiciary to discover solutions in the new reality of dual-provider families. Shared primary care responsibilities (i.e., that was the goal) require a new developmental paradigm for families in the 21st century.“
Shattering Fictions and Myths in Divorce
Stern Auditorium, Mount Sinai College of Medicine, New York City
Video available June 6, 1998
[I see this was from the On Step Institute, “OSi” — see images above]
Invite the mental health professionals in to fix the paradigm — perhaps not the best idea, but it’s definitely a going operation at this point. Again — what about law? Mental health norms + legalizing them? Frightening concept; who gets to say what’s normal, and what happens to creativity in a country when that power is centralized through a national (and in fact, international) network of rhetoric dispensers, with funding through IRS and wage garnishments (Child support system) — and with power to commit people who disagree to jail for being mentally incorrect? Sounds like a Gulag to me — and has felt like one in practice. Where is the feedback loop here?
[This list is continuing from the CRC Family Advisory Board, started above, after taking time out to discuss Ms. DeCrow)..
- Mr. David Birney, television actor;
- Ms. Eloise Anderson of the Claremont Institute;
- Ron Haskins Ph.D., Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institution;
- He’s all over my blog, primarily for the egregious act of having snuck in the Access Visitation language at the 9th hour into the Welfare Reform (Title IV-D) bill which is to this day making divorce a long-term, hell hole — because it undermines due process and informed consent on basic legal processes. Through incentives. Ah well…
- S. Richard Sauber Ph.D., author;
- Ms. Vicki Lansky, author and columnist; (Child Support connection, I THINK, though am not sure).
- Ms. Lola Bailey, President of the National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights;
- Larry Gaughan J.D., Professional Director for Family Mediation of Greater Washington DC; {AFCC, though probably not the only one on here who is}
- James Levine Ed.D., former director of the Family and Work Institute;
- Chief Rabbi M. Bruce Lustig, Washington Hebrew Congregation of DC; and
- Elliott H. Diamond, co-founder of the Children’s Rights Council.
Well to the main topic of today’s (6-25-2011) post:
CA SB-557
Search CA SB-557. First result I found was a comment from Survivors in Action asking for a slight revision to it.
The next several results were me, saying ‘WHOA! — Just say NO!” etc.
Below that was an “Open Government”link which says this:
At the moment, we’re finding no mentions of the search term “California SB 557” in our daily automated search of the Web (viaGoogle News and Blog Search). There may be relevant news articles & blog posts outthere on the Web that refer to this bill by a slightly different name or title — in which case, they’re not included here, but our goal is to aggregate as much relevant info as possible. If you know of any, contact us with the specific links, and we’ll display them here for everyone to access.
It’s only a bill to repeal part of the California Penal Code, which in part decides who does and doesn’t get punished for (or protected from) crimes. Penal / Penalty, etc. Breaking the Penal Code subjects one to potential prosecution by a local (i.e., county-based) District Attorney, or not. California has 58 counties, and the author of this bill (Christine Kehoe) comes from San Diego, one of the counties that was characterized as “Enron by the Bay” in the New York Times. So, what exactly, is being sold here?
California Senate Bill
SB 557
An act to add and repeal Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers.
A portion of this fill encourages victims (likely to be uninformed and highly traumatized and/or injured) to OK a sharing of confidential information among partners (in the justice system) in the assurance that this will help provide the victims better access to justice:
Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
(d) All family justice centers are encouraged to maintain an informed consent process to authorize any sharing of confidential, privileged, or protected information between individuals or agencies working within a center. “Informed client consent” shall refer to a process established by a family justice center to inform the victim of all applicable confidentiality provisions of state and federal law, inform the victim of the implications of waiving of these confidentiality provisions, and a written process for authorization to share information within a center. A victim may authorize the disclosure and sharing of information among partner agencies for the
purposes of providing enhanced services.…
Just to play the opposite side: What about issues where there has been police violence, or DA simply tossing cases inappropriately? More to the point, what about some of the indications that like all other agencies, law enforcement is subject to undue influence and corruption — hence what are the checks and balances?
This is in a recent San Francisco Bay Area County — and the 2nd Family Justice Center (Alameda, containing the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Alameda, etc.) was in neighboring county. D.A. Nancy O’Malley [helped appoint the CEO, a political crony, helped obtain I heard the initial $3 million grant — and was recently found in Washington D.C promoting SB 557) of the 2nd Family Justice Center here is from a well-established family, the O’Malleys. The Contra Costa District Attorney metioned here (Mark Peterson) here ran against an O’Malley, and it was a close run, hear tell:
FBI and U.S. Attorney Take Over Alleged Police Corruption Cases
Contra Costa County District Attorney says the feds have more resources to conduct investigation
by BAY CITY NEWS SERVICE on June 3, 2011 – 8:46 p.m. PDT
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12ANZ)
Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson announced that as of today the U.S. Attorneys’ Office and the FBI will be taking over the investigation of a case involving three allegedly corrupt law enforcement officers and a private investigator.
He said his office was not, however, dropping the 38 criminal charges filed against the four men, Norman Wielsch, Christopher Butler, Stephen Tanabe, and Louis Lombardi.
Those charges include conspiracy and the sale and possession of marijuana, methamphetamine and steroids. The charges also include possession of assault weapons, embezzlement, receipt of stolen property and bribery, Peterson said.
So, can I indicate a degree of caution in just assuming that all law enforcement officers, such as those who will be in the family justice centers, are free from corruption, undue influence, or ulterior motives? Not to mention that none of them are personally abusing their own wives or kids (it happens).
The case began in January as a state Department of Justice investigation into alleged criminal activity of Wielsch, who was at the time the commander of the state-run Central Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, known as CNET, and Butler, a private investigator and former Antioch police officer.
The state charges, however, will be set aside while the federal case is being tried and will likely be resolved when the federal case is resolved, Peterson said.
The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wielsch, 50, and Butler, 49, in February, accusing Wielsch of stealing drugs from law enforcement evidence lockers and working with Butler to have them sold back out into the community.
Within the next three months, investigators uncovered evidence that Tanabe, 47, who was a Danville police officer at the time, and Lombardi, 38, who was a San Ramon police officer at the time, were also involved in some of Wielsch and Butler’s alleged criminal activities.
Some of the crimes were allegedly committed while the men were serving as law enforcement officers.
Wielsch, Tanabe and Lombardi have all since resigned from their positions as law enforcement officers and Butler has surrendered his private investigator’s license.
According to Peterson, the case has consumed hundreds of hours in investigation and prosecution efforts and there are still some matters that need further investigation, including allegations involving a possible brothel and possible marijuana growing farms.
A possible brothel. Other indicators of sensitivity towards violence towards women, not to mention that Casey Gwinn (of the San Diego / first “Family Justice Center”) was sued by one of his own employees for ignoring a clearcut and potentially lethal domestic violence situation with one of his own employees (I blogged it) and simply giving another female employee, (Josie Clark) the task of cleaning it up — but only after the victim had gotten herself arrested for threatening to kill her spouse. (The spouse that was beating her up — was he arrested?)
Wielsch’s attorney Michael Cardoza said federal investigators would likely also be looking closely at the Antioch Police Department, since at least three of the defendants are former Antioch police officers.
That’s encouraging, especially in the context of a brothel. The Jaycee Dugard / Phillip & Nancy Garrido case was in Antioch; she was imprisoned and repeatedly raped in a set of backyard sheds, and raised the two girls that the rape led to the birth of. Some of the local news at that time (less highly publicized, although the case was definitely international) from neighbors said they were concerned it was being used as a brothel also. Of course, neighbors are neighbors, but at least ONE had attempted to get help and reported people living in the sheds back there — in Antioch.
Peterson said his decision to turn the investigation over to the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI will bring more resources to the case.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12ANZ)
They are talking potential RICO in this case, and it has a divorce component also, private investigator allegedly on the take, cooperating with police officers to set up men in divorces with DUIs. However, unless they were actually injecting the liquor into the men’s mouths, they still did allegedly drive drunk and were in the wrong place with the wrong women at the wrong time. BUT, a setup is still a setup:
Article by Cecile Vega:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) — New allegations are surfacing after the arrest of yet another officer linked to the Contra Costa County narcotics team scandal.
The investigation now claims that female decoys were used to trap men, a private investigator plotted it all, and a police officer was on the take. 47-year-old Stephen Tanabe of Alamo was contracted by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department to work patrol in Danville. He is now in a Martinez jail on $260,000 bail.
A popular Danville wine bar was one of the locations where decoys, usually attractive women, plied unsuspecting men with liquor. Almost as soon as they left the parking lot, they were reportedly stopped and arrested for driving drunk by Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputy Stephen Tanabe.
(Copyright ©2011 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
Fathers, commission on responsible fatherhood: SB 68016801 Sponsor(s): Senator Kastama
Brief Description: Creating the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood.
SB 6801 – DIGEST
Establishes the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood.
AN ACT Relating to the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood; and adding a new chapter to Title 43 RCW.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that:
(1) Children living in single-parent households are more likely to be living in poverty;
(2) The overwhelming percentage of children residing in poverty reside in homes where fathers are not present;
(3) Children living in poverty are at a significantly greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse;
(4) Children living in poverty are twice as likely to drop out of school;
(5) The vast majority of homeless and runaway children are from homes where children live in poverty;
(6) Washingtonians recognize that children are more likely to thrive with support, guidance, and nurturing from both parents;
(7) The absence of one parent from a child’s life can place that child at a greater risk of health, emotional, educational, and behavioral problems associated with the child’s development;
H.R. 2193
Federal Interagency Initiatives
• The White House Interagency Responsible Fatherhood Workgroup, led by the White House Office of Faith- Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is working to increase awareness of the importance of fathers in the lives of their children and to integrate fathers into family services throughout the government.
• The HHS Incarceration and Reentry Work Group is part of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, which has partnered 18 federal departments and agencies to leverage resources for reentry, remove barriers to reentry, and clarify federal policies. (Take a look at the Council’s interactive map for major federal reentry initiatives and active reentry grants in each state.)
• The Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative, part of President Obama’s FY 2012 budget, proposes continuous emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency, and provisions to help further encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children and to promote strong and safe family relationships.
• The Department of Labor’s Transitional Jobs Initiative is funding grants to support transitional job programs, as well as other activities and services, to increase the workforce participation of low-income, hard-to-employ populations, specifically noncustodial parents and ex-offenders (who may or may not be noncustodial parents) reentering their communities.
• The Homeless Veteran’s Project partners HHS, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the American Bar Association to work with homeless veterans and their families to address challenges (such as old fines, child support debts, and other legal judgments) that compromise their ability to move into permanent housing.
• As part of the National Partnership for Action to End Health Disparities, HHS released two strategic plans to reduce health disparities and achieve health equity in the Nation.
(in the original, these are all links);
6/15/2011–Introduced.Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011 – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to condition continued approval of a state plan upon state assessment of its policies with respect to barriers to employment and financial support of children. Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a court- or state child support agency supervised-employment program for noncustodial parents who have barriers to employment and a history of nonpayment, so that they can pay their child support obligations. Directs the Secretary of Labor to award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships. Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) with respect to: (1) funding for responsible fatherhood programs, (2) activities promoting responsible fatherhood, and (3) elimination of a separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. Prohibits a state from conditioning receipt of TANF or certain other benefits on: (1) participation in a healthy marriage or responsible fatherhood program, or (2) assignment to the state of certain support rights. Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to prohibit a state from collecting any amount owed it by reason of costs it has incurred for the birth of a child for whom support rights have been assigned. Requires a state to make a full distribution of collected child support to the family. Amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to: (1) deductions from family income for child support received in order to qualify for food stamps, (2) verification of child support payments, and (3) inclusion of economic opportunities programs in qualifying work programs. Amends SSA title IV part A with respect to: (1) grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic violence intervention and prevention, and (2) grant recipients and their procedures for responding to the risks of domestic violence. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the credit percentage under the earned income tax credit for eligible individuals with no qualifying children.
In addition, CA NOW believes that Wade Horn, current Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, has a major conflict of interest in his role overseeing such programs, given his past affiliation as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Horn, as President of National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), promoted (in collaboration with fathers rights groups) during 1999 and 2000, “Fathers Count” legislation, which would have mandated $10,000,000 in total annual funding to fathers organizations. According to the legislative language, only NFI and the leading fathers’ rights group, Children’s Rights Council, would have qualified for the grants. The bill passed the Congress, but was stalled by the Senate Finance Committee.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way:
In March 2001, NFI received a $500,000 non-competitive grant, shortly after Horn became “Acting” HHS Assistant Secretary ( February 2001), while he was still NFI President (not resigning until July 2001). This grant was authorized by a December 2000 Congressional “ear-mark” inserted in an appropriations bill after the “Fathers Count” bill failed to pass the Senate Finance Committee. NFI refuses to disclose how this money was used. Also, Horn conceals he has on-going conflicts-of-interest with NFI and the implementation of the fatherhood programs.
California Member of Congress, 8/02/06
California National Organization for Women (CA NOW) is respectfully requesting that you join the call for a federal investigation, by the U.S. Government Reform Committee, into the operations of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration of Children and Families’ Access/Visitation and “Responsible Fatherhood” programs, including those operating in California.
CA NOW believes that these fatherhood programs misuse funds, do not account for their spending nor evaluation of their programming, and encourage illegal court practices that result in harm to women’s safety and well-being. We believe that fathers’ child support arrears are frequently abated by these groups, in violation of the Bradley amendment. We also believe that Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration of Children and Families, has a conflict of interest serving in this capacity, and operates from a dangerous political ideology that actively favors fathers’ rights and seeks to minimize mothers’.
CA NOW believes an investigation would expose serious system failure and fraud in these fatherhood programs. They are funded with federal money intended for resolving parental disputes, but instead give legal representation to fathers, which often results in high conflict litigation against perfectly fit mothers. CA NOW believes many fathers use these resources in order to avoid paying child support, and that many batterers do so in order to continue to abuse and manipulate their spouses and children through financially draining and emotionally devastating litigation, that often stretches on for years and years.
Fatherhood programs operate on the false premise that there is a “crisis in fatherlessness,” which is contradicted by Census data. CA NOW asked HHS, and the National Fatherhood Initiative (the most cited program on the HHS website) to justify this claim of crisis, and to date have not received an answer from them. We believe the entire premise for the programming is erroneous, and that mothers and their children are suffering harm from the consequences of such a focus.
Through political connection, legal trainings, and funding diversions, these fatherhood programs emphasize false syndromes, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome as a technique to remove children from their mothers. Fatherhood groups train court appointed minors’ attorneys, mediators and evaluators to discriminate against mothers, and create a vacuous draining of mothers of funding, faith in the system, and ability to fight to protect their children. These are primary caregiving mothers. Single mothers whose children’s fathers come back after years without contact, and demand and receive full or partial custody. Mothers are losing custody to their abusers, to men who have abused or neglected their children, and men with criminal backgrounds. Often fathers are awarded custody based on frivolous justifications, such
as insufficient cooperation with the father, while documented evidence of domestic violence and abuse, even sexual abuse, goes ignored.
In 2002 California NOW analyzed 300 complaints from California mothers who believed family courts ignored laws, procedures and evidence in their cases. We used this analysis as the basis of our report, the CA NOW Family Court Report 2002. The report shows that in these particular cases, where women had lost custody of their children, there was a high correlation between grounded evidence of child abuse by the father and the mother losing custody. 86% could prove that their children’s father had a history of domestic violence, child abuse, or a criminal record. In many cases, illegal maneuvers, such as the labeling of mothers with false syndromes, as well as the use of ex parte hearings, and biased and unqualified extra-judicial personnel, were used to remove children from their primary care-giving mothers, thus violating the woman’s parental rights and injuring the child(ren) by loss of contact with their non-offending mother. Other professional comprehensive studies show similar results, including the Wellesley Women’s Center Battered Women’s Testimony Project, and sociologist Amy Neustein, PhD and attorney Michael Lesher’s book, Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts—and What Can Be Done About It.
In addition, CA NOW believes that Wade Horn, current Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, has a major conflict of interest in his role overseeing such programs, given his past affiliation as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Horn, as President of National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), promoted (in collaboration with fathers rights groups) during 1999 and 2000, “Fathers Count” legislation, which would have mandated $10,000,000 in total annual funding to fathers organizations. According to the legislative language, only NFI and the leading fathers’ rights group, Children’s Rights Council, would have qualified for the grants. The bill passed the Congress, but was stalled by the Senate Finance Committee.
In March 2001, NFI received a $500,000 non-competitive grant, shortly after Horn became “Acting” HHS Assistant Secretary ( February 2001), while he was still NFI President (not resigning until July 2001). This grant was authorized by a December 2000 Congressional “ear-mark” inserted in an appropriations bill after the “Fathers Count” bill failed to pass the Senate Finance Committee. NFI refuses to disclose how this money was used. Also, Horn conceals he has on-going conflicts-of-interest with NFI and the implementation of the fatherhood programs.
California NOW has HHS evaluation reports that show that the “Responsible Fatherhood” program is used for unauthorized practices such as soliciting fathers through the child support system with offers of abatements on their child support arrears (in violation of the Bradley Amendment) and free attorneys for their custody litigation. Some litigating mothers have provided us with county payment records that show the attorney of the litigating farther was paid from these programs. These unauthorized practices are so common that flyers soliciting fathers into ‘litigation assistance’ groups have been found displayed in county court buildings, while some state court web sites display links to their fatherhood programs. This practice violates the mission of the judicial system, as it provides special litigation assistance to one-side of a legal dispute.
While being funded by federal money, these court-based fatherhood services do not admit non-custodial mothers into their programs. (In fact, a search of the HHS website includes 286 references to “motherhood” and 824 references to “fatherhood.”) California NOW has copies of internal HHS e-mail showing Wade Horn’s staff have obstructed investigations of mothers’ complaints about the Responsible Fatherhood and related programs
California NOW is asking for you to join the call for a thorough investigation by the Government Reform Committee into the fatherhood programs—including those in California– and HHS Assistant Secretary, Wade Horn’s conflict of interest in these programs. We implore you to support the Government Reform Committee’s investigations–already now underway–by contacting the staff investigator and urging that California be included in the investigation. The staff director is David Marin, phone number 202-225-5074, address c/o Government Reform Committee, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.
Thank you for your time and immediate attention to this matter.
For Justice, Helen Grieco
Helen Grieco Executive Director California National Organization for Women (CA NOW)
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE, AND CHILD CUSTODY
Legal Strategies and Policy Issues
Edited by Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Psst! “PSI” (Policy Studies Inc.) in its own words…. plus ….
Blogger note, 2015 — Policy Studies, Inc. now redirects to “Maximus” another well-known (if not universally respected) child support and other government services contractor. “Global Expertise at the Local Level.”
Actually, Maximus’ home page has its services split into:
- Health
- Federal
- Child Support
- Education
- Workforce
- Consulting
- Business and Tax Credit
Recent meeting, seminar, or webinar Sept. 14, 2015:
Maximus, despite is size, scope, purpose and some stains in the past (which it earned enough to at least pay settlements on, and continue receiving contracts — it’s nice to be “too big to fail,” eh?”), is a good “Corporate Citizen” too and wants readers to know that this (and not reducing corporate tax rates) was why in 2000 it set up a Foundation:
MAXIMUS Foundation
At MAXIMUS, we hold a strong sense of corporate citizenship and responsibility. We recognize the importance of giving back to the communities in which we live and work. In response, the MAXIMUS Board of Directors created the MAXIMUS Foundation in 2000.
The MAXIMUS Foundation is committed to supporting organizations and programs that promote personal growth and self-sufficiency through improved health, augmented child and family development, and community development. We provide financial support for non-profit organizations and charities that share our commitment in helping disadvantaged populations and underserved communities.
The MAXIMUS Foundation is funded by charitable gifts from the employees of MAXIMUS and supplemented by grants from the Company. It is a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is exempt from tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…
View a list of organizations that received financial support in our most recent grant cycle. (by state, doesn’t show, however amounts, or for previous years. For that, you have to actually go to their tax return declarations, at least).
I see a Spring 2015 grantee for NY is a major (and not in need of grants, either) foundation involved in transforming the NYS justice system (and others, internationally) through a cooperative project with the Courts. The cooperative project is “the Center” but the actual 501(c)3 is “Fund for the City of New York,” started in 1968 by Ford Foundation, as its tax return says:
Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities THE FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEWYORK WAS CREATED BY THE FORD FOUNDATION IN 1968 WITH THE MANDATE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS, THE FUND WORKS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT INNOVATIONS IN POLICY, PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY TO ADVANCE THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
They’re just trying to systems-change, continually, for a better world…. better particularly for nonprofits (what about taxpayers who don’t organize themselves into nonprofits, or working for them or government — what about that sector?). Well, this organization (the Ford-founded Fund for the City of New York), oddly, is licensed to solicit in mostly East Coast states — and California. It also runs two other nonprofits (Schedule-R/”Related Tax-Exempt Organizations”):
(1) NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC to “FACILITATE FCNY’S MISSION TO OTHER CITIES IN THE U S” and
(2) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INC for “IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERMENT AND NONPROFIT ORG WORLDWIDE”
“CT, NY, NJ, FL, CA, MA” (tax return below next quote, see Schedule G, Part I)
New York
Abraham House
CASES
Center for Court Innovation/Fund for the City of New York
Coalition for the Homeless, Inc.
Common Ground Communities, Inc. d/b/a Community Solutions**
Community-Word Project, Inc.
Harlem Educational Activities Fund, Inc.
Move This World
New York Common Pantry
Odyssey House Inc.
The Children’s Village, Inc.
The New York Foundling Hospital
Women’s Prison Association
Fund for the City of New York is clearly doing “poorly” and Maximus — a lot of whose business comes before, and relates to business being handled by the NYS Unified Court System with which this Fund works, influentially — clearly ought to step in the funding gap. After all, it’s not even within range of a billion dollar assets yet, although it did increase by about $25M in the past two years:
| ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fund for the City of New York | NY | 2013 | 990 | 105 | $86,222,421.00 | 13-2612524 |
| Fund for the City of New York, Inc. | NY | 2012 | 990 | 51 | $71,729,914.00 | 13-2612524 |
| Fund for the City of New York, Inc. | NY | 2011 | 990 | 90 | $60,361,290.00 | 13-2612524 |
I don’t know that I’d make such a big fuss about this foundation — it’s not that large. It’s also registered as a “PF” (Private Foundation), not public charity, although both are 501(c)3s…
| ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAXIMUS Foundation, Inc. | VA | 2013 | 990PF | 34 | $285,511.00 | 54-1993677 |
| MAXIMUS Foundation | VA | 2012 | 990PF | 31 | $218,121.00 | 54-1993677 |
| MAXIMUS Foundation | VA | 2011 | 990PF | 22 | $167,190.00 | 54-1993677 |
| MAXIMUS Foundation | VA | 2011 | 990PR | 6 | $0.00 | 54-1993677 |
(Click on Org. name to view return). For example — Year “2013” above — the form says, it RECEIVED contributions of $665,818 (of this, $562,181 from Maximus itself) and CONTRIBUTED $682,930 to others, which are listed in very fine print at the back. These are mostly in small amounts, from $250 — $500 – $1,000 – $1,500 and $2,000, with just a few organizations getting more. In that year (note: Tax return 2015 not viewable yet — so it’s easy to tell about grants which the public can’t, yet, fact-check on a tax return..) “Community-Word Project, Inc.” got $1,500. “The Fund for Public Schools” (NY) got $50K, an American Red Cross in the National Capital Area $40K, One Fund Boston, Inc. (whoever they are), $25K.
One Fund Boston, Inc. was formed in 2013 for Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings “and related events.” It has a board of 3 people, 1 employees, 25 volunteers, and the first year shown here, received $76M of private (non-government) donations. Of these it gave out $58+M in the US, and $2.195M overseas (East Asia/Pacific) — and not to organizations, but to individuals.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One Fund Boston | MA | 2013 | 990 | 32 | $18,727,756.00 | 46-2547157 |
(Code, )(Expenses$ 60,607,308. includinggrantsof$ 60,504,000 )(Revenue$ DISTRIBUTION OF CASH GIFTS TO VICTIMS OF THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS AND RELATED EVENTS OF 4/18/13 AND 4/19/13 TO HELP MEET THE SIGNIFICANT ONGOING NEEDS OF THE SURVIVOR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO THE PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES NOTED ABOVE, THE ORGANIZATION ALSO INCURRED $895,960 OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM-RELATED EXPENSES, ALL OF WHICH REPRESENTS SERVICES THAT WERE GRACIOUSLY DONATED BY MANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS.
|
While it’s commendable to donate a nice chunk ($0.025 Million) out of the $76million that came in, I should also note that the likelihood of the funds being traceable as actually received and distributed by One Fund Boston, when its recipients are individuals, not organizations, is minimal.
Common Ground Communities dba “Community Solutions” has this EIN# 27-3523909, and this website (in addition to a blog):
| Web URL: | www.cmtysolutions.org |
| Blog URL: | cmtysolutions.org/blog |
Guidestar says that in 2011 its main funding was from HUD and a certain foundation:
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – $450,000
- The Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation – $400,000
The name “Common Ground” is so “common” around town, at first I thought that the above, more recent nonprofit might be unrelated to the series of HFDC (housing development fund corporations) found below — but I think they are the same, based on this description of the 2011ff group:
Rosanne Haggerty is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Solutions. She is an internationally recognized leader in developing innovative strategies to end homelessness and strengthen communities.
I have recently been studying HUD programming in more detail. It came up in the context of other blogging, although I’ve been aware of it since about 2012 in connection with writings by someone formerly near the top of FHA who quipped that HUD was being run like a sewer (criminal operation) and explained how some of that went. Her times of working there, late 1980s; contracting with it, mid-1990s, and after she was almost put out of business for her software (LLC?) having exposed that the federal government was — deliberately — investing with a negative ROI into communities, when it didn’t have to (i.e., fees for RE developer friends took precedence over revamping useable single-family homes in the same areas, and which were already on the books, i.e. FHA books), she was just about ruined and essentially driven out of the USA. (Catherine Austin Fitts). I knew less about real estate than about HHS grants, which I could also see were being run, well, “crooked” at least in significant PRWORA (1996ff) categories, namely promoting marriage and fatherhood. Some of the HHS grantees were already involved in real estate development and community financing actions dating from the “CDBG” (Community Development Block Grant) era. Hard to explain in one paragraph, but…
The HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (a public law) encouraged the strengthening of CDOs (Community Development Organizations) and CDHOs (Community Development Housing Organizations) nationwide. FIVE and ONLY FIVE “intermediary” agencies were receiving HUD funds under this program — currently those five are:
- Living Cities
- Local Initiative Support Corporation
- Enterprise Community Partners (For this, see also The Rouse Company [<=a very interesting history, taken ca. 2004/2006]/ James W. Rouse, planned communities, shopping malls, “ending poverty” — the real estate/community development way:
- In the 1960s, he focused on the development of Columbia, the planned community in Maryland. In the 1970s, The Rouse Company developed the festival marketplace concept and opened Faneuil Hall in Boston. Jim retired as CEO of The Rouse Company in 1979 and in 1982 he and wife Patty launched The Enterprise Foundation, now known as Enterprise.He was a member of President Eisenhower’s Task Force on Housing in 1953 and of President Reagan’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives in 1982. …
Note — he’d already formed Enterprise Community Partners (originally, “Foundation”) in 1982...
The Rouse Company (from Encyclopedia.com, date is ca. 2006. Note, in 2004, I learned, another group, Growth General Partners” (an even larger shopping mall developer/owner nationwide) bought the Rouse Company. However, in 2009, it filed for bankruptcy — not nice for shareholders, but nice for those who got some of the assets for lower price — including the former subsidiary company, Howard Research Development (?) as in Howard Hughes, Jr. heirs.
Public Company
Incorporated: 1954 as James W. Rouse & Company, Inc.
Employees: 3,169
Sales: $1.17 billion (2003)
Stock Exchanges:New York
Ticker Symbol: RSE
NAIC: 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (Except Miniwarehouses); 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property; 721110 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels (pt)One of the largest publicly held real estate development and management firms in the United States, The Rouse Company has a reputation for innovation. Under the direction of founder and “industry prophet” James W. Rouse, the company was in the vanguard of suburban enclosed-mall construction in the 1950s, the planned community movement in the 1960s, and the proliferation of urban “festival marketplaces” in the 1970s and early 1980s. The saturation of the retail development market in the early 1990s led the company into the construction and management of more office and mixed-use projects. By the early 21st century, The Rouse Company—now operating as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)—owned and/or operated more than 150 retail, residential, and office properties nationwide.
Timeline — James W. Rouse died in 1996, his (second, but long-term) wife Pattie, in, I think, 2012. See also the Wikipedia article for more details.
{{PLANNED COMMUNITIES — Columbia, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., first}}
Rouse assembled a coterie of planners, sociologists, educators, religious groups, and cultural and medical institutions to advise and support the creation of the new city. When it was launched in 1967, Columbia featured 11,000 residences (including low-cost housing jointly sponsored by the three primary religious denominations); schools within walking distance of elementary and junior high students; Howard County’s first hospital; public transportation; and a shopping center. By 1975, when the city boasted 38,000 residents, it had become “suburban Baltimore,” and within a decade it would be, according to Financial World (1986), “one of the hottest developing territories in the country.”
Rouse’s stock soared from $2 per share in the early 1960s to $30 by 1972. But during the 1974–75 real estate slowdown, the company lost Housing and Urban Development funding for a major low-income housing project. This, in turn, effected a $7 million loss and compelled Rouse to pull out of two engineered communities in Tennessee and Maryland, resulting in additional losses of $4.2 million. Connecticut General {{Life Insurance}} even had to purchase most of Rouse’s share of the Columbia project during this difficult time. Short-term debt stood at $80 million, while equity was at $6 million. From 1974 to 1976, the company retrenched by selling 50 percent stakes in 7 of 24 retail centers, reaping a total of $24 million cash. It also eliminated half the headquarters staff and wrote off $30 million in bad investments.
Thus we see for all the development, it was heavily underwritten by HUD, which public funds are “underwritten,” so to speak, by people who pay tax revenues, a.k.a., work jobs. On given year, the primary government revenues, per a pie chart at FMS.Treasury.gov (and posted on my blog — see table of contents post, at the top of the website; you can find this one), of all federal receipts. On the 6/29/2014 post “My Challenge: Talk Sense or become an OxyMORON (And Someone Else’s Dinner“) there’s a section titled, with a somewhat frustrated commentary right underneath it:
HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
(FOR EXAMPLE, ITS BALANCE SHEET)
If across the US, our independent, and species-survival alertness and thinking has been either disabled, or is being culled [and by personality types, sorted and sifted] for use in the administrative population control professions (the “behavioral change modification” professions which are funded from “on high” (corporations, universities, the US government), and/or the science and technology for yet BETTER population control (and, when it comes to military, systematic decimation of other countries’ populations, while increasing the incarceration rates of our own by the various wars), then I will forget the consciousness-raising herein, and just look for a better place (and that means country) to inhabit.
…and then links to Federal Receipts piechart (for 2013). Look at the two largest sectors in the piechart, and remember, it ain’t corporate taxes (which were only 10%)! Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts (that must include for federal employees also, I think) — 35%. Individual Income Taxes — 46%, with some commentary right after the link:
“Total receipts [YEAR 2013] increased by $324.9 billion, totaling $2,774.0 billion in fiscal 2013. The graph below shows receipts by source. “Translation of “$2,774.0 billion,” other than “a lot” is: $2,774,000,000,000. Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, and another way of putting this would be $2.774 Trillion — that is, for 2013 only, and that’s the federal government of the US, only. Anyhow click to see what the largest piece of the pie, and the second-largest, is.”
Government tends to get reorganized, regularly, in small or large ways, so the former link now reads tells us that, if you were looking for those “Consolidated Statements of Receipts, Outlays and Balances,” the Treasury Department’s “Fiscal Management Services” (FMS) and Bureau of the Public Debt have been consolidated:
The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
Current Report Page Has MovedThe Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) have consolidated into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. You will now be redirected to the The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Web site. If you are not redirected in 15 seconds, you can continue to this site by visiting
Current Report.Please remember to update your bookmarks.
These are not yet available to view (haven’t been uploaded — obviously, I’m typing in Fall 2015 (on a much older post, 2011, true…) but the headings are there to view. This is what to expect — but look under the last heading to see just how many “Departments of” are listed — those are Executive Branch of the US Government departments. You can see that “Legislative” is a single link, as is “Judiciary” — but when it comes to “Department of Justice” — that’s an Executive Department. Notice also there’s an “Executive Office of the President” on the list. See also (sidebar) the two articles about social sciencification of America, and abolishment of representative government by executive orders. Think it’s not still going on ??? I wonder how far we are in the process of making Congress (and laws) all but vestigial organs kept there for show, or simply basic operations, while decisions are simply made elsewhere… as there is always SOME crisis, SOME emergency, SOME global problems and of course a shortage of funds for all of the above.
We’ll post files on this page as they become available.
Note: Text Files will be available in Portable Document Format (PDF), and data files will be available in PDF and Excel 3.0. Excel files do not contain footnotes or Table 1.Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four
- Commissioner’s Letter
- Preface
- Description of Accounts Relating to Cash Operations
- Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures
- Part One Fiscal Year 2015 Summary
- Financial Highlights
- Receipts by Source <= <= <= (would have another pie chart, I’m sure).
- Outlays by Function
- United States Summary General Ledger Balances
- Part Two Fiscal Year 2015 Details of Receipts
- Table A – Receipts by Source Categories
- Part Three Fiscal Year 2015 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances <=<=<(View long List of Departments under here.)
THAT LIST: Legislative Branch, The Judiciary, [[and then all these other:]] Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense-Military, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services [= Largest grantmaking agency], Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD, HOUSING; pretty influential, would you say?], Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, , Department of Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Other Defense-Civil, Environmental Protection Agency, Executive Office of the President,*** General Services Administration, International Assistance Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Independent Agencies
During the company’s difficult years, Rouse invented his own method of accounting. He pioneered a new accounting figure dubbed “current value.”
-
- …In 1987, he became chairman of the National Housing Task Force, which made proposals to Congress in March 1988 for a new housing program. The report formed the basis for comprehensive housing legislation signed into law by President Bush in November 1990. Jim was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, by President Clinton in September 1995. He passed away at the age of 81 at his home in Columbia, Md. – See more at: http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/about/history/about-our-founders#sthash.6FBLOQ3P.dpuf
-
- Habitat for Humanity
- YouthBuild USA
Here a link at Thomas.gov to H.R. 2517, which later became that Act; see the CRS Summary. The timing is, early 1990s, beginning of Clinton Administration. Keep in mind that with the passage of 1996 Personal Right to Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA”), which has also been phrased as “privatizing government” and with its “Block grants to States” for TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) instead of the help actually being directed to only needy families, we then go the “Family Values Factor” an open door into proselytizing about marrying and staying married. In the 1990s, I WAS married — and being battered in front of my children; which “might” have been why the passage of 1996 and its future impact on mothers dealing with domestic violence and abuse in the decades (1980s, 1990s at least) where single mothers were being alternately scapegoated or patronized, but still subject to media campaigns at how our children were — by virtue of being “fatherless” households — at risk for juvenile delinquency, a life of crime, promiscuity, failure, and ending up on welfare or in foster care, etc. etc….
So Title IV-A and Title IV-D of this Social Security Act were already priming the pump to continue causing, actually, more trouble for working single mothers, by encouraging lawsuits for sole legal and physical custody from their former abusers, where abuse had been a factor, or where child support arrears had been run up, and would be compromised if these custody battles –which FOR THE RECORD, tend to interfere with sustainable work, increase poverty, and drive finances and resources (including TIME) which might otherwise go to the next generation — to the problem-solving courts and their professionals, para-professionals, and proselytes/acolytes and hangers-on. {{for further information, follow “AFCC” “CRC’ and friends, including their nice, “don’t ask, adn we won’t tell (about marriage/fatherhood funding or access/visitation funding) friends in the DV industry…)
Oops.. Got a little expressive there…
Here’s that HUD Demonstration act of 1993, summarized. Try to pick up on the details:
H.R.2517
Latest Title: HUD Demonstration Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Gonzalez, Henry B. [TX-20] (introduced 6/24/1993) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 10/27/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-120.
SUMMARY AS OF:
9/23/1993–Passed Senate amended. (There are 2 other summaries)HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 – Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary) to carry out an innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program through FY 1994. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.
(Sec. 3) Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to increase funding for the moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to the National Community Development Initiative** for grants to local community development organizations for: (1) training and capacity building; (2) technical assistance; and (3) community development and housing assistance. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.
**The other name for this nonprofit is “Living Cities.” It was initiated by “Rockefeller” and several private foundations and currently has a member list of 22 significant (wealth) tax-exempt foundations in combination with bank / financial institutions.
(Sec. 5) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to increase the authorization of appropriations for community housing partnership activities.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program through FY 1998 to attract pension fund investment in affordable housing through the use of project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Requires that at least half of appropriated funds be used in the disposition of multifamily properties. Requires a General Accounting Office program evaluation report. Authorizes FY 1994 program appropriations.
(Sec. 7) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to extend: (1) the termination date for the National Commission on Manufactured Housing; (2) the deadline for the Commission’s final report (after an interim report); and (3) authorization of appropriations for the Commission.
(Sec. 8) Amends the Housing Act of 1949 to: (1) extend authority for Federal agency housing subdivision approval reciprocity; (2) increase Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage authority; and (3) increase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantee authority.
(Sec. 11) Sets forth an administrative fee formula for the section 8 certificate and voucher programs. Directs the Secretary to assess public housing agency costs in administering such programs.
(Sec. 12) Amends Federal law to: (1) extend the commencement deadline for a specified Massachusetts housing project; and (2) permit rental units in a specified Texas project to be project-based.
In 1990, Rosanne founded Common Ground Community, a pioneer in the development of supportive housing and research-based practices that end homelessness. To have greater impact, Ms. Haggerty and her senior team launched Community Solutions in 2011 to help communities solve the problems that create and sustain homelessness. Ms. Haggerty is a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, Ashoka Senior Fellow and Hunt Alternative Fund Prime Mover. In 2012, she was awarded the Jane Jacobs medal for New Ideas and Activism from the Rockefeller Foundation. She serves on the boards of the Alliance for Veterans, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America. She is a Life Trustee of Amherst College.
-
**This Delaware Corporation only registered in NY 4/29/2012 as a Foreign Not For Profit. This one shows no “d/b/a” however on its NYS registration (click to see, or repeat the search, google “NYS Corporation Search” or for the charitable registrations, charitiesnys.com
COMMON GROUND COMMUNITIES, INC. By street address search, I see from NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy) its purpose is:
Common Ground CommunityHOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Email: info@commonground.org 14 East, 28th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 471-0815 Fax: (212) 471-0825
Common Ground Community is a non-profit housing and community development organization whose mission is to solve homelessness. Common Ground provides comprehensive support services, including access to medical and mental health care and job training and placement, designed to help people regain lives of stability and independence
It will be taking then, probably grants from both HUD and HHS as well as probably private sources. As the site “commonground.org” says:
Our buildings combine affordable housing with on-site social services.
The money is project-based. There are nonprofits with the words “Common Ground” in them throughout the country (NY, TX, LA, OH, CA, etc.), but as we can see the HDFC (Housing Development Fund Corp) ones in New York come “I, II, III and IV” and of varying sizes. A change in EIN# means a change in Entity — however, they are probably, if one looks through individual returns for “Schedule R – Related organizations” — with overlapping board members, or otherwise related: common in real estate development…
Plus: “Preventing Violence by Promoting Fatherhood (Discretionary Grants)”
A lot of posts, I don’t think were my best. Yesterday’s, however, I felt was a good one. There is information on it that is GOOD to be aware of.
Imagine what vision, some strategic planning, good target market (the U.S. Government, one of largest purchasers in the world, I heard) and TECHNOLOGY can do.
This report from 2004? comes from “Encyclopedia.com”
Policy Studies, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado 90202
U.S.A.
Telephone: (303) 863-0900
Toll Free: (800) 217-5004
Fax: (303) 295-0244
Web site: http://www.policy-studies.comPrivate Company
Incorporated: 1984
Employees: 1,030
Sales: $128 million (2002)
NAIC: 541611 Administration Management and General Management Consulting ServicesPolicy Studies, Inc. (PSI) provides administration outsourcing, research, and consulting services to local, state and federal agencies in the areas of child support enforcement, health benefits administration, and judicial systems organization. The bulk of the company’s business involves consulting and administration of child support enforcement, including payment collection and redisbursement, voluntary paternity establishment, backlog collections, review and adjustment, and other aspects of case management. In addition to providing research and consultation for specific aspects of case management for government agencies in all 50 states and administration outsourcing for specific programs in 21 states, PSI provides full-service child support enforcement administration for counties in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Trade names (i.e., I gather Fictitious Business names)– at least those registered in Colorado under this corporate name include:
# ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment 1 19951078593 19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM 2 19961012292 19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM 3 19961012293 19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM 4 20001166186 20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM 5 20001209751 20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM 6 20001209752 20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM 7 20011022445 20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM 8 20011022446 20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM 9 20021117260 20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM 10 20021159702 20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM And just because I feel like it, I”m also posting one (of many) projects another corporation, “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” worked on, via Grants from the HHS. Basically this is what anyone in the “domestic violence prevention” field AND the “marriage fatherhood” field (the major grantees) really like to do:
Set up a “resource center” and train someone (via the web, in great part)…
From Taggs.hhs.gov (This post published 6/22/2011)
AWARD INFORMATION
Award Number: 90EV0375 Award Title: FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) Organization: FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU (FYSB) Award Class: DISCRETIONARY Award Abstract
Title Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance Project Start/End / Abstract Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance PI Name/Title Denise Gamache Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project Institution Department NONE Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions
FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 5 0 ACF 09-15-2010 $ 1,178,812 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 1,178,812 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 4 0 ACF 08-27-2009 $ 1,178,812 2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 4 1 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 50,000 Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 1,228,812 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2008 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 3 0 ACF 07-22-2008 $ 1,178,811 Fiscal Year 2008 Total: $ 1,178,811 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2007 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,810 Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,178,810 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2006 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 1 0 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,811 Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 1,178,811 Total of all award actions: $ 5,944,056 Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions
The “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has been working alongside the wonderful “AFCC” to Explicate what Domestic Violence is (gee, I didn’t have a clue!) and what is going on when it comes to custody decisions. The head of this project is working with BWJP: Denise Gamache Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project
The award 90EV0377 was taken by Family Violence Prevention Fund (ExCU u u u se me, “Futures Without Violence” is its new name – at least on some links). Please notice the similar $$ amounts — $1,178,811 or 812:
Recipient: FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND
Recipient ZIP Code: 94103-5177FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 93.592 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 08-28-2009 $ 1,178,812 2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 175,000 2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 07-28-2008 $ 1,178,812 2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 09-27-2008 $ 145,000 2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 08-13-2007 $ 1,178,812 2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 01-26-2007 $ 32,940 2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 09-20-2007 $ 182,375 2006 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 09-19-2006 $ 1,145,872 Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 6,396,435 Page Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 6,396,435 Total of 10 Award Actions for 1 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 6,396,435 Total FVPF funding from HHS (this doesn’t count additional funding from the DOJ, or contracts, vs. grants):
Total of all award actions: $ 19,368,114 Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions
SO….. MPDI got HHS Award #90EV0375, and FVPF got #90EV0377;
Gee, who got award # 90FE0376? Another special issue resource center, probably — right?
Recipient: CANGLESKA, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 57752-0638FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2010 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 5 93.592 ACF 09-09-2010 $ 1,178,812 2009 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.592 ACF 09-02-2009 $ 1,178,812 2008 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.592 ACF 08-01-2008 $ 1,178,812 2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.592 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,812 2006 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.592 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,812 Award Actions Count: 5 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 5,894,060 Whoever CANGLESKA, INC. is (actually, I do have an idea, have read before) . . . . . Always click on the name and see what other goodies they got:
Total HHS awards: $15,650,167.
Total of all award actions: $ 15,650,167 Which includes (go figure) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood”:
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2007 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 2006 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 0 ACF 09-25-2006 110316478 $ 400,000 (DUNS# 110316478 will also work on USASPending.gov. Now, there are obviously some discrepancies — because TAGGS, which reports grants only (not contracts — work for pay) is about twice as large as what USASpending.gov — which is to report both grants and contracts — comes up with. One would think that the USASpending.gov# would always be larger for any group that got both contracts and grants. However, it comes up with instead (for Cangleska, all of the work in South Dakota, per the map):
- Total Dollars:$7,822,150
- Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
- This includes several from the Justice, VAW and/or Agriculture Depts ,not just HHS. (Whassup with that?)
Transaction Number # 8
Federal Award ID: 90FR0074: 0 (Grants)Recipient: CANGLESKA
P.O. BOX 638 , KYLEReason for Modification: Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families CFDA Program : 93.086 : Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants Description: PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOODDate Signed:
September 21 , 2007Obligation Amount:
$400,000PROMOTING FATHERHOOD = PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE???
Yes, the way to prevent family violence is to promote fatherhood. This is although the fatherhood movement originated in great part as a complaint against feminism. I’m so glad that the federally -funded groups have got their act together and just take funding from both sides of the same question, and do webinars, trainings, etc. (to both target clientele):
2007 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 110316478 $ 1,178,812 Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,578,812 (The grants are “discretionary” anyhow….)
Meanwhile PSI cleans up on the technological end…..
Here’s another big-bucks resource center group:
Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image 2009 362486896 National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges NV 1975 03 13,620,813 2,742,133 990
Our government is still offering grants to make more and more resources available to explicate and analyze (rather than, say, STOP) Violence Against Women (now called “Family Violence”) for purposes of research. Very Discretionary, I imagine. here are some:The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) announces the solicitation of applications for one cooperative agreement under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants program to support a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV). The NRCDV will maintain a clearinghouse library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and disseminate information and statistics related to the incidence, intervention, and prevention of family violence, domestic violence and dating violence; and the provision of shelter, supportive services, and prevention services to adult and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence which includes services to prevent repeated incidents of violence. The NRC is part of a network of National and Special Issue Resource Centers providing leadership and support to the existing programs serving victims of domestic violence and their children.
The will do the same thing on the fatherhood end, just as large. What good is all this research doing when it comes to the next custody decision?
Re: THE Battered Women’s Justice Project and MPDI grants, I searched only on the principle investigator last name, and in MN, to come up with 15 years of grants. if you’re IN, I guess you’re IN. So — how do these activities tie to reduced homicides, femicides, infanticides, battery, molestation, rape or any other forms of violence (or having the family law system ignore these when making a custody decision)? Or is that even required?
Results 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
Page 1 of 11 Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812 Technical assistance is one thing — it set ups a infrastructure and enables conferences. now, what, precisely else does it do? ESPECIALLY because at this point restraining orders aren’t even legally enforceable. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — and hush, don’t tell the people getting those RO’s and justifying more funding to violence prevention trainings…and supervised visitation expansions….I gotta run. Just some food for thought…
SHARE THIS POST on...
How to tell “PSI” in Denver, from “PSI” in Denver?
CORRECTION FROM LAST POST:
If in the last (long) post I associated “Public Strategies, Inc.” with “Center for Policy Research” directly. Mea culpa, and hopefully this sin is forgiveable; this is my atonement -and a chance to point to what both of them do, although I do not “hail Mary” for either one’s agenda. More properly, I should’ve associated “Policy Studies, Inc.” with Center for Policy Research, as we can see from reports like this:
CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES
Prepared for:
Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children & Families
(i.e., “OCSE/ACF”)
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 4th Floor Aerospace Building 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, D.C. 20447
Prepared by:
Jessica S. Pearson, Ph.D. Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218
David A. Price, Ph.D. Policy Studies, Inc. 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202
This project was supported under contract number 105-00-8300, Task Order 22, from the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
And covering topics such as:
Implementation Issues…………………………………………………………………………. 15 Making the Commitment to Serve Unmarried and IV-D Populations…………….. 15 Identifying Cases with Access and Visitation Issues…………………………………. 16 Resolving Access and Visitation Problems Using Mediation Techniques ………… 18 Inducing [IV-D] Custodial Parents to Participate ……………………………………………… 18 Negotiating About Child Support ………………………………………………………… 19 The Status of the Mediation Agreement ……………………………………………….. 19 Other Access and Visitation Services for IV-D Populations ………………………… 21 Reactions to the AV Program …………………………………………………………….. 22
and engaging the Faith Community, talking about “High-Conflict” stuff…. the term “high-conflict” appears 40 times in the document, an indication of AFCC influence. In fact a great overview of what’s happening in the courts might be found in this short document — NONE of which information is actually told, evidently, to the actual Title IV-D (custodial mothers, and I DNK to what extent, fathers either) – engaged in “high-conflict’ custody proceedings, or even enrolling for Food Stamps while in possession of minor children. On page 4 of this report is a neat summary:
1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments (P.L. 98-373): In this legislation, Congress urged states to “focus on the vital issues of child support, child custody, and visitation rights.”
1988 Family Support Act (P.L. 100-485): The 1988 FSA authorized state demonstration projects to “develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders,” and to promote improvements in existing procedures or the development of new methods and techniques to resolve child access and visitation problems.
1990 Child Access Demonstration Projects: Begun in 1990 and implemented in seven states, the multi-year projects involved the use of mediation, parent education, counseling, and other measures to assist parents to communicate about the needs of their children following parental separation and divorce, and to increase the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children.
1995 Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects: The evaluation confirmed that access was a complex problem for many separated and divorced parents, and recommended that courts and other agencies help parents with access problems by developing no- and low-cost dispute resolution interventions like mediation (including mandatory formats), and that they be made available to parents at the early stages of dispute, when it is most possible to get successful outcomes.
There is zero question, when examined, that these projects were aimed at helping fathers — not mothers, who were perceived as the problem (gatekeepers, “welfare mamas, etc.). In short, mandatory mediation places power in the mediator to recommend more access to the father, circumventing the courtroom in the process, except in a nominal hearing to endorse the mediator’s recommendations. While these may not actually help fathers (who may be forced to choose from an unreasonable child support payment — or being unable to pay and facing the alternative of criminal sanctions, including jail) — they were sold as doing so. This was also timed with a Democratic President’s Executive (memo/order — I keep forgetting which) to revamp agencies to promote fatherhood. Same year….
1995 U.S. Commission of Child and Family Welfare Report to Congress: In a report to the President and Congress, a bipartisan commission endorsed efforts at all government levels, including the state and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family has a parenting plan that encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved.
1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193): This legislation authorized state grants to “establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.” Activities specifically covered by the legislation included (1) mediation (voluntary and mandatory); (2) counseling; (3) education; (4) development of parenting plans; (4) development of visitation guidelines and alternative custody arrangements (??); and (5) visitation enforcement services, including monitoring, supervised visitation, and neutral pick-up and drop-off.
1997 Initiation of the State Child Access and Visitation Grant Programs: With OCSE as the administrating unit, Congress awarded $10 million per year to states to promote the development of a variety of programs designed to alleviate the problems associated with access and visitation. The program served over 50,000 individuals in 1998.
1997 Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects and Washington State Waiver: Following a competitive process, OCSE awarded multi-year grants to seven states to conduct demonstration projects that provide services to low-income, noncustodial parents to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children. OCSE also granted Washington State a waiver to receive matching funds from the Federal child support enforcement agency for programs aimed at helping noncustodial parents with a variety of issues. All eight programs, which served over 1,800 parents, offer noncustodial parents a variety of services, including assistance with access and visitation.
2000 Waivers for the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) Initiatives: OCSE authorized waivers for another set of fatherhood projects in ten states. The purpose of these projects, which involve collaborations between child support agencies and community-based organizations, is to recruit and help young, poor, noncustodial parents (1) find and retain employment; (2) engage in greater parent-child contact; and (3) improve their compliance with child support obligations. An evaluation of the nine PFF demonstration projects is underway.
In short, Policy Studies Inc. & Center for Policy Research both ahve the word “Policy” in common, and often publish together. One is profit, the other is nonprofit. David Price, who participated in this report, also publishes with Jane Venhor, who sits on the CPR organization also.
1996 WELFARE REFORM =Welfare Management Goldrush:
Perhaps this is a good place to post “PROSPECTING AMONG THE POOR: WELFARE PRIVATIZATION” (a 2001 publication by Bill Berkowitz). Below, as I looked at Policy Studies Inc., some of its employees were formerly at “Maximus,” another mega-contractor with mega-problems, including being caught embezzling and in fraud to the point it disrupted a NYCity Mayoral race… Both are mentioned in this document.
Some observers were less convinced that privatization would improve anything besides the privatizers’ bottom lines. “This is one of the biggest corporate grabs in history,” said Sandy Felder, Public Sector Coordinator for SEIU, commenting onthe Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, signed into law by President Clinton.3 In 1997 Mark Dunlea, executive director of the Hunger Action Network of New York, predicted that “the privatization of welfare- related social services…will mean a massive handoff from government to the private sector.”4
“The federal government turned over $16 billion in TANF money to the states without setting any federal standards for privatization,” says Cecilia Perry, public policy analyst for AFSCME. The early contracts in Wisconsin were particularly egregious in that they set “perverse incentives aimed at reducing caseloads and making huge profits.”5 Yet in March 1997, Phillip Truluck, Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, hailed then-Governor of Wisconsin Tommy Thompson (who is now President Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services) as “the real star of welfare reform today…whose perseverance and dedi- cation brought about this Wisconsin miracle.”6
Time magazine notes that pas- sage of the welfare reform bill set off a “welfare-management goldrush.”8
Many corporations, large and small, are taking advantage of this modern-day “goldrush.” These range from the corporate elite – such as Lockheed Martin, Andersen Consulting, “the world’s largest management and technology firm” (now renamed Accenture),9 and Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems – to smaller companies like the rapidly expanding Denver, Colorado-based Policy Services Inc., which has 39 privatized service locations in 16 states and bills itself as the “first company to operate a full-service child support privatized office.”10 Other prospectors include Nebraska-based Curtis & Associates and the flourishing Maximus Inc., which as of May 1999 held a “30% share of this booming privati- zation market in health and human services.”11 Despite the fact that Maximus seemed ready to mine the mother lode of privatization, the company is now fight- ing a growing negative image as things seem to be going haywire in a number of programs.
“Maximus” — its own website has motto “Helping Government Serve the People.” Why does this remind me of CIRCUS Maximus in Rome?
It partners with:
Child Support
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA)
ERICSA’s motto: “Build. Develop. Strengthen. Enhance the well-being of Families” (aren’t all organizations claiming to do this?)
ERICSA is a nonprofit (EIN# 41120981093) formed in 1980 (or, its 2009 form says, “1989”). Its membership is largely government employees; one wonders why they in addition to this need to form a nonprofit to get it together. The infrastructure (and power) of the Child Support Enforcement of the USA is unbelievable — most people have no clue unless they got nabbed. For example, in 2005, here’s a “Robyn Large” (OCSE employee?) in a document for Virginia about how to help private employers that may have multiple wage garnishment orders…ERICSAs 990 form one year was c/o her, although Robert Velcoff of NY is its treasurer.and the principal activity listed is a conference in Myrtle Beach SC once a year. “Promote Child Support Enforcement”
With top link leading to OCSE’s blurbs:
- Promoting Child Well-Being and Family Self-Sufficiency
Fact Sheet Series- Fatherhood Initiatives in the Administration’s FY 2012 Budget (NOTE: should also be “assigned reading” …!!)
- Fatherhood.gov
National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA)
Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC)
One might question why an organization/agency (i.e., OCSE) that falls so heavily on Dads would be so into fatherhood movements which claim that it’s unfair to Dads, and they are going to help ’em with custody issues…..
“PSI” Oklahoma (and satellite office in Denver) with “PSI” with HQ in Denver and programs all over the United States. Moreover, in both cases the programs relate heavily to issues such as child support and families and are enabled by Title IV-D programs. Ah well…
For the record, this is the PSI more directly working with CPR. As both of them take federal contracts and have apparent ties to Dr. Jessica Pearson (among others) in Denver — but PSI OKLAHOMA (Mary Myrick) seem more through AFCC-affiliates and PSI-DENVER, well, probably more directly.
How can we tell them apart & keep them straight? By looking closer…
POLICY STUDIES, INC.
Mailing Address Policy Studies Inc.
1515 Wynkoop Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202PSI has more than 25 years of successful government outsourcing and consulting experience reaching across more than 35 states and the District of Columbia. Our contracts include large-scale, multisite child support, government health, and employment and training operations and consulting projects for local and state clients.
It’s obvious they have a focus on child support, originally: ”
Leading the way in the health and human services industry
Founded in 1984 as a consulting firm specializing in child support enforcement, we’ve become a leading provider of services to the health and human services industry. We help organizations reach out to the people they serve; qualify them for essential services; and manage their cases with precision, speed, and superior customer service. Here are a few of the milestones we’ve accomplished so far in our desire to make a difference in public health and human services programs:
- In 1991, PSI was the first company in the country to operate an outsourced full-service child support office through a contract in Tennessee’s 10th Judicial District. We now run 13 such programs across the country, including one of the nation’s largest outsourced full-service child support enforcement office in Baltimore, Maryland.
- In 1994, PSI was the first company in the nation to administer an outsourced paternity acknowledgment program. Since then we’ve managed a variety of paternity acknowledgment programs and projects around the nation.
- PSI was the first company in the country to operate a state new hire reporting program beginning in 1996. We are now the premier provider of new hire reporting programs across the country, administering 22 new hire reporting programs.
PSI’s founder, Robert Williams, has an Ph.D. & MPA from Princeton, B.A. in Political Sciences from Univ. of Illinois, and it’s obvious from the start that this company ties into the Title IV-D programs, and influential in forming them. I imagine if I kept looking I’d find he had some ties or connections with either The Brookings Institute, Ron Haskins, CRC, or in general people promoting marriage and fatherhood (and doing so funding it through the HHS/ACF/OCSE in great part).
Williams is a national leader in child support enforcement, playing a key role in the development of today’s IV-D program. Williams has authored numerous articles on child support in professional journals and government reports, and has made dozens of presentations to state, regional, and national child support organizations, as well as judicial, bar, and legislative entities. He has actively participated in management studies of child support enforcement in nine states, and has provided testimony to Congressional committees on a diverse range of child support issues.
As one of PSI’s founders, Williams has played a key role in building the company’s business over 23 years. Williams served as PSI’s chief executive officer from 1984 until early 2006, leading the company through consistent growth in revenue and scope of services—from a small startup to more than $120 million in revenue and from four employees to more than 1,900. He currently serves on PSI’s Board of Directors.
CEO Margaret Laub has an amazing background from the “outsourced healthcare services industry. SHe joined the PSI Board in 2005 with a background in nutrition and accounting, and ”
She is the former president of McKesson Health Solutions, an $850 million revenue, 3,000-employee, multi-national business unit of McKesson Corporation. In this role, she managed a group of businesses spanning nine states and Australia, and spearheaded successful initiatives related to acquisitions, divestitures, strategic development, and the integration of new business practices.
Additionally, Laub served on the Executive and Operating Committees of McKesson Corporation, and from 1995 to 2001 was a founder and then president of McKesson Healthcare Delivery Systems, a pioneer in the specialty pharmaceutical services industry.”
While we are here, in searching Robert Williams Ph.D. Title IV-D, I came across this — an irate appeal from a Georgia father. However, it brings up valid points from the man’s point of view (that almost zero DV advocates even bring up to women — they typically don’t even mention that “Acess Visitation” exists — and by keeping the focus on the emotionally super-charged topic of “Batterers” and “Batterer Personality” and “Batterer Intervention Programs” (which I don’t think have a valid basis to even exist, any more than “Parenting Coordination” should be a profession, at this stage of the game).
the discussion on these matters has to happen — and it’s clear that these are still social issues — BUT — it should no longer be a public discussion which does not include the financial incentive to keep couples fighting for custody. And THAT discussion is about County & State & Federal government policies and finances. Finances are a high motivator — and men are typically more informed on this issue than women are, or are encouraged to be by their “advocates.” Why? The “advocates” any more are in on the same grant streams and incentives!
At any rate, this article shows how when a couple HAD some agreement, an OCSE agent got involved — this time with the mother — and encouraged her to start a custody battle. Typically they will do this with fathers, but this mother was already noncustodial. Read on (and bear with any “rhetoric’ if possible to get at the facts of this one).
Title IV D
We as Americans can see the destruction of the family unit on a daily basis all around us. Our friends, family and the stories we hear, all give us shudders. 50% of the families are falling apart. 90% of the divorces are initiated by women. Our children are being sold by the state for Title IV D funds from the Federal Government. Title IV D as of 2007 returns Federal dollars to the State at 66 cents for every $1.00 a man pays in child support. This money is then distributed to the counties of the state. Judge’s pensions are supported by this money. You can figure that if you make $60,000.00 or more a year, you are a target for higher child support, to support your local county. Counties are selling your children for what is no different than blood money.
I have to acknowledge this is true. Even as a DV survivor, and a former custodial mother, I saw it happen. The father didn’t want custody!, but was encouraged to go for it. This is part of the restraining order mill – and part of the assembly line to keep custody battles going on. As things heated up, it became clearer and clearer that while not IN the courtroom, the child support agency was definitely a Player in the mix. By deciding to act / not act at critical points, they re-introduced poverty to this family line and eventually resulted in zero child support to our children, and more business for themselves.
The morals of some see nothing wrong with this concept. Write the US Congress to eliminate Title IV D funds to the states. Tell you congressman that the selling of your baby to support the county system is wrong.
Georgia Superior Court Judge Declares State’s Child
Support Guidelines to be Unconstitutional
On February 25, 2002, a courageous Superior Court Judge in the Alapaha Judicial Circuit, by the name of C. Dane Perkins, granted the motion of Michelle L. Sweat, which declared the Georgia Child Support Guidelines to be null and void as the guidelines violate numerous provisions of the constitutions of both the United States and the State of Georgia. Michelle Sweat was divorced on November 12, 1998, and had agreed to allow the father to have custody of the three minor children of the parties while she received visitation, and a provision of the agreement of the parties was that she not be obligated to pay child support. On or about July 14, 2000, Monica Houseal, an agent with the Georgia Child Support Enforcement Agency in Nashville, Georgia, forwarded to Michelle Sweat a written request for “possible modification” of her child support obligation and requested certain financial information.
It sounds to me that the very fact the couple had somehow worked out their own arrangement and bypassed the child support system entirely, was a real problem to this agency. They recruited her!
At the time of trial, Michelle Sweat’s approximate monthly gross income was $1,862.00, and the father’s gross monthly income was approximately $2,650.00.
This is no stage at which to begin any court action, with that kind of income.
Ms. Sweat was requested by the Department of Human Resources to pay $452.00 in child support and up to $79.00 per month for insurance for the minor children for a total of $531.00 per month. After this request by DHR, Ms. Sweat filed her challenge to the constitutionality of the Georgia child support guidelines.
Had their children showed up in some matter at risk, or impoverished, or abused?
Judge Perkins noted in his order that in a study conducted in 14 South Georgia counties between 1995 and 1997, it was found that 82.2% of contested custody cases resulted in custody being awarded to the mother and that guideline support had an impermissibly discriminatory affect upon men based upon their gender.
The Georgia child support guidelines were enacted by the legislature in 1989 in order to qualify for approximately $25,000,000.00 from the Federal government for child support enforcement.
Take a look at your local county payrolls and see what’s involved. Then go look up some of the agencies contracting out child support enforcement — like Maximus, and understand that despite fraud and embezzlement, mega-sized, and after paying $30 million SETTLEMENT, Maximus continues to get contracts in various states. I’ve seen them on county payrolls.
While the originators of the guidelines no doubt had good intentions, they were extremely rushed and adopted guidelines from the state of Wisconsin, which were based upon poverty cases where the total income of the parents was $12,000.00, which would be approximately $21,000.00 in the year 2000. They were based upon the assumption that the custodial parent had no employment and that the non-custodial parent had no visitation with the children. They were never intended to be applied to higher income families and they had a built-in cap in that they were only intended to recover welfare payments to the custodial parent.
etc. And he quotes Dr. Williams of PSI on this:
Mr. Robert Williams of Policy Studies, Inc. in Denver, Colorado, testified at length before Georgia Commission on Child Support (the “Commission”) on May 1, 1998. As to the use of guidelines designed for poverty/welfare cases, Dr. Williams was asked “[w]hen the federal government mandated states adopt presumptive-type guidelines and the advisory panel … specifically recommended against Wisconsin-style guidelines, is anything changed that would revise those recommendations?” He replied, “there’s never been another advisory panel, so I would say basically not.9
While I am not analyzing this particular article or case (I’m not familiar with it), the footnote leads to this document — which shows a relationship between Policy Studies and Center for Policy Research by who prepared the report:
OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes
September 2003
(Better viewed on actual pdf)
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement
David Arnaudo, Program Officer
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Office of Human Services Policy
Linda Mellgren, Program Officer
Contract No. HHS-100-98-0015 Prepared by:
Center for Policy Research
1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218
Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D. Lanae Davis, M.A.
Policy Studies Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202
Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. David A. Price, Ph.D. Tracy Griffith
This report was prepared for the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., under Contract No. HHS-100-98-0015 with Policy Studies Inc.
In addition to support from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Multi-site Evaluation and Synthesis of Responsible Fatherhood Projects is supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Center for Policy Research.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services or its agencies, nor the views of the Ford Foundation.
CONTRACT (=/= “Grant”) from HHS to Policy Studies Inc., and GRANT (=/= “Contract”) to Center for Policy Research, which is set up to get these:
MOBIS Contracting
The Center for Policy Research is a Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) contractor and has a Federal Supply Schedule contract with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). This allows federal agencies to purchase supplies and services directly from the Center for Policy Research using CPR’s Contract Number GS10F0416S.
Through GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule, CPR is approved to receive a wide variety of contracts and task and delivery orders on a streamlined basis. CPR is approved to provide services that fall under Special Item Numbers (SIN) 874-1 “Consulting Services” and SIN 874-3 “Survey Services.” Examples of consultation and survey services include strategic, business and action planning, organizational assessment, program audits and evaluations, survey design, analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data and the production of comprehensive reports summarizing data collection techniques and analysis results.
Corporation Wiki, Center for Policy Research, Inc. Shows Pearson, Thoennes & Kelly Kreycik (sales & Marketing)
(apparently Mr. Jeffrey G. Pearson & “C T Corporation” and Jeffery G. Pearson, LLC is also involved…)
2009 840849945 Center for Policy Research CO 1982 03 1,079,756 708,138 990
Total Revenue $1,079,756 Total Assets: $708,138
I looked at HHS grants system to find its DUNS# (easiest way if it is a recipient).
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH DENVER CO 80218-1450 DENVER 149387185 $ 997,740
Readers should CLICK on the name above and see what types of projects are involved — for a sampler:
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2006 90FI0073 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 2 0 ACF 08-25-2006 149387185 $ 24,730 2006 90FI0085 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1 0 ACF 08-24-2006 149387185 $ 198,664 Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 223,394
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2005 90FI0073 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 1 0 ACF 08-31-2005 149387185 $ 100,000 Fiscal Year 2005 Total: $ 100,000
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2004 90FI0059 EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT 1 0 ACF 06-16-2004 149387185 $ 99,926 Fiscal Year 2004 Total: $ 99,926
(i.e, recruiting customers through agencies? ??) One can click on any of the grants also. MOST of them read “discretionary.” CPR is a small recipient, but something of (it appears) a rather large fish when it comes to policy influence, I believe. Leverage and Positioning is what counts — and they got in this business early on.
Once I get a DUNS# I can go to http://usaspending.gov/advanced-search ignore ALL other fields, and after having chosenPrime Award or Sub-Award advanced search, simply paste in the DUNS# to second “Recipient DUNS#” and hit search. The only problem being it’s obviously incomplete (USAspending.gov) reports are by agencies providing them, and some articles talk about the lack of completeness — but it’s an indicator at least:
- Total Dollars:$671,017
- Transactions:1 – 11 of 11
They are also drawing from the same fund as was the PSI (Public STRATEGIES Inc) as I noted on comments to yesterday’s post: 75-1553, ”
| Children’s Research and Technical Assistance | |
| Agency: | Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families |
| CFDA Program : | 93.601 : Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects |
| Description: |
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
|
(whatever that represents…)
Corporation Wiki for Policy Studies Inc. (2 in Denver, and plenty more) The Denver visual reflects the size, and includes David Price.
Per State of Colorado, PSI incorporated in 1984 (duration: Perpetual) and is in good standing; in 1995 it filed a namechange to remove the ‘comma’ in its name.
| # | ID Number | Document Number | Name  |
Event | Status | Form | Formation Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19871554610 | 19871554610 | POLICY STUDIES, INC. | Articles of Incorporation | Name Changed | DPC | 01/24/1984 |
| 2 | 19871554610 | 19951029240 | POLICY STUDIES INC. | Entity Name Change | Good Standing | DPC | 01/24/1984 |
DUNS# is 149410573
This Colorado site (unlike some other Secretary of State sites) is very helpful information in learning about the company. For example, Articles of Incorporation show that PSI began with 3 board of director members — Robert G. Williams (above), Betty A. Schulte, and David A. Price, and apparently out of Dr. Williams’ home.
Business description: “Public Policy Research including system design, management analysis and evaluation (1986 document image). with a Ph.D. from Princeton in such things, I’d imagine the founder would certainly be capable of these activities!
1994, it’s “research and consulting services to state and local government agencies.” and Ms. Schulte is gone, it is 3 men on the board. (williams, Price, Levy) and the shares of common stock (which any corporation can declare….) offered was increased at this time to 10 million, “no par value”.
(One of the moves appears to have a mistaken address: It read 999 EAST 18th Street, #900, Denver. Denver appears to have “East” as to Avenues, and no direction attached to its Streets. 999 18th Street appears to be a downtown office building. )
There are some documents protecting the director and stipulating conditions of sale or merger of the sale is above 25% of (gross profit, or such).
A document (pretty illegible) stamped March 1990 (but not filed in order on the page) shows a Katherine R. Wegner from Arvada, CO on the organization, as well as a man from John F. Walz Montpelier VT
In February 1996 (after 12 years of PSI operation, and a location move or so, the addition of Mark A. Levy to the Board) a Colorado Corporation called “Design Templates Inc.” (DTI) merged into PSI. DTI’s president being a Ruth K. Rosenfield. So naturally, I am interested in, who was DTI? and why the merger?
By 2001, they have issued 10 million shares of common stock and 5 million shares of preferred stock (etc.)
TRADE NAMES OF POLICY STUDIES INC. (from Secretary of State website):
Hmm. makes sense, given the line of business they are in:
Found 12 matching record(s). Viewing page 1 of 2. # ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment 1 19951078593 19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM 2 19961012292 19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM 3 19961012293 19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.*** Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM 4 20001166186 20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM 5 20001209751 20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM 6 20001209752 20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM 7 20011022445 20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM 8 20011022446 20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM 9 20021117260 20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM 10 20021159702 20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM
ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment 11 20021223054 20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM 12 20021223055 20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES, in another words, IS “PSI” Get it? The link is to a 1997 article “US Black Engineer.” Psiber Technologies IS PSI — but not all “PSI”-named companies are. A few for comparison, below.
With focus on the immense Child SUpport field, and the technology necessary to (garnish checks, record new hires, etc.) there seems to be more than one company with the “PSIBER TECH” root name — I found one in Hong Kong, and another one formed in 1997! in South Africa, note description:
CO, 80202 DENVER, 999 19TH ST.
psi, policy studies, child support, full service, health, outsourcing, consulting, technology, government, justice, workforce, systems, application, design, manufacturer, development, computer,
A NANCY STARLING (ROSS) reference to Psiber Technologies, courtesy pipl.com and me searching the trademark. Hmmmm.
PSI is the only privatization firm where our experts own and …Nancy Starling Ross. J. Fred Katzman. David Price. Mark A. Levy. Jim Hennessey. Mike Henry … [ www.dadsnow.org ]
and
DENVER, May 17 /PRNewswire/ — Policy Studies Inc. … Vice President of Service Delivery Nancy Starling Ross, is extremely proud of … [ www.prnewswire.com ] This also describes what Policy Studies Institute does;
This( Felix Infausto Award sounds interesting)
From “CSF” (Center for Support of Families) another one of the many “Human services” contracting organizations
xx-xxx-9998
Ms. Clements, Senior Associate at CSF, has over 15 years in the field of Child Support. She is presently working in Columbia, SC with the CSES/FCCMS project as a Subject Matter Expert. Previously, she was the Operational Manager and District Manager with the Hampton District Office. She worked with Policy Studies, Inc. from May of 2002 to July of 2008 in the states of South Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. Prior to May 2002, she worked with MAXIMUS as Project Manager of the Horry Regional Child Support Office in Conway, SC. She began her career in Child Support in the Regional Office in Florence, SC. She also taught school for 10 years before working in the area of Child Support.
Trademarkia says the name went out of use in 1996: “On Monday, March 11, 1996, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.. This trademark is owned by Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO 80202. The USPTO has given the PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. trademark serial number of 75070862. The current federal status of this trademark filing is ABANDONED – AFTER INTER-PARTES DECISION.
This is from an April, 2011 review:
Here’s another one from San Diego:
About Psiber Data Systems Inc.
Psiber Data Systems is located in San Diego, California, USA. Based in our 4000 square foot facility, Psiber is an employee owned entity committed to the development, manufacture and marketing of electronic test instruments for the rapidly expanding data communications market, including the CATV broadband arena.
(The Company: Psiber Data Systems Inc., located in San Diego, California, USA, with affiliated companies in Germany, Italy and UK)
Psiber was founded in 1994 and began with a simple philosophy of building low cost test equipment that possessed meaningful and unique features in handheld testers for everyday maintenance. Psiber has always strived to do what others have not and to serve customers overlooked by the big corporate competitors
The first tester developed by Psiber Data was the PsiberNET data clamp in 1994. This tester created an entirely new class of computer Local Area Network (LAN) diagnostic tools. The PsiberNET data clamp is the only non-intrusive test instrument that can acquire and display LAN traffic information without a direct electrical connection to the network. This innovative new product was recognized by Data Communications Magazine as the “Hot Product of the Year” in physical layer testing.
LAN, being “Local Area Network,” i.e. computer traffic within a company or agency, etc.
COMPANY OVERVIEW
PSIber Works is a South African company specialized in the development of web-based human resources, payroll and package structuring solutions. The company’s offering is aimed at both the individual user and the small to medium-sized business user, providing them with a host of resources through the web-based product.
26 Seventh Avenue
Edenvale, 1610
South Africa
Founded in 1997
A similar one (Hong Kong, sounds like, with a relationship to MicroSoft) talks about outsourcing (Something it seems “Child Support Services” has been doing to multinational corporations, or local ones such as PSI):
Offshore Outsourcing is looked upon as a value added service to organisations. It helps organisations to focus mainly on their core business than worrying about the other business related activities that they are unfamiliar with.
The outsourcing model has some distinct advantages:-.
- It allows organisations to focus on their core business
- It builds confidence within the organisation to venture into new business opportunities
- It provides cost effective solutions
- It provides development of solutions rapidly
PsiberTech Offshore outsourcing services covers the entire project management and development lifecycle. Our software development experience in latest technologies allows us to deliver solutions to align with your cost, timelines and requirements.
Well, as fascinating as this study has been (to me at least) — to recognize that PSI as of 1995 trademarked itself as “COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES” — an interesting choice of names — all good studies must come to an end some time. OnUSASpending.gov I found this group getting about $2million of a $15 million contract to the STate of Virginia (to collect child support, or for CSE activities at any rate).
I’m going to look more into who is Dr. Robert G. Williams and what is he about…. Amazing what some fine degrees and forethought, plus incorporation the booming Internet & outsourcing of government services can do to a business (and the landscape for those it is “serving”)
CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES __ PRICE & WILLIAMS
YOWZA, heres another one — I’ll just paste the staff bios right here:
CPPS is a partnership of senior consultants who have worked together for many years. Each of us has an independent business and we collaborate through CPPS on larger projects where we can offer more value to our clients working as a team than as individuals. We have a very streamlined organizational structure that includes a president/treasurer and vice president/secretary. CPPS operations are governed by a national Board of Directors.
David A. Price, Ph.D., is the President and co-founder of CPPS. He has more than 30 years of experience working with public sector agencies across the country — human services agencies, foundations, non-profit organizations, courts and justice system agencies — conducting research, designing tools to improve organizational performance, facilitating planning processes, implementing demonstration projects, and documenting and evaluating project outcomes. Price received a Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Denver and a B.A. in Economics from the American University of Beirut in Beirut, Lebanon.
John A. Martin, Ph.D. is the Director of the CPPS Immigration and the State Courts Initiative. Dr. Martin, a planning, policy, and management consultant, is recognized as an innovator in planning, management, performance measurement, and institutional development for justice and human service organizations. Over the past 36 years, he has worked with courts, justice, and human service agencies of all types. Dr. Martin received a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado, an M.A. in Political Science, University of Colorado, a B.A. in Political Science from Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado, and has had extensive mediation training from CDR Associates.
Steven Weller, J.D., Ph.D., has more than 34 years of experience working with state courts and other justice system institutions in the Unites States and internationally. In the United States he has served as principal investigator or consultant on a variety of national, state, and local research and strategic planning projects aimed at improving different aspects of the justice system and developing responses to public policy problems. Dr. Weller’s current and recent projects include work on immigration issues, alternative dispute resolution, civil case processing, alternative sanctions to incarceration, family courts, child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, courthouse safety, and jail overcrowding. His work has also included developing approaches to help courts deal more effectively with cultural issues in family and domestic violence cases.
Robert G. Williams, Ph.D. is the Chairman and co-founder of CPPS. For more than 40 years, Williams has provided technical assistance and performed policy research for health and human services agencies, as well as courts. A national expert in child support enforcement, Williams has also worked with Courts on strategic planning and services for divorcing and unmarried parents. He has conducted human service agency management studies and program effectiveness assessments, as well as directing large-scale program evaluations. Williams holds M.P.A. and Ph.D degrees from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a B.A. from the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Angela J. Lederach is a Research Associate with the CPPS Immigration Initiative. Prior to this Initiative, she worked with international reconciliation and transitional justice efforts in the Philippines, West Africa, and Latin America. Her writings about culture, peace building, and restorative justice have appeared in a variety of diverse publications. Angela holds a dual B.A. degree in Anthropology and International Peace Studies from the University of Notre Dame.
Jeffrey S. Yoder is a Research Associate with the CPPS Immigration Initiative. Prior to working on the Immigration Initiative, he worked with the Mennonite Central Committee in Tucson, Arizona coordinating educational events to raise awareness about the issues facing border communities in both Mexico and the United States, and also worked with the Tucson Food Bank. Jeffrey is proficient in Spanish and holds a B.A. degree in Sociology from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Currently, Williams is recognized as a national leader in child support enforcement, Williams has authored numerous articles on child support in professional journals and government reports, and has made dozens of presentations to state, regional, and national child support organizations, as well as judicial, bar, and legislative entities. He has actively participated in management studies of child support enforcement in nine states, and has provided testimony to Congressional committees on a diverse range of child support issues.[6]
SHARE THIS POST on...
Happy Fatherhood Day — and where would “Fatherhood” be without the HHS?
DISCLAIMER:
The tone of this post is going to be flippant and sometimes sarcastic. This is NOT aimed at individual fathers, men, and all-round great people who have mentored, helped, befriended, or encouraged young men (and women) to be their best, or simply stood with them through tough times in life. I am in this blog targeting the professional trainers, the professional know-it-alls, and their habit of demanding more and more public money to build more and more “resource centers” and run “institutes” with less and less proof of any results. Although the word “evidence-based practice” is throughout the literature justifying why we should sponsor this habit as a public benefit.
Where’s the benefit? At what point can we demand something besides anecdotal evidence traded in policy institutes run without public input far away from the “delivery of services” locations. Have homicide, drug, femicide, rape etc. levels gone down AND can this be directly tied to any single, or any set of, training organizations? The answer to that I’ll bet is simply N.O.
But it is necessary to “out” and mock, ridicule (and reduce) the baloney, the fallacies that simply are opening the door to more federal trainers eager to get access to (in particular) young boys, or adolescents — and again, I’m talking at the institutional levels. Last post? I showed that one of the Fathers of the Fatherhood movement was a Seventh Day Adventist (Dr. Charles Ballard), who writes on a page called “Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family”
God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side . . . .
Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.
Any time such a “servant/priest” (i.e. any man in a relationship with a woman, and especially with children) is served with a protection or restraining order, or is convicted of assault and battery upon an “intimate partner” someone indeed has come between him and his Eve. Thank God! In this mindset, that’s bad.
TAGGS — apparently a few different “Ballards” are very much into this:
The fifth column in (before CFDA number beginning in “93 _ _ _” is the year of the project.
| ACF | HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS UNIV OF OKLAHOMA | NORMAN | OK | DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN POST ADOPTION SERVICES AND MARRIAGE EDUCATION | 1 | 93652 | SOCIAL SERVICES | BALLARD FARILYN | $ 250,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (IDA) | 1 | 93602 | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES BALLARD | $ 1,000,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 1 | 93647 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | CHARLES A BALLARD | $ 180,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) | 1 | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A BALLARD | $ 99,350 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 01 | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 170,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | UNSOLICITED/CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROGRAM ENCHANCEMENT OF PHILADELPHIA MODEL | 1 | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES H BALLARD | $ 500,000 |
| ACF | OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | OK | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 8 | 1 | 93086 | DEMONSTRATION | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 549,791 |
| ACF | OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | OK | PROJECT TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGES | 1 | 93608 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 200,000 |
| ACF | Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative | DALLAS | TX | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 1 | 93009 | DEMONSTRATION | VALERIE BALLARD | $ 50,000 |
So far, Texas, Oklahoma & DC.
This report didn’t show years, so here’s one that does, I’ve picked a few samples from a simple search, last name “Ballard”; out of 156 returns (Many were medical) these appear to relate to marriage/fatherhood components.
| HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS UNIV OF OKLAHOMA | NORMAN | 90CO1029 | DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN POST ADOPTION SERVICES AND MARRIAGE EDUCATION | 09/12/2006 | 93652 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | SOCIAL SERVICES | BALLARD FARILYN | $ 250,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90EI0127 | ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (IDA) | 09/10/2001 | 93602 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES BALLARD | $ 1,000,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90PR0003 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 09/30/1995 | 93647 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 85,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90PR0004 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 09/30/1995 | 93647 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 85,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90XP0014 | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/15/1999 | 93647 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | CHARLES A BALLARD | $ 180,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90XP0024 | UNSOLICITED/CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROGRAM ENCHANCEMENT OF PHILADELPHIA MODEL | 07/27/2001 | 93647 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES H BALLARD | $ 500,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90XP0043 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) | 06/30/2003 | 93647 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A BALLARD |
| OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | 90CW1115 | PROJECT TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGES | 09/29/2003 | 93608 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 200,000 |
| OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | 90FE0030 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/24/2006 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 549,791 |
| TEEN FATHER PROGRAM: A FAMILY SERVICE | CLEVELAND | D67MP01550 | THE AMERICAN MALE LEADERSHIP & EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM | 02/15/1995 | 93910 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 0 |
| TEEN FATHER PROGRAM: A FAMILY SERVICE | CLEVELAND | D67MP01550 | THE AMERICAN MALE LEADERSHIP & EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM | 07/31/1995 | 93910 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 0 |
| Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative | DALLAS | 90IJ0623 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 09/24/2006 | 93009 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | VALERIE BALLARD | $ 50,000 |
Frances Ballard (Mrs. Charles A. Ballard) is known to me from this organization, a recent one also on the HHS funds path:
WOMEN IN FATHERHOOD, INC. (“WIFI” for short):
Frances Ballard
Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC. She has over 20 years experience working with fathers, families and healthcare.
(Notice — women & mothers — if they exist — are lumped in with children and do not exist as individuals. The fathers, however, do. Even “healthcare” has an identity. This is totally in accord with the religious statements above — Eve was to be at all times by Adam’s side, even though I doubt this Executive Director has been to her husband. However, I doubt that she’d veer from the primary policy — promoting fatherhood and ignoring mothers / women as individuals.. At least when describing the programs…)
er previous positions include 12 years serving as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization; Consultant to The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connections Program; ** Director of Corporate Development and Clinical Manager-Ambulatory Care, Grace Hospital; and Nurse Consultant/Program Developer, The Institute For Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development. She holds a Masters of Science Degree in Nursing Administration, a B.A. in Social Work, an A.S. in Nursing, and numerous executive management certifications. She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood Movement and the mother of their three children, Jonathan, Lydia and Christopher.
**Annie E. Casey Foundation funds many fatherhood programs, and they are indeed a large foundation.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
FARILYN BALLARD I’ll deduce is not a relative, but on the same theme, and highly placed to run fatherhood programs, possibly similar on the inside:
A devout Christian who sings in her church’s choir, Ballard prays and reads the Bible daily and volunteers. She’s a wife and mother who loves her husband, Dan Ballard, her two grown daughters and crossword puz- zles. Whimsical items like Garden Divas adorn her office, and she’ll readily tell you about her two dogs, Molly and Bosco. . . .
Where Faith And Commitment Make A Difference
By Kevan Goff-Parker Inside OKDHS Editor (OCT 2004 article):
The Many Sides of Farilyn Ballard
As chief operating officer, Fari- lyn Ballard’s well-known serious side is often seen at OKDHS as she dili- gently works long hours tackling the agency’s many challenges. It’s a serious job, but Ballard enjoys the responsibility. She leads the daily operations of the state’s largest agency and 4,000 employees from Field Operations, Children and Family Services Division and Family Support Services Division.“
Oklahoma had one of the largest (initially) Marriage Demonstration projects, I heard… it is called “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (“OMI”)
Ms. Ballard was there.
Marriage Research – OMI
She has developed a middle range theory of the experience of expectant and newfatherhood, … in Research Advisory Group meetings include: Farilyn Ballard, …
http://www.okmarriage.org/Research/MarriageResearch.asp – Cached – Similar
This OMI is also a project of the Public Strategies, Inc. I mentioned with, I THINK (might be wrong…), ties to Center for Policy Research (I believe) -out of Denver. The common personnel between the Denver-based Center for Policy Research and the (now international) “AFCC” is one of the co-founders, Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (as I understand matters), and the slant is definitely pro-Richard Gardner, Pro-Parental Alienation theory (“PAS”) throughout. As opposed to, say, feminist — at all….. For an idea of what “OMI” is (referring to structure, funding, purpose, and reach, etc.) read this:
Mary Myrick, APR – Public Strategies
Ms. Myrick is the President of Public Strategies, an Oklahoma-based firm, and Project Manager for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). The OMI is widely recognized as the country’s first statewide, comprehensive program model for changing a state’s divorce culture and creating/providing services to reflect a broad-based commitment to family formation and marriage. Under Myrick’s leadership the OMI has recruited a highly-distinguished Research Advisory Board consisting of state and national experts on marriage, divorce, and low-income families; has developed and implemented the first comprehensive statewide survey to assess marriage/divorce values and demographics**; is implementing a multi-sector strategy, collaborating with multiple state agencies, service providers, educators, religious institutions, businesses and the media; and has launched a statewide skills-based Marriage and Relationship Education Service Delivery System, utilizing the research-based PREP as its core curriculum. Myrick speaks nationally about the successful OMI model and has provided hours of technical assistance to several states and communities committed to implementing their own marriage initiatives.
**interesting. Drawing on ALL marriage/divorce data? Census? That colloborating with “everyone” so reminds me of AFCC (although their range is not quite “everyone”) Pulling in MULTIPLE state agencies (for probably program funding and access to population) Service providers (access to population, and training the in the right way to provide service) Educators (naturally) Religious Institutions (OK, here we go . . . . ) Businesses (funding, sponsorship, promotion, right?) and the media — sound like a monopoly yet? Are there any anti-trust even CONCEPTS at work here?
This can be done in part because in 1995, President Clinton issued an Executive Order about Fatherhood. You should read it sometime (again). This was like an ignition that blasted free all kinds of information and technology, and monetary flow — a virtual riverhood of father-promotion and education. ….
ABOUT US:
about us Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members…PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C.
The Denver office is walking distance to “Center for Policy Research” in Denver, their name is found on many HHS reports, and their personnel extremely influential, as I have blogged. @
Denver, CO 80203-5402
(303) 830-0400
As a visionary leader in public-private partnerships, Ms. Myrick developed Public Strategies (PSI) from a public relations and event planning firm into a leader in business development, strategic planning, and project management. She manages and continues to add to the firm’s diverse partnerships and directs PSI’s portfolio of national, state and community youth and family programs.
Ms. Myrick also leads efforts to provide technical assistance to other agencies and organizations including the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) grantees, the Texas Healthy and Human Services Commission, and several policy research organizations. (incl. CPR?)
As we can see below (in the list) the bulk of the work is DIRECT US Government-related:
That’s funny, Dr. Richard Warshak’s reunification program was trade-marked “Building Bridges,” which is “treatment” for the extremely alienated child &/or family.
Among the team is a “Director of Fatherhood Services”
Calvin Williams
Director of Fatherhood Services. He is the “thought leader” in PSI’s fatherhood programs:
As the thought leader for the development of promising practices in the areas of fatherhood for each of the programs that PSI manages, Calvin fills a critical role on the Public Strategies team.His expertise in the fatherhood is now being utilized in the PREP curriculum which he co-authored, “On My Shoulders.” In his new role, Calvin develops programs and interventions targeted to non-custodial parents that encourage cooperative parenting, and provide insight and guidance, as well as resources and tools that assist in providing high quality services to low income men and their families.Before joining PSI, Calvin worked as Program Director, Operations Director, and Acting Executive Director for Services United for Mothers and Adolescents (SUMA) Fatherhood Project in Cincinnati, Ohio
He develops programs targeted to the court system, and probably child support as well, wouldn’t you say?
2003 “Ohio Practitioners’ Network for Fathers and Family”
“In May of 2003 (it reads) the Center for Families and Children in Ohio hosted the first “Fathers Matter” conference in the State of Ohio…a diverse group of stakeholders and practitioners was brought together to discuss the importance of fatherhood and the barriers faced by practitioners. … most participants agreed that there was a need for a Fatherhood Practitioner network in Ohio.”
(to clarify, a “fatherhood practitioner” need not be male — or even a father. A “Fatherhood Practitioner” is closer to a public relationship or program development function, from what I can tell. I know that in order to play football, sooner or later one must actually practice football. Generally speaking, there are coaches, right? These are the self-declared fatherhood coaches, and what they are speaking of is obtaining a platform to enact their policies (and funding, of course). Whatever these policies be, the “label” is “FATHERHOOD.” I suggest that all reasonably minded fathers (and mothers) who are unaware of the extent and network of this system consider the impact of it on their bottom line, i.e., their wallets. Because I assure us, the field is everexpanding, alongside “domestic Violence Advocates” (what — do they ADVOCATE for domestic violence? Or just research it). Between the two of them, and the courts — what’s left of any public benefit $$ is going to go the other direction. Because once in the house, these birds (and I DO mean also the “battered women’s” side of the policy as well) will ONLY continue to expand.
One advantage is that the US Congress, and I’d still bet most state Congresses, are primarily male, in fact white male. SO the chances that programs of this theme are not going to speak to their gut level sense of masculinity and what’s “right” with the world is slim.
For example, in or about 2000, the good citizens of Ohio — or at least their elected representatives — voted in a ‘FATHERHOOD COMMISSION.” to find it, simply type in “http://Ohio.fatherhood.gov” I linked to the “funding” page which summarizes. Don’t neglect to click on “More” under the first link, where you will see a column of cool graphics & logos, such as:
And shows an entire range in which “fatherhood” can be inculcated, from Early Head Start (basically before they stop nursing) through college, including county government (cf. “Board of County Commissioners”) recover groups, community action groups, et. THere is NO area of life and human practice which couldn’t use more fatherhood training and promotion. Being a long-term noncustodial mother, in large part because of my ignorance of the impact of these grant programs at the on the courts, locally — I think that every one in the US should fund more of these (yeah, right).
Ohio Commission on Fatherhood Funded ProgramsFunded Fatherhood Programs
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood awards grants to exemplary fatherhood programs throughout the state of Ohio each biennium. The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood recently completed another round of fatherhood grants for 2010-2011. The Commission awarded grants to nine fatherhood programs located through out the state of Ohio in the amount of $1.5 million. More>>
Fatherhood Regions
Fatherhood regions mirrors Ohio Department of Development regions. This map will reflect fatherhood programs, activities, fatherhood initiatives and resources within each region. More>>
Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative
On January 18th, the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood launched the Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative. Eleven counties have been selected to participate in this pilot project. The Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative is a six-month process during which county leaders identify specific needs in their county and develop a fatherhood action plan. If your county would like to participate in a future training, submit the on-line form to be added to the waiting list. More>>
Back to Public Strategies, Inc. (and its government-sponsored programs, such as how to collaborate with DV groups and make sure they aren’t too radical, such as actually advocating for complete separation where there has been ongoing criminal activity by one parent upon another, or the children — like ”
These “Bridges” have indeed been built between fatherhood and DV programs so that their practices (and in great part, philosophies) are indistinguishable any more. BOTH support more and more supervised visitation, trainings, and continue to conference on “best practices.” BOTH (also a Duluth Model concept) assert that “Coordinated Community Response” = best response. I don’t agree. At all. All this does is build bridges between agencies and a wall of difference between service providers and those served — two different classes and two different outlook. Client v. service provider, not Human-to-human.
This list of “PSI” clients are well known (at least by name) to anyone looking into the grants and funding of the HHS-sponsored Healthy Marriage Movement; that is basically what the clients are. Without these clients, PSI would not have a business, or would be one PR firm among many.
http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2
Government Agencies
• Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Family Expectations, a program managed by Public Strategies was recently profiledby the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Family Assistance as one of the most successful Healthy Marriage programs in the country.• Oklahoma Department of Human Services ( OK DHS)
• Oklahoma Association of Youth Services
• Oklahoma Department of Health
• Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
• Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF)
• Louisiana Department of Social Services
• Texas Health and Human Services Commission (TX HHSC)Research Organizations
• Texas Tech University (TTU) – College of Human Sciences
• MDRC (SEARCH MY BLOG)
• Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR)
• National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV)
• Oklahoma State University (OSU) – Research and Graduate StudiesNonprofit Organizations
• Annie E. Casey Foundation (AEC)
• Johnson Foundation
• The Dibble Institute
• It’s My Community Initiative (IMCI)
• Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP)
• Harding School of Fine ArtsCorporate Clients
• Lewin
• ICF
• Pal Tech
• Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)
• Hill & Knowlton (I read this client just bought PSI, one can check)
The “big guns” behind this firm, then, turn out to be either (a) federal funds or (b) foundations, primarily. MDRC (I posted again recently on this one, under “will the real MPDI please stand up?”) — it’s huge…
So were these scholars, experts, and I suppose “practitioners” although the fastest way to practice “fatherhood” might just be to join the AFCC, and several I recognize.
OMI Research Advisory Group Members:
Paul Amato, PhD – Pennsylvania State University
Ronald B. Cox, Jr., PhD, CFLE – Oklahoma State University
Robin Dion, MS – Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (an organization that fulfils HHS, gov’t contracts and does research)
Kathryn Edin, PhD – Harvard University
David Fournier, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Norval Glenn, PhD – University of Texas
Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD – Bowling Green State [Ohio] University
Ron Haskins, PhD – Brookings Institution {originator of the TItle IV-D / Access Visitation law which enables the research and demonstration element, and facilitates (increased, is the general idea) “noncustodial parent contact” through federal grants to the states. 1996ff. These ARE “fatherhood” grants — they do not help mothers with visitation difficulties increase access, although the wording reads “parents.” i.e., he is a central person in this mix…
Alan J. Hawkins, PhD- Pennsylvania State University
Pamela Jordan, PhD, RN, – University of Washington
Christine Johnson, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Howard Markman, PhD – University of Denver
Steve Nock, PhD – University of Virginia (Our colleague and friend passed away early in 2008)
Theodora Ooms, MSW – Center for Law and Social Policy
Galena K. Rhoades, PhD – University of Denver
Scott Stanley, PhD- University of Denver
OF THIS LIST, I’ll bet there is some AFCC, starting with Paul Amato
Dr. Amato is a Professor of Sociology, Demography, and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include marital quality, the causes and consequences the causes and consequences of divorce, and subjective well-being over the life course. ((If one is measuring subjective well-being, the research possibilities are endless, particularly if the target range is so narrowly defined as married and divorced people over a lifetime…)) He received the Reuben Hill Award from the National Council on Family Relations for the best published article on the family in 1993, 1999, and 2001. He received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from the American Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 2002, the Distinction in the Social Sciences Award from Pennsylvania State University in 2003, and the Distinguished Career Award from the Family Section of the American Sociological Association in 2006.
Ms. DION, of Mathematica, Inc. — a group I remember well because their label shows up on so many fatherhood studies:
Ms. Dion (first of the 3 photos here) is a Research Psychologist at Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which has offices in Washington D.C. and Princeton, NJ. This widely respected research firm has conducted studies in health care, welfare, education, employment and nutrition. Robin is currently the Principal Investigator for a federally funded research project, Strengthening Families with a Child Born Out-of-Wedlock. The project grows out of the Fragile Families research project directed by Sara McLanahan (Princeton University, photo above) and Irwin Garfinkle (Columbia University). [[who also, I believe, publish frequently with Ron Haskins, Ron Mincy, and others]] “Sara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, studies the relationship between family structure, income, and child outcomes.”
Note Dr. McLanahan’s study emphasis, in part: “he is the author of many articles and books including Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement (1998); Social Policies for Children (1996); Growing Up with a Single Parent (1994); Child Support and Child Wellbeing (1994); Child Support Assurance: Design Issues, Expected Impacts, and Political Barriers, as Seen from Wisconsin (1992); and Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (1986). Her degree in Sociology is from Univ of Texas at Austin…. She also has published, and will continue to, with Ron Haskins. Get the general idea? (research, sociology, behavioral sciences, economic policy, etc.) She’s a researcher.
Dr. McLanahan currently directs the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a nationally-representative longitudinal birth cohort study of approximately 5,000 families, including 3,700 unmarried parents and their children. The study is designed to shed light on the health and development of low-income children, the impact of family relationships and dynamics on child wellbeing, and the impact of social policies on family relationships and child wellbeing.
Dr. McLanahan is also editor-in-chief of The Future of Children, a policy journal on children’s issues produced by Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The journal’s latest issue, “Fragile Families,” (Vol. 20, No. 2) is co-edited by Sara McLanahan, Irv Garfinkel, and Ronald Mincy. Upcoming issues include: “Immigrant Children (Vol. 21, No. 1) co-edited by Ron Haskins and Marta Tienda. (available in spring 2011), “Work and Family Balance,
Dr. Garfinkle (I recognize the name, but dont see it as much, somehow):
Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems and co-director of the Columbia Population Research Center. A social worker and an economist by training, he has authored or co-authored over 150 scientific articles and eleven books **on poverty, income transfers, program evaluation, single parent families and child support, and the welfare state. His research on child support influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the US Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. He is currently the co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Well being Study and is completing a book entitled The American Welfare State: Laggard or Leader?. . . . . .
**this is, of course, what social worker/economist Ph.D.s can do. They write. A LOT. Their writing sometimes becomes policy…
Columbia has both the Population Research (Center) and the “Fathers, Children, and Family” (Center for Research on…), run by colleague Dr. Ronald D. Mincy.
Here they are in Wisconsin (2009) running a conference at the “IRP” or “Institute for Research on Poverty.” Poverty is a pressing issue, therefore RESEARCHING IT (which can be quite profitable and professionally advantageous) is of course important work. The idea being of course, to stop it. Notice that in the word “Population” (Garfinkle’s center) or the title of the “CRFCFW” — no noun representing any group of females even exists, not even the word “mother.” Mothers are IN these groups (Population, Families, and alas even some girls definitely not legal adults, i.e., they are CHILDREN) — but not mentioned. Father acknowledges the male gender. No word in there acknowledges the female gender — yet females are at least half the population in the U.S. and a bit more, and worldwide, unless something unnatural (genocide, war, or infanticide of female babies in certain cultures) has come in. How close is this to “Adam must always have Eve at his side” or disaster will result to the world? . . . . . .
Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy
September 2009, University of Wisconsin–Madison
This conference brought together scholars and policymakers to examine strategies for reducing barriers to marriage and father involvement, designing child support and other public policies to encourage the involvement of fathers, and coping with fathers who have multiple child support responsibilities.** Representatives of the Obama Administration were in Madison to respond to the ideas put forth at the conference.
**It’s a little hard to keep promoting the theory that children MUST wake up with a biological father in the home, when these children live in different homes. This ignores the fact that women, as well as men, actually do remarry, or have new partners. Or that sometimes they do not, and their children still succeed. One example I can think of is — in Wisconsin — a state Rep! Congresswoman Gwen Moore.
IRP hosted this working conference in coordination with the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being and the Columbia Population Research Center, at Columbia University. Tim Smeeding, Ron Mincy, and Irv Garfinkelorganized the conference and co-edited a conference volume. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is also providing financial support for this conference.
COnferences are definitely not free, and if we are to properly study Poverty by studying Fathers, the United States HHS might as well get involved and contribute. The institutes that organized this have their own funders, of course (Foundational, and most likely government) but extra help was needed for this conference, obviously.
Conference papers are available in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 635 (May 2011): “Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy.” Special Editors Timothy M. Smeeding, Irwin Garfinkel, and Ronald E. Mincy.
Co-sponsoring contributors:
I BELIEVE THAT:
People who don’t appreciate the welfare state shouldn’t be living off it by promoting the practice of using welfare populations FOR that research, and conducting “demonstration” projects on them through institutions their poverty forces them to interact with, and which may have contributed to it. One of the primary institutions that appears to have contributed to the wealth of some and the poverty of others is slavery. While it was officially outlawed, it is obviously still practiced, a situation the US hasn’t come to terms with. THe practice of slavery enabled many of the “founding fathers” to take time to write and research. Others built their houses, cooked their food (bare their children) and tilled their fields. Moreover, a middle range of management kept the field hands in place.
Probably this set of professionals can be viewed in these terms — they research and write upon the population and make sure that policy isn’t too radically different to enable more independence and more competition for commodities (food, work, materials, and sales, etc.). . . . Some people mine the earth, or study the stars. Others mine DATA — and it takes time, money, and workers to collect, analyze and report on all that data. MOreover it takes computers and an infrastructure where information can flow to and fro. Hence, “Technical Assistance Grants” are so common. In practice, except for the greater speed (and scope) perhaps it’s in many ways like farming. …. First one gets access to the fields and somehow tills them (or SOME space where food can be grown). Only problem — most of our population now (am I right?) is concentrated, and URBAN. Hence the richest fields to mine are the urban poor, the urban violent, the urban oppressed (by . . . by what?). . and the urban don’t have access to clean water and food, or good schools. It’s GREAT material to mine, and positioned right, one might end up at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, or some Institute or Center of “higher” learning.
. . . continuing with Dr. Garfinkle’s research, and its impact:
His research on child support influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the US Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. He is currently the co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Well being Study and is completing a book entitled The American Welfare State: Laggard or Leader?
Dr. Charles Ballard, Ms. — or Mrs.? — Frances Ballard, nonrelative Farilyn Ballard of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, and here is another Ballard, “Valerie” — and this is the Northeast Texas Fatherhood Initiative (see Corporation Wiki link, there). It shows only three people: Valerie Ballard, Sheilah Tucker ,and Preston Mallone.
LinkedIn, Ms. Ballard (looks young!)
Valerie Ballard’s Experience
Executive Director North Texas Fatherhood Initiative
Nonprofit Organization Management industry
July 2009 – Present (2 years)
Executive Director for the Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative (TexasHMRI) and North Texas Fatherhood Initiative (NTFI). Responsible for the strategic direction, leadership and capacity building; program development for TexasHMRI and NTFI. My role includes grant development and management, training and technical assistance and fiscal oversight to 50+ collaborative partners in the organization’s coalition.
Both of these are government-funded programs, through Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (at a minimum):
TexasHMRI is a subcontractor for the Twogether in Texas Healthy Marriage Program under The Texas Health and Human Service Commission.
North Texas Fatherhood Initiative is funded by IMANI -The David Project a 2009 Compassion Capital Fund Grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families. (HHS/ACF — what else?)
| Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative | DALLAS | United States of America | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 09/24/2006 | 93009 | NEW | VALERIE BALLARD | $ 50,000 | Abstract Not Available |
(I found 80 in Texas under CFDA 93009 — most were small many were aimed at marriage, family & youth, such as:
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | United States of America | COMPASSION CAPTIAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI | 09/17/2005 | 93009 | NEW | CAROL BOWMAN | $ 49,853 | Abstract Not Available |
| Alta Vista Faith-Based Initiative Corporation | Double Oak | United States of America | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 09/23/2006 | 93009 | NEW | ROBERT CHAVEZ | $ 50,000 | Abstract Not |
Once these take root (cf. “Alliance for North Texas…”) they tend to get watered; this went straight to almost $1 million ($900K) the second year….
| Grantee Name | City | County | Award Title | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions | Award Abstract |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages** | DALLAS | DALLAS | COMPASSION CAPTIAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRIAGE | 09/17/2005 | 93009 | NEW | CAROL BOWMAN | $ 49,853 | Abstract Not Available |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/24/2006 | 93086 | NEW | COSETTE BOWLES | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/20/2007 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERIN KINCAID | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/22/2008 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERIN KINCAID | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/18/2009 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERIN KINCAID | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/24/2010 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | COSSETTE BOWLES | $ 903,425 |
In case you wondered about the name, the acronym is ‘ANTHEM’ but apparently the actual nonprofit? name is “Strong Families”
Strong Families Dallas
Alliance for North Texas Healthy Effective Marriages (ANTHEM)
1201 Elm street
Dallas, TX 75270
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to deliver marriage education services to 8,360 married and engaged couples and persons interested in marriage, 5,910 non-married expectant parents and 3,445 high school students over the project period. ANTHEM will also launch a public awareness campaign to reach all Dallas-area residents.
(I tend to look up addresses; here it is all in one):
-
Anthem Strong Families | Anthem Dallas
Dallas Black Marriage Day. image. Anthem Strong Families. 12800 Hillcrest Road, Suite#A124 Dallas, TX 75230. Office: 214-426-0900. Fax: 214-426-0906 …
http://www.anthemnorthtexas.org/index.php?option=com…id=1… – Cached -
Providers in your area – Twogether in Texas (another grants recipient)
Alliance for North Texas Healthy Effective Marriages 12800 Hillcrest Road, Ste A124 Dallas,TX 75230 214-426-0900 twogether@anthemnorthtexas.org …
http://www.twogetherintexas.com/UI/RIAddresses.aspx – Cached – Similar -
Dallas TX computer system consultants | Find computer system …
computer system consultants for Dallas TX, TX. … 2.9 mi; View Phone (214) 426- 0900;12800 Hillcrest Rd Ste 124, Dallas, TX 75230 map · more info | Enhance …
directory.dallasnews.com/dallas–tx+tx/computer+system+consultants.zq.html – Cached -
AllPages.com – Mental Health Specialists, Dallas, Yellow Pages …
Business Types: Mental Health Specialists. Bowles Cosette Psychothrpst 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 124. Dallas, TX 75230-1560. Phone: (972) 490-1556 …
tx.allpages.com/dallas/health-medical/…/mental-health-specialists/ – Cached -
YiPpIe! – Dallas Marriage & Family Counselors – Dallas, TX
Gadol Irwin PhD 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 224. Dallas, TX 75230 ….. S MD,8330 Meadow Road Suite 124,Dallas,TX,75231,(214)369-9236 Prestonwood Counseling …
1499.yippie.biz/tx/dallas/ – Cached
It has no links programs targeted to mothers (I guess welfare is supposed tohandle that). Why SHOULD it? after all 93.086 is Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood — not motherhood. Responsible Fathers will know how to keep the Moms in line, right? And here is the “Strong Fathers” rhetoric, which definitely targets (negatively) single mothers — if all these are laid at our feet for not keeping a man in the home:
Growing up in a fatherless home has a big price. Children from a fatherless home are:
- 5 times more likely to commit suicide
- 32 times more likely to run away
- 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
- 14 times more likely to commit rape
- 9 times more likely to drop out of school
- 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
- 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
- 20 times more likely to end up in prison
BUT THEN AGAIN, they also might end up in the White House, USA< where they can start more Fatherhood.gov programs (and a video linking to one is on the site). Or at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, or elsewhere, running research on the importance of fathers, and being very well recognized for it…
THIS is funded by the US Goverment, “OFA” OpDiv:
Strong Families Dallas
Strong Families Dallas (SFD) is the 5 year project awarded to Anthem Strong Families by the Federal Office of Family Assistance and funded through the Administration for Children and Families. The purpose of SFD is to offer free 8-12 hour fun, interactive relationship skill workshops to the people of Dallas.
Here is a 2011 “webinar transcript” (obviously partial) talking about this “HEALTHY MARRIAGE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH THE COURTS”
A bit more on this “ANTHEM” — which I was able to find (same grant, I gather) in USAspending.gov. This find confirms the grant was taken from welfare funds:
- Total Dollars:$2,885,849
- Transactions:1 – 5 of 5 (of the two recipients, both were taking TANF funding to promote marriage).
Transaction Number # 1
|
|||||||||||||
Its DUNS # is 360770486 (DUNS = “Dun & Bradstreet” trading#, used for groups contracting or getting grants from the US Gov’t as well; knowing this # can help search a single organization which goes under more than one name, a.k.a. FVPF, etc.) It has no “State application ID” (SAI) # for what that’s worth.
The term “FE” on a grant — i.e., 90FE0072 seems to be code for “FATHERHOOD EDUCATION” (trust me, I’ve seen enough). So whether or not it SAYS “marriage/family” on the front, the purpose is Fatherhood promotion.
this street address (googlemaps) is ? labeled opposite some “Institute of Metabolic Disease”
The Initiative above is likely a grants program (HHS, I’d guess), and I’ll bet that one or both are receiving access visitation grants from the Attorney General’s Office.. This is Dallas Fort-Worth area…. The NTFI resides at a college “Business Incubation Center” according to a news bulletin, it operates out of a college.
BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTER BUSINESS PROFILES March 2011
Bill J. Priest Campus of El Centro College Dallas County Community College District
1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, TX 75215, (214) 860-5851
The Dallas County Community College District officially opened the Business Incubation Center June 4, 1990. An integral part of the Bill J. Priest Campus, 1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, Texas, the Business Incubation Center has just over 30,000 square feet of space available for businesses located on site. Designed as a corporate headquarters facility, the Incubation Center offers cost-shared equipment and services for up to 50 small business owners.
The following is a profile of the businesses that are associated with Business Incubation Center as of March 2011. (And on the list):
NORTH TEXAS FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE, Valerie Ballard, SUITE 123, (214) 884-7020: A regional partnership of community and faith-based agencies promoting responsible fatherhood by providing for male children, teens and adults educational workshops, mentoring, job skills assessments and training, counseling, household products and clothing. They also provide career counseling & job training for ex-offenders, assists families become [i.e., “in becoming”]…homeowners, and computer technology training for jailed offenders.
“…When you donate $125 on behalf of a family member, friend or yourself, we will create a memorial fund in honor of the recipient. Anyone may contribute to the memorial fund, at any time…All donations are tax deductible under our 501(C)3 non-profit organization. ” and “The Why Knot? program is designed to help men develop a positive view of marriage. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) developed Why Knot? to help men understand the benefits of marriage…” etc.
Well, let’s see….. where is this North Texas Fatherhood Initiative nonprofit registered?
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/search.php
(So far — going to 4th search site — haven’t found anything “North Texas Fatherhood Initiative.”)
Apparently in Texas (and DNK where else) one may form an “Unincorporated Nonprofit Organization,” meaning, no registered agent:
Nonprofit Corporations: Not all non-profit organizations are filed with the Secretary of State. Many, but not all, non-profit organizations chose to incorporate. A nonprofit corporation is created by filing a certificate of formation with the secretary of state in accordance with the Texas Business Organizations Code (“BOC”). “Nonprofit corporation” means a corporation no part of the income of which is distributable to members, directors, or officers [BOC, Section 22.001(5)]. A nonprofit corporation may be created for any lawful purpose, or purposes permitted by the BOC. Not all nonprofit corporations are entitled to exemption from state or federal taxes.
Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations: Section 252.001 of the BOC defines an unincorporated nonprofit association as an unincorporated organization consisting of three or more members joined by mutual consent for a common, nonprofit purpose. All unincorporated nonprofit associations, whether or not the entities are tax exempt, are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, Chapter 252 of the BOC. The Act addresses a limited number of major issues relating to nonprofit associations; namely, the authority of the nonprofit association to acquire, hold and transfer property in its own name; the authority to sue and be sued as a separate legal entity; and the contract and tort liability of an association’s officers and its members. If you need further information regarding these provisions or how they might affect your association, you should contact your own legal counsel.
An unincorporated nonprofit association may, but is not required to, file with the secretary of state a statement appointing an agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of the nonprofit association. The filing of the statement does not represent the creation of the nonprofit association; it simply provides a method for a nonprofit association to receive notice of any lawsuit brought against it.
(one can also look at the 990s through these sites).
| EIN: | 113774629 | ||
| Name: | Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative — Google | ||
Location:  |
PO Box 764274 Dallas, TX 75376 |
||
| County: | Dallas County | ||
| Ruling Date: | 2006 (Approximate year when founded) | ||
| IRS Type: | 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations… | ||
| Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): | 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public | ||
| NTEE: |
P50 – Personal Social Services | ||
| Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) | 12/2009 | ||
| Total Revenue | $67,520 | ||
| Total Assets: | $9,811 | ||
For an idea just how popular the idea is of forming a corporation (profit or nonprofit) in the “healthy marriage” field, see this search:
(Corporation Wiki: “Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative“) (it pulls up similar titles in many other states. Click on any and get a simple diagram of the Board of Directors — whether current or not is not my issue… Probably taken from searching Secretary of State or IRS information)….This one has 5 people, including Ms. Ballard, above….
Apparently (per “TAGGS.hhs.gov”) this group got only a single $50K grant in 2006, and were up and running? If they received any more federal funding after that, I haven’t found it yet (however, my database skills aren’t professionally trained….)…
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 90IJ0623 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-24-2006 | 949423417 | $ 50,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2006 Total: | $ 50,000 | |||||||
To search USASPENDING.gov, one needs (or it’d help) a DUNS# which here, is 949423417
They are top-down (HHS) funded under healthy marriage. Meanwhile, in TEXAS there is also a “Council on Family Violence” supposedly keeping some watch on the Healthy Marriage promotion so it doesn’t promote staying together for a healthy family and ending up in a homicide or other violence. I imagine this ALSO is public funding, and it’s informative about the healthy marriage funding, too: I notice, it reads:
Please note that Healthy Marriage programs do not provide intervention for couples undergoing serious marital or family problems and stresses, nor do these programs provide counseling. It could be potentially dangerous for an individual in an abusive relationship to participate in a healthy marriage program. The key is to do whatever is needed to ensure your safety and / or the safety of your children. There are services and resources available to assist with this issue. For help and information, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
The Board of Directors of THIS nonprofit (presumably) has a “Chief Executive Officer Emeritus” Sheryl Cates, who can be seen on the “Telling Amy’s Story” video referenced on the “Family Justice Center Alliance web pages, right underneath an interview with Casey Gwinn & Ellen Pence. This video was produced from Penn State. It’s a small world, I guess)
NOW THAT WE SEE AT LEAST IN TEXAS, COLORADO, OKLAHOMA AND WASHINGTON, A LOT OF “FATHERHOOD” IS “FEDERAL” THE QUESTION COMES UP — WHEN THE PROMOTION OF MARRIAGE & FATHERHOOD IS VOLUNTARY, HOW CAN PEOPLE BE PERSUADED TO CONSUME THE CLASSES, THEREBY CONTINUING TO JUSTIFY THE PROGRAMMING (WEBSITES, BOOTCAMPS, SEMINARS, BOOK SALES, ETC.)??
(I mean, after all, most healthy marriage program recipients are not judges, and so can’t just order it, like AFCC judges can. And the research professionals are out researching and gathering the fatherhood data and running institutes and conferences (Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brookings,Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, etc.) so they are busy…)
Well, in March 2011, here is a nice webinar to explain some of the basics:
NATIONAL HEALTH MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER
Opportunities to Partner with the Courts Webinar….
The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC) will host a webinar entitled, Healthy Marriage Programs: Opportunities to Partner with Courts on Thursday, March 31, 2011 from 1:00 – 2:30pm (E.S.T.).
Courts deal with a range of people who could benefit from relationship education—couples filing for divorce, parents involved in the child support system, and youth who are processed for misdemeanors as well as felonies are among them. Some Healthy Marriage programs have developed fruitful partnerships with court administrators and/or judges to facilitate referrals. Speakers at this webinar will discuss the potential benefits of such partnerships, how they can be established, and how court-referred participants are profiting from Healthy Marriage program participation.
Webinar Speakers
Alicia Davis, J.D., Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts, will discuss the types of cases that courts could refer to Healthy Marriage programs, how program managers can establish partnerships with the courts, and how approaches for forming these partnerships will vary by state.
Lynda Williams, Drug Court Coordinator, Dallas County, TX. will discuss the types of cases she refers to the ANTHEM Healthy Marriage program and why; how the referral process works; and the extent to which the Dallas County drug court finds this partnership beneficial.
Ann Bruce, Program Manager, Building Healthy Marriages, Weld County, CO., will discuss how her program’s partnership with the courts was formed, whether it is a significant referral source of participants, and the extent to which clients referred from the courts are a good match for the type of services that her program delivers.
Rich Batten, Program Manager, National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC), will moderate this session.
I’m figuring this is probably the same Alicia Davis, J.D. a member of the Court Improvement Project Program here:
Ms. Alicia Davis, J.D. Family Unit Supervisor, SCAO Colorado State Court Administrator’s Office 1300 Pennsylvania Street Denver, CO 80203
and others, such as various judges, and
Ms. Susan L. Blumberg, Ph.D. Child and Family Program Specialist Administration for Children and Families, Region 8 1961 Stout St. 9th floor Denver, CO 80294 {{relates to welfare & foster care, this link. }}
Alicia Davis
Alicia Davis, Principal Court Management Consultant, has expertise in court-community collaboration, program development, data-sharing, child, family and probate law, and alternative dispute resolution. {ADR or “mediation,” essentially — is an AFCC hallmark)Her education includes a J.D. from the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, and a B.A. from the University of California at Santa Barbara in Spanish and English Literature.
Colorado State Courts (evidently) have an “OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION” (or “ODR”) — as follows:
The Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) exists to establish and make available dispute resolution programs and services within the Colorado Judicial Branch. Through its sixty-plus contract mediators and neutrals, ODR offers mediation and other services across the state. ODR also provides information about dispute resolution in Colorado and nationally, and coordinates training for judicial officers and court staff .
“Mediators and other ADR professionals are independent contractors for the Office of Dispute Resolution and not judicial employees.
All available positions will be advertised on the Colorado Judicial Department’s main website under Careers.” (Click, for an overview).
If these are “contract” mediators — their “contracts” as either professional fees (or if they are operating as a nonprofit, etc.) would show up under VENDOR payments to either city or county. Their services are aimed at indigent /poor people, who are encouraged to settle out of court — and the fees, paid by one presumes probably by the local county. OH — and of course, at times (depending on the situation) they might be receiving help from a subgrantee of the A/V fatherhood funds to states.
Simply — as with Parenting Coordination, one simply needs to connect the dots — and teach Marriage Program Recipients how to match up their programs with the courts and prisons.
Another funds recipient from Arizona (Dr. Leo Godzich) has an organization that was at one point connected with a kill-the-gays movement in Uganda — while taking federal marrriage (a.k.a. fatherhood) monies. And belongs to a mega-church. And wrote this book:
Men and women are different. That probably doesn’t come as a surprise to you, but most couples are eventually surprised by it. To improve your relationship, you not only have to learn how to understand the differences between men and women, but how to enjoy discovering those differences on a daily basis for the rest of your lives.
((Let us teach you. Buy the book!))
This is not a one-sided look at men or at women; it is a call to restore dignity in marriage by inspiring increased cooperation, a renewal in humility and personal responsibility while increasing joy and intimacy. Learn how to develop a vision for your marriage together, a mutual understanding of how magnificent it can be—and follow the practical steps you can take to make your marriage magnificent. Loaded with deep and engaging insights, these exciting explanations will help you realize how to turn resentment to rejoicing, tension to togetherness, confusion to commitment, and loneliness to loveliness.
This book is a sometimes stunning, always inspiring, and frequently funny examination of how men and women differ—and how to celebrate those differences to make a marriage that fulfills its purposes, and models a healthy marriage relationship to other
| Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/22/2008 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/17/2009 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/24/2010 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | AZ | 85022 | MARICOPA | 362992336 | $ 1,250,000 |
Yes, this was money taken from TANF, or welfare, as another database shows:
| Recipient: | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT 13422 NORTH CAVE CREEK RD , PHOENIX, ARIZONA |
| Reason for Modification: | |
| Program Source: | 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families |
This funding began in 2006. FOr a comparison, in 2006, the same group contributed to opposing same-sex marriage in Arizona, under “NAME” — meaning it was taking from TANF for political activity:
PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA C-02-2006 (ANTI-GAY)
The National Association of Marriage Enhancement
13422 N Cave Creek Rd, Ste 3
Phoenix, AZ 85022
05/16/06 – $5,000.00 – Cash – Filed: 06/30/06
10/17/07 – $2,000.00 – Cash – Filed: 06/16/08
And in 2008, they helped organize a marriage conference in Uganda:
Sunday, 14th September, 2008
E-mail article Print article By Joyce Namutebi DR. Martin Ssempa, a pastor at Makerere Community Church, has received an award for his fight against homosexuality.
Ssempa and his wife Tracey received the plague from Apostle Alex Mitala, the overseer of the National Fellowship of Born Again Churches in Uganda.
This was during the “Great Marriage Celebration” organised by the National Association of Marriage Enhancement in conjunction with the National Fellowship of Born Again Pentecostal Churches in Uganda at Nakivubo Stadium over the weekend.
Mitala led hundreds of couples who converged at the stadium from various parts of the country into a prayer for Ssempa to continue being the torch-bearer in the fight against the vice in Uganda.
Just for the record, this organization was likely registered at all to received HHS Healthy Marriage Funds…. This is Ssempa supporting the infamous “kill-the-gays” legislation.
(ARTICLE IS FEB 2010; as far as I know, this bill is still “live” in Uganda….) Since October of last year, Uganda has been the focus of international attention due to a proposal in their Parliament which would ban homosexual behavior of any kind via the death penalty for HIV people who engage in homosexual behavior and life in prison for others who attempt such behavior. One of the chief supporters of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been Martin Ssempa, a pastor in Uganda’s capital city of Kampala and well-known among Western evangelicals. Rev. Ssempa this week has called for a “million man march” which he hopes will bring large crowds out to support the harsh legislation. In addition, Ssempa has organized several news conferences in order to rally support among Ugandans for the bill.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 (click here for full text) would make any homosexual contact subject to life in prison, or even death if the participants are HIV positive. Those who know of homosexuals but do not report this information to the police could face fines and jail time. No exceptions are made for clergy or health care professionals.
So glad to know that HHS has discretion in WHO gets the marriage funding….NAME did. In case you are wondering what they might be doing in Uganda, it seems that world wide travel on behalf of helping reduce the welfare caseload in the USA and help poor fatherless children HERE, this appears to be a conference schedule, UNDER this nonprofit organization, and for marriage education. Wouldn’t you like to see the tax return? Although it says “NATIONAL” clearly “INTERnational is meant…”
I clicked under “MEETINGS” and found quite the list of locales:
heck out some of the upcoming speaking engagements of Dr. Leo and Molly Godzich. If there is one in your area, we hope to see you there! If you would like to schedule a Together Forever Weekend or Pastor Leo for a sunday, please call our office 602-404-2600.
June 19
Bologna, Italy
La Parola Della Grazia
June 26
Torino, Italy
Chiesa Evangelica Internazionale
July 2-3
Alicante, Spain
Iglesia Rio de Vida
July 10
Paris, France
Charisma Eglise Chretienne
July 15-17
Irvine, Scotland
Bridge Church
August 19-20
Cincinnati, OH
Towne Worship Center
September 2-3
Harrison, OH
Church on Fire
September 6-10
Lima, Peru
Conferencia Salvemos a la Familia
September 22-24
Phoenix, AZ
International Marriage Conference
and back to Tennessee for September 28-October 1
Nashville, TN
AACC World Conference (that’s American Association of Christian Counselors).
THIS LINK (with youtube) ADVERTISES how there should be a NAME Center in your church — or community (i.e., advertising)
and apparently many churches said “Yes!” to Goodzich and joined the ‘war on divorce’ — such as at THIS link:
And they also rescue pastors:
(granted, this seems to be before the marriage funding began from HHS): “In 2003, Pastor Leo and Molly Godzich started the Pastoral Rescue Center. It was founded on the idea: “how can pastors lead people when they cannot lead their own home.” Pastors’ marriages often go through struggling seasons like anyone else, but the predicament is they do not know who they can talk to. Where do they go for help? What will happen if members of the congregation find out that their home life is falling apart?
{{Not to worry. Most congregations are still pre-occuppied with not noticing and not reporting or, in fact, doing anything to stop domestic violence and child abuse among the “saints.” Keep the smiles on, keep the music playing, the tithes will keep coming}}
NAME responded to this thought by expanding its ministry (=expanded the scope of its business) to target pastors and church leaders. The pastoral rescue center has been able to restore so many marriages from divorce in complete confidentiality. The NAME headquarters is located in Phoenix, AZ so many pastors come and stay in a hotel while having secret counseling appointments, or they have call in appointements to the headquarter office
But the concept does rather bring one to the relationship between Pastor Leo and the disgraced (?) John Hagee. It’s a bit hard to find information on this not laced with theology, but one blog notes (of Hagee) — in context, this is about Marriage Enhancement —
John Hagee had an adulterous affair with a woman and admitted to immorality in front of his church.
Pastor John Hagee then divorced the mother of his two children and married a younger woman (Diana Castro, now Diana Hagee) from that same congregation. Pastor John Hagee willfully abused his position of trust and power to take advantage of a younger gullible woman and cheat on his wife.
(not exactly something new under the son, however…..)
So what happened after John Hagee admitted to cheating and abusing his power? Did he repent and pursue becoming a better person and living a life based on Biblical principles? Did people stop following his ministry? The answers are very obvious. John Hagee married the woman he cheated on his wife with and immediately became the pastor of another congregation- the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas.
Pastor John Hagee went on to push his evangelical, speaking in tongues Cornerstone Church into becoming a megachurch that televises his weekly sermons. Nor did he do so for free.
If you visit the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas or watch Pastor John Hagee on his television show, you will see him perched on top of an enormous white and blue throne watching his massive choir or jazz band. When they finish, John Hagee will approach the pulpit for his favorite time of the week- tithe time! Pastor John Hagee has his congregation members raise their money towards the sky and repeat after him “Give and it shall be given.” He then instructs his audience that “When you give, it ualifies you to receive God’s abundance. If God gives to you before you give to him, God himself will becom a liar… If you’re not prospering it’s because you’re not GIVING!” Contained in those few sentences is everything that is unscriptural and wrong with the New-Age “Prosperity Message” pushed on gullible congregations by megachurch pastors nationwide.
Pastor John Hagee has grown into an enormously wealthy man. In the year 2001, his organization filed revenues of $18.3 million dollars with the IRS. What was John Hagee’s personal compensation package worth? More than $1.25 million dollars. His nonprofit organization, GETV, has a mission statement reading “Spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Somehow I think his nearly 8,000 acre Texas ranch does not help that mission. Not only does Pastor John and his wife Diana Hagee own that sprawling ranch, but they also have a 5,275 foot, 6 bedroom mansion in one of San Antonio’s most exclusive gated communities (The Dominion). The house is appraised at $700,000.
So who is monitoring Pastor John Hagee and his largesse? Who ensures that the millions of dollars that gullible grandmothers give him is spent to further spread the gospel of Jesus Christ? 3 of the 4 Directors who monitor the board of his nonprofit GETV foundation are his direct family members- his wife, Diana; his son, Matthew; and himself.
Pastor John Hagee – Cornerstone Church Ministry, Heresy, Divorce & Dirty Deeds
“All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” – John Hagee
Of course that predates the male prostitute scandal. “Haggard, 52, resigned as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and was fired from New Life Church amid allegations that he paid a male prostitute for sex and used methamphetamine. ….As part of a severance package with his former church, Haggard agreed to leave Colorado Springs for a period and not speak publicly about the scandal, church officials said at the time. But he never really disappeared, making news when he relocated his family to Arizona and solicited financial support in an e-mail.
One restoration team member, H.B. London, said a return to vocational ministry in less than four or five years would be dangerous for Haggard, his family, former church and Colorado Springs.
“To sit on the sidelines for a person with that kind of personality {ego/greed/drive/lust, etc.) and gifting is probably like being paralyzed,” said London, who counsels pastors through a division of Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian group. “If Mr. Haggard and others like him feel like they have a call from God, they rationalize that their behavior does not change that call.”
Haggard, who declined to be interviewed, is not the first fallen evangelical figure to agree to oversight and then balk. In the late 1980s, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart confessed to liaisons with a prostitute, begged forgiveness and submitted to the Assemblies of God, his denomination. Swaggart was ordered not to preach for a year, but resumed broadcasts after a few weeks and was defrocked.
* * * * Haggard’s support system includes Leo Godzich, who runs a Phoenix-based marriage ministry and said he met with Haggard at least once a week for more than a year. Godzich said Haggard remains committed to restoration, has paid a high price and still has much to offer. * * * *
“If all men are honest, all men are liars and deceivers,” Godzich said. “Once someone is gifted and called, that is something they generally cannot escape. They will be used in that regard again.”
Yes, this is definitely a type of religion that believes in USING people — God uses people, and so do they. SO what’s wrong with that, eh???
And NAME ave opened many marriage centers, particularly in churches. THIS list (see site) is huge, and a bit disturbing only partial listing here:
| United States | ||
| Alabama Huntsville |
The Rock Family Worship Center 2300 Memorial Pkwy SW |
256-533-9292 http://www.the rockfwc.org |
| Alaska Wasilla |
Wasilla Assembly of God PO Box 872010 |
907-376-5732 http://www.wasillaag.org |
| Arizona Avondale |
Cornerstone Christian Center 11301 W Indian School Rd |
623-877-3220 http://www.cornerstoneaz.org |
| Arizona Chino Valley |
Word of Life Assembly 590 W. Road 1 North |
928-636-4224 http://www.cvwola.com |
| Arizona Flagstaff |
Lamb of God Bible Church 2615 E 7th Ave |
928-714-1170 http://www.logbc.org |
| Arizona Gilbert |
Mission Community Church 4450 E. Elliot Rd |
(480) 892-5505 |
| Arizona Kingman |
Kingman First Assembly of God 1850 Gates |
928-753-3529 http://www.kfaonline.org |
NOt the best post, but did I make my point about WHO is paying for Fatherhood Funds — and who knows what is being done with them?
Just remember that, and check the US Congress “House Ways and Means Committee” to track the next installments.
Happy Fatherhood Day; Be well and prosper ….
SHARE THIS POST on...
AFCC Coordinates Parenting Coord (and the courts…); Democrats spearhead next Fatherhood Legislation HR 2193.
Fathers, Parents — what’s the diff?
For the Democrats Spearheading the “My Fatherhood Package is bigger than your (Republican) package” legislation, see last post and remember how quickly dropped the burden of Democrat Rep. Weiner who’d been sexting about his “package” on-line while awaiting the birth of his firstborn, and then lied about it.
Now about how Parenting Coordination gets pushed through:
(It helps if one has a Supreme Court Judge also an AFCC member….)
COORDINATING PARENTING COORDINATION IN FLORIDA:
Any cause with such beautiful pictures associated with it must be a good cause. Anyhow, here’s the page of links:
FLAFCC will continue its role as convener to encourage multi-disciplinary collaboration in the development of Parenting Coordination throughout the state. The Chapter will post information as it arises to keep those interested abreast of the progress in this area. From time to time, the information posted will include requests for comment for you to consider.
Members click here for Parenting Coordination Ethical Guidelines
For more information, please contact Linda Fieldstone, PC Taskforce Coordinator, atLFieldstone@jud11.flcourts.org.
MOST RECENT INFORMATION RELATED TO PARENTING COORDINATION IN
FLORIDA:
- Section 2, Chapter 2009-180, Laws of Florida, formally establishes parenting coordination as a “child-focused alternative dispute resolution process.” Effective date of new legislation: October 1, 2009. Access legislation here (parenting coordination legislation begins on page 3).
- The Family Law Rules Committee of The Florida Bar has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to adopt a proposed “fast-track” rule of procedure and form in order to implement the new parenting coordination legislation. The Court has assigned the petition Case Number SC09-1822. The initial petition can be accessed here. To view other documents related to the petition, go here (scroll down to SC09-1822 and click on the desired document).
ARCHIVED AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION RELATED TO PARENTING COORDINATION (CLICK ON DESIRED DOCUMENT:
- Formerly proposed Parenting Coordination Statute and related changes to Chapter 61, Florida Statutes
- Formerly proposed Parenting Coordination Rule of Procedure, Approved 09/12/2008
- Proposed Parenting Coordination Rule of Procedure Approved 10/30/2007
- Formerly proposed Ethical Guidelines for Parenting Coordinators, Approved 10/30/2007
- FLAFCC PC Taskforce, Final Adopted Report 12/16/2006
- Formerly proposed Parenting Coordination Administrative Order – Final Draft
- Former Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente’s Memo to the Chief Judges, 07/07/2005
- AFCC PC Task Force: Guidelines for Parenting Coordinators
- Report of the Parenting Coordination Workgroup Appointed by Former Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
- Former Governor Jeb Bush’s Veto of 2004 Parenting Coordination Legislation
- 2004 Parenting Coordination Legislation (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640)
- Florida Senate Interim Project Report, November 2004
FLAFCC PARENTING COORDINATION CLEARINGHOUSE
The FLAFCC Parenting Coordination Taskforce developed a Parenting Coordination Clearinghouse as a “One-Stop Shop” for all forms related to parenting coordination in those Judicial Circuits that have implemented parenting coordination in order to encourage collaboration among the parenting coordination programs throughout Florida. FLAFCC does not endorse any form or procedure included in this PC Clearinghouse and assumes no responsibility for the content of the downloadable materials in the Clearinghouse. It is the responsibility of each Florida Judicial Circuit/PC Clearinghouse participant to update any forms submitted to the Clearinghouse. To verify that the forms and information are accurate and current, FLAFCC recommends that interested individuals contact the Family Court Managers of their Judicial Circuits directly. FLAFCC continues to encourage the development of best practices in the utilization of parenting coordination in Florida.
From Chief Judge Barbara Parlente, reassuring us that Domestic Violence Advocates say Parenting Coordination (THIS version of the legislation) is OK:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chief Judges
FR: Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
WHEN July 7, 2005
RE: Use of Parenting Coordinators for High Conflict Cases
At the conclusion of the 2004 legislative session, Governor Jeb Bush vetoed a bill designed to provide guidance for the appointment and use of parenting coordinators to assist with high conflict dissolution cases where shared parenting schedules cannot be agreed upon by parents. This was due in part to concerns regarding the use of parenting coordinators when domestic violence is at issue in cases. In his veto message, he requested me to review the use of parenting coordinators to ensure that parents’ paramount rights are not compromised when this resource is accessed.
In response to the veto message, I created a workgroup to develop a model administrative order, a copy of which is attached. The administrative order was written by representatives from the following professions: judges, psychologists, certified mediators, domestic violence advocates and family lawyers. It has been reviewed by the Supreme Court Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, and they recommend that I send it to all chief judges. If your circuit presently uses parenting coordinators or is contemplating the use of them in the future, you are strongly urged to review this administrative order and adopt it to provide guidance to judges, family lawyers and parties who may benefit from the use of parenting coordinators.
OK, . . . . . . . . . .
The word “high-conflict” means what? Is there a legal meaning, outside the AFCC code-talk for “it wasn’t violent, it was just a dispute” and the habit of blaming BOTH parents without distinguishing when ONE parent might actually have something worth protesting — such as abuse, or habitual violation of court orders, etc.
This is reminiscent of (reminds me of) punishing an entire classroom for behavior of just a few…. And that’s probably a great connection, because the overall trend of this organization includes ongoing expansion and continually treating adults (ALL adults in a custody dispute) as if BOTH of them are parents.
Let me take that back — not quite BOTH parents when it comes down to actually writing the report (see handbook sample at PCANH.org — before they change it if they’ve yet noticed this post (which is why I posted segments).. In that situation, the coaches are coached how to blame moms. But in talking about them a little more of a public profile, it’s BOTH the parents that just can’t get along and thus have “high conflict.”
This might be a good place to remind us that the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce is clear on one thing: among the lowest paid professions one can enter with an undergraduate degree in it is counseling-psychology ($29,000). Petroleum-engineering: $129,000.
“Counseling psychology was the only major for which bachelor’s-degree recipients had lower median earnings than high-school graduates. The report also considers, by major, the likelihood that a person will go on to earn a graduate degree, and how much, on average, that boosted their earnings. Seventy percent of those counseling-psychology majors go on to obtain a graduate degree, and it raises their earnings by 67 percent.
The report uncovered significant earnings differences by gender and race. Those differences were smaller in more-technical fields, Mr. Carnevale noted. Men outearn women in each group of majors, and nearly every individual major, in many cases significantly. For instance, men who majored in math earn a median of $75,000, while women earn a median of $54,000. Some of that can be explained by occupation, Mr. Carnevale said: Many of those women who major in math go on to be teachers. The only majors with which women earned more than men were visual and performing arts, physiology, and information sciences. (Some majors had sample sizes too small to analyze by gender.
The report also looks at earnings by race for groups by broad categories of majors. Whites outearned all the other groups in 10 of the 15 groups of majors, and tied with African Americans for the highest earnings in one category, education. Asians had the highest median earnings in the remaining groups of majors: biology and life sciences, health, law and public policy, and psychology and social work.
I’ve noted recently how many Ph.D. psychiatrists and psychologists are leaders in AFCC, however, the definite emphasis of the association IS to incorporate psychologists. It does not appear to me that the profession of lawyers alone needed a lot of promotion, would you say? This group pushes psychology, and has been very successful overall. When this also branches out into sales and marketing (through the courts) the possibilities are endless, especially when it’s downloadable information (from a link to a pdf, or DVDs that can be drop-shipped while the author or expert is out running (and taping) the next set of seminars… Great business if you can get it.
Another review of this same Georgetown Study from The Root.com says:
The careers that paid the most for African Americans included computer networking and telecommunications ($54,000), architects ($55,000) and medical technologies technicians ($55,000).
What we found interesting was the disparity in pay between whites and blacks. For instance, while the average African-American architect makes $55,000, his white counterpart makes $65,000. While general engineering pays African Americans $60,000 per year, white Americans in that field average $76,000. African-American computer scientists earn $61,000, but white American computer scientists earn $80,000. Interesting
As for the disparity in pay in this so-called postracial society, perhaps the question should be, why is it that when blacksdo invest in education, they are paid less and more likely to be laid off than other groups?
Read more at Black Enterprise.
Well, perhaps the fact that a targeted clientele to keep in court-associated programs MAY play a factor also. There is no question that many programs are definitely aimed at (and facilitated by) one or the other parent’s use of any Title IV-D funding, i.e., welfare. This is partly where the marriage promotion funding lives, and works (that, plus the child support arena).
Anyhow ….
RE: Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente — that’s of the Florida Supreme Court:
Petite powerhouse Barbara Pariente is used to being in control. It’s evident from her stellar trajectory from federal law clerk to Florida Supreme Court justice in two dozen years.
She’s a fighter (and married to another judge) and refused to even let cancer keep her down:
The shocking diagnosis brought Pariente to her knees—but only temporarily. She fought back by doing what she does best: going into full analytical mode.
Anything but a passive patient, she kept a fat notebook of all her medical records, files of research, and ques tioned leading authorities on breast cancer, seeing at least 15 doctors in all.
“She attacked cancer with the same type of meticulous preparation she has used throughout her legal and judicial career,” said husband Fred Hazouri, a Fourth District Court of Appeal judge.
Sister of a psychotherapist, and a stepmother:
Susanne Pariente, a psychotherapist, says what she loves most about her older sister is “her love of family and her sense of humor. She is fun to be around, really down to earth, with this great energy. She makes you feel special.” . . .
Barbara Pariente’s family is a happy blend, with a son from her first marriage and a son and daughter from Hazouri’s first marriage.
At her swearing-in ceremony July 2, 27-year-old Joshua Pariente Koehler said, “It’s the priority that she places on personal relationships that really makes her so special.” Turning to his mother, he said: “Mom, you are the very best person that I know.”
And David Hazouri, a Miami lawyer, said: “Barbara is as genuine a person as I have ever met. I have never had to read her or wonder what she was really thinking. Her intentions are unflaggingly filled with the hope of success for those she cares for. In a family that is the product of two second marriages, this quality has made us more than simply functional; it has made us whole.”
(It’s a very wonderful, and long, biography here…) Well let’s talk business here:
AFCC connections. Of course this is an AFCC judge I’d assume:
The Florida Chapter of the Association of Family, Court, and Community {{HUH?? another ‘AFCC spinoff? or the reporter got the name mixed up?}} Professionals is teaming up with the Florida Supreme Court Family Court Steering Committee to lead a symposium in early November called Enhancing Collaboration to Better Serve Children and Families.”
The FLAFCC is a statewide chapter of the international
AFCC and is dedicated to the constructive resolution of family disputes. Members of ‘FLAFCC include attorneys, judges, teachers, CPAs, social workers, and doctrs — professionals involved with developing and refining techniques to assist families in resolving their disputes.
Keynote Speaker Florida Supreme Court Justice
Barbara Pariente will discuss collaborative law at the inaugural conference of the FLAFCC,** and the two-day event will feature sessions such as “Collaboration and Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” “Innovations in Court Practice/Family Court Steering Committee Program and Projects,” and “Collaborative and Cooperative Lawyering.”
**AFCC hasnt been in Florida as long as in some other states. See their nonprofit filings if you want to compare…
The FLAFCC board of directors includes President elect Sheldon Finman, an attorney in Ft. Myers; Vice President and 20th Judicial Circuit Court Judge. Hugh Sharnes; and board members 11th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Judith Kreeger, and Joe Hood, a member of The Florida Bar Family Law Section executive council.
At the conference, the FLAFCC will add several people to its board, including Sharon Press, director of the Dispute Resolution Center; First Judicial Circuit Court Judge Kenneth L. Williams; and Ronald Alvarez, a general master in the 15th Judicial Circuit.
The event will take place at the Tampa International Airport on Friday, November 9, and Saturday, November 10. Registration for the full conference before October 2& is $135, or $155 after. For more information about the symposium visit http://www.flafcc.org, or contact FLAFCC Secretary LindaFieldstone at (305)349-5575 or lfieldstone@jud11.flcourts.org.
President Elect
Linda B. Fieldstone, M.Ed.Miami, FLLinda Fieldstone is Supervisor of Family Court Services of the 11th Judicial Circuit and a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator, working with high-conflict families within the Miami-Dade County Domestic Relations Division as a parenting coordinator. Ms. Fieldstone has provided numerous trainings regarding intervention with high-conflict families and parenting coordination, nationally and throughout Florida. She served on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force to develop Guidelines for Parenting Coordination as well as on numerous taskgroups and Florida Supreme Court committees on the subject. She is also a past president of the Florida Chapter of AFCC.
Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., M.S.L
Northampton, MAMarsha Kline Pruett is a licensed clinical psychologist and the Maconda Brown O’Connor Professor at Smith College School for Social Work. She is researcher, mediator, and consultant to couples, attorneys, and judges. Dr. Kline Pruett has a national reputation for the development, implementation, and evaluation of preventive interventions in courts and family-focused community agencies. She has written extensively for academic and lay audiences, coauthoring Your Divorce Advisor (2001) and Partnership Parenting(2009). She is a member of the board of editors of the Family Court Review. She was awarded the AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award in 2004. The California Supporting Fatherhood Involvement (SFI) project is currently a major focus of her intervention and research efforts.
Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Palo Alto, CAMatthew Sullivan is a forensic family psychologist, practicing in Palo Alto, California. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University and his Doctor of Philosophy degree in clinical/community psychology from the University of Maryland. He is currently serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody. He has served on the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination and the American Psychological and American Bar Association working group on legal and psychological interventions with children and families. He is currently the co-chair of the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force.
President
Robert M. Smith, JD
Windsor, CORobert Smith is an attorney and mediator with an emphasis on high-conflict family law cases, and regularly serves as a Child and Family Investigator, Child Legal Representative and Guardian ad Litem in judicial districts throughout Northern Colorado and the Denver Metro area. He received his Bachelor’s degree in English literature from Stanford University in 1961 and a Master of Divinity degree, with an emphasis in counseling, from San Francisco Theological Seminary in 1974. He earned his law degree from California Western School of Law in San Diego in 1995 and is licensed to practice law in Oregon and Colorado.
The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin (NB: ONTARIO, CANADA), AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.
I don’t think it might have occurred to this judge that as a JUDGE (presumably) he was sworn to uphold the Constitution of (his local state) and not Canada? And that as a JUDGe he is to file a disclosure of financial interests — I wonder if he has disclosed “AFCC”?
Pardon me — mea culpa — he IS Canadian. Well, United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, — what difference do national CONSTITUTIONS (or the US Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc.) make after all? Surely we can through the courts completely coordinate our COUNTRIES as well. All that’s necessary is to get the judges (and attorneys and of course psychologists and educators) together and lobby legislators and Governors to pass what we want passed, because after all this is Therapeutic Jurisprudence and we are all good people. Yep…
The task force members are:
The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.
Day One “Learning to Paddle Upstream: Working with High-Conflict Impasse”
Day Two “Navigating Alienation, Allegations and Ethical Dilemmas”**
During day two, participants learn to navigate the rapids associated with the impasses accompanying Alienation & Other Allegations. Alienation has and continues to be a source of controversy and concern for professionals in the field of divorce and family separation. Participants will continue the dialogue and explore alienation within the context of attachment theory. Professionals will be exposed to a broad yet comprehensive view of situations that arise that lead to children resisting contact with a parent. Methods of identification and interventions suited to the work of a parenting coordinator will be highlighted. Among these techniques, participants will explore alternative interventions including the use of alienation continuum, PA genograms and the use of an estrangement scale to document progress in the reunification process.
Notice they couldn’t actually “SAY” child sexual abuse or battery, kidnapping or death threats. Notice how the Alienation is so real to the trainers, but the other (unnamed nouns) are all “Allegations.” Well, “Alienation” is itself an allegation (and disproved psychological theory, but tell that to a psychologist!)
More to the point, these trainings are around $300 each. That doesn’t count what it’s going to cost once Reunification is ordered; Lord help the couple that is going to get Warshak… And yes, they are going to be (or already are) accepted in at least NASW:
Advanced Training Continuing Education Credits:
- 12 CEUs
- Approval Pending from NASW
- Others Pending
Oregon Family Institute (which I have looked at often before, close connections to AFCC) has this banner:
Updated 1/20/11
OFI- TRAINED PARENT COORDINATORS
Please look at the screen below to find listed PC’s we have trained –
When there has been on-going high conflict that is not being resolved by mediation, evaluation or other methods, Parent Coordinators are often selected by the parents, but must be ordered by judges to provide PC services for the case. The role of parent coordinator includes at least five functions:
- Assessment
- Education
- Coordination and case management
- Conflict Management
- Decision-making when the parents can’t agree
Parent Coordinators are often selected by agreement of the parents and their attorneys, but must be ordered by judges to provide PC services for the case.
Payment is made by the parents, or as ordered by the court (some jurisdictions have a way for low-income parents to receive this service paid by the court).
Re: the areas in red, the next steps (in this blog) will contain a little coaching in how to research the nonprofit status of any group that is seeking to function as a parenting coordination recipient of BUSINESS (parent-paid) sent it by courts (and that groups’ association with any existing judges).
Notice for low-income “a way can be found.” This is a telltale indication that some county, state, or federal funding will be providing the payments. “By the court” means by a government entity — which the court IS. The “Court” sometimes forgets (in fact, often forgets) who it owes its existence to — which is the willingness of the public at large to tolerate its help — or abuses — and continue working at tax-producing jobs to fund it. Because there comes a time one cannot get blood out of a stone, and this time is coming pretty soon for the USA, based on our debt, and inflation, and instability of the $$.
I have found several nonprofits in the Florida area (in particular) with some very “odd” 990 filings — like NONE, or blank ones. The membership, however, seems to see no problem with this and just goes out and forms another one. One of these succeeded in crying about domestic violence to the right people, and got some more funding in 2011 to set up supervised visitation center (whether therapeutic or not, I didn’t check).
THIS site is one way to look them up fairly quickly, and highly recommended. not the purpose of OFI –which is to develop (more and more) PROGRAMS to help families, right? Who are these going to benefit, long-term, and state by state?
this is a *.com site that may also help with lookups: Type in “National Association of Parenting Coordinators” (and see if it has an EIN#) you’d be amazed how much pops up. http://www.secstates.com
The one below, probably better, or you can simply figure it out in your state.
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/
SHARE THIS POST on...
Parent Coordination Promoters sure can be Pushy . . . . and the Practice is so Pervasive….
Well this turned out to be an interesting post (see how it concludes). Have a wonderful weekend and if it’s in your country, “Father’s Day.”
This Just Out from “GovTrack” on the House Ways and Means Committee (and predictably, Sponsored by Danny Davis, introduced 6/15/2011):
|
H.R. 2193:
|
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible…
|
H.R. 2193 To amend title IV of the Social Security Act
to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood
and strengthen low-income families,
and for other purposes.
“The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet….”
Democrat sponsors too, this time:
I figure it will be similar to this one, from 2009):
| 06/17/2009 | Davis, Bayh Introduce Legislation To Promote Healthy Families, Active Fatherhood |
With one in three children in the United States living apart from their biological fathers, Representative Danny K. Davis and Senator Evan Bayh are renewing their efforts to promote healthy families and support American fathers who are trying to earn a livable wage and take a more active role in the lives of their children.
Rep. Davis along with Reps. André Carson and Artur Davis today introduced companion legislation in the House called the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 Act, in honor of Representative Julia Carson, the late Indianapolis congresswoman who championed fatherhood reform throughout her long career.
Bayh today introduced his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris, a bill cosponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama in the last Congress. Bayh’s bill is co-sponsored with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris.
“It is a sad and sobering fact that one out of every three kids in America will wake up this Father’s Day without their father present,” Bayh said. “Conceiving a child doesn’t make you a man, but raising one responsibly does. Unfortunately, absentee fathers have become a national epidemic. The result is that 24 million American children are more likely to struggle in school and have emotional and behavioral problems.”
Yeah, emotional and behavioral problems like sexting strange women while your pregnant wife is away at work — or (see recent posts — I can’t recall the name — of key Obama appointee starting a baby in May out of wedlock, and then marrying a newer, better woman the following December, while one’s job description includes the words “healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood” oversight. I DNR exact details but you can see my 2011 posts, there are photos) —
If Obama’s own appointees can’t keep to the standard of responsible fatherhood, why should he inflict the programs on the rest of us, meanwhile constantly diminishing the work of very responsible mothers?
Bayh added, “Our government spends $100 billion a year to deal with the fallout of absent fathers.** The government can’t pass a law to make men good dads, but we can support local programs that specialize in job training, career counseling and financial literacy to help those men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids
What procedures are in place to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys? — To justify it, they say “men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids.” However, even attorney General General Eric Holder has noted (finally, if only in QUICK passing) that in fact, custody is going to batterers.
Recently (6/22/2011) a rapper “Tone Loc” was arrested for felony (not misdemeanor) domestic violence with the mother of this child. He posted $50,000 bail within 3 hours and was out. … (I hope she was able to relocate!). The article sites, falsely, that violation of a restraining order in Calif. results in an arrest. That is not true — if in theory, definitely not in practice:
d for Jennifer Morgan and Milena A. Abreu, Attorneys At Law,
Morgan Albite P.A., Miami & Coral Gables, Palm Beach & Vero Beach, FloridaBorn Anthony Smith, rapper Tone Loc, arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence in Burbank, California over the weekend, is reportedly out on bail, having posted a bond of $50,000 three hours after being hauled into jail.
Known mostly for his rise to fame in the 1980’s with hits like “Wild Thing” and “Funky Cold Medina,” there is little information about exactly what occurred prior to Tone Loc’s arrest.
Police have only indicated that there was a “physical altercation” with the mother of his child.
If true, this situation does not bode well for Tone Loc, because, via the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, California has some of the harshest domestic violence laws in the country.
Whatever those laws are, or aren’t, the father can still get custody and generally also will get visitation too.
Felony domestic violence in California occurs when a person physically strikes their spouse, former spouse, a cohabitant, former cohabitant, a person with which they have or had a dating relationship, a blood relative, or the parent of his or her child.
The difference between felony and misdemeanor, as I read the (California) code is whether or not it causes serious injury. You can check yourself. Simply striking doesn’t constitute felony. For Tone Loc to get this type of arrest, there probably was some injury showing.
No ongoing relationship is necessary, and penalties range from 2 to 4 years in jail and a $6,000 fine.
Additionally, restraining order violations automatically end in arrest.
That’s a bunch of baloney. They only result in arrest of the local police or law enforcement decide to arrest them. Many times they don’t.
California domestic violence law also impacts child custody by requiring judges to make the presumption that granting custody to a batterer is not in the best interest of the child.
SOURCE: Criminal Law News Now.com, sponsored by Morgan Albite, P.A. – in Florida?
As the 2009 public statement from Rep. Davis says:
I am glad President Obama is starting a national conversation to draw public attention to the critical role that fathers play in raising responsible, healthy adults.”
Of course then-President Clinton (a prime example of marital fidelity, & “keep it zipped” Democrat, both before and during the US Presidency) already started that conversation in 1995, responding to Republican “Contract with America.” Why do I start to feel sometimes like a bystander when Democrats & Republicans jockey (as our Congress) for supremacy in the “MY fatherhood programs are bigger than YOURS!” and “Who’s your Daddy!” posturing — and spending?
((Here is Rep. Davis on Tax Day 4/15/2011 introducing “The Children’s Budget Act” and citing to Brookings Institute and The Urban Institute) talking about we need to spend more money on children. For Brookings Institute, read Ron Haskins and others who produce “Fragile Family” and other “Strengthening the Family” reports indicating that marriage reduces poverty and is a great thing for children, which Deomcrat Rep. Anthony Weiner — who according to news “just out” (yesterday) — might be thinking about, about now — and I guess if he steps down at once, he won’t get to vote yes on more fatherhood funding — although he’s about to become one:**
(Thu Jun 16, 9:48 am ET Rep. Anthony Weiner stepping down
Rep. Anthony Weiner plans to announce at a 2 p.m. press conference in Brooklyn, N.Y. Thursday that he has made the decision to resign from Congress amid a growing scandal over his lewd online communications.…Last week, Weiner admitted he had lied about his dealings {{“I was hacked”}} with women he had met online–but insisted he wouldn’t resign. On Saturday, his office announced he had entered “treatment,” after top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, publicly called on him to leave Congress.
Weiner had previously indicated that he wished to speak with *** his wife Huma Abedin, who is pregnant with the couple’s first child, before deciding on his political future. Abedin returned to Washington yesterday following a trip to Africa with her boss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
House Democrats today were scheduled to meet to discuss potential next steps to punish the New York congressman, including possibly stripping him of his committee assignments (he currently sits on the powerful House Energy and Commerce as well as the Judiciary committee), and expelling him from the Democratic caucus.
The scandal, which first broke three weeks ago, continued to deepen this week.
Just yesterday, porn star Ginger Lee held a press conference to announce that the congressman had asked her to lie about their online communications. “I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” Lee said.
Weiner was asked about his Twitter communications with Lee when the scandal broke; he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Lee probably received “pro-forma” messages from his account and that was all.
Lee claims Weiner sent her specific messages about his “package.” She had previously shared her communications with Weiner with the site TMZ.
Lee hired celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred to make her case to a national audience and multiple news outlets report that an Atlanta strip club was already using the scandal to promote her appearance at their venue Wednesday night.
Ah well….Just kidding. I know what time of month it is (this JUNE) and simply looked up the House Ways and Means Committee’s doings. Rep. Davis will always have a warm position in my heart anyhow, for carrying that crown in the US Senate Building and placing it on the top of the royalty-robed Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church in front of plenty of spectators. NOt that he hasn’t done plenty else, but would you buy a fatherhood program from someone who plays along with someone who wants — I mean REALLY wants — to rule the world and really seems to believe Jesus messed up, but He’s got a better idea? (That’s exactly how this cult thinks and talks to, when not money-laundering etc.)
Just for the record, even Attorney General Eric Holder put in JUST a few words hinting there MIGHT be a problem with custody in the court:
Reported at NAFCJ.net:
From the “What Took Them So-Long” category, is this Department of Justice, June 2009 release of remarks by Attorney General Holder which include: “Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system? ” Remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder June 2009
From the horse’s mouth (i.e., DOJ source):
» Justice NewsAttorney General Eric Holder via Video to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment~ Tuesday, June 2, 2009Remarks as prepared for delivery. (I would love to hear a recorded transcript…..)
Good morning and welcome to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.
As you are gathered here in this beautiful location, I hope that you will forge new alliances and a collective leadership that will help identify solutions that will have a lasting impact on the lives of mothers and children traumatized by family violence. I ask that you consider ways the Department of Justice can renew and strengthen its efforts to address this problem. We want to draw upon lessons gleaned from your work in communities throughout the country. We also want to know what has been left undone.
(paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, and then):
Some of the topics that you will address may be more challenging than others. I hope you will especially discuss the most difficult issues I know many of you confront in your work:
- Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system?
- Why are children of color over-represented in the child protection system?
- Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past? If so, what does that relationship look like?
I ask that you explore all of these things while always remembering that the needs of children who are exposed to violence are inextricably linked to the needs of mothers who are the victims of domestic violence.
Well, sorry to say, the fathers’ groups and promoters don’t see it that way…The sponsoring group (which I remember noticing at the time) was t he Office on Violence Against Women, in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCFCJ) and the Family Violence Prevention Fund [basically a fatherhood-funded group at this point. I have written them off. They are not going to confront the custody issues, at all..] has planned this meeting to continue a conversation that began almost a decade ago, at the first National Summit held here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming If Philip Stahl (one of the largest PAS promoters around, and trains judges) is on the the faculty of NCFCJ, I doubt he is going to be too interested in the “problem” custody of children going to batterers. His work enables that! It’s one of the primary things he appears to write on — parental alienation!
Here he is in 2010 speaking to an Alliance of Concerned Men on fatherhood. It’s a good speech, but pulls out that phrasing:
I’m glad to be in the company of so many fellow dads and local leaders who want to focus on, and talk about, fatherhood. In the course of this discussion, I hope we will be open and honest enough to ask ourselves tough questions – father to father, parent to parent – about what our communities, as well as the federal government, can do to strengthen our families and support those fathers who are trying to do the right thing.
The plain truth is that youth violence is far-too common. There’s no single cause and no simple solution. But we know one important contributor is the absence of a responsible, loving father. Here in D.C., where half of African-American households don’t include even one grown man, the implications of this fact could not be clearer.
If we are going to call ourselves “men” then we must act like men. We must nurture and care for those we bring into this world. That’s what a “man”
does. We can’t leave this awesome responsibility only to the women in our lives who, nevertheless, do a superb job. And we can’t ask our communities to shoulder our obligations. This must end. Any man who can create a child must also help, in a meaningful way, to help raise that child.
I don’t pretend that this will be easy, especially for fathers who have been incarcerated…
And, Dec. 18, 2009 from “mainjustice.com” (AndrewRamonas)
Holden’s Fatherhood Speeches Part of Faith-Based Initiative:
(this page is apparently particular about not quoting excerpts and is immune from a partial “cut and paste” (see Fair use Copyright, below). So, to read it, just click on the link. The info right below here is from a link on the article. POINT BEING– one brief sentence that mothers are losing custody to batterers, people of color disproportionately represented in child protective services, and so forth. If this was a SErIOUS concern of our attorney general, then he would put someone on the job to find out why — and not just ask the local experts who love to train judges, what’s happening. Perhaps we should take a look at some of that judicial training!
Policy Goals – Key Priorities for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships In addition to its daily work, President Obama has asked the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to focus on four special priorities. These priorities are:
- Strengthening the Role of Community Organizations in the Economic Recovery
- Reducing Unintended Pregnancies, Supporting Maternal and Child Health, and Reducing the Need for Abortion
- Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities
- Promoting Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation
Efforts associated with these key priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and the 11 Agency Centers for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, as well as the Strategic Advisor at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
Gee, here they are up in NH promoting Fathers in education; this time, if fathers are there, it means academics improve. Pretty soon mothers will become obsolete — or simply wombs to bring out kids that fathers can be involved in, thus justifying more initiatives (and grants, and trips, and conferences, and speeches, and publications and media press releases, and . . . . and . . . . . .. . )
Today, as part of the continuing National Conversation on Fatherhood, Obama Administration officials made the second stop of a national initiative with a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire to focus on the importance of fathers in the education of their children. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, in cooperation with The U.S. Department of Education, conducted the event.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan participated in the day’s activities, which examined the ever growing importance of fathers in the education of their children. Increasing parent involvement, particularly the involvement of fathers, is key to improving struggling schools across the country. Research shows that children do better in school and are less likely to drop out when fathers are involved. More than 70 representatives of nonprofits, parent organizations, faith-based organizations, counseling agencies and university, business and government services from across New England participated in the discussion and provided feedback on engaging fathers in their children’s education
BACK TO PARENTAL COORDINATION. Let’s keep the parenting “gender-neutral” and talk about the organizational aspects here:
How’d we get so many uncoordinated parents in the neighborhood, anyhow? Why haven’t years upon years (like K-12) of being shown how to sit down, stand up, wait in lines and go through lines on cue (bells), and stop whatever they were doing every XX minutes and to keep to their assigned places in the Bell Curves of Life gotten the place coordinated yet?
And yet we (meaning “y’all” from another perspective) need more and more coordinators to tell these people who have (most of them) already come through the US Public School system, somehow — to leave whoever they hooked up and then split up with (whether by marriage or “liaison” of some sort) — how to parent right… How to be fair, UNbiased (see my last four posts) and above all trust authority. And we need more social demonstration research to figure out where “we” (the experts?) failed. Of course, as one generation grows up, it’s important to get to the next generation in time and engrave the latest dogma upon them — as expressed in the best “practices.”
Wikipedia for what it’s worth:
Parenting coordinator (PC) is a relatively new practice that is used to manage on-going issues in child custody and visitation cases by professional psychologist or a lawyer assigned by the Court.[1] There are 10 states as of May, 2011 that have passed legislation regarding parenting coordinators: Colorado (since 2005), Idaho (2002), Louisiana (2007), New Hampshire (2009), North Carolina (2005), Oklahoma (2001), Oregon (2002), Texas (2005), Massachusetts and Florida.[2]
I am not the only person opposed to “Parenting Coordination” and introducing yet another profession into the AFCC Palette:
The LIZ LIBRARY agrees with me, and gives a whole page of reasons, followed by a ***t (Boat)load of links to justify it. However, the first one (I listed below) would be good enough:
Article on Parenting Coordination can be found at:
Parenting Coordination, a bad idea
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/parenting-coordination.html
Also see: Parenting Coordinator Practical Considerations
And: A “child-centered divorce”?
-
-
Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
-
Of course, I”m of the opinion (see my PCANH cites) that is precisely the point of it. . . . . .
Here’s what Florida Governor “Jeb” Bush wrote in 2004, explaining his VETO of a certain bill promoting the Professionalization of Parental Coordination:
While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:
1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.
2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.
3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights
4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.
5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.
Actually, I believe it’s appropriate to reprint in full, here:
June 18, 2004
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:
An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.
I applaud the dedicated efforts of many whose mission is to identify alternatives to assist families in conflict. I also recognize that some circuit courts are currently utilizing parenting coordinators without statutory authority, and I commend them for seeking legislative direction.
While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:
1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.
2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.
3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights.
Ms. Glenda E. Hood June 18, 2004 Page Two
4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.
5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.
I will support a revised bill during the 2005 legislative session that makes the appointment and selection of a parenting coordinator subject to the consent of both parents. Also, I believe that we must limit the risk of “professionalization” of the parenting coordinator role by limiting it to volunteers. While I respect the Legislature’s policy choice to allow only licensed professionals, clergy or attorneys to qualify as parenting coordinators, I believe that any volunteer, especially any faith-based volunteer, who meets certain minimum criteria should be allowed to serve as a parenting coordinator.
Basic training and standards are important. I support language, some contained in the current bill, regarding domestic violence training, family-court procedures, and mediation.
I am committed to working with the sponsors of this legislation *** to create a program that can assist parents, preserve their rights, protect the best interests of the children involved, and address the concerns noted above.
Furthermore, by this letter, I respectfully request the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court and all chief circuit judges to consider revising these programs to ensure that parents’ paramount rights are not compromised, regardless of the well-intentioned motives of the program.
For these reasons, and the reasons set forth herein, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, and do hereby veto the same.
Sincerely,
Jeb Bush
** He’d just about HAVE to work with the sponsors of that legislation: they are helping run the states’ family law system, and if he didn’t, there’d probably be a riot. Nevertheless, as we approach June 18, 2011 (seven years later), I’d have to agree with the points he made.
Of course, these people don’t (I just picked one state, but one can find similar “reasoning” and resolve in all states. More later, this is a quick post…..):
This is from Illinois. I learned today that Cook County (i.e., Chicagoland) Clerk of the Court handles $74 million and over 2 million cases per year. It’s larger than some Fortune 500 companies. They opened a $64 million building in 2005 to centralize Domestic Violence Court — all under an AFCC Judge of course — you didn’t think THAT would be changed….
Anyhow, AFCC doesn’t want “Children” in the Middle — they typically want THEMSELVES (including parenting coordinators) in the middle, and in charge.
I found this elegant site — very impressive It’ graphics are a cut above for sure, and its membership are decorated and competent, and judges:
RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE
Resolutions Systems Institute and
Center for Conflict Resolution are out of the same street address and suite#:
RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE 11 EAST ADAMS STREET, SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 312 922 6475 INFO@ABOUTRSI.ORG WWW.ABOUTRSI.ORG and . . . . Center for Conflict Resolution11 E. Adams, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: 312-922-6464
Fax: 312-922-6463
“Mission:
The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) is one of the nation’s premiere not-for-profit providers of mediation services and conflict management training. Our services are flexible and cost-effective, based on a track record of over 31,000 mediated cases and backed by the expertise of knowledgeable, dedicated volunteers and employees.
Every year we provide free mediation services in over 2,000 cases, train hundreds of new mediators, facilitate meetings and work with dozens of businesses, government agencies and organizations to create custom-designed dispute resolution systems and training programs.
It was started by the Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar:
History:
In 1979, the Young Lawyers Section of The Chicago Bar Association supported the creation of a not-for-profit corporation to aid the Chicago community in effectively handling disputes.
Originally known as the Neighborhood Justice of Chicago, the Center for Conflict Resolution opened in a storefront in Chicago’s Uptown Neighborhood to help people resolve their conflicts through mediation. In the early 1980’s, CCR began accepting a significant number of case referrals from the Circuit Court of Cook County. To reach the community more effectively and to enhance their new services, CCR moved its offices to Chicago’s downtown loop.
CCR continued its reach through programs developed in the Circuit Court of Cook County and in city and state institutions that continue today. From juvenile offenders and victims, landlord-tenant conflicts and small claims matters to employment discrimination and Chancery Court cases, CCR provides a successful option for the court and to the residents of the Chicago-land community.
In the 1990’s, having successfully trained hundreds of volunteers to mediate for the organization, CCR began offering mediation skills training to individuals along with custom-designed conflict management training programs for organizations.
Today the Center for Conflict Resolution is governed by a 20-member Board of Directors and relies on a full-time staff of eleven and approximately 120 active volunteer mediators who mediate 95% of CCR’s cases. In the past five years alone, CCR mediated over 10,000 cases and provided conflict management training to thousands of individuals.
Anyhow this is from its “NEWS AND UPDATES” (see sidebar to left, and scroll down):
ay 25, 2011 – AFCC Offers Chicago Trainings on Parenting Coordination and Working with Children in Separating/Divorcing Families
The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is offering two trainings in June for dispute resolution professionals in Chicago. “Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies” is a “practice-based, case-oriented” training for experienced parenting coordinators that will discuss ways to improve the parenting coordination process and work with high-conflict clients. It will be held June 20-21. “Children and Divorce: The Voice of the Child and Interventions When Children Resist Parental Contact” is a training for professionals who work with separating or divorcing families – including mediators, evaluators, lawyers, judges, etc. – and will focus on how to integrate children’s voices into the dispute resolution process and work with parent-child contact problems. It will be held June 22-23.
TRAINING #1: You may recognize the Trainer from a recent post of mine, East Coast outfit, although he’s West Coast (AFCC). WHat better place to meet than in a large MidWestern city with the “largest unified family court system in the world”?
Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies
Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
June 20-21, 2011
Chicago, Illinois
About the Presenter
Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Palo Alto, California, specializing in forensic and clinical work in the family courts. His full-time private practice focuses almost exclusively on work with co-parents. He serves in a variety of court-related roles, including mediator, co-parent counselor, parenting coordinator and consultant. He has written numerous articles and book chapters, and presented at national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, parenting coordination, child alienation and mental health consultation in family law cases. He is currently serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody and serves on the
AFCC Board of Directors. He served on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for PC practice and was co-chair of the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for court- involved therapists. Please visit his website at http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com for more information.
Agenda
Yep, from the OVERCOMING BARRIERS CAMP. As I spent several posts listing AFCC personnel, you may by now recognize a few names from this
Washington & Lee Law School Index of Periodicals, date, 2010:
(I searched on-line for Dr. Sullivan in company with Peggie Ward & Robin Deutch; this came up:)
| Washington & Lee Law School Current Law Journal Content an index to legal periodicals |
Family Court Review
Family and Conciliation Courts Review ( -v38(2000))
Volume 48, Number 1, January 2010
other issues
- Editorial Notes January 2010
ANDREW SCHEPARD
p.1 +cite
- Special Guest Editors’ Editorial Notes
- Guest Editors’ Introduction to Special Issue on Alienated Children in Divorce and Separation: Emerging Approaches for Families and Courts
BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
p.6 +cite
- Articles
- Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums
BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
p.10 +cite - Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children
RICHARD A. WARSHAK
p.48 +cite - Commentary on “Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children” (Warshak, 2010)
JOAN B. KELLY
p.81 +cite - Helping Alienated Children with Family Bridges: Practice, Research, and the Pursuit of “Humbition”
RICHARD A. WARSHAK AND MARK R. OTIS
p.91 +cite - When a Child Rejects a Parent: Tailoring the Intervention to Fit the Problem
STEVEN FRIEDLANDER AND MARJORIE GANS WALTERS
p.98 +cite - Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children Who Resist Visitation: An Addendum to Friedlander and Walters (2010)
JANET R. JOHNSTON AND JUDITH ROTH GOLDMAN
p.112 +cite - Overcoming Barriers Family Camp: A Program for High-Conflict Divorced Families Where a Child is Resisting Contact with a Parent
MATTHEW J. SULLIVAN, PEGGIE A. WARD, AND ROBIN M. DEUTSCH
p.116 +cite - Early Identification and Prevention of Parent—Child Alienation: A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention
PETER G. JAFFE, DAN ASHBOURNE, AND ALFRED A. MAMO
p.136 +cite - Alienating Audiences from Innovation: The Perils of Polemics, Ideology, and Innuendo
RICHARD A. WARSHAK
p.153 +cite - Parental Alienation: Canadian Court Cases 1989-2008
NICHOLAS BALA, SUZANNE HUNT, AND CAROLYN MCCARNEY
p.164 +cite - One Case—One Specialized Judge: Why Courts Have an Obligation to Manage Alienation and Other High-Conflict Cases
HON. DONNA J. MARTINSON
p.180 +cite
- Perspectives
- A Response to Peter Salem’s Article “The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: Beginning of the End for Mandatory Mediation”
HUGH MCISAAC
p.190 +cite - A Reponse to Salem: Common Sense
STEVE BARON
p.195 +cite - A Distinction Without Much of a Difference: Response to Steve Baron and Hugh Mclsaac
PETER SALEM
p.201 +cite - Fine Tuning the Branding of Parenting Coordination: “…You May Get What You Need”
ELAYNE E. GREENBERG
p.206 +cite
Meanwhile, the RSI in Illinois and its Mediation-Pushing Center for Conflict Resolution
May 12, 2011 – RSI Accepting Applications for 2012-2014 Skadden Fellowship Candidates
RSI and the Center for Conflict Resolution, RSI’s affiliate organization, is now accepting applications from law students or law clerks who would like to be considered as candidates to be sponsored as RSI/CCR’s September 2012 Skadden Fellow. The Skadden Fellowship Foundation provides a two-year fellowship that offers the opportunity to develop and execute a legal project with a public interest host organization that serves underrepresented populations. RSI/CCR seeks to sponsor a Fellow to work on court ADR program development. Click here for more information about sponsorship criteria and how to apply.
JUSTICE IS A PROCESS. Handing off authority to a single Mediator in a Family Law system when that mediator is on the County Payroll, and grants to the states called “Access and Visitation” (etc.) facilitate “increased noncustodial parenting time” (to the tune of $1 million/ year in California) and other Responsible Fatherhood ways to reduce poverty and violence and encourage child support enforcement ) — doesn’t strengthen Justice. The AFCC is not interested in Justice, and has already spoken — it is into psychology and mental health / counseling services.
It has shown and it has told. We have experienced, but how many have really READ both the publications of AFCC (from conference materials), the Positioning its adherents have obtained, the Professions they have developed in self-interest in getting a counselor into everyone’s life, and the very profitable “Nonprofits” they have started (and believe me, i do check these out; if you don’t know what a “FRONT GROUP” is go read some EINs in this field, look up who’s on them, and then listen to them crying about the violence in our communities when they apply for another Supervised Visitation grant, or mandate more parental educations, or Push Parental Coordination on us — because of “high-conflict” parents)
It takes TWO parents to have high conflict. If they would, rather, allow (and just DEAL with it!) in principle (they already do, in practice…. because when you call in a Warshak, or a judge wanting to punish an “alienating” parent, that parent is going to be OUT of a kids’ life — unless there is some more money to be drained from the parent (or parent’s associates) into the courts. If the parent has none, then there are federal grants which can also be utilized. Either way . . . . .).
It’s coming up on a very famous Sunday here. So let me say:
Happy “Parent” Day!
In some of the next posts, I am going to address some of the Resource Centers taking major fatherhood funding from the HHS in order to stop violence against women. IN other words, they have figured out how to consolidate two federal grant streams (fatherhood — which was anti-feminist to start with — and VAWA — which was to counter extreme patriarchal behavior which perpetuated hate crimes against women because they are women. You’d think those two would have an adversarial relationship, right? But fact is, they have worked out their differences QUITE well when it comes to the federal faucet.
There are some “resource centers” that seem to dominate the DV field — and ALL of them are on the take from fatherhood funding, but this is not obvious unless you look at their financing. They have dominated the field, as have their expensive, NOT well-tracked, and ever-expanding practices, NONE of which have proven to reduce violence against women (on one part) OR make more responsible fathers (on the other). These things are not only environmental in origin and cannot always be trained in or drummed out of a person by sitting through an institute — or having judges (etc.) sit through institutes.
It’s time the general public stopped learning to look the other way and keep pretending that this is in THEIR best interests, by supporting legislators who vote in more Kids Turns, and Family Justice Centers, and appropriate millions of $$ that really don’t know, what’s happening to them. Is it “OK” to do this decade after decade, with a US debt in trillions, and the value of the US$$ rapidly losing face globally?
Well, I may have been a TEMPORARY burden for a while, but this is definitely my civic duty in blogging these things.
CORPORATION WIKI On “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” (a.k.a. “Family Violence Prevention Fund”). Just see how many personnel are involved: This is the organization I found around $33 million of funding for (USASpending.gov) — from both HHS & DOJ (at least) but what they are doing primarily is “EDUC” — they get grants to set up systems to train the professionals. They also got a $250K grant to move and change their name and web pages. However, it’s basically the same business, form what I can tell — a monopoly in the field, shared witha few other organizations of similar practices and clout — just different names.
The link gives a visual.
ORGANIZATION NAME
STATE
YEAR
TOTAL ASSETS
FORM
PAGES
EIN
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973 Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973 Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973 Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973 Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973 Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973 Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973
Just a fragment (see 2009) includes this Program Service Component:
4c (Code. )(Expenses$ 1,879,434.includinggrantsof$ )(Revenue$ ) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
WAIT A MINUTE — wasn’t the National Fatherhood Initiative, doing this already?
Corporation Wiki brings up a pagefull of references, I”ll take one of them; Here are a few”
| Name | Type | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc | Company | Pittsburgh | PA |
| National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc | Company | Austin | TX |
| National Forum On Fatherhood Initiatives, Inc. (TRULY interesting when you look upan individual from these Corporation wiki’s: in this case the flamboyant and religiousBishop King Louis H. Narcisse & successor Dr. Eddie C. Welbon**.Some also have a very active court record (as Plaintiff or defendant).
|
Company | San Francisco | CA |
| California Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. | Company | Sacramento | CA |
| Central Texas Fatherhood Initiative | Company | Waco | TX |
| Florida Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. | Company | Highland Beach | FL |
| Global Fatherhood Initiative | Company | Dallas | TX |
| Lonestar Fatherhood Initiative | Company | Austin | TX |
| North Texas Fatherhood Initiative | Company | Dallas | TX |
| Putting An End to Abuse Through Community Efforts Initiative (P.E.A.C.E. Initiative) | Company | San Antonio | TX |
** Corporations and CHurches — a note from the Bishop King tradition:
In about 1948, King Narcisse began to incorporate an ancient legally recognized ecclesial creature into the church kingdom and diocese structure to insure that the kingdom and its charitable properties were preserved in perpetuity. The ecclesial creature was the Sole Corporation. Likewise in other states, in California, Corporation Sole may be formed only by the bishop, chief priest of any religious denomination or Church for the purpose of administrating and managing the affairs, and properties of the Church. [17] The management and control of Corporation Sole and it assets pass to the bishop or chief priest’s Church successor. [18]
In California, King Narcisse formed the Corporation of the President of Mt. Zion Spiritual Temple, A Sole Corporation, to administer and maintain ownership of the church’s charitable property and its vast real estate holdings,[19] which would turn out to be a truly prophetic and brilliant movement to preserve the church kingdom in perpetuity.
In California, King Narcisse had his sights on building a self sufficient farm based community with a 15 million dollar hospital, cemetery and old folk’s home in the Sacramento area
Hmmm…. browsing search “finds” on this flamboyant situation, I found another blog, which also deals with fathers, early trauma, and dissociation. The adult man (2007) is recalling and piecing together information about his father who worked at the Oakland shipyards during times of Pearl Harbor. He speculates as to whether some of his own early trauma relates to his father’s involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.
I am going to finish reading this, if you would like to see the PRINCE RAY CHRONICLES (Dec. 2007), click HERE: As you do, recall that one purpose of the $10million/year access visitation grants is promising projects as the Secretary of Health (HHS) shall assign; states must help. … Including what “trainings” work better than others, and keeping the network open to subject parents and children to them, forcibly, targeting IV-D (welfare) families . . . . ???
AS WE CAN SEE< THERE ARE (&/OR WERE) QUITE A FEW “FATHERHOOD” ORGANIZATIONS IN THE GOLDEN STATE (CALIFORNIA):
“The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization” website goes first to a web page in Washington, DC:
INTERCHANGE.org/romros/resource-12.html
Notice it’s targeted to welfare (TANF Recipient) Custodial and noncustodial fathers:
INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
& FAMILY REVITALIZATION
3594 Hayes St. NE Ste. 102
Washington, DC 20019-7522
(202) 396-8320 Fax (202) 396-8326
EMAIL: bcjenkins@responsiblefatherhood.org
WEBSITE: http://www.responsiblefatherhood.org
Contact Person: Bruce & Cesalie Jenkins
Hours of Operation: 9:00a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Population Served: Custodial and non-custodial fathers, TANF Recipients
Area Served: Primary target area is Ward 7 in DC; also serve those who are referred by our collaborative partners
Volunteers Needed for:
Doing surveys | Support for community services
No. needed:
“Turning the hearts of fathers unto their children”
We are a 20 year old grass roots organization working with fathers and mothers to enhance self-worth and communication skills to empower them a parent to take charge of their homes and familiesServices Offered:
- Paternity establishment
- Domestic violence Intervention
- Father & mother parenting support sessions
- Family Support Services
- Job Readiness & Job Search Skills
- Child Support Assistance
This web site is sponsored and maintained by vernard r gray of InterChange.org , a non-profit virtual corporation
dedicated to social change through the effective use of networked intelligence.
The Reach Our Men Reach Our Sons Coalition (ROMROS) is a community-based collective of concerned individuals and organizations whose purpose is to improve our community by developing recruitment strategies to get more African American men involved in those organizations that service our youth in the community. Real Men Bond: significantly increase active community involvement, commitment, and participation of male members. Will strengthen family ties, improve conditions in the community and facilitate personal growth and development. Men with a Mission: By reviving and building on the success of the Million Man March the spirit of unity and atonement guides and empowers fathers, sons and brothers.
Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family
by Dr. Charles A. Ballard, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of The Institute of Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization
ON THAT BLESSED DAY, THAT VERY FIRST “PARENT’S DAY,” GOD SPOKE AND SAID: “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS AND LET THEM HAVE RULERSHIP OVER EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE AND GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN.”
Wow! What a beautiful sight that must have been – two human beings, a new order of creatures, the beginning of a new planet, a new world. Then God blessed them and spoke to them saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, have many children, fill the earth and master it.” God loves family. When he spoke and said, “Let Us,” He was speaking to other members of His God Family.
Adam and Eve were to fill the earth with other human beings who would look and act like them, for they were to be made in His image, after His likeness. Adam was to cleave to his wife, Eve, and Eve was to cling to her husband, Adam. They were one. He was assigned to her as secret service agents are assigned to protect the President of the United States. God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side. God gave them five wonderful gifts: a home, food, employment, a day of rest, and family. How much better could it get? Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.
And “Home” to this site links to 7th Day Adventists….I’m hoping these are not the ones promoting the “Marriage” book “Adam was From Dirt, Eve was from Adam.”
No, this was a DIFFERENT “REsponsible fatherhood” grantee receipient, Leo Godzich out of Arizona? The organization that was over in Uganda promoting the kill-the-gay legislation (til it was out’ed). Here’s the book:
Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men
Dr. Leo Godzich of “nameonline.net“
of course, the other website is not so up-front that the CEO writes books like this; it’s got a little softer approach:
(When you get some time, search “Godzich” on my blog — I did report some of the federal funding (and political connections – can you say “Bush”? of this particular nonprofit, the “NAME”).
The official bio of Godzich:
Leo Godzich
- Leo Godzich is the founder and president of NAME, the National Association Marriage Enhancement and the host of the International Marriage Conference as well as being a leading force behind the Covenant Marriage Movement. NAME is a network of churches and couples committed to biblical marriage ministry. Currently, NAME is developing counseling centers in the U.S., Canada, Africa and Australia. Mr. Godzich is Pastor of Special Projects at Phoenix First Assembly of God in Phoenix, Arizona, the sixth largest church in the country, according to Time Magazine. He and his wife oversee a local marriage ministry to hundreds of couples with amazing results in restoring broken marriages and building stronger marriages. The Godzichs conduct Together Forever Marriage Seminars at churches and hotels around the country. He is the author of Is God In Your Marriage? and Public Relations and the Church. He has appeared as a guest and host on the Trinity Broadcasting Network programs and has been featured on the 700 Club. He also preaches the gospel around the world from Europe and Israel to Africa. Prior to entering the ministry, Mr. Godzich was an award-winning journalist, with more than 300 articles published in variety of publications. Pastor Leo Godzich, his wife, Molly, and daughters, Emily, Bethany and Christy, live in Phoenix, Arizona.
(this temporarily disrupted my peace, here, considering 7th Day Adventists and megachurch Assemblies of God in light of the OFCBI and federal funding to further “help” Men made from Dirt become GOOD Daddies who help women understand that they came from Men…. and of course were the worlds first sinner and brought forth the world’s first murderer, etc.. — … Those two groups in particular are so controlling. )
Back To Ballard:
Princeton – News – Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address How to …
Sep 11, 1997 … Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, …
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q3/0911-ballard.html – CachedIAV | Book: The Fatherhood Movement: A Call to Action
This book brings together many of the leading voices of the fatherhood movement. … such asCharles Ballard of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood in …
http://www.americanvalues.org/…/bk-the_fatherhood_movement.html – Cached – Similar
This is the 1997 release of his speech at Princeton (Dr. Ballard’s, I mean):
News from
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Communications and Publications, Stanhope Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Tel 609/258-3601; Fax 609/258-1301
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Patricia Coen 609/258-5764
Date: September 11, 1997Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address
How to Return Fathers to FamiliesPrinceton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, will speak on “The Status of Fatherhood in America: How Do We Return Fathers to Families?”** at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs on Tuesday, September 23, at 4:30 p.m. in Robertson Hall, Bowl 5.
**I neglected to provide the link to the photo of Dr. Ballard above: here it is: You’ll note the washington DC website I copied the contents to contains the phrase ““Turning the hearts of fathers unto their children” THis is taken from the Bible. The original is an active tense verb, and the subject of that verb is God, not man: For the areligious among us, take it from me (or this quote) that these people are both misquoting and taking out of context the original — which is talking about John the Baptist preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ. Well, actually, that was how John the Baptist was interpreted, so lets’ start with the original (at least in the current canon compromising this KJV) — which is the last book of the Old Testament, and I heard 400 years before before the birth of Christ. It’s been, by contrast, about two thousand years SINCE the birth of Christ, and while I”m at it, exactly 400 years (1611) since this King James Version.
MALACHI 4:
5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse..
(funny how the beginning AND the end of the quote is simply left out, and the middle is turned into a process that some religious person can market.
In fact, here’s that very short chapter:
1For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,with the statutes and judgments. 5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse
AND in the New Testament, “Luke” it is given as a prophecy (referring to Malachi no doubt) given over the miracle birth (by conception, but miraculous because Elizabeth, cousin to Mary, mother of Jesus, had been barren) about her baby who would be filled with the holy ghost from birth, making him great:
LUKE 1
15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord
and in its proper context:
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were nowwell stricken in years.
8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, 9According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Now, I’m sticking this out here for the atheists and agnostics, and those who haven’t been exposed to a certain type of religious thinking. This phrase is not addressed to everyone, it was specifically addressed to people that considered themselves God’s chosen. And it was never something that individuals were supposed to do by governmental mandate or religious program — it was the EXACT opposite, and required holy spirit to communicate, and to do, i.e., prophecy.
GO FIGURE, someone smelled money and influence, and figured they might as well run with the phrase. Now I have this question: HOW MUCH influence (and cash) would you trust a group with that FORGOT the beginning, the end, and the context — and twisted and extended the middle of (changing a divine mission prophecied to come to ONE man (only) of the stature of Elijah (well known in OT for his miracles and many other things) — to apply it to ALL men, as coached by SOME men? Does the original sound like a social program or spiritual renewal?
Also, this is sold as taking people off welfare and for the public good — as a FINANCIAL benefit to the entire United States (which has no official religion, we say). And yet in context, it is prophesying a coming day of wrath — or (Malachi) that this had better happen or the earth will be smitten with a curse. How much further off target — from their own scriptures! — could this possibly be. And these are not obscure Scripture either — the book of Luke is read, religiously (at least chapter 2) every single “Christmas” season and has been for centuries, by Protestants and Catholics (Can’t say about these two sects, I’m not in them. But they call themselves Christians, so go figure.)
Malachi read: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant” — yet this very set of faith-based social interventions and the fatherhood-based grants systems causes a real “forgetting” of the US law (supposedly based on those 10 commandments, they like to say, right?) — that talk about due process, and fair judgments. These operate when it comes to “family court” as a literal set of bribes — which pervert the cause of justice based on facts & evidence, not therapy and influence!
That doesn’t mean Dr. Ballard is a bad guy — I just believe this whole system is completely out of whack, and unbelievably hypocritical. If someone is going to do social reform — do social reform. But don’t blame it on God, and don’t inflict your private visions of him on the rest of us, we do not all subscribe! I would take Dr. Ballard over megachurch leader Dr. Godzich any day, but I object to paying for either of them through federal tax system collected by the IRS! I have lived (as a woman) in urban areas, and my father had no father. I did not come in with “both guns blazing” and try to force “motherhood programs” on poor people promising them this would reverse poverty and fix the community!
By the way, nor did I tell other people how to raise their children, and try to get national laws passed to make sure it’s one size fits all, with a few cultural differences to make it sound more legitimate!
(BACK to that 1997 Princeton anouncement, then)
Founded by Ballard in 1982 in Cleveland as a local grassroots program, the institute is considered a model fathering program, “dedicated to encouraging fathers to become involved in the lives of their children in a loving, compassionate, and nurturing way.” With its home-based outreach program, the institute has restored more than 3,000 fathers to their families. Fathers who might otherwise join the ranks of “deadbeat dads” find role models among the institute’s outreach workers, from whom they learn the skills of modern-day fatherhood. “Most men are capable of responsible fatherhood,” Ballard has said. “All we need to do is lead them to it.” Now based in Washington, D.C., the nonprofit organization has opened centers in Milwaukee, San Diego, Nashville, Tenn., and Yonkers, N.Y.
Ballard’s own young adult life could have served as a case study for the institute. At age 17, he fathered a child but abandoned the boy and his mother, joining the armed forces to avoid his responsibilities. Drugs and alcohol followed, as well as prison time for a crime Ballard says he did not commit. While in prison, Ballard had plenty of time to think about his son and decided to care for the boy when he was released. Ballard eventually adopted his son, earned a high school diploma, an undergraduate degree, and then a master’s degree in social welfare. In 1976, while working at a hospital, he observed that numerous women were having babies out of wedlock, with the fathers nowhere to be found. He gathered the names of nearly 600 fathers who had abandoned their children, then visited and counseled the men. From that simple beginning, Ballard’s institute grew into a national organization.
Ballard’s talk is being sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School.
HEre are some more links (I searched “Family Justice Center Alliance” and obviously got more than are on the Casey Gwinn Circuit, but including some of these as well. It’s a great little tool, as is your local Secretary of State’s listing of corporations and fictitious business names, combined withe any decent “990 lookup” or nonprofit finder (including the IRS’s own).
| Type | City | State | |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Family Justice Center Alliance | Company | San Diego | CA |
| Alameda County Family Justice Center, Incorporated | Company | Oakland | CA |
| Anaheim Family Justice Center Foundation | Company | Anaheim | CA |
| Bexar County Family Justice Center Foundation | Company | San Antonio | TX |
| Family Justice Center of Erie County Inc | Company | Buffalo | NY |
| Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County | Company | Tampa | FL |
| Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County, In | Company | Tampa | FL |
| Friends of The Family Justice Center, Inc. | Company | San Marcos | TX |
| Friends of The Riverside County Family Justice Center Foundation | Company | Riverside | CA |
Here’s Corporation Wiki for “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” (note: doesn’t seem to be current, I understand the listed CEO is no longer).
Here’s one “Kids’ Turn” (SF — and not current, I know the President Steve Kinney just moved over for, I believe, a Greg Abel) . “Kids Turn, Inc.” shows only Claire Barnes. (These are obviously generated by computer searches, probably of Sec of States or IRS records… and simply pull up who’s on the Board, or was…)
Here’s Kids Turn San Diego (one person, listed)
Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.
Linda Brandes
Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.
Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.
“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.
For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.
Remember the Brandes “$6 million isn’t enough” divorce? This article says Linda’s gambling debt is $30,000 — a month. Their six homes were worth more than $40 million, and he has 10 Ferarri’s etc. They don’t have children, I think. They are themselves engaged in a lockdown fight over wealth — a lot of it. But, of course it’s important to teach OTHER parents to keep their kids out of the high-conflict situation, and charge ’em to be (forcibly — court-ordered) taught, too.
Children in the Middle CoParenting Services and Kids in the Middle (same owner: Bradley (S.) Craig): It may seem small, but it’s web-based and government-laced, and court-ordered sometimes. Believe I posted this, but here it is anyhow: – great logo, right?
Children in the Middle (notice “PARENTING COORDINATION” links to the left….)
BRADLEY CRAIG, received his Master’s Degree in Social Work at UTA and is a Licensed Social Worker and Certified Family Life Educator. He is a noted co-parent educator in the North Texas area, and has developed a number of parent education programs for families raising children in two homes. He began specializing in working with families raising children between two homes in 1992 when he was hired by Tarrant County to conduct social study investigations and provide mediation sessions. He helped them design an orientation for litigating families offered by the county.
In 1997, he developed the Children in the Middle Co-parenting Education class. Brad left the County in 1997 to open up a program called Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc., a comprehensive agency designed to help adults raise children between two homes.In addition, he began offering consultation sessions where he would meet with couples and their significant others to develop a shared parenting plan. Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc. was closed in December of 2003 when Brad was hired to develop and maintain a co-parenting program with a social service organization. He is currently in private practice and contracts with organizations to provide services to families.
As a social worker and family life educator, Brad is a trained family law mediator and provides family law mediation training currently with other organizations. In addition, he offers training for other professionals to structure approaches to help these children being raised between two homes. He works with divorcing families and those with continuing custody/parenting time issue as a Family Mediator, Collaborative Law Allied Professional, Co-parenting Case Manager, Co-parenting Coach, Educator, Parenting Facilitator, and Parenting Coordinator.
Brad has written curriculum for co-parent education programs and has developed educational videos. He has been a guest speaker on many television and radio programs and is often asked to speak at local, state and national conferences on co-parenting issues. He hosted an ongoing cable television series “The Children in the Middle Show,” aimed at educating viewers about both the effects of parental conflict after a separation on children and the services available to help families through co-parenting issues.
Brad continues his education through the following organizations:
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)
Texas AFCC
National Association of Social Workers
National Council on Family Relations
International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
Collaborative Lawyers of Arlington and Mansfield
Phi Kappa Phi
Tarrant and Dallas County Family Law Bar AssociationsThey (he?) also does parenting coordination, once the $450 (each) deposit from parents is on file, aloing with the court order. Check it out…
(top recommended reading for “Adults” is Warshak’s “Divorce Poison.”
Fathers are so under-represented and mistreated throughout the land, as a gender — and because of their gender. What can we do about that?
Hire Warren Farrell to Coach some Boys into Men, or should we go with the Family Violence Prevention Fund/Futures without Violence version of Coaching boys into men? Or should we go with the Pentecostal megachurch versions of Dr. Godzich, or the Dr. Ballard versions? Do we have a choice, or is a fatherhood program choice coordinator going to become necessary?
(just Kidding…..)
The CFDA Summary Report form will create a report of all grant dollars allocated by CFDA number by one or all Fiscal Years since 2005.
(note: the program I’m talking about came into being 10 years before 2005):
| CFDA Prog. No. | OPDIV | Popular Title | Number of Awards | Number of Award Actions | CAN Award Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 93.086 | ACF | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | 237 | 1,277 | $577,721,113 |
| Page Total | 237 | 1,277 | $577,721,113 | ||
| Report Total | 237 | 1,277 | $577,721,113 | ||
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet].
This post title with a “shortlink” attached is:
Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-JR”. Note: for normal URLs (web addresses), upper or lower case alpha doesn’t seem to matter, but I’ve learned that within this domain (WordPress) and in such short-links, it does.
LGH UPDATE NOTE: My current table of contents only goes back to Sept., 2012; this is a June 15, 2011 post (early on in this blogger’s learning curve!) so would only be found by search, some other link reference to it, or by Year/Month/Date through the “Archives” (by month) on this blog.
I added some quick (not thorough) updates on Overcoming Barriers at the bottom in response to a comment submitted March, 2016…including tax returns, California corporate registration (Massachusetts could also be searched).
For a December 2017 Update (which at first I thought might fit in here), see:
I was just going to add a very short update (that comment, it seems, in March 2016), but instead added a section on renewed Parental Alienation discussions, and the socialist “re-education camps” in Viet Nam after South fell to the North, in 1975. Similar in other countries. Major quality and scope difference — but force is force, and at some levels, it’s also a form of psychological, personal violence. In my opinion. So, the original (written/published in 2011) post begins in maroon font and below a double-line after the following paragraphs and a few quotes:
Speaking of how to continue keeping “Parental Alienation” conversation going — and ordering services to undo it through the family courts — I recently noticed that a “Dr. Craig Childress” (Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.) is resurrecting parental alienation under a different theory; I have some comments on it over at Red Herring Alert (a wordpress blog). “Same old, same old” with new window dressing and tactics (Childress recommends pressuring providers who do NOT recommend IMMEDIATE, safety-for-the-child total separation from the alienating parent (i.e., “mom” typically) through their licensing board, if this could be categorized under some existing DSM-defined disorder.
You cannot really argue with self-referencing, self-congratulating circles of experts on this matter which is why I recommend a more interesting angle of approach: If they incorporate, find tax returns and corporate records; if they get contracts with the courts, or government grants to run “reunification camps” and similar therapy for parental alienation (in its old or new classifications), pay attention to the details!
The technique and ability to re-indoctrinate people in groups, as well as children, was also in common use in socialist countries; I believe the term used was “re-education camps,” referring to those in South Viet Nam after the fall of Saigon in 1975: Search “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps: A Brief History” (that’s supplemental reading, from a man’s father’s oral history — he lived through such camps — from “Choices” program at Brown; see website) or “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.”
The second link introduces and describes the various levels. I wonder, in the USA, why the country is so heavily invested in a class of professionals whose purpose seems to be behavioral change and keeping up-to-date with tactics and strategies for re-indoctrinating children, women and men into their proper social relationships with each other and particularly after one or more of the same has spoken out about some prior injustice, or sought to escape being subjected to abuse by a family member. These camps apparently went on from 1975 – 1986 until people still being held were allowed to emigrate to the US.
“Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.” Posted 4/17/2014 by “kubia”
Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, Vietnamese Communist government began to open hundreds of “re-education” camps throughout the country. Those camps, as Hanoi officially claimed, were places where individuals could “learn about the ways of the new government” through education and socially constructive labor.
In 1975, it was estimated that around 1 to 2.5 million people1, including former officers, religious leaders, intellectuals, merchants, employees of the old regime, and even some Communists, entered the camps in the hope that they could quickly reconcile with the new government and continued their peaceful life. However, their time in those camps did not last for ten days or two weeks as the government had claimed.
Re-education Camps Levels
The re-education camps were organized into five levels. The level-one camps which were called as study camps or day-study centers located mainly in major urban centers, often in public parks, and allowed attendees to return home each night. In those camps, some 500,000 people2 were instructed about socialism, new government policy in order to unlearn their old ways of thinking. The level-two camps had a similar purpose as the level-one, but attendees were not allowed to return home for three to six months. During the 1970s, at least 200,000 inmates entered more than three hundred level–two camps2.
The level-three re-education camps, known as the socialist-reform camps, could be found in almost every Southern Vietnam province containing at least 50,000 inmates2. Most of them were educated people and thus less susceptible to manipulation than most South Vietnamese in the level-one and two camps. Therefore, the inmates (or prisoners) in these camps had to suffer poorer living conditions, forced labor and daily communist indoctrination.
The last two types of camps were used to incarcerate more “dangerous” southern individuals – including writers, legislator teachers, supreme court judges, province chiefs – until the South was stable to permit their release. By separating members of certain social classes of the old regime, Hanoi wanted to prevent them from conducting joint resistances and forced them to conform to the new social norms. In 1987, at least 15,000 “dangerous” persons were still incarcerated level-four and level-five camps2.
Camp Conditions and Deaths
In most of the re-education camps, living conditions were inhumane. Prisoners were treated with little food, poor sanitation, and no medical care3. They were also assigned to do hard and risky work such as clearing the jungle, constructing barracks, digging wells, cutting trees and even mine field sweeping without necessary working equipments.
Although those hard work required a lot of energy, their provided food portions were extremely small. As a prisoner recall, the experience of hunger dominated every man in his camp. Food was the only thing they talked about. Even when they were quiet, food still haunted their thoughts, their sleep and their dreams. Worse still, various diseases such as malaria, beriberi and dysentery were widespread in some of the camps. As many prisoners were weakened by the lack of food, those diseases could now easily take away their lives.
Starvation diet, overwork, diseases and harshly punishment resulted in a high death rate of the prisoners. According to academic studies of American researchers, a total of 165,000 Vietnamese people died in those camps4.
The End of “Re-education” Period
Most of the re-education camps were operated until 1986 when Nguyen Van Linh became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He began to close the harsher camps and reformed the others5. Two year later, Washington and Hanoi reached an agreement that Vietnam would free all former soldiers and officials of the old regime who were still held in re-education camps across the country and allowed them to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). As of August 1995, around 405,000 Vietnamese prisoners and their families were resettled in the U.S6.
– See more at: thevietnamwar.info/vietnamese-re-education-camps/..
The forced “Reunification Camps” (far less harsh, but still forced, and still designed to produce an attitude change) have their professionals willing to engage in these practices.
I think it must take a certain kind of mentality, if not personality aberrancy, to believe in this and what’s more preach about it and take in business to engage in it.
For some reason, those “Re-education camps” remind me of, though lesser in degree, the same idea as, for example, “overcoming barriers.” It’s still based on force — and who knows how many similar programs are operating around the country. As I write this, the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens were reported (in 2016) to being re-indoctrinated to like their father (who they’d run away from as young teens), while the mother, until recently, was incarcerated for parental interference. See my more recent 2016 posts).
Here’s a sample. I see he’s from Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area). To see it in better formatting (the “copy” function sometimes removes all spaces between words!) click on link:
C. A. CHILDRESS, Psy.D.LICENSED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PSY 18857
547 S. MARENGO DR., STE 105 • PASADENA, CA 91101 • (909) 821-5398Page 1 of 10DSM-5 Diagnosis of “ParentalAlienation”
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate and Call Mom “Alienator!” — Pt. 3, in which 3 AFCC Ph.D.’s (Benjamin Garber, Peggie Ward & David Medoff) in a NH PAS case get a PAS-based reversal, plus some Warshak Talk
PARENTING COORDINATION: This post is going to show how the people crying that Moms are Coaching their kids actually coach each other to say this in reports to the courts. This is the AFCC-sponsored, engendered, promoted, and if they have their way, exclusively controlled field of “Parenting Coordination.”
(I’m also going to split this post — some of the people mentioned above may not show up til the next one….)
Another place to find wording like (see end of last post) is in your basic “parenting coordination” manual. It’s AFCC. And it’s sick — which is probably why it isn’t posted in public at the “self-help” “Family Center” resource centers: You are going to face a “HAPC” (hostile-aggressive-parenting coordinator) talking about your hostility in protesting or even reporting, aggression.
Why also are we not informed of how AFCC practitioners and their “ilk” are genuinely attempting to change family law into Therapy — and are brazen about it. This is essentially what the “Center for Families & Children in the Courts” are. They are venues where parents can be discussed, in third person as a foreign population, and how the far wiser and more noble practicing professionals can plot and plan to deal with their flawed, parental selves.
Might as well show it right now:
NEW HAMPSHIRE PARENTING COORDINATOR ASSOCIATION LIST — AT LEAST THE AFCC-TRAINED ONES:
Footnote 1, Footnote 2 (and the entire list, this one at least, all have a footnote, or some, 2) stands for:
1Practicing parenting coordinator.
2Completed Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) prescribed training program.
A quick look (the list is only 2 pages) shows that these are either attorney, psychologist, or therapists. If I were in New Hampshire with an open custody case, I’d memorize the list and be prepared….
Now for that training, a sample page from a sample report, on the association home page:
Notice (on home page) the “high-conflict” phrase, all over the place:
Welcome to Parenting Coordinators Association
The Parenting Coordinators Association of New Hampshire (PCANH) is a non-profit interdisciplinary organization dedicated to fostering the understanding and use of parenting coordination and to supporting professionals who serve as parenting coordinators. Our membership includes attorneys, mental health providers, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in New Hampshire by managing and reducing inter-parental conflict and creating healthier outcomes for children of divorce and separation. The purposes of PCANH are to promote the highest level of practice by parenting coordinators through networking and continuing education, and to educate the judicial branch, legal community, and the general public about the use of this dispute resolution process in high conflict parenting cases.
Their membership includes (most likely, just is) the same fields of practice that AFCC membership covers, with possible exception of the judges themselves. They are going to educate EVERYone (see last sentence) and of course promote it to the general public as well. They are excellence-minded, and are going to promote the HIGHEST level of (unbiased?) practice, etc. They will teach the judges (the judges in AFCC already know this stuff — they attend conferences! So is this going to trade some training funds around, or go proselytize to the non-AFCC judges?)
This is a very basic (not links- heavy) site, but one of the links is to AFCC.
I can’t drag the picture of a pretty little (Caucasian) girl, with a ribbon in her hair, and a yellow butterfly on her shoulder. Oh how gentle and sensitive.
Now, (by contrast) for the SAMPLE from the Handbook, and what they really think about ADULT women with children, separating:
I notice, up front, the comment the Indiana Parenting Coordinators group (INDIANA just also happens to be a state in which Family Justice Center has been established; it also on its child support page contains a direct link to Fathers and Families soliciting (from Fathers & Families) grant applications. They are unbelievably networked…..
The Parenting Coordinators Association of New Hampshire deeply appreciates Families Moving Forward, Inc. of Indiana for granting permission to the Association to incorporate material from the Indiana Parenting Coordination Guide in preparing this document.1
…..
Furthermore, parenting coordination can help heal damaged family relationships and establish the communication, cooperation, conflict resolution, and general coping skills necessary for effective co-parenting so as to enable children to remain psychologically healthy following the divorce or separation of their parents.
John D. Cameron, Esq. Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D. Co-Chairpersons, Parenting Coordinators Association of New Hampshire April 2008
….
As the manager of the treatment team, the parenting coordinator coordinates the needed services and has the authority to select different services and different service providers, and to replace service providers when necessary, to ensure that the needs of the family are met for the sake of the children. *** This role would typically be applied in cases where the parents are deadlocked about treatment options for their children, and in cases where mental health problems, parental alienation tactics, or other problematic family dynamics may threaten the parenting coordination process, the safety of the children, or the relationships of the children with one or both parents.
**This basically is putting in place permission for a parenting coordinator to replace a NON-AFCC provider who might be a little more neutral with one more friendly to their particular philosophy, as demonstrated, below in the sample report (p. 28 of handbook). Notice, “mental health problems, parental alienation tactics,” and of course an assumption that there ar elikely to be “treatment” for children. Moreover, the material shows parenting coordinators are going to seek to have access to what would be otherwise very privileged information about the parents and children in a particular case:
5. Access to Information.
In carrying out responsibilities the parenting coordinator will have access to non- parties and privileged information as may be required, including school officials, physicians, mental health providers, guardians ad litem, and other professionals involved with the family. The parenting coordinator will also have access to related court records.
Judges have to file with the secretary of state or . . . . . officially, a DIsclosure form, so litigants know there is no “conflict of interest” and can require (or attempt to) a judge to recuse him/herself if there IS one, and the judge hasn’t done so voluntarily up front. Do Parenting Coordinators have to reveal which AFCC (etc.) conferences they have attended, or which nonprofits they run, with each other, J.D. & Ph.D.? This is NOT good…..
Of course, parenting coordination is hard work and takes time (so does fighting frivolous causes of action in a family law scenario– are the parents paid for this?), so about FEES:
Fees:
Fees of the parenting coordinator are set by the particular professional and would typically, but not necessarily, depend on the qualifications of the parenting coordinator. {{Hence, run more trainings}} Fees can be expected to apply to all parenting coordination services, including but not necessarily limited to: interview time, meeting time, investigation time (of court, school, or other records), collateral time (conferring with attorneys and other professionals), home visits, travel expenses and travel time, preparation of reports or agreements, and court appearances.
Can they set a minimum level of parental wealth before engaging a parent coordinator? Oh — I forgot, usually who has the money is sought close to the beginning of any divorce/separation case, so the court knows whether to high-track it, or to low-ball it through mediation (20 minute hearing following 45 minute medication, goodbye children..)
WHO GETS parenting coordination. In a set of amazingly “clear” reasoning, they say, not parents with high conflict or a history of disobeying court orders. (well, if not, then what is a coordinator needed for? Because parents DO keep court orders and can figure out their own business?)
Parenting coordination works best when both parents are willing to accept the parenting coordination process. That is why parenting coordination in New Hampshire typically requires the agreement of both parents for the appointment of a parenting coordinator.** Parenting coordination may be least effective in cases where one or both parents have never accepted the court’s authority and repeatedly violated court orders. Such parents will likely dispute or defy the parenting coordinator’s decisions as well.
**Just wait. Sooner or later this will be flagged and mandated up front. Probably Indiana will get to this before NH….
After another section establishing their retainer and billing procedures in some detail, we get the assurance that the parenting coordinators are VERY, very, very concerned about impartiality
9. Impartiality.
The parents understand that parenting coordination will be furnished on an impartial basis and that the parenting coordinator will not provide psychological counseling or legal advice to either parent.
. . . . i.e., “just trust us.” You are in a high-stakes struggle for your civil rights and sometimes safety for children, there is a lot of money at stake, and you are going to pay a parenting coordinator, even if child support is in arrears and you are transitioning from stay at home status as a parent. So, as with all legal proceedings, be encouraged to take the professionals impartiatlity at face value, although you will of course have to pay a retainer to get their impartial services. Now, about that lack of gender bias in this profession, which has a gender-neutral title, “Parent” coordination: SAMPLE REPORT: (in diff’t format in original, see pdf)
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
ROCKINGHAM, SS FAMILY DIVISION AT
In the Matter of Father and Mother Case #2008-M-0000
PARENTING COORDINATOR REPORT
NOW COMES the Parenting Coordinator and submits the following report for the information and assistance of the Court and the parents:
Parenting coordination was ordered by the court in Month 20XX. The role of the parenting coordinator has been helping both parents manage and resolve conflicts and attend to the needs of their children within the scope of the Final Custody and Parenting Schedule Agreement. Every effort was made to encourage them to resolve disputes themselves; however, information was obtained from third parties when necessary to understand the issues, i.e., children’s pediatrician, teachers, and pastors of the respective churches.
(Guess no Jews or Muslims, or atheists, are likely to cross the PC’s paths… Guess Christian pastors are likely to be gender-neutral, too: Use of the word “pastor” indicates Protestant, but FYI, here’s the Catholic version of gender-equality, from a random search on “church, fatherhood”)
MISSING FATHERS OF THE CHURCHThe Feminization of the Church & the Need for Christian Fatherhood
byLeon J. Podles
You may have noticed that, in general, men are not as interested in religion as women are. There are usually more women than men at Sunday mass, and there are far more women than men at devotions, retreats, and prayer groups. The men who do come are often there because wives or girlfriends have put pressure on them to attend. . . . . “In my book,The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity,I examine the lack of men in the Western churches, which only the unobservant doubt, and I look at the possible causes and results of the lack of men. My thought has continued to develop, and I have slightly revised my thesis. In what follows I will first summarize my thesis that men stay away from the Church because they regard it as a threat to their hard-won masculinity. Second, I will explore how the Church has become identified with femininity. Third, I will consider how this feminization has undermined fatherhood, and how the Church can reach men and help them to be Christians and Christian fathers.
(Unbelievably, this is copyright 2011). Is it better with the non-Catholics, this panick about feminizing or rendering men impotent through church involvement?
Here’s an attorney’s writing: ”
Tips for Restoring the Biblical Role of Fatherhood in the Church Scott Brown. (note:first quote is from an attorney);
“To know the true state of a nation, look at the state of the Church. To know the true state of the Church, look at the families who populate her pews. To know the state of her families, look to the fathers who lead them. Destroy the vision of the father, and you render impotent the family, thus creating a chain reaction that spreads throughout civilization” Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.
If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? -I Timothy 3:5
How does a church begin to restore the role of fathers to the pattern prescribed in scripture? First of all, she must deal with PMS (Passive Male Syndrome). This is accomplished by focusing the energies of the church toward men and challenging them to carry out their Biblically defined roles.
Well, here’s someone else’s “Public Notice Calling for the Repentance of Douglas W. Phillips” (probably the same guy, judging by content):
2. As a self-appointed, unordained, sole elder of Boerne Christian Assembly, Mr. Phillips pronounced an “excommunication” on a member family of his church in 2005. 2 The “excommunication” was vindictive and appears to have been motivated over a difference in political views. 3 The “trial” was conducted without any due process in what can only be described as a Kangaroo Court. The accused were tried in absentia. No witnesses were called. No defense was afforded the accused. No specific, detailed list of charges was made. No evidence was provided. Any actual valid excommunicable sins had already been repented from, including a pre-conversion sin that had been repented of fifteen years prior. 4 A prominent Pastor has since described the excommunication as “the Salem Witch Trials.” The family has attempted ever since to be reconciled with Mr. Phillips, but he has refused all offers to meet with them, thus confirming his vindictiveness.
3. After being “excommunicated,” the entire family was shunned, including the family’s children. The children were never charged with any sins. Yet they, too, were punished. One of the daughters had received an award as a runner-up in a Vision Forum writing contest, but Mr. Phillips ordered her name be removed from the Vision Forum web site.
4. Doug Phillips is known as a leader in what is known as the “Patriarchy” movement. However, his conduct as a pastor makes it apparent that he is more of a misogynist than a Patriarch. “Let the women keep silent” (1 Cor. 13:34) is taken to such an extreme at BCA that women cannot make prayer requests or even introduce their guests. Women aren’t even permitted to get the elements of the Lord’s Supper for themselves. If their husbands aren’t present, they must be served by another man, or one of her sons, even if that son is too young to take the Lord’s supper himself.Mr. Phillips’ treatment of women is degrading and demeaning, and he does not treat them as fellow heirs of Christ Jesus. 5
Be assured the people who tend to talk like this can meanwhile be treating their women (and/or, previously, slaves) like second-class animals. This same person expounding on evolutionary versus revelation concepts of law, starting with Oliver Wendell Holmes..
A millennium of Christian legal tradition came to an end in 1870. In that year, Christopher Columbus Langdell, newly appointed Dean of Harvard Law School, began a revolutionary approach to legal education which specifically discarded the Genesis foundation of law in favor of a philosophy rooted in Darwinism.
Langdell abandoned the historic method of teaching Christian principles of the common law in favor of the new “case-book method” which directed the student to discover law through the constantly evolving opinion of judges. Langdell described the relationship between science, law, and uniformitarianism in the preface to the first “case-book” ever published, his Cases on Contracts:
While it’s clear AFCC is in favor of evolutionary legal language (in fact, moving towards therapy and away from law, just USING the courts to dispense the therapeutic assignments to court cronies, if I may be so sarcastic (and accurate) – – – Be assured that among the people coming before the courts will be women attempting to exit the dominate-the-woman lifestyle of one, or more, religions, and that sometimes they are risking their lives for doing so.
One more — since the Parenting Coordinators of New Hampshire feel it appropriate to consult “Pastors” for “information” on the children and parents. Pastors are mandated reporters of child abuse (and have been caught as perpetrators, also, or covering up for perpetrators).
For this reason (or at least so He stated), former US President Jimmy Carter LEFT the Southern Baptist Convention, stating as a reason its treatment of women:
Via Feministing, the former president called the decision “unavoidable” after church leaders prohibited women from being ordained and insisted women be “subservient to their husbands.” Said Carter in an essay in The Age:
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
And, later:
The truth is that male religious leaders have had — and still have — an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.
The article here is July, 2009. Contrast with the position of former U.S. President Bush, in 2001 (OFCBI), or in 2003 (heart of the Family Justice Center Alliance — see my post — cites an interest in keeping the “faith” component involved in helping people escape violence, abuse including sexual abuse of children, human trafficking and wife-beating. And in 2008, the PCANH, in a casual reference, figures that they’ll go get some more data from the pastors…. Yeah, right.. Meanwhile, to clean up its racist act the conservatives targeted urban innercity black MEN to sell them on Fatherhood initiatives, when they were already en route to civil rights….
There’s still over?compensation and a church attempt to solicit men (women are expected to show up and serve, what else have they got to do?) in the form of (date: 2010) a “MANLY MEN conference” which appears to have a Responsible Fatherhood/Marriage Connection:
Celebrate Being a Man!No singing. No crying. No holding of hands.
Take some time to explore the website to learn more about each part of this life-changing weekend. Space is limited and the event is expected to sell out, so take advantage of early bird pricing and get registered today! Bring a friend, bring your sons, but make sure you join us in celebrating MEN!
What beats hanging out with 1,000 men for a weekend?Roasting our own pigs.
This summer, The Manly Man Conference returns to Green Bay with an all new event, Manly Man III: Time to Man Up. MMIII is a weekend for men, by men. From the food to the speakers and the music, everything is planned with YOU in mind.
This year we’re going hog wild with the pig roast. We’ve purchased a few pigs to raise at a farm in Wisconsin and are forming plans to roast them ourselves. Why? Because we’re men!
Yes, this has a religious and “Focus on the Family” theme. Do I sense a fear of the feminine somewhere? The key speaker is a pastor, and probably on the CFDA 93.086 circuit too, as he is marketing marriage seminars…
As such, I find the parenting coordinator comment a bit of a “red flag” (or just ignorant of the influence of religion here…..).
But, after they have assembled all the relevant information (and obtained retainers) then it’s time to write a report. Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D. (mental health leadership of PCANH.org) and John D. Cameron, Esq. (legal leadership of PCANH.org) suggest a report as follows:
(After very brief info, this is the first substantive paragraph, attacking Mother. Again, this is a standard, or sample report. No contrasting one is suggested to validate any concerns a mother might have about a father. Catch the tone — this is a PC association coaching PCs how to Coach the Judge to say the Mom Coached the Children. And you wondered where that idea came from, eh?
There was evidence in the meetings with the children that they were caught in a loyalty bind by mother (i.e., feeling pressure to choose their mother as right or good and their father as wrong or bad). The children shared that their mother asked many questions about their father and his household. They acknowledged that they did not always tell their mother the truth. Sometimes they lied to stop their mother from questioning them intensively after visits with their father. Other times they lied in an effort to please their mother, or because their mother had confused them.
Often, the children complained about their father or his household. For example, “I don’t feel I’m safe at Daddy’s” or “I’m scared of Daddy.” However, when these issues were explored, it was learned that in some cases they were totally without foundation and in other cases they were related only to an incident two years earlier when their father grabbed an arm and directed one of the children to time-out in the garage.
a.k.a., how to discredit any assaults…..
The children also brought up issues and requests which parroted their mother….
“Mom says our clothes don’t fit” and “I want to talk with Mommy more than just the Sunday ” With discussion it was revealed that their mother raised the issues and then directed the children to discuss them in the meetings. In addition, it appears that the mother has made statements that have caused the children to doubt the parenting coordinator. For example, the children said to the parenting coordinator: “Mom told us that you took Daddy’s side and didn’t stay neutral and on the kids’ side.”
a.k.a. how to counter with allegations Mommy is coaching, AND she doesn’t trust the PC authority, either! (As it seems, with good reason, if this is typical of the bias!)
Father showed improvement in raising only important issues instead of trivial concerns in the joint meetings.
a.k.a. how to win points for Daddy’s patience and forbearance with hysterical mother.
Subsequent paragraphs are no better, and continue to castigate bad Mommy and patient Daddy, and then psychoanalyze the Mother:
Mother displayed a distorted view of the father, seeing him as without redeeming qualities and specifically as abusive to the children. She constantly scanned the world for evidence of his harm to them. She viewed trivial events as having great significance; she interpreted inconsequential remarks by the children as indicative of major problems; and she exaggerated the anxious remarks of the children and accepted their complaints about the father as facts. For example, when the children complained about normal disciplinary (end p. 29) consequences from their father, the mother concluded the father was being abusive.
Similarly, despite evidence to the contrary, the mother alleged that the father’s church did not adhere at all to the Scriptures, and she believed that the father never dressed the children properly.
The mother exhibited rigid or black-white thinking. She had difficulty taking in information, considering it and viewing it objectively. Instead, she integrated it into her unrealistically negative belief system about father She rejected evidence, explanations and interpretations that were inconsistent with her beliefs.
The mother seems to use the children as a narcissistic extension of herself. She is unable to separate her own needs and emotions from those of the children. She attempts to undermine the children’s relationships with their father. The effect on the children is confusion and anxiety. The children vigilantly look for information to fit their mother’s perception of their father. As a result, the children are not learning to trust their own observations and judgments, and they are at great risk of becoming alienated from their father.
Mother’s distorted view and lack of trust in the father does not lend itself to building an effective co-parenting relationship and is destructive to the children. She lacks introspection and sees herself as virtuous and without fault. Mother viewed the parenting coordinator’s attempts to point out these dynamics as persecution and evidence of bias against her.
Actually, it is the parenting coordinator profession that perceives itself as virtuous and without fault, therefore deserving of this authority over — apparently, the mothers in a high-conflict parenting couple. Is there any indication there that PERHAPS a woman’s instinct, or a mothers’ might notice something the paid PC might not? The last statement there, to me, indicates that this handbook has anticipated resistance from an alert mother and how to counter it by labeling her. Ain’t NOTHING new under the son in this field, except the name of the new niche assigned to do the same job!
In summary, a degree of stability has been established in the family system with accountability offered by parenting coordination.
(Actually, there is precious little accountability with this system! Again, they are looking at “family system” and have a particular spin on events in an individual family. There is no mention in this whether or not there has been previous severe violence, threats, including to kill or kidnap. While it says no parenting coordination to be assigned unless parents both “consent” (what would the options be?) — only a very desperate mother, for example, would submit to a process that indicates this much bias going out the gate.
(Continuing….)
Father’s improvement in non-reactivity and being issue-focused has been beneficial. The parenting coordinator is concerned about the mother’s unresolved emotional issues** and the adverse impact these may have on co- parenting and on the children’s psychological health. It is strongly recommended that the mother seek individual counseling with a Ph.D. level mental health professional. Without intervention, co-parenting will be eleven more years of accusations and mistrust, necessitating ongoing parenting coordination. Furthermore, there is reason to be concerned that the mother may further confuse and alienate the children this summer.
In other words, parenting coordination the first step, intervention, the next step, and here is the “alienation” buzz word.
As a school nurse, she has the summer off and will be with the children all day on her parenting time. Finally, it is recommended that parenting coordination continue for 6 more months in order to facilitate effective co-parenting, monitor the dynamics in the family system, and determine whether the mother’s individual counseling has a positive impact.
Good grief, the woman is a school nurse, which is a profession where one is trained to notice details and work with kids. Now, she may want to have some private down time with her own, perhaps? Not with this parenting coordinator around.
Did I mention, who is paying child support to whom about this time? oh, I forgot — this absolutely has nothing to do with $$ and the parenting coordinators are certainly neutral (at least by AFCC standards). ….
Respectfully submitted, Parenting Coordinator
**Cobblers see shoes and mental health service providers see mental health problems. Does anyone actually see potential CAUSES of the responses?
So there you have it – HOW to call “ALIENATOR!” — blow by blow. A sample report. So, isn’t it nice to know that IF you actually agree to a parenting coordinator voluntarily, this is about the level of impartiality to expect. Don’t agree unless there is no other option, if you’re female, wouldn’t you think? Or at least, don’t grasp at stray straws of hope….
Now that how to write an antagonistic report about a paranoid mother who needs more therapy (or else), it’s time to get down to the issue of who gets to be a parenting coordinator. For some reason, reading this, I feel like we are back in grade school again, picking the winning team — who is “in” and who is “out.” Of course the Non-AFCC are going to be “out” but this is expressed in the following manner:
Mental health and legal professionals who are interested in developing parenting coordinator skills should, in addition to pursuing training in the above areas, consider joining the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or AFCC (website: http://www.afccnet.org). Furthermore, they should obtain supervision from a professional who is recognized as a skilled parenting coordinator. That supervision should continue throughout at least six parenting coordination cases
(Thus ensuring no “high-conflict” struggles within the Parenting Coordination Community — all will be properly groomed and screened. With as many judges as AFCC has on its board and in its ranks, this shouldn’t be too hard. Sounds like they don’t deal too well in this organization with challenges to their authority…..).
Suppose there are real violence or child abuse cases a parenting coordinator is handling? would such a person then actually consult an expert in the field? Like a medical expert, or criminal investigator who specializes in this? Well — no, how about another AFCC parenting coordinator who knows how to put the mental illness spin on anyone who reports. Notice the order:
Any parenting coordinator cases involving (1) parents with severe personality disorders or mental illness and (2) cases with allegations of physical or sexual abuse should be conducted only by a licensed mental health professional with more extensive experience as a parenting coordinator and substantial continuing education in parenting coordination, such as parenting coordinator workshops provided through AFCC.
Excuse me, when there are allegations of physical or sexual abuse, let’s not settle where or not this actually took place, but call in the psychiatrists? I wonder how that will work out. Notice it’s PARENTS (probably mothers) who have the severe personality disorders, and CASES not with physcial or sexual abuse, but allegations of it. Just to get the priorities straight. . . . . .
(Are we AFCC enough yet? in this field).
Again — read it. It’s an eyeopener. http://www.pcanh.org/NEW%20HAMPSHIRE%20PARENTING%20COORDINATION%20HANDBOOK.pdf
Of course, because I am questioning the authority of this profession, I just might be a female with a severe personality disorder…called reading .
How I found out about this: I read in a case which had been turned around through Alienation charges, and it just so happened to be in NH and involve not one, not two, but THREE mental health professionals stroking each other’s egos and deferentially quoting each other. The couple involved hadn’t even lived together that long, but they managed to get the kids back to the father away from the mother.
(material on the personnel mentioned in title, on the next post; I am splitting off one long post by word-count)….
To be continued….
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate, Prepare to Call “Alienator!” — Pt. 2: CFCC and AFCC people Nunn, Depner, Ricci, Stahl, Pruett(s), and others DV groups fail to talk about
And how this dovetails with purpose of Access Visitation Grants grants…
The last post (or so) discussed practices in Pennsylvania and Indiana, with side-trips to Kentucky and California, where they originated from anyhow.
(If you read it, I meanwhile confirmed that KidsFirstOrange County Gerald L. Klein & Sara Doudna-Klein, yes,are married. I forgot to include how much they charge for services ($300 per parent, $120 per kid) in teaching about parental alienation and conflict….. I wonder who was the first Mrs. Gerald L. Klein… and whether these two have children together or not.
In context, Kids Turn, or Kids’ First, or steering cases to certain mediators, certain GALs, etc. — is the habit. And then, to top it off, extorting parents into participation through the child support system (Kentucky), or changing the civil code of procedure AND even the Custody Complaint form to name ONE provider of ONE parenting education course (Libassi Mediation Services) which is already being marketed elsewhere — outrageous.
This was tried in California, to standardize judge& attorney-originated nonprofits through the California Judicial Council, but our then-governor vetoed it (though both houses of the legislature passed it).
Now pending — Probably still — is another one that is legitimizing a practice already established, the Family Justice Center Alliance out of San Diego, like Kids’ Turn and financial fraud at the City Attorney’s office level, and so forth. Why stop while you’re ahead?
This has currently flown through House & Senate and as of June 9th was referred to Location: Assembly Committee Public Safety Committee and I think, Judiciary. Here’s some analysis from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Christine Kehoe (who sponsored the bill) just so happens to be chair of the appropriations committee and from one of the cities involved in expanding the Justice Center concept (actually the city that started it: San Diego).
(link gives the bill’s history; the following is accessible through it)
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
Hearing Date: 05/26/2011
BILL SUMMARY: SB 557 would authorize the cities of San Diego and Anaheim, and the counties of Alameda and Sonoma, until January 1, 2014, to establish family justice centers (FJCs) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and other victims of abuse and crime. This bill would require each FJC to maintain an informed consent policy in compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the information of victims seeking services. This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (thereafter, the FJCs are to be locally funded)
_____________________________________________________________________Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Establishment of FJCs Unknown; potentially major local costs for operation and services
Major Provisions Report to Legislature $17 to OPP (Office of Privacy Protection) in advisory role General_________
…This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
…Should the specified cities and counties opt to establish a FJC, there will be unknown, but major local costs for operation and the provision of services to FJC clients. Costs would be dependent on the number of clients, FJC procedures, staffing, and the availability and cost of local treatment and service providers.
…The OPP has indicated a cost of $62,000 as the lead agency to develop best practice privacy recommendations and coordination of the report to the Legislature.
To reduce the costs of the bill, staff recommends an amendment to have the four pilot centers reduce the OPP to an advisory role over the development of best practices. The OPP has indicated reducing their involvement to oversight and review of the report would result in costs of approximately $17,000. (WELL, the OPP is slated for elimination anyhow, this report notes).
I’m posting the SB 557 updates for California residents. Information from:
RECENT POSTS:
Recently, I posted on:
- Kids Turn (Parent education curriculum, nonprofit started & staffed by family court personnel, with wealthy patrons AND gov’t sponsorship through federal Access/Visitation Funding)
- Family Justice Centers (origin in San Diego; Casey Gwinn, Gael Strack) and their background. INcluding a boost by Bush’s OFCBI initiative in 2003 — adding the faith factor to violence prevention. Sure, yeah..
- Family Justice Center #2, Alameda County — see “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.
- Also, remember the Justicewomen.org article on the importance of District Attorneys in safety (or lack of it) towards women. A D.A. decides whether to, or NOT, to prosecute individual cases. It’s a huge responsibility.
- What’s Duluth (MN) got to do with it?
- What’s Domestic Violence Prevention got to do with this California-based racket? I questioned what a Duluth-based group spokesperson (Ellen Pence) is doing hobnobbing with a Family Justice Center founder (Casey Gwinn).
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- The elusive EIN of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” which gets millions of grants (around $29 million, I found) but from what I can tell doesn’t even have an EIN registered in MN, although its address is 202 E. Superior Street, Duluth, MN, and it definitely has a staff.
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- Toronto Integrated Domestic Violence Courts
- This was intended to be a “break” on SB 557 and Family Justice Centers, but thanks to the internet and international judges’ associations, and downloadable curricula, this is simply (it seems) another AFCC-style project. (Kids Turn knockoffs, talk of high-conflict & parental alienation, and modeled after several US states). The intended “global” reach (UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.) is happening, and makes it hard to “take a break” from California basic corrupt practices by looking at another country’s handling of the same issues. The world is flattening — Internet, I guess.
- Last post, I addressed some partner-type organizations: AFCC/CRC, or CPR/PSI (in Denver), and personnel they have in common.
REMINDER — in CALIFORNIA — Three accepted purposes of the A/V funds system remain:
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)
Federal and State Program Goals
The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.”3 Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to
support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement** (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:5
- Supervised visitation and exchange services;
- Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
- Group counseling services for parents and children.
(This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature under Family Code section 3204(d).Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved.)
Report 12 Executive Summary (Sept 2000)
Preparing Court-Based Child Custody Mediation Services for the Future
DIANE NUNN
- LEADERSHIP AND NEW ROLES FOR THE JUDICIARY a 2002 conference at Univ. of Pacific McGeorge School of Law,
“The Many Faces of California’s Courts”
Diane Nunn, Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
California Administrative Office of the Courts, “She supervises projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Ongoing projects include training, education, research and statistical analysis.” (Note, presenting alongside Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, whose wife Nadia ran (til recently) the Alameda County Family Justice Center).
AFCC wishes to thank Symposium sponsors and exhibitors for their support:
Children’s Rights Council, Hawaii (that’s CRC)
Christine Coates, JD, Dispute Resolution Training Complete Equity Markets, Inc.
Dr. Philip M. Stahl, ParentingAfterDivorce.com (alienation promoter)
Family Law Software, Inc. J.M.Craig Press, Inc. LifeBridge
Eileen Pruett and the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Dispute Resolution Special Committee on Parent Education for the material on parent education, which is replicated in Appendix D.
In Ohio, “To achieve this goal, the Task Force recommend(ed, in 1999): 1) All parties in proceedings that involve the allocation of parental functions and responsibilities should attend parenting education seminars……Sixty-seven Ohio counties currently mandate parent education seminars for all divorcing parents;
More than two dozen experts from around the state and across the country presented testimony to the Task Force over a six-month period. Representatives from a variety of parents’ organizations, as well as a panel of teens who had experienced their parents’ divorces, brought their unique concerns to the Task Force. Staff members obtained research articles and statutes from around the nation and the globe to find the latest policies and practices. Members of the Task Force traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to meet with staff at the Maricopa County Court system, a nationally recognized leader in court services and pro se programs, and to conferences sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an internationally acclaimed organization which provides research and programs for professionals dealing with families in conflict.
Given who was on the task force, and what it did, this kind of conclusion is a little predictable:
The following report and recommendations are the result of this extensive research effort and debate and have been unanimously approved, without any abstentions or dissents, by official action of the 17 members of the Task Force present at the final meeting on June 1, 2001.
The OTHER Pruetts (I’m still on that 2004 AFCC flyer which mentions Diane Nunn as AFCC “Advisory Task Force”) include Dr. Kyle (child psychiatrist from Yale) and his wife Marsha Kline (also a Ph.D.). They have three daughters and one son and have naturally dedicated themselves to promoting fatherhood, as a search on “Marsha Kline Pruett, Kyle Pruett Fatherhood” will readily show, at a glance. Dr. Marsha Kline even got an award for “Fatherhood Initiative Community Recognition Award, State of Connecticut (2002), and Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, Awarded by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She is definitely (with I gather her husband, Dr. Kyle) on the Grants stream for investigation: “University of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/09-6/30/12: Total (T) $176,924 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-InvestigatorUniversity of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/04-6/30/09: Total (T) $353,849 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-Investigator
CHARLENE DEPNER, Ph.D., AFCC, etc.
Now (just for the heck of it), more on “Charlene Depner, Ph.D.” First of all, Ph.D. in what? the answer — per LinkedIn, is Social Psychology at U Michigan
Assistant Division Director, Cntr for Families, Children & Courts, CA Administrative Office of the Courts Govt. Admin. Industry 1988 – Present (23 years)/ Education: U Michigan, PhD, Social Psychology 1972 – 1978
So it appears, about 10 years, if any, in private practice or employment of some sort?
A. Does the history of violence in the relationship predict whether the visits are supervised or unsupervised?
We found no statistically significant relationships between the history of physical and psychological abuse or injuries and court orders to a supervised visitation center, family supervised visits or unsupervised visitation. More than three quarters of the participants had experienced severe forms of physical and psychological abuse from the father of their children. One can surmise that these pervasive experiences provided no useful information to the court to determine which fathers might pose a current and ongoing danger.
The one exception was severe injuries, which had been experienced by less than half the participants (46%). Nevertheless, fathers who had severely injured their former partners were no more likely to be ordered to supervised visitation than unsupervised visitation.
A 1996 report (issued by this CA Judicial Council AOC) on “Future Directions for Mandatory Child-Custody Mediation Services:….”
” notes:
Court-based child custody mediations affect the fate of nearly 100,000 California children each year. Many of them are already at risk when parents come to court. Currently, one- third of all mediations address concerns about a child’s emotional well-being. Child Protective Services has investigated a report about children in 33 percent of all families seen in mediation. Children in half of all mediating families have witnessed domestic violence. Today’s Family Court faces the serious challenge of protecting the best interests of the next generation.
Well, pushing mediation does not appear to be the solution!
Joan Meier, of DV Leap writes on this, and most any battered women’s advocate without AFCC collaboration in the bloodstream, might say the same thing — it’s counter-indicated! Whatsamatta here? Joan Meier, of “George Washington University Law School” (and ‘DVLEAP.org”) as posted in a noncustodial mother’s blog. NOTE: She quotes both Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC leadership) and Depner, who both acknowledge that MOST of the the high-conflict cases entail child abuse or domestic violence. This has been known since the 1990s….
Most Cases Going To Court As High Conflict Contested Custody Cases Have History Of Domestic Violence
By JOAN S. MEIER, George Washington University Law School
Janet Johnston’s publications
Janet Johnston is best known as a researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. {{NOTE how AFCC often pairs those terms– that’s an AFCC language habit}}. Not a particular friend of domestic violence advocates or perspectives, she has been one of the first to note that domestic violence issues should be seen as the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation.
Johnston has noted that approximately 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process. Studies have found that only approximately 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to court. Only approximately 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process.
– Janet R. Johnston et al, “Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families,” Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2005, 284-294, p. 284;
– Janet R. Johnston, “High-Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182, p. 167 both citing large study by Maccoby and Mnookin, DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press (1992).Johnston cites another study done in California by Depner and colleagues, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, “[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated… [for an average of 30-42 months]”. Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon.”
Mediation is an easy way to increase noncustodial parenting time without the protections that facts & evidence, without the disclosure of conflicts of interests a judge has to abide by, without the attorney-client work product relationship, and much more — in short, without the PROTECTIONS — that a regular trial might afford, and finish. Mandated mediation is bad enough. Some counties (in Calif) also have what’s called “recommending” status to the court-appointed mediators, meaning, their reports are taken more seriously by judges. I have seen how this works year after year (from being in the courtroom) — the mediator’s report is often delivered IN the courtroom, and NOT prior to the hearing, if then. It is typically a shocker, and this really violates due process, but it’s accepted practice. Mediation is the poor-person’s “supervised visitation / custody evaluation.” If no private family member can be made to pay for the latter two, or then the quick & dirty custody hearing is going to involve mediation.
Guess which organization is heavily composed of mediators, and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution services) and emphasizes this to unclog the courts? You betcha — AFCC.
· Attempts to leave a violent partner with children, is one of the most significant factors associated with severe domestic violence and death.
– Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston, MA: University Press.· A majority of separating parents are able to develop a post-separation parenting plan for their children with minimal intervention of the family court system. However, in 20% of the cases greater intervention was required by lawyers, court-related personnel (such as mediators and evaluators) and judges. In the majority of these cases, which are commonly referred to as “high-conflict,” domestic violence is a significant issue.
– Johnston, J.R. (1994). “High-conflict divorce.” Future of Children, 4, 165-182.
What “DVLEAP” does in its own words:
A STRONGER VOICE FOR JUSTICE
Despite the reforms of recent decades, battered women and children continue to face unfair treatment and troubling results in court. Appeals can overturn unjust trial court outcomes – but they require special expertise and are often prohibitively expensive.
We empower victims and their advocates by providing expert representation for appeals; educating pro bono counsel through in-depth consultation and mentoring; training lawyers, judges, and others on cutting-edge issues; and spearheading the DV community’s advocacy in Supreme Court cases
(photo also from this site):
They even have a “Custody and Abuse” program, and have taken on the “PAS” theme. These are specific cases that have been taken to the Appeals or even Supreme Court (state) level. Here (found on-line) is an Arkansas Case where they took on “PAS” alongside: Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice for Children and The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (on which I believe Ms. Meier is a board or advisory member), the NCADV, and National Association of Women Lawyers. It is an Amicus Brief and will likely go to discredit PAS.
The Leadership Council’s:
Mission Statement
The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.
Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society’s commitment to protect its most vulnerable members.
Goals
- To develop a coalition among professionals within the scientific community, the legal system, the political system and the media to provide professionals and laypersons with accurate information about mental health practice and research which helps insure access to the highest quality of care. (and several others are listed. . . . . .. )
In the bottom line, the Leadership Council is still talking psychology, acknowledging trauma, and opposing “PAS” — but, who they are and what they do is clear — “Apply Psychological Science Ethically.” So, if you put this psychological group together with some domestic violence lawyers, or lawyers who recognize that batterers (etc.) are getting custody — you just the opposite of the AFCC “J.D. & Ph.D.” combo of attorney & mental health practitioners
The problem is — the AFCC, being around longer, and having strategized better — have the judges, too.
As I look at The Leadership Council’s page on “Child Custody & PAS” and associated “resources” below, I notice that they have said NOTHING about the things I blog on, and some others, individuals, who have simply observed. There is a striking omission of the organizations promoting “alienation” theory — no mention of AFCC, CRC, or the influence of the Child Support System & Grants Stream on how cases are decided. While NAFCJ (and a similar Illinois group) are listed — for a change — they are one in a dozen-plus links that a mother in a crisis system could not sort through or wade through in time to help her case — if indeed that information even would.
I appreciate the work these organizations do to “out” that violence does indeed happen in the home. Of course most people experiencing it know this already….
But how much better might it have been to give TIMELY information on the operational structure of the courts, and who is paying whom. How in the world can one enter a contest being ignorant of the habits and devices of the opposite side? What’s up with that?
So, I talk about these things. And so do a FEW others.
Domestic Violence Nonprofit DVLEAP gets a “Sunshine Peace” award:
“This award is so meaningful to me,” said Professor Meier, “because I have so much respect for others who have received it in the past. I am also grateful to the Sunshine Lady Foundation for the financial contribution to DV LEAP associated with the award which will make a significant difference to our small organization that manages to accomplish so much with so few resources.”
According to the Sunshine Lady Foundation (which was founded by Doris Buffett), the Sunshine Peace Award program “recognizes extraordinary individuals who make a difference; those who help to build communities that are intolerant of domestic violence and through whose work peoples’ lives are changed for the better.”
Since Professor Meier founded DV LEAP in 2003, the organization has worked on cutting-edge issues in the domestic violence field, submitting 6 friend of court briefs in the Supreme Court. In the past year, in addition to lecturing and consulting with survivors, DV LEAP staff have worked on 10 appeals, a remarkable output for an organization of its size
Well,this is all very nice — and certainly I”m sure professional work. But is it the most important task? I say: NO! Neither DVLEAP nor the State Coaliations (why, I hope to show soon enough), nor the related Leadership Council mention the operational systems of the courts — which is their related professional associations and nonprofits — as well as the grants stream and the child support system. How hard is that to comprehend? There are different systems working within to promote more and more work for the marriage counseling and therapy industry, PERIOD.
For example:
They did not mention that in 1999, in Ohio, an AFCC-laced Task Force lifted some AFCC_designed policies for custody, then flew to Arizona to attend an AFCC conference as part of their transformations of the courts. These groups do not mention, typically, fatherhood funding, or the history of Family Law as an offshoot of a brainstorm between “Roger & Meyer” (Judge Pfaff and Counselor Meyer Elkin) long ago, or anything at all about the Marv Byer discoveries in the late 1990s. They don’t mention that around the US, “fatherhood commissions” building of the National Fatherhood Initiative have been formed to legalize some of the policies these very groups say they oppose. Nor, FYI, do they (for example) broadcast to women that the NCADV and associated alliances are actually collaborating with the father’s groups at the national and financing level, and talking policy with them.
They certainly don’t mention when a local legislator slips in some bill to legalize steering court business to court professionals, as Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego area) did when an Assemblyperson in 2002 (proposing a bill naming Kids’ Turn in its first draft; see my “kicking salesmanship up a notch” post), or as She (sponsoring?) did again in SB 557 (with her chief of staff then and now Assemblyperson, Atkins) in legalizing the “Family Justice Center Model with an alliance run out of the San Diego City’s original brainchild.
Nor do they mention how the money keeps flowing in after conferences, for example, as in this 2008 AFCC conference:
Not only does the material itself show (coach) professionals how to be prejudiced against mothers — but it also probably more than breaks even (though aren’t judges paid enough in our states?) by selling the stuff!
READ THIS! Read every sentence and simply think about it. This is the pre-game and post-game plan for a custody hearing. And it’s only one of how many?
These are existing people who decided WHERE kids live (or don’t), whether they see their own parents’ income go to professionals and evaluators, or to the children’s future college funds, or simply survival funds. This is AFCC conference material:
Your Price: $25.00
Item Number: AFCC-08-011-M
Quantity:
Email this page to a friendThis panel will demonstrate how the judge, evaluator, psychologist performing psychological testing and the childrens therapist work together to complete the evaluation process. The panel will present an actual case in which a family comes to the court with allegations that mother is alienating the children and is clinically depressed. Father is asking for full custody. Mother is making counter allegations that father and his live-in girlfriend are verbally and emotionally abusing the three children. The parents have a history of high conflict and the police have been called many times to keep the peace. The family is referred for a child custody evaluation. The panel will demonstrate how the evaluator relies on the childrens therapist and the psychologist performing psychological testing on the parents, fathers girlfriend, and the child experiencing emotional distress, for information and case consultation in order to give the judge the most complete history and assessment possible. The panel will describe how and why the recommendations were made for this family.
The police were probably called because someone (not both) was being assaulted. However, a single evaluation of a police call might obtain the cause of the call. To “keep the peace” is an evasion. 911, or non-emergency police calls have causes. We all know this. If the police were called many times to “keep the peace” was no referral made? Was no restraining order solicited? Why not get to the bottom FIRST of whether or not a crime was committed. THEN, if the answer is conclusively, NO, it might go to the next level.
Why do that, however, when a custody evaluation can be instead ordered.
I might just get this product and find out how they frame the situation.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 