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:
Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children & Families
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 4th Floor Aerospace Building 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, D.C. 20447
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:
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” …!!)
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…
Mailing Address Policy Studies Inc.
1515 Wynkoop Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
PSI 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:
(Better viewed on actual pdf)
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:
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|
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
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 ]
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
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.
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
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”)
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.