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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for October 30th, 2012

WHAT is a “Resource,” Corporately Speaking? National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (“NRFC”) // Fatherhood.gov [Publ. Oct. 30, 2012].

leave a comment »

WHAT is a “Resource,” Corporately Speaking? National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (“NRFC”) // Fatherhood.gov [Publ. Oct. 30, 2012]. (short-link ends “-1cH”), about 12,000 words.

Certain things catch my attention periodically, and if details don’t fit, then it may be my understanding (normally) or, it may also be there are some details that seriously don’t fit.

And there has been a longstanding internal alarm on the existence of a website called “fatherhood.gov” and the serious investment of public money into media campaigns based on welfare funding!

How many millions is it acceptable not to account for, when it comes to public money?  How many people are to be on the public payroll (whose labor and assets are producing the money which the US is operating with?).

A good chunk of last night’s post,  wasn’t re-saved, and I cannot reconstruct it all here.  But I can talk about what I found and show how others can find this same information.

Here are some dots which REALLY don’t connect, but seem to be connecting; these are statements and evidence on-line:

  • The website with URL “http://fatherhood.gov” exists and is labeled “National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse “(“NRFC,”).  Click & see!
  • On the website, it says its funding is authorized by various versions of welfare, meaning public law and supporting Congressional appropriations.  These have to come from a certain fund held by the US Government which we should be able to find (see ColdHardFact$, or submit the source if YOU find it!)
  • NRFC obviously is — but has been described also elsewhere — your basic federally-funded (plus ___???) PR/media campaign, buying and selling (so to speak) grants, information (indoctrination) and in short, charity, to what it considers deserving grantees, or maybe contractors.  Or maybe individuals.  As such it is a shop and might as well be called Internet Based Warehouse Dispensary — or the advertising site for the same.  “Come and Get it!”
    • Clearly someone has a surplus and wants to offload dollars and help to the deserving.

 

The Problem/Question:

OUTSIDE sources declare this NRFC has an “Executive Director” — but it’s a *.gov site.   How can that be?  WHAT is NRFC corporation-wise? Is it a nonprofit, is it government, is it a government-funded nonprofit blend (there are plenty of those around).

What is the legal definition of this “Clearinghouse” which to me looks like probably (as any website could be) a way to expand an email or visitor database of who’s interested in the topic, and build some momentum for the project of RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, which already (in my opinion) has a good head of steam…

  • WIFI (Women In Fatherhood Inc) is a nonprofit with a Board.  Ms. Frances Ballard (who is married to Charles Ballard, a fatherhood leader) is on its board.
  • In this description of the WIFI Board, it claims that Frances Ballard is the Executive Director of this major website and federally funded Clearinghouse, NRFC.   Because the word “Executive Director” has a corporate meaning — it means some organization is registered in the USA to do commerce and has either a for-profit or a not-for-profit designation!
  • BUT:
    • If it’s a nonprofit, and not exempt from filing, than I, Jane Doe, should be able to look at its income, expenses, deductions, Program Accomplishments, and see an official list of its Board members, Program Service Revenues, any real estate or assets owned, its major CONTRACTORS and how much money was spent on salaries — and all the things people can look at on any group which actually files a 990.
    • If it’s a nonprofit OR for-profit BUSINESS in this country, and doing business — that includes paying salary or board members — then it MUST be incorporated somewhere and have articles of incorporation.
    • It also has to have, somewhere, a registered agent so that IF it gets sued in court on any basis– someone can receive the paperwork. RIGHT?
    • So — where is all that information for the NRFC?

The words “executive director” I do not believe are commonly used in government agencies.  “Director” yes; Czar, yes, “Secretary,” yes, “Agency Head,” yes. — Executive Director — no.  The use of “executive director” for a *.gov website and a “clearinghouse” is misleading and confusing.

However, that there should even be a website on a government site (US Government) called “fatherhood.gov” — and there is none called “motherhood.gov” (do they not go together, are they not to be balanced?) — should disturb anyone.  A LOT, but apparently it’s now just part of the landscape, and acceptable.

They tell you upfront that it’s an information dispensary, and they also want DADS to call in.  Is any of that call-in help going to end up steering them to fathers’ rights attorneys in local states, to help them win custody cases INdirectly, as the federal government is simply not allowed to mess directly with the state’s custody courts?  Here’s the description of its Mission:

Mission
The goals of the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) are to provide, facilitate, and disseminate current research, proven and innovative strategies that will encourage and strengthen fathers and families, and providers of services via the following priorities:

  • Robust NRFC Website – www.Fatherhood.gov
  • Media Campaign that promotes the Responsible Fatherhood field and efforts of local programs
  • Social media engagement
  • Development and dissemination of written products that advance responsible fatherhood research and practice
  • Outreach and presentations at conferences and events
  • National Call Center for dads and practitioners (1-877-4DAD411)
  • Virtual Trainings

If you look carefully at that list, every single item comes under output of indoctrination or media materials according to a federal policy/belief about fatherlessness.  (The history of which has also been written up in part by critics of the conflicts of interest between National Fatherhood Initiative and a rotating door of work within government, if not near the top of HHS (i.e., Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Ron Haskins, etc.).  Blogged recently, search “Dissident Voice” or Bill Berkowitz..

(Why is the administration so uninterested in strengthening Mothers and Families?  Search that term on whitehouse.gov and see how many occurrences in re: fathers and families.)

FUNDING, from the same page, shows the US Dept of HHS/ACF/OFA firmly claims this resource and is funding it from welfare resources, apparently:

Funding

The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is a resource of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA) re-authorized funding for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). The NRFC was initially funded through the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.

In other words, from approximately 1996 through 2010, most of American Public didn’t get smart about this entire movement and how it was affecting their “States and communities,” for which ignorance we can thank in part the Domestic Violence Movement who promoted their own agenda while failing to inform their clients the details (and even to provide any tools to look at details), not evening naming the grants stream! or the closeness of this grants stream to Child Support Enforcement (HHS/OCSE, etc.)*** resulting in individual women having to ferret it out and report it themselves, while the system strengthened its networks.

INSERTING (SOME OF) THE VIEW FROM 2020:

*** Clarifying re: “the closeness of this grants stream to Child Support Enforcement…”)
[***July 31, 2020, nomenclature: I am formatting this page & some copyediting with intention to re-post or reference it.  While the “NRFC clearinghouse” funding stream (it seems, main CFDA (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance) is #93086 (where “93” represents the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on whose site, obviously, the NRFC is), the most father-friendly grants stream closer to local child support enforcement (with “OCSE” — Office of Child Support Enforcement — administering it) is CFDA #93597, Grants (directly) to states for access and visitation.
The larger stream, however, is #93086 ($150 million dollars a year), and has been going on for over a decade, can go to public or private organizations and serves to establish in particular “fatherhood” as such a specialty and practice, that university centers — in cooperation with each other — feature it (Examples:  FRPN.org at Temple University, Pennsylvania, part of the leadership involves two women, including Jessica Pearson, the founder of https://centerforpolicyresearch.org in Denver (1981ff) who also has deep and long-standing (historic) involvement with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the known fathers’ rights group with political clout pre-dating US’s 1996 welfare reform (under which we got such wonderful grants streams and websites as this post deals with), the Children’s Rights Council (see David Levy, Esq. (d. 2014) major activist for this nonprofit), and the “Child and Family Research Partnership (“CFRP”) at The University of Texas at Austin (LBJ School of Public Policy).
For an indicator how, in policy-speak, “child and family” and Zero to Three (or, “First Five Years”), in general means more fathers than mothers (mothers are “assumed” under the word “family” while the word “fathers” is often featured and is a policy focus, overall), I’m inserting two images from the “About” (i.e., self-description) of CFRP-Texas.  On the right side of a very large photo, fully four of six headlines (viewed today) focus on “fathers” and the others “Prenatal to Three.”
What, and where, are women, mothers, in this picture —  as a background presence, in the form of wombs… conduits.. birth canals, through which policy makers can gain remote (and hands-on) access to little kids to develop and practice their favored-gender-based theories on?  Do we (mothers) not even have a few NOUNS to describe us in the headlines?
Some of the “WHY” of this center has to do with its Director and her Princeton University connections.  Her first two degrees were from a private college in California which only admitted women in the 1970s and is known for its conservative politics.  Work experience outside of directing others on national policy towards children (pre-born and very young) and their families, with a PARTICULAR interest in fathers (does she have a husband yet?) (ever been a Mom?) seems to have been a few years in a “low-income middle school in California,” per the description.  Sounds like she may not be a real team player (likes to run things) and perhaps didn’t cut the mustard at the street level, with actual “in-your-face” kids…  Who BETTER to judge other women (i.e., mothers) who do this daily, and are good at it?  //LGH 2020… Cont’d next section, more on the grants.
I recently added a section to the top of my “Front Page” which gives examples of both federal funding streams, and (generally) have been talking about it for years.  But “family court reformist” academics — and, generally, journalists who follow or quote them, along with the WHOLE domestic violence advocacy organization networks (state coalitions, special issue resource centers, etc.) fail to call attention to this on their public websites, or consider that it MIGHT just be a factor affecting the problems they discuss (i.e., custody of minor children being switched from non-abusive mothers to abusive — with a documented history of it — fathers, via family court and custody hearings — which the “access and visitation” grants target. … (I use Twitter hashtags #access_visitation and #accessvisitation. Username @LetUsGetHonest)
This information has gotten out somewhat more but is still vastly under-reported in the context of family court fiascoes, or of domestic violence and child abuse problems.  The family court professionals certainly know about it, as many nonprofits some of them run were set up specifically to receive this type of federal funding.. (See “AFCC” for an organization whose members are likely to be so engaged).
Both streams are related.  While the CFDA #93597 ($10 million/year grants) by definition must go to a single state agency (each year), i.e., no private organization, they are obviously intended for subgrants, and often are subgranted to private organizations.  The CFDA #93086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood, or “HMRF” for short) ($150 million/year) grants can go to either public or private entities, even to for-profit ones.  You can select by CFDA in the HHS grants database, and learn a lot there, at TAGGS.HHS.gov although be forewarned — it’s not necessarily accurate data entry.  It seems to have no basic “style chart’ (consistency of entering things like state names, principal investigator names, grantee names, etc.  Multiple mis-spellings are found, and although it obviously sorts case-sensitive (with ALL CAPS in a different location from Initial Caps meaning, you could sort by any column and STILL not get an overview.  The situation was so bad that in about 2013 I started a whole blog to demonstrate it (Fall, 2013 as I recall), but before I could post the whole thing (intent was to simply show the grantees UNsorted, 500 records at a time, and expose this), the database was re-vamped, adding functionalities and removing a very important one — the ability to search by EIN# which would compensate for fake or erroneous data entry of such basics as a grantee name..]]
BACK TO 2012 WRITING ON THIS POST….
HOWEVER INDIVIDUALS DID TALK ABOUT THIS:
%d bloggers like this: