“Where’s Waldo?”… “Who’s Your Daddy?” (How and Why to Run Background-Checks on (any and all) “POLICY,” “RESOURCE” or so-called “JUSTICE” Centers) [Publ. Sept 1, 2013, Rev. Mar., 2014 and [to reformat, update links, expand intro.] Nov.-Dec. , 2021]., short-link ending “-1Uh.” About 14,000 words (as of Mar. 2014). I see at the bottom I added 8 comments to the post (for when, see them); take a look…

In copying the chart on this post — illustrating my basic points to check protocol — I added a nice introductory rant, March 10, 2014.*

POST IS IN MOTION (Dec. 4, 2021).  SOME MATERIAL COPIED WITH A POST UPDATE WILL BE RESTORED HERE, SO THE WHOLE MAKES MORE SENSE.

THIS TOPIC IS STILL RELEVANT, AND I’M THINKING IT MIGHT NOT BE TOO LATE TO GET THAT MESSAGE THROUGH TO MORE PEOPLE, WITH A VIEW TO THEIR STANDING UP (INTELLIGENTLY, TAKING AIM AT TOPICS THAT MATTER, NOT JUST THOSE PREVIOUSLY CHOSEN FOR THEM SO THEY DON’T EVER GET AROUND TO THOSE THAT MATTER THE MOST TO THOSE WHO INTEND TO DIRECT POLICY, AND RUN NOT JUST ONE, BUT SEVERAL COUNTRIES AT A TIME, IN THE SAME MANNER, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONS (AND YES, I SPEAK AS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN…)//LGH

For example, the Heyman Family (Samuel J. Heyman Service to America medals [copyright DuPont]  of Westport, Connecticut and Partnership for Public Service] family wealth from commercial real estate development and/or chemicals; a fascinating corporate history to GAF industries reaching also back to WWII and a business confiscated under “Trading with the Enemy” Act, and previously associated with the I.G. Farben cartel that helped set up Hitler… Someone has to run the confiscated company, and why not someone intelligent, diligent, experienced, and dedicated to America?]

Too often skipped skip the process of obtaining this information before jumping into the fray. What a shame too, because it’s justnot that hard, it’s part of basic responsible citizenship — how much do you really know about who’s running the country? — and it leads to some understanding of the history of institutions, and of who already has heavily invested into setting up system change institutions, using public money, or even public-purpose institutions.

Is it too big to handle? You want reform, but you want someone else to do it? Or you want to do it — but you haven’t done the homework up front?

What sense does that make? But, that’s what I did, prior to the wake-up shock situations. For people who have been in that state too long, the simple process (habit) of sorting and labeling is also one possible way out, a rope from the tunnel of blacked-out information (a cave) or information overload, into some fascinating landscapes. Things will look and sound different after a period of habitually engaging in background check. In my case, I found one too many groups with direct connections to grabbing profits from the aftermath of World War II, and sticking them into institutions too close for comfort to setting government policy. However, it was done as a nonprofit. We should be alert to this practice as well.

This Post is a “Sleeper.”  It covers current heavyweight actors in the courts, and names names.  It also has a colorful chart (example) AND a 5-point check list to ask of any center.  I will repeat this simple admonition:  Look It Up, FIRST, then, if you choose to engage further, or explore, further, do so.  Don’t go into that jungle without a map, a compass, or something at least resembling a guide.  This is fascinating and distracting territory.  A bit of initial labeling will help make some sense of it.

Some Centers inhabit law schools, others Nonprofits, others government (like courts), others simply ARE nonprofits.

When a group is a “project” of some (university, law school, or government sites) its finances are likely to be more co-mingled, a little more murky and harder to notice.  As it turns out, responsible fatherhood (and plenty of other) programming likes ALL of the above locations and certain heavyweight foundations like to fund them.

Apparently that was for them to know, and us to find out after it’s too late.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to give a d@mn, and go forth and look up.  I’d be interested to hear about some findings, and have several examples below.

A column that should’ve/could’ve been added below is, IF it’s known to have been kickstarted by a major private family foundation, which one?

Several in the list below were Ford.

This is a SAMPLE, contents there only to illustrate! [The takeaway is the column headings, not table contents, although I certainly chose websites good to know about!]

If you ever wanted to get a little closer to who’s behind the curtain, it helps to understand where the curtains are.  Nonprofits are a multi-purpose tool; one of the things they do is avoid accountability standards that would apply to government; another is to obfuscate whose brilliant ideas their policy were (like, the Ford Foundation’s, or Rockefellers’, etc.) in many cases., and provide handy nametags to spread around in PR pieces.

Sad to say, the nonprofit corporation is also a tool for shady characters to embezzle money through, or get paid-for government.  While disgraceful to the honest nonprofits providing real services, we all should be aware of the potential.  Again, examples below, and with time, they become easier to recognize.   Keep in mind that, honest or dishonest, the tax system (income tax, and for-profit/not-for-profit/ religious further privileged) status is also itself a TOOL, for what else, collecting and redistributing wealth.

[1] from the above chart:  I’m re-checking the links.  The one is still there, but the nonprofit may not be.  Here’s a sub-link: https://marriagepolicy.org/2011/03/board_of_directors/ (David Usher, Mike J. McManus, Cynthia Davis (unknown to me, but it says, Missouri House of Reps and Chairman of a Committee on Children and Families  and Chairman of the Interim Committee on Poverty, about which she knew a lot because:

..As a wife of 30 years and a mother of seven, Cynthia has much direct experience in the area of family values and public policy.

The point here being, this was a nonprofit with an Executive Director with Direct state (of Missouri) government ties… I didn’t bother looking for its financials during my 2021 update…//LGH.

This whole field of courts, family, children, protection, welfare, and everyone’s “rights” IS a scripted act — there are executive producers, there is a script, and there are playwrights. There are cast & characters, and there is an audience. And there are producers and promoters. Those terms, obviously, come from the BUSINESS of theater. If I use only a few of those terms as an analogy, it will be obvious I’m saying, all of this is an act, a production — and not real life, i.e., not a “natural” development from grassroots, citizen-led reform. The conciliation courts in particular come from activist judges.

The family court venue has always had a script, playwrites, executive producers, and publicity agents. Isn’t it about time to find out who some of them are, and what are the sequels, and/or the potential grand finale in store? From the customer (litigants, and taxpayers) perspective, this isn’t a game — it’s real life on the line. So, get some vocabulary if you don’t have it already, and please, encourage someone else to get it also!! Learn by teaching someone else, and see, when challenged on your facts, you actually have the relevant ones, and can back it up. Change conversations back to relevant ones; stay on point and don’t be disarmed by emotional rhetoric — or social science rhetoric. Know who’s who, and be able to prove it, at a basic level. Become a resource!

The usual disclaimer, other than I’m not an attorney or a CPA; this isn’t legal or financial advice.

This is currently a 12,000 word post (including quotes and dialogue), unspellchecked and uncopyedited I promise you. I’m not writing from the sidelines of these matters, so it’s a WYSIWYG effort until I can do better. Again, anyone is welcome to contribute — there’s a Donate Button on the right sidebar; I am not privately funded in this matter, and am not a nonprofit, as have said there also.

The better-looking, better-copyedited and also I’ll admit, better-written websites (not necessarily blogs) on these same topics, may just have funding you don’t know about, and part of my intent is that we see this — and consider the source before jumping on a bandwagon, or declaring neutrality. you’re not neutral if you’re paying taxes and consuming goods and services in this country — you’re contributing to public funding. Public funding is being combined with private, to affect legislation, in these centers.

It’s also humiliating not to be able to produce top-notch copy on such an important topic. However, I write as someone in transition because of (the matters herein) doing what I can. I’ve prioritized SAY it over SAY IT perfectly. If my life ever alters to take on an armchair safety, you’ll be the first to know about it — it’ll probably be shown in the blog quality. I am writing about a field I’ve been IN for about a dozen years now (that’s not including the violent marriage part) and do have a sense of who knows what (among mothers at least, and also among professionals) because I made it my business to know.

This post is a little primer for, well, for before we go quoting ABCDEFG group — finding out in the most basic terms — who the heck are they? How old are they? Affiliated groups? Has one major group sired lots of other ones that are all grown up now under their own names and agenda?

Answering this question may also lead to other valuable information, like how many billions (or millions) are involved in promoting a particular group’s viewpoints. Or, are the amounts much smaller, but the positioning to “decisionmakers” (i.e., in government) absolutely fantastic leverage?

Habitually finding this out, in any subject area of interest to you, can cut through some sludge and get a feel for the financing, beyond (and I do mean that) the “right wing/progressive” or “men’s / women’s/ children’s” rights that are always being shoved in the public’s face. I am talking about, not high-tech, but simple basic analysis. It also gives at least SOME feel for which private equity groups want their name up front, and which do NOT want their name up front.

Such centers often have — because they know how to get it– press coverage, direct access to state legislators/legislatures in many cases (sometimes because their memberhip will include a judge (current/retired) or two. The purpose is to talk, talk, talk, educate, proselytize, promote — and drown out feedback which doesn’t fit in with the desired outcome — usually a “model,” which someone (or set of someones) wants to become law.

They also have access to funding. The concept is the tool of the policy center — in their various formats (as a separate nonprofit, as a government entity, or as a center at some institution, or pre-existing nonprofit are among the models) — to influence law, and with that, to draw (or, in the case of the healthy marriage movement DIVERT) more federal (and private) funding then they already have.

Generally speaking, that is going to affect everyone’s bottom line, particularly anyone who does NOT organize his or her life around these models, or play the same tune. It affects them because so many people pay taxes. These tend to be tax-exempt: GET IT????

If you do not get it, hopefully my explanation, and pointing to many examples, will help you get it.

My “getting” this came from looking at the examples, long term, lots of them, in different context, and noticing a pattern. I also made it a habit to attempt to find out who started when, and whose bright idea it was. Obviously these centers many times are ALSO going to be running conferences, which are promoted (and they are) training mechanisms, “collaboration” and “interdisciplinary” standards-setting, vision-setting, etc. meetings. There’s a chart at the bottom of the page; the columns represent some basic questions anyone can ask, and answer on-line.

How many people (other than the hotels, parking, restaurant, etc., industries involved in putting them on) understand that these is also a revenue-raising model, and approximately how that works? I.e., is the public paying for the trainings?? Who is paying, and who is writing it off as a deductible expense, in the public welfare somehow (trickle-down theory???)….

One key to getting accurate answers is asking basic questions, up front — to sort and prioritize the information in a field. Validate or invalidate information CONSISTENTLY with regard to what is your goal, or get swamped and lost in disinformation, misinformation, irrelevant information, or too much information.

POLICY, RESOURCE, AND FAMILY JUSTICE (etc.) CENTERS HAVE “SPOKESMODELS”

The term spokesmodel is intentionally a sarcastic use; and to point out the role. I just happen to apply it to people who may have Ph.D.’s, or (common in this field) Psy.D.’s, or I should add “J.D.s” and other degrees we are supposed to cede authority to, and give the benefit of the doubt. Some also formerly worked in federal or local governments in HHS, or other areas.

Being spokepersons and working the conference circuit does take (and make) money, it’s time-consuming. Often these people are not the prime decision-makers; but inhabit — or start — organizations that have, and draw funding. There’s a reason some voices are heard and others are unheard.

Know the difference, at least nominally (please!!). Intelligent and at least informed blogging and personal interactions among would-be “fix the courts” individual will absolutely be better for your having fact-checked the basic identities of the big mouths in the field. Another surprising find will be how many of the funders come from private family controlled wealth. SOME of the private family-controlled wealth of these tremendously philanthropic entities, it turns out, have, absolutely — played both sides of World War I, refined their techniques (on how to form and protect their cartels) AND World War II. American taxpayers absolutely have helped, as well as American technology. This type of foundation is rather excessively, in my opinion, fascinated with how to influence, fix, and fine-tune the management of the human psyche, individually, in groups — and en masse. Again, I didn’t set up this system — I just reported on it, and I noticed what types of institutes of excellence some of those healthy marriage grantees were hanging out at.

It would be wise to know who you are dealing with, and when the “DMZ” or middle-of-road (i.e., “the fence” positions) are gone, or almost gone — what stance you take on these matters.

I exhort, I recommend, I wish!!!

Moms, and Dads with kids at risk, or already harmed

Before quoting, debating, or fighting in comments fields about groups whose ideology you may agree or disagree with — find out Where’s their Waldo? — and Who’s Their Daddy?

Profile them! We get profiled all the time, interacting with government or corporation We have labels, licenses, credit or none, work or none, college degrees, or none — we have ethnicities (being profiled constantly in the US), we may have religious identities (or none), we have family identities (Mom or Dad, or not), work identities (employed or not). .

We have labels (think you don’t have a label? When you do business, are you never asked for any identification? Ever registered a child for school without a little identification, including of the status of the child’s vaccination history? Think about it!)

They have labels. These labels sort them into different categories, and after comparing the label to the public proclamations (website, etc.) you will quickly have another important label to keep in mind about any group:: honest or dishonest about who they are, not to mention, when they started. Most like to claim they are older than the actual group name was incorporated, to add to the respectabililty. Wouldn’t that be valuable information, and better than hearsay or anecdote?.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Here’s a group with what sounds like a great cause and motto, from the website:

Family Justice Center Alliance “There’s a Better Way To give HOPE to Hurting Families.” and such descriptors as:

The Alliance serves as the clearinghouse, research center, and national membership organization for all Family Justice Centers and similar multi-agency, multi-disciplinary service delivery models serving victims of domestic violence and other forms of abuse and oppression.

Wow. They are the ones, and international, too:

The Alliance serves as the comprehensive technical assistance and training provider for the United States Department of Justice for federally funded Centers. The Alliance also works with Centers outside the federal initiative in the U.S. and abroad.** There are currently more than 80 operational Centers in the United States with ten international Centers (Canada, Mexico, England, Jordan, and Sweden). There are over 140 Centers currently developing in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Central America. The Alliance is currently partnered with the Mexican government, Management Systems International, and USAID to help open more than twenty Women’s Justice Centers in Mexico.

**presumably they’ll keep their various funds straight?
a few more clicks, and one can discover that the best way to help give victims of domestic violence etc. more “HOPE” is to donate. The DONATE button leads to not one, not two, but THREE (3) different causes — even though this is federally funded, and has all kinds of big-league sponsorship and among its speakers are people who certainly if not now employed by government are drawing some sort of pension. Please Donate, it says, to “Camp Hope,” or (new to me) “FJC Legal Network” or the one, the original, the only, “National Family Court Justice Alliance.” And at the very bottom is a street address.

. Between who launched what, when, and how many people are served nationally, which are website claims — how long would it take to find out whether Camp Hope, FJC Legal Network and this alliance are one — or three separate business entities, and something about each one of them?

Why is Verizon so excited about helping groups like this, do you think?

With the exception of the middle one (which is news to me — it was “launched” in 2009, the site says), I already know; this is a very interesting group — and model. Some think it’s “grrrrreat” (obviously those funding it, and the former President Bush, as it was started in 2004 and it WAS mentioned in presidential circles).

It was also modeled on the “Child Advocacy Centers” (CACs) which is also a national model. Aren’t the Child Advocacy Centers doing their jobs? If they are, which is of course to reduce child abuse, and save victims of human trafficking — then why set up another national model based on this?

Some may (do) not. Those are value judgments — but what is the actual corporate identity, and funding — when compared to other centers, or groups dispensing justice? Other than whether this is an EFFECTIVE model and actually dispensing more justice and saving victims (my indications so far are, No, they are not….), who is checking the books?

Nonprofit status is a privilege, not a right, and this privilege gives nonprofits an advantage over taxpayers, on the premise that it’s in the public interest. If they were simply government officials doing government work, the whole field would be easier to track by individual taxpayers. While this privilege is expressed in state laws and federal, the determination is granted or denied initially by the IRS, the “Internal REVENUE Service,” whose job is, allegedly, raising revenue and catching crooks who try to get out of carrying their fair share of the public service burdens….

People who want more, or better, justice — had better figure out who’s been paying the national spokesmodels what, and with what goals. This requires differentiating between direct government agency, or corporate entity contracting with governments, or and if corporte, whether tax-exempt. As I learned the slow way — some nonprofits are VERY large, but most of them not as large as the privately controlled foundations pouring money into their purpose, and sometimes kickstarting them.

So, we have to ask:

But what “species” is it? Who’s its Daddy (and/or Mommy) and Where’s its Waldo?.

The next question after this, is is the species of group going to affect local property values, or my children’s safety or shot at a better life, or college — on the public debt, etc. Are National Family Justice Center Alliances something the public wants? Did we miss the state legislative debate on whether or not these are good ideas?

Or was this particular group something the public was told they needed, in addition to all the agencies, services, and departments we are already funding (allegedly) through our income and other taxes, as well as fees for court filings, etc.?

If you wanted to find out more, would you know where to “Look It Up?” Does it have a home state? How does this one fit in with all the other ones of the same “species” and what’s its natural habitat? How could anyone keep track of, or categorize them? Should we bother, given how many people already believe in this, that they’re already here (and expanding) and that they are, after all, staffed by experts? What more is there to say anyhow?

Actually, in the year 2011-2012 I see (and I also blogged) a Senate Bill 557 (“SB 557”) around the matter of putting this model into law.

Family Justice Centers

DESCRIPTION

This bill would authorize local governments to establish family
justice centers (FJC) and allow for the FJCs to be staffed by,
among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and
child welfare personnel. This bill would also authorize the FJC
to share information between the partner agencies after
obtaining informed consent from the victims seeking services.

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

The Family Justice Center (FJC) model was originally developed
in San Diego, which opened a center in 2002. The idea behind
the FJC model is to create a coordinated, single-point-of-access
center offering comprehensive services for victims of domestic
violence, thereby reducing the number of locations a victim must
visit in order to receive critical services. The United States
Department of Justice, through its Office on Violence Against
Women (OVW), has identified the Family Justice Center model as a
best practice in the field of domestic violence. According to
the OVW, documented and public FJC outcomes include a reduction
in the rate of homicide; increased victim safety; improved
offender prosecution; reduced fear and anxiety for victims and
their children; increased efficiency among service providers
through the provision of collaborative victims; and increased
community support for the provision of services and their
children. (Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack, Hope for Hurting
Families: Creating Family Justice Centers Across America,
Volcano Press, 2006.) There are currently fifteen family
justice centers in California and over seventy centers in the
United States.

This bill would define in law the family justice center (FJC)
model and authorize local governments to create a FJC in their
communities, as well as require each FJC to maintain an informed
consent policy to authorize the sharing of information among the
agencies working within the FJC.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law , the California Constitution, declares that the
right to privacy is an inalienable right. (Cal. Const., art. I,
sec. 1.)

Existing federal law , the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires that medical
information be kept confidential unless authorized by the
patient. Existing law allows for disclosure to law enforcement
personnel for specified purposes. (Pub. Law 104-191; 45 CFR
160, 164.)

Existing law provides that a victim of domestic violence has a
privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from
disclosing, a confidential communication between the victim and
a domestic violence counselor. (Evid. Code Sec. 1037.5.)

In essence, someone wants to change Public Laws, Evidence Code, and Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution in order to favor this federally-financed model! (a click will show) SIX factors of existing law had to be overcome, number one which was, the right to privacy has been considered an unalienable right.

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse AND the ACLU opposed the bill. Among the objections raised were that it’s better to keep services local — not national models, and that it was obvious that this would be competing for funds with domestic violence shelters (which FYI are already having funds Diverted into “Discretionary programs). It’s an interesting read. I don’t know if it passed or not. I DO know that we have these centers here, now, and taking donations.

I also looked up at least two of the related nonprofits and have come to a conclusion about the story those profiles are telling me, which right now is a private matter for people who are going to actually look at those things. Before asking — Look it up yourself! Ask intelligent questions!
However, my last look better answered the “Who ARE they?” — and that answer was in part in the charitable filings — which required comparing one to another, not in isolation.

MORE EXAMPLES — Who ARE these national centers, resource centers?

Here is the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Is that government or Corporation? Is it a nonprofit? Who’s its Daddy? How long would it take for you to figure out? Does it have a home state?

Here is a similar-sounding group: National Coalition Against Domestic Violence” Is THIS government or Corporate? If Corporate is it nonprofit? If nonprofit, who funds it? What state is it registered in?

How about when it says instead of Family Justice Center, Family RESOURCE Center? or Network of Family Resource Centers? Or [name the geographical area] Family VISITATION centers?

Government Job or Institution Titles in the Group Name?

:

THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE TOWARDS CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCESSES, ON MODELS WHICH LACK PUBLIC INPUT AS THEY ARE BEING DEVELOPED AND PUT INTO PRACTICE…. ANOTHER TERM FOR “CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF (the governmental process) WOULD BE, AND IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE, “FASCISM.”

How about when the name of a group contains something government-sounding, like Governors,* Mayors, Legislator, Court Administrators, or Child Support Directors? Or Judges.?? Or Courts.?
*(that one actually tells you up front, but it should still have a tax return somewhere). Here’s another one, also listed in a chart below, which contains the word “Courts” in it: Center for Court Innovation. And yet another: National Center for State Courts.

There are many groups which have the word “Justice” or “Judicial” in them? They want things done, or are doing things (they’ll say) about promoting justice, producing more justice, reforming justice system, or standing up for Justice for (fill in the blanks: Women, Children, Fathers, Families, etc.). Before arguing for or against whether a certain group will or will not produce more justice (and should or should not be donated to, lobbied against, or receive federal money — a step many people don’t even get to, it’s easier just to argue on-line) Here are a few more. Obviously, some will have more clout than others — but do you know Who’s the Daddy?

California Judicial Council
(incidentally, here’s a meeting list / agenda for that one, probably a parallel in most states)

This one also has the word “Council” in it — how do they differ? The Leadership Council. Here’s another one with the word “Council” in its name: Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc. (product of a random search). Of those three, one is FAR more influential and powerful, and funded– and has much more auhority than the others, yet among at least the “reform the courts” crowd, one is blogged, quoted, supported, and hung out with much more than the latter — which actually handles the court programs, grants, and makes policy decisions affecting children. One has also been around a lot longer.

Here’s another one with the words “Judicial” in it also. Center for Judicial Excellence
There are also “Judicial Institutes” all over. Here’s New York’s and here’s Massachusetts'</a, and here’s Colorado’s. And Michigan’s with the theme “One Court of Justice.” I haven’t followed up much on “Judicial Institutes” but simply making the language point. Three of those sites are on a *.gov site, and one is on a *.org site. It makes a difference.

There are a lot of official-sounding names around. Just because the word says “national” doesn’t mean it’s got the nation’s best interests at heart, or that it’s official. Maybe, maybe not..

SO,

A little primer for, well, for before we go quoting ABCDEFG group — who the heck are they? How old are they? Affiliated groups? Has one major group sired lots of other ones that are all grown up now under their own names and agenda?

Before quoting, debating, or fighting in comments fields about groups whose ideology you may agree or disagree with — “puh-LEEZ” find out Where’s their Waldo? — and Who’s Their Daddy?. Profile them! To the extent that any of these groups have a market niche (which includees government programming) — after all, they’re profiling you! Anyone approaching government for services or justice, or even coming within range through a nonprofit which these days is possibly doing the work of government as a contractor or grantee — is going to get information put out, in-take screening; you will give up some information just by visiting a website, or making a phone call to a County-serviced or national call center saying “help!” or seeking a referral for help or services.

So we get profiled all the time, interacting with government or corporation. While the concept of a prisoner number is associated with prisons, and/or concentration camps — we have SS#s or EIN#s (if “legal”). The difference is, under 18 U.S.C. — anyone who is supposed to be selling things (products or services) ALSO is supposed to have them.

We get labels, licenses, credit or none, work or none, college degrees, or none — we have ethnicities (being profiled constantly in the US), we may have religious identities (or none), we have family identities (Mom or Dad, or not), work identities (employed or not).

They have labels. These labels sort them into different categories, and after comparing the label to the public proclamations (website, etc.) — another important “label” to keep in mind is honest or dishonest — about who they are. These labels are useful for conveniently sorting and processing people.

Even FOOD, when it comes to stores (especially “grocery stores”) has labels. It’s called fruits & vegetables, meat, dairy, or NONfoods. Or “PETfood,” which (if you read the non-yuppie brands is stretching the meaning a bit….). It may pertain to storage: Canned, Fresh, or Frozen.

Anyone who runs, or works in these ventures (stores, or social service centers, local child support agencies, family facilitators’ offices in some jurisdictions, etc.) applies labels for sorting purposes, and stamps labels upon the associated paperwork. These labels are related to, what that particular operation wants to do with the food, nonfood, petfood — or person.

The labels are utilitarian. They are functional. They have purpose, usually related to storage, priority, or rejection, i.e., no you cannot get services here — go away. In addition, at some level, there is the less obvious sorting of “trouble-maker” or “cooperative,” with the former producing a redflag. The LANGUAGE LABELS are about FLOW OF GOODS, SERVICES, and PEOPLE.

SO? Don’t shout back — Label back, and then use these labels when discussing the groups!

Inflammatory namecalling works pro and con, and calls attention to personalities, and will attract people who are personality-prone. I seriously believe this is less effective — or ineffective UNLESS combined with a little labeling that exposes operations, and can lead to some strategy other than spending the day arguing or shouting at someone on-line, hardly a healthy lifestyle…

For one, this depersonalizes the situation and enables one to mentally categorize and prioritize, which is one way to build understanding of “How Things Work” — and also depose some that are talking louder than they (or their Daddies) actually are, while paying better attention to some that intentionally avoid mainstrream media, but are well enough known in their professional circles.

Remember — specialists are paid by SOMEONE for their specialty, if they are not free-standing self-sufficient corporations. If you’ve heard about them, someone funded, and they probably have PR firm on hand, or ARE PR firms. If we are adopting the language of specialists, we should know who paid the promotion of that language. On the other hand, as individuals and not members of a cause, it’s best to look at things from more than one point of view. Don’t forget the basic labeling.

So? My set of labels below, are useful tools for processing groups of people who assign themselves names, put up websites, and/or when being quoted after a recent custody-related around court-ordered (or NOT court-ordered for that day) disaster [[generally speaking = murder or especially flamboyant PARENTAL kidnapping of very young children — the other kind are so common, apparently they don’t rate a press release unless the other parent connects with some rights groups, i.e., fathers’ rights or DV]] , are quoted as “Executive Directorr” of so and so.

Moreover, once you understand the categories, it’s possible to understand how seemingly UNrelated groups are indeed joined at the hip — and then to talk about them!. This is a transferable and a citizenship skill, often neglected by social media and Facebook/Twitterer followers. Other groups that naturally resist this sort of labeing include the ranks of the faithful, when their groups may or may not be compared in business terms, although most churches actually ARE also corporations, multinational in several cases.

Sort and select of groups or names & titles one runs across ON-LINE, or hears your friends, perhaps, quoting — to size them up. First of all, they need to be NAMED (which is the “Waldo” — in the crowded marketplace, WHERE is group A, B, or C? What are its identifying characteristics? Not is ideology, philosophy, theology, or rhetoric (those come later). FIRST is, “WHO ARE YOU?” Where’s Waldo — is it a bird plane, or superman? It is person, place of thing. Or more to the point, is it Government or Corp or a hybrid kind of “UFO”?

What’s its “tag?” After you’ve pinned down WHO it is, then you can do more of the “genealogy” (Who’s Your Daddy?), even though will probably (with a little practice) get a good sense of who’s the Daddy instinctively, intuitively, or by the language, because there is a shared group jargon (possibly because some of these are simply cults….) Also nice to know is birth order of the various siblings — for example, some started in 1916 (pre-Social Security Act), others, in other decades.

“What gang/s do you run with,” along with, checking out what product’s being sold (whether rhetoric, trainings, publications, or access to government funding….)

The word “gang” applies; the groups tend to fly in formation, or at least in certain clusters, noticeable by interests in common, and often language in common.)

Last post, I asked:

What is a “CENTER”? See, and Understand in Corporate Terms!!

That’s critical, and it cuts through SO much crap, and after enough people actually do this, I might have or findsome more literate people about these matters more to talk to in person, I hope, about how to stop this nonsense of privatizing governments, setting up slush funds to divert federal money from actually providing the services it promised to (at least in the original versions of whatever Act of Congress justified it) to the people it sold the Act as actually serving (helping).

Develop a good language, at least this MINIMAL vocabulary, please — and set of labels (not just “value” labels but the actual nouns and verbs that apply to the situation — with the most neutral, objective and “settles arguments with the evidence” set of OBJECTIVE !!!! !!!! and VERIFIABLE!!! COMMON (but commonly ignored) terms which describe a group which is, most likely troubling the local courthouse, family or neighborhood, and got someone on-line helpseeking to start with!

I am constantly doing “show and tell” to people who refuse to obtain a set of vocabulary, and by use, understand what it means, and then consistently apply that vocabulary to situations skillfully, and to cut down on the hundreds of emails exchanged to describe what could be summarized in an accurate label — and lead to recognition of a pattern. I live in a certain state.

I don’t want to know individually, by name, all the outlaws in your area if you and I are going to somehow engage in reducing corruption in the courts, which supposedly so many want to (judging by the blogs). The more efficient way to handle this is the way the same people set the system up! Through nonprofits with foundations backing them, working alongside governemnt and making for DAMN sure that the common affiliations were not revealed, unless it was helpful for the cause, like for lobbying or credibility.

My brain isn’t that large, and I’m getting older. I’m also alarmed at generation after generation of noncustodial parents (male and female) who don’t even know to look these things up, including before filing a class action lawsuit against some group!!!! Or even an individual one! Shouldn’t that group be vetted (or at least identified?) first in relationship to government?

To only use familiar and proper names, and never use labels, is to be forced to keep a running list of who’s naughty and who’s nice, on our favorite cause. To use labels, and use the names as an illustration of that label itself — is to have a better understanding. People who cannot COMMUNICATE with each other using terms the both understand — can’t organize.

Where’s Waldo — the “Waldo” in question is the Center’s (or any others) EIN# (if any), description (animal, place, or thing? Bird, plane, or Superman? Or, in this case: Government, Corporation, or Hybrid?). These matter! These describe commercial status, purpose, and also can lead to funding. Another descriptor, like a criminal background check, or “unidentified spare children (or liens, etc.)” test on someone you’re about to say “I do!” or move in with — is simply recommended. Why not actually find out (before taking an ideological position on whatever the group is saying, or selling). Please– if you’re quoting it, check it out — so the rest of us can have some more intelligent conversations about whether that was abuse, or a false allegation, or how to fix our poor, broken, flawed courts — just trust us, we have a plan…. And tell us your stories… We might even get them on Dr. Phil or Oprah….

The more grandiose the plan sounds, the more it ought to be validated, fact-checked, put in a historical context, and probably questioned. These “Centers” are not innocuous, although they appear to be (unless failed-to-file) legal. The purpose is persuasion — but when the persuasion is taking significant private wealth which is basically significant conflict of interest in MOST areas of government, especially the courts or justice system. If this wealth is poured towards an agenda which is wrong, harmful, or wasteful — and the people most directly affected by it either don’t know about the source of the influence — or can’t organize, or afford, to speak back — then it’s the process of forming endless “Centers” which is the problem; it muddies the money trail, and of course money is going to be invested which will most profit those who are investing it (whether or not this includes needing to give it away to reduce one’s taxes).

In this post, which extracts that conversation from the last one — I’m proposing a basic flow-chart & language for quickly sorting any “CENTER” into its assigned slot: Government, Corporation, or Hybrid? They themselves are actually organized in this way — because that is the basic platform we operate on – and it takes money, websites, staff, paper, HTML, conferences, usually a few lawyers at least, and some PhD’s in two (helps credibility), it takes MONEY to form a center.

First, “Where’s Waldo?” — what’s the group’s real identity. Person, place or thing? Bird, plane, superman (or “UFO” as I termed it here).

Sorting them out quickly will also then show how to take the next step of “Who’s Your (Sugar) Daddy?” and making a value assessment. For one, if its “Daddy” (funders) includes primarily public funds — or an outsourcing of public funds, then it matters. “Give me my money back!” Quit wasting tax dollars to set up policies that hurt people while claiming to help them. Government without proper representation hurts and diminishes people. No one needs or deserves millions to write up and publish pontifications on how come we got so many working poor, while the working poor’s kids (as well as the unemployed poor’s kids) are in danger, or hungry, not to mention, their parents also might be.

These are the links to “Centers” discussed in a recent post on, What Centers for ABC…XYZ Policy, Especially “marriage policy.” actually mean I asked some of these questions for well-known “Centers” playing a role in influencing the courts.

The table refers to the first question to ask: Is it Government or Corporation? You’d think this could be answered by the suffix on the web address (*.gov, *.edu, or *.com/net, etc.) but we do need to know more. I also added some websites to Institutions which themselves have “centers” but do not have the word “Center” in their primary name.

The first Center listed is perhaps the most amusing and the least important, except for the “mouth” behind them. However what I learned from this one leads to what am still looking at — the borrowing of extinct or defunct EIN#s, not to mention deceitful practices showing up throughout the HHS program, or at least the HHS public interface database, http://taggs.hhs.gov.

The key here is TIME. If it takes the public 50 years to not figure out what happened, then by the time they do, it’s too late to act significantly to create a different reality, at least without major violence and waste. Keep also in mind that there’s a known policy of “gradualism” to built the scaffolding of any future planned government while an existing one is in place, just as the same would be true when launching a new business. One has to survive and transition from one to the other, and ideally one is being started up while the former is still in place to manage the transition. Right now, we must be almost ready to “transition” because the outlines and structures of the new are already i place and visible. Americans, in particular, need to wake up — and by “wake up”; I don’t mean go all “conservative” or “Progressive” or whatever partisan stance we’ve been coached to take, along with too many drugs which exaggerate or dull our perceptions (i.e., prescribed uppers and downers)…

Here are some columns — how would each of the groups listed be described?
The term “UFO” means a project or initiative WITHIN some other corp., gov’t entity, or university. Example: “Battered Women’s Justice Project” is a fairly high-profile name among DV circles, and also presents with AFCC. A representative even presented with BMCC in 2013, I noticed.

[[Center for Policy Research, out of Colorado, should be on this list, if it isn’t… (said glancing at it in HTML mode). ]]

The world is full of would-be “Policy Centers” most of which are either nonprofits, or are hiding (sheltering) under the umbrella of other nonprofits, or hybrid government/corporate-sponsored “places” (UFOs, websites, etc.) not quite nonprofit and not quite government either. So — where’s the representation there?

[**This Brookings web page also lists two Operational Centers and an Archived Center named after a President of the World Bank. The Operational Centers seem to represent significant world regions.]

[*** on NFLG “Board Members” site, there’s a comment to the right of the list of board members, which reads in large font:

NFLG became incorporated in the District of Columbia in 2007 and is currently pursuing 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.”

. I deal with this below.

LGH gut reaction/exclamation:

My post is to encourage all of us to deal with such things upfront and demand policy not be set by groups which can’t, don’t, or won’t stay in corporated.

Simultaneous, somehow (and we have to ORGANIZE our efforts to do, and help others do, this, it’s not a one-by-one effort) we have to get a grip on how to read the blueprints of our own government/s financial statements, and match what goes out to what comes in and what is shifted around. What’s shifted “OFF-budget” into “income-producing assets” where it’s hoped we won’t notice or think about the fact that ALL budget statements are but a fraction of the whole).

Ron Haskins, and the Talking Head/ Undue Influence Factor

Looks like (as I looked! below) the “NFLG” is “corp. status revoked” for failure to file for three years in a row — in Washington, D.C.

I already know that this is a habit with too many fatherhood groups, including at least one on the board of the NFLG. I also found on site a claim that they now ARE a 501(c)3.

This is probably about where I “lost it” (on this post) as a writer: (Ron Haskins is on board of this NFLG whose directors are basically a potpourri of other fatherhood groups; also of the Urban Institute, co-directing its “Center for Families and Children,” and at least was or is on the board of the MDRC, and God knows what else. I also heard he was on one of the original boards of CRC (Children’s Rights Council) which also shows up in summaries of the early FR groups,despite whatever it may be sold as, under “Fathers’ rights’ groups.”

In part, because I already know at least two of the ten organizations/men (fathers presumably) represented are tax-evaders, or at least really strangely incorporated. Then I looked at the nonprofit status of this NFLG — and can’t see that it ever filed properly either; its status was in fact revoked for non filing!!

Please do NOT let me be the only person doing lookups on this “NFLG” outfit. Should we take ANYthing at face value depending on how slick its website is? Who pays for the website? How much, the public?

Annie E. Casey & The Baltimore Factor?

Also note that the Annie E. Casey Foundation (one of the larger / largest private family foundations around) is also in Baltimore and invested in this theory and policy. A 2011 piece “Fatherhood Figures” from their “Knowledge Center,” on page 4, quotes “Stacey Bouchet” of Women in Fatherhood Inc. (another nonprofit), which also seems to be a nonprofit with AEC support. Keep your eye on this foundation — its influence is throughout the field of marriage, fatherhood, etc.

Also interesting, I found while trying to assemble state’s and some principal cities’ CAFRs, that the City and County of Baltimore have had serious problems issuing their required “CAFRs” and one issue that came up (which I blogged) is a major misappropriated HHS grant run through the Baltimore City Foundation; I really do wonder what’s going on in this particular city. Why Baltimore’s recent CAFRs are MIA — “Audit Baltimore” tells us.

Be patient — scroll down — note how the Baltimore City Foundation was used, and enabled donors to earmark uses of the funds while claiming tax-exemption. And that the city wasn’t really tracking use of the funds. Note that a 3-year $900K HHS grant was in question, but no one seemed particularly interested in getting the money back to HHS….

Related (which is another blog herein) Is Baltimore Rising, Inc.” connects to more details of this Mentoring Children of Prisoners project, and a 2011 audit showing that Maryland’ss DHR had over $1.7 billion of uncollected child suppport arrears, had not enforced when it had the tools to, on over 165,000 parents, and that this particular organization got an audit, which it didn’t pass. Multiple versions of the same company name, and then it was transmitted back under the Mayor’s office — things just ain’t adding up. One serious mess — and almost $1million of public funding…

FILE THIS NEXT PART UNDER:

Turning Universities/(“Family Sciences,” etc.) into Virtual Extension of Foundation and Private Nonprofit Policy Centers, including the National Council on Family Relations, etc.

Some people have made it their professional business getting into the personal business of anyone low-income enough to be on, looks like, a referral-list from child support, the courts, welfare, you name it. In this case, looks like child support, noncustodial fathers — in Baltimore. This has been a real bonus for some of the authors; which otherwise probably would have to make their way as actual entrepreneurs in business, or do some serious mental work in the hard sciences or other technological fields which require logic, and are rather unforgiving to sloppy thinking and the habit of just re-hashing what’s already clearly “policy.”

Here’s (while I’m here– meaning in the Baltimore area, where Center for Urban Families is) what is described as a “Final Evaluation Report” of Maryland’s (not “Baltimore’s”) Responsible Fatherhood Project, funded by the US Dept. of HHS/”DCF” (they mean “ACF” I think) and run THROUGH Maryland’s Agencies of: Human Resources, Community Services, and Child Support Enforcement Administration ; it was written up by two Ph.D. women, and is neatly organized. The sample size apparently was: 20 fathers and four focus groups (referred from child support, looks like) who were paid $40 for their participation. Further down it notes 127 fathers participated. The “reference” page consists of mostly references to “unpublished masters thesis,” a publication from 1977, a publication from 1984 (!!!) and a 2000 Publication by Jessica Thoennes (co-founder of AFCC, CRC, and one of the directors of Center for Policy Research which evaluates, among other things, fatherhood programs ….). They noted that no one had studied one of the groups in existence since 1993, and this was apparently 1999 they started interviewing participants. THe write up was scheduled for between 1997-2000 but got a late start, so was extended to 2002. Two women PhD’s from University of Maryland’s Dept. of Family Studies are on the front page. (HHS funds went to THAT?). Here’s these two (with one of them now working for a foundation in Miami) and two more “addressing the policy debate on diverting TANF funds for marriage promotion”, they went to profile the nature of “low-income rural mothers’ relationships with the nonresidential fathers,” concluding that “the presence of a male partner was not related to the mother’s economic or social well-being..” I don’t see the date and it’s not a free download….

We’re paying for this schlock? Here’s some more, under UMD “Family Impact Seminar” whatever that is (there IS a nonprofit by similar name, promoting curriculum promoting marriage). Rural Mothers Speak: About Relationships – Implications for Marriage-Promotion Policy Initiatives
Authors: Elaine Anderson, Bonnie Braun, Linda Oravecz, and Julie Kohler (Anderson & Kohler did the above “Final Evaluation Report of Maryland Responsible Fatherhood Project”; Here’s a one-pager policy brief from the same (dynamic duo) dated 2002, and in anticipation of re-authorizing the 1996 PRWORA (Responsible Fatherhood which essentially graphs and pie-charts the writeup of 125 fathers (only), 90% AFrican-American average age 31 yrs old, from only two sites.
Year: 2003

Fast-Facts about UMaryland’s “Department of Family Services” confirm: want a job? Get one studying low-income families and the elderly — in human services or social science. This leads to grants subsidies, professional publication, and a nice career — assuming no one actually shortens the supply of low-income people to study (not likely in the near future at this rate….).

Please note the obvious influence of the (conservative, established and older nonprofit TRADE association) “National Council on Family Relations”

Department programs focus on the development and well-being of families and their individual members, and the solution of family problems, through education, research, and public service.

Social and human service jobs are projected to rank among the most rapidly growing fields during the next decade. The national focus on the welfare of families, children, and the elderly have created many new job opportunities.

The Department has a Bachelor of Science program in Family Science with almost 400 students; a Master of Science program in Couple and Family Therapy with 20 students;a Ph.D. program in Family Science with 25 students; and a Ph.D. Program in Maternal and Child Health with 8 students.

In the last year, our 13 tenured/tenure-track faculty members published 54 journal articles, book chapters, and other written works, and directed grants totaling $9.2 million. ~ Our Center for Healthy Families provides couple and family therapy to more than 500 families every year.. . .

In recent years, Family Science doctoral students have received awards for their research, teaching, and internship work from the National Council on Family Relations.

The Department has 3 National Council on Family Relations Fellows: Dr. Elaine Anderson, Dr. Leigh Leslie, and Dr. Roger Rubin. Dr. Norman Epstein is a fellow of the American Psychological Association, in the divisions of Family Psychology and Psychotherapy, as well as a founding fellow of the Academy of Cognitive Therapy.

, and under “Family Impact Seminars”

Family Impact Seminars began (it says) in the 1970s and were targeted at legislators and policymakers at the Congressional, then the state level, as run from the University of Wisconsin. (interesting). I already remembered this outfit — looks like another NONPROFIT (?) funded by a serious of private FOUNDATIONS telling the government how to handle such issues as juvenile justice, child care, health insurance and of course welfare. Just trying to be philanthropic, I guess:

In case we don’t get the “Family Impact Seminars” influence — at this University (although it’s at several others also), there’s a “Family Impact Seminar” built right into the “Family Science Department” at UMD — and it’s run by two PhD women, including Elaine A. Anderson, above:

The Seminar provides various activities around specific issues that impact family health and well-being, including:

Seminars
Forums
Briefing reports
Roundtable discussions
Follow-up activities

The Maryland Family Policy Impact Seminar is directed by the Department of Family Science in the School of Public Health at the University of Maryland, College Park and is part of a national network of state Family Impact Seminars.

Yep. The two Directors:

Elaine A. Anderson, Ph.D., is Director of the Maryland Family Policy Impact Seminar.  She is Chair and Professor in the Department of Family Science, University of Maryland, College Park.  Dr. Anderson is a former Congressional Science Fellow who has conducted policy research for several state legislatures as well as presidential campaigns.  She has written numerous policy publications and conducted policy research on a variety of family policy issues, including family health and child obesity, mental health policy, low-income fathers, homelessness, and work policy.  For more information about Dr. Anderson, please visit her webpage.

Bonnie Braun, Ph.D., is Co-Director of the Maryland Family Policy Impact Seminar.  She is a Professor in the Department of Family Science and an Extension Family Policy Specialist with over 30 years of experience in family public policy.  Her research focuses on informing public policy and program issues especially as they relate to vulnerable populations.  She was the first Herschel S. Horowitz Endowed Chair and Director of the Center for Health Literacy in the School of Public Health and holds an appointment in the Center as Faculty Scholar. Her most recent public policy focus is on health reform and specifically on health insurance literacy. For more information about Dr. Braun, please visit her webpage.

Dr. Anderson (no mention of her having a family herself; perhaps?) would probalby not have a career if it weren’t for the National Council on Family Relations, justing by her resume (link above). Notice obsession with fathers, and one single entry of “mothers,” and nothing (n.o.t.h.i.n.g.) specifically on women, which this Ph.D. is. She has a 1979 Ph.D. in “Individual and Family Science” from Penn State (no BA is mentioned, or masters — what is “Individual Science”??)…research interests: “Family policy, health policy, fathering, at-risk families, and rural families.” In return for longstanding loyalty and not rocking the boat?

Career Highlights

Awarded Fellow Status for the National Council on Family Relations. [undated]
Awarded Distinguished Service to SPSSI (Division 9, APA)
. . .
Vice President for Public Policy of the National Council on Family Relations (1996).
…
Annual Conference Program Chair of the National Council on Family Relations (2000).
Outstanding Research and Development Award, School of Public Health (2003).
President-Elect of National Council on Family Relations (2009-2011).
President of National Council on Family Relations (2011-2013).

and articles published include (listed below “Career Highlights”:

This listing also shows “The Reconstruction of Family Policy,” but fails to mention she’s one of two editors (not authors). See link for table of contents, i.e., “Normative Family Policy” “balancing interests of CHildren and Adults” and then “Feminist policy.”

Anderson, E. A., Kohler, J. K., & Letiecq, B. A. (2005). Predictors of depression among low-income, non-residential fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 547-567.

Anderson, E. A., Kohler, J. K., & Letiecq, B. A. (2002). Low-income fathers and “Responsible Fatherhood” progams: A qualitative investigation of participants’ fathering experiences and perceptions of program efficiency. Family Relations, 51, 148-155.

Anderson, E. A., Kohler, J. K., & Letiecq, B. A. (2002). Low-income fathers and “Responsible Fatherhood” progams: A qualitative investigation of participants’ fathering experiences and perceptions of program efficiency. Family Relations, 51, 148-155.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2013. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

This essentially shows two portals — one if you’re a legislator, one if you’re connected as a professional. They attempt to frame issues in terms of “Families” hence a list of policy briefs “by Issues” buries Violence Against Women and “Domestic Violence” (a word that doesn’t show in the list) behind the link to Child Maltreatment:

Briefing Reports for State Policymakers — Organized by Policy Issues. This is the list:

Publications – Briefing Reports Organized by Policy Issue

Aging and Long-Term Care
Family Economic Security/Jobs/State Economic Growth
Child Abuse and Exploitation/Family, School, and Community Violence
Child Care and Early Education/After School Programs
Families and K-12 Education/Dropout Prevention
Child and Family Health
Family Poverty
Foster Care/Family Services/Military Families
Juvenile Crime/Corrections Policy
Strengthening Families/Parenting: (subdivided as follows):

Sep  2009 DC Home Visitation Programs as an Early Intervention Strategy
Jan  2005 IN Growing Indiana’s Human Capital: Assuring Positive Futures for Youth
Apr  2000 MI Children and Divorce

---

Feb  2000 DC Reconnecting DC Families: Involving Low-Income Families in the Lives of Their Children (includes Wade Horn of National Fatherhood Initiative, a Male Headstart Outreach Coordinator for DC, what looks like an Annie E. Casey person (“Child Trends), and Christine Hart-Wright from “STRIVE DC” who, as it turns out, has a 1986 MPA in Public Health from Howard, and has been working since 1983 in Child Support Administration among other thing).This study got HHS-funding, with help from a Georgetown Institute and this “Network of Family Impact Seminars.” Pdf of the report shows that the category listing on this “PINFIS” website is deceptive — the title is “Involving low-income FATHERS in the lives of their children.” — not “families.” The various headings of the report are, after “Introduction” — “Father Absence” “Father Presence” “Fathers as Providers” “Expanding the Boundaries of Fatherhood,” “National Models” — get the idea? Needless to say, no one representing the best interest of MOTHERS — was involved in the production of this report… Must’ve been an oversight.

---

Oct  1999 WI Raising the Next Generation: Public and Private Parenting Initiatives
Jan  1998 WI Building Resiliency and Reducing Risk: What Youth Need from Families and Communities to Succeed
Apr  1996 DC Strengthening Families: Parenting Programs and Policies in the District
Nov  1995 WI Child Support: The Effects of the Current System on Families
Nov  1995 CA Child Safety and Family Preservation and Support Services
Jul  1995 DC Families that Play Together: Recreation and Leisure in the District
Jan  1994 WI Can Government Promote Competent Parenting?
Oct  1993 WI Single Parenthood and Children’s Well-being

Teen Pregnancy

Despite the 1994 passage of the significant “Violence Against Women Act” which actually acknowledges violence targeted against women, by gender, exists, these guys don’t acknowledge it. The nouns are noticeably absent or low-profile: notice, where are the words “men” or “women” in any title? — only Children, Juveniles, and Families. Completely absent — the individual AS an individual, residing in this country. Collectivism much?

This is what many women, including myself, faced on marrying religious (or otherwise abusive, but in particularly religious) men. We were expected to completely submerge, without advance notice, our identities — sometimes also our economic footprints (I’m talking, credit cards, bank accounts, titles to property, names on lease, utilities, etc.) — under the man, in addition to (which some did voluntarily, some did not) changing our own last names to be visually and in name identified as a member of the husband’s lineage. I did this, as a result our children have his last name, same now as mine. I would’ve probably changed my last name by now, except that I’m a mother — and those are my children, even as young adults. There is a name connection.

Other cultures (including ours) allow the mother’s last name to be incorporated or combined with the fathers. But what happens when we are supposed to, as United States Citizens, with a past life (particularly people thta don’t marry in their teens) — simply disappear into the marriage/family function, and then betreated as betraying criminals when we say no to abuse, and say it legally?

According to this rhetoric – which seeks to conference in positions of power — YES.

NFLG Board Members to Present at the Practitioners leadership Institute Academy’s Graduation in October

The Practitioners Leadership Institute (PLI) is a program of the Center for Urban Families (CFUF) (EIN# 522142708) in Baltimore, MD. CFUF’s President and CEO, Joe Jones, is the Chair of NFLG. The PLI is a nationally focused initiate** designed to provide responsible Fatherhood, Workforce development and Family Strengthening practitioners with experiences, skills and information that will strengthen their ability to improve outcomes for low-income fathers and families, impacting black male achievement.

[**I think they meant “initiative”]

The PLI Academy is an eight-month cohort-structured program that kicks off each March with a summit [conference of some sort], after which participants are engaged in a series of robust, skills-based and classroom-like webinars, monthly conference calls and face-to-face learning and networking engagements [[and they meet in person]]. The program concludes with a graduation event in Baltimore in October.

Four NFLG Board Members will provide the cohort members with leadership tools and strategies as part of the three-day graduation event:
. . . .[describes]
NFLG will post more information from the presenters after the event.

NFLG is Now a 501(c)(3) Tax-exempt Nonprofit Organization – and you can be a part of it!
Click the Member tab for more information!

NFLG at the 15th Annual International Fatherhood Conference! [[A close look — it took a while — reveals that this is a conference put on by one of the board member’s groups]

Please view our Summer 2013 newsletter posted in the Press Room for details about NFLG’s participation at the 15th Annual IFC. Presentations are also posted in the Recent & Upcoming Activities page; click the Initiatives & Programs tab above, …

There are TEN members listed on the Board of the NFLG which 501(c)3 status I’d like to see. Why not just post the EIN# for readers? It’s only 9 digits!!

Each of these groups is either a legit or illegit corporation (none appear to be government itself). The board member is from the CFUF group I added to the list above, and was a social worker in Baltimore before starting up the nonprofit CFUF, the associated funds, and eventually (per its website) obtaining the privilege of training 96 other Responsible Fatherhood Grantees, and in addition to being a civil servant (or former one) has now a White House connection (Obama Taskforce) as well. The nonprofit got new HQ in 2008:

From their “About Us” page, i.e., the corporation’s narrative:

In 1993, while working as a Baltimore City Health Department social worker, Joseph T. Jones, Jr. recognized that there were few resources available for fathers. This lack of resources inspired him to create the Men’s Services program under the auspices of the Baltimore City Health Department’s Healthy Start program. Joe saw that the participating fathers were committed, but lacked the skills to provide for their children. Men’s Services helped the fathers to reconnect with their families, find employment, resolve child support issues, overcome addiction, and learn parenting skills.

. . .
In 2007, CFUF was provided the invaluable opportunity to expand its reach and expertise nationally, through funding made available by the Federal Office of Family Assistance. [[Note: why not just name the grant?]] Through this grant, CFUF was contracted to provide training and technical assistance to over 96 Promoting Responsible Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage, and Economic Stability grantees across the country, advising them around recruitment, retention, engagement of fathers, program design and implementation of fatherhood programs.

---

In furtherance of CFUF’s high impact work, CEO Joe Jones, a national leader in workforce development, fatherhood and family services programming, serves as an appointed member of the Obama Administration’s Taskforce on Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families.

This is his story (at UMBC.edu), and a good one it is, after finally getting caught selling drugs out of the SSA, where his mother and grandmother worked, and was given the option of drug rehab or jail; chose drug rehab.

A public civil servant from Baltimore forms a nonprofit and starts turning on the grants system for men. He also chairs the NFLG with questionable incorporation practices (like, failing to file but still taking donations)…

From the bio, above:

When Jones worked for the Baltimore City Health Department, he designed and oversaw innovative programs like STRIVE. But the bureaucracy of working within a government agency frustrated him. “If I wanted to grow beyond now, I knew I couldn’t do it at the health department,” he says. With a nod from his then-boss and former Baltimore City Health Commissioner Peter Beilenson – and financial support from the Abell Foundation and its longtime president, Robert C. Embry, Jr. – Jones was able to strike out on his own.

In 1999, Jones opened the doors to the Center for Urban Families. In the attractive new building in which the nonprofit is housed today, Jones has also started a program to help fathers: Men’s Services Responsible Fatherhood program. The center also launched its first national initiative, Baltimore Building Strong Families, in 2005. The program aims to support new low-income parents with financial know-how and relationship skill building.

I have a few posts on “Baltimore” over at http://economicbrain.wordpress.com after finding out it was unable to produce its own CAFR; as I recall, the Baltimore City Foundation was just handling grants and writing checks; about $990K of HHS grants was in question.

Because he’s got the “credentials” (although he appears to have exploited his relationship with HHS to advance private interests, like fathers’ rights groups that evade their tax accountability – and network with others who specialize in this — while promoting the Brookings Institution apparently NWO agenda — he gets published and quoted more than, say, the groups he’s targeted for elimination, like “female-headed families” and after that, particularly if they are black or Hispanic, and people who may opt out of the “do what we say” rhetoric and start looking at what the preachers (including this kind of preacher) has actually done him or herself. For example — there’s nothing uniquely better about a full-time job paying $XX/hour, and a part-time job paying $XXX per hour, leaving the extra time for doing something else with a view towards one’s future.

Ron Haskins — is just a guy. He’s flesh and blood like you and me. However because of our country’s many systems of “centers” and giving economic preference to wealth concentrated in them, and other factors, a person involved in several such governmentally-focused centers over time, can exercise too much influence over policy. Combined with his prior HHS role (see bio, or look it up) and the revolving door between government and these such centers, I’d be surprised when they stop spinning long enough to let one of “we the people” in, and give any credence to our individual voice based on whether it’s true or not, and a relevant truth. The purpose of these centers, from what I can tell, IS to manage (wield undue influence) the course of the United States of America vis a vis its own citizens and vis a vis (face-to-face with, literally) the rest of the world.

Ron Haskins is also a prominent influence, or has been called such, in welfare reform, particularly its’ Access/Visitation and Fatherhood components. I also read that he’d been among the originals (incorporator, or board member?) of the “CRCkids.org” group, “The Childrens’ Rights Council” which has focused on influencing family court law and parenting plans (“The Best Parent is Both Parents,”) something this group apparently doesn’t believe, as there seems no problem when an abusive male parent has sole control, and the nonabusive mother, no contact… The CRC then also helped spawn the Supervised Visitation industry, which often punishes (forces to pay supervised visitation fees) the non-offending (no criminal record, when the other has one) parent, i.e., mother, as exemplified in the recent Max Liberti (“Finding Ground Zero”] case from Connecticut, or as outlined about 14 years earlier in a case from California [Karen Anderson/written up at “johnnypumphandle.com”]

Anyone can call themselves anything on-line, almost. Some people are better (in part because of funding) for saying it more officiously and persuading readers — especially Americans, who have been conditioned to perpetuate the myth that we’re still a representative-government-nation, into believing they should follow. Because it’s official.

We seem to have forgotten the unconscious collective “NO!” or “Don’t Tread on me” or “Says WHO?” responses, which are instead of immediately trying to bond with the information — to question it, question who’s speaking, and question authority. These are the times to question policy — particularly federal welfare policy, or ANY such things as national marriage policy.

Decades (at least ten of them) in studying in detail captive audiences, and how they respond under different stressors (like, war — or torture — or knowing their children have been abducted and are at risk, etc.) and writing it up, a.k.a. Tavistock Institute on Human Relations style — have developed refined techniques of persuasion and manipullation on the average trusting human being. We are however, when we do NOT trust, also coached and directed into who or what NOT to trust and to fear, as opposed to, having a healthy and skeptical attitude towards people warning us NOT to trust our own senses and observation.

This can be corrected, and I have found it illuminating and energizing. It has provided many “aha!” moments to rebuild and understanding of how I intend to respond in the future when coached into “just trust us” actions which are alleged to somehow better my legal (or financial) situation and involve any family member. It takes a while to develop the habit, but once something becomes habit, it becomes innate, and it also is faster.

Developing this habit of skepticism and look-ups has also given me other valuable knowledge, such as the abominable state of public-access websites when compared with the access “insiders” have to other information, not to mention the computer platforms to crunch and provide models to that information.

So I extracted this part from the last post to emphasize: when information comes to you on-line, especially official-sounding, LONG proclamataions and explanations in social science or governmental terms — do you know how and where to file it?

When it comes to this issue of the courts and family law — some things are straightforward, easy to understand, and easy to keep in mind IF a person wants to. These labels are a grammar for putting together meaning and understanding. More than one set of labels can apply to any situation, more than one should usually be applied — but at some point, you have to either choose, or stay confused. WHICH set of labels is MOST helpful for my purpose and wishes?

Should some of them be rejected as inaccurate? On what basis?

I have suggested (repeatedly) that among any groups, but particularly among CORPORATIONS, the primary divider is not their names, not their size, not what they sell, and not what even they say. Their identity (structure, setup) is itself a statement about purpose, and if understood, will lead to other valuable information about this group, other related groups, and enrich anyone’s udnerstanding of the field they are addressing as a whole, including ideally purpose, and who’s calling some of the shots.

I have come to some basic conclusions and am putting this information out in hopes that others are around who will get educated on it (if they aren’t already) and start discussing it, particularly the dramatic expansion of the role of the executive level of state (and federal) government, the excessive focus on the departments of HHS (the US can’t even produce an unqualified opoinion on its own financial statements! The GAO won’t do it, because it’ can’t! Of the grants, HHS, one source, says, is 60% of the federal dole. Whatever percent, it’s a huge chunk. And the system has holes (as in, loopholes) in it, too.

Here are some pointers, and they should be among the first filing in the inbox of your brain. This is SO basic and before having prolonged debates with any one entity, or any person saying they belong to (or are President, etc., of) any entity — FIRST comes:

1. DEFINE: WHO IS IT? (“Who Are You?”) Government or Corporation

Is it a government entity (ANY government entity), or is it a CORPORATE entity, which means it has to sit its “behind” down to a home state, or territory. Government entities have to show up on a CAFR somewhere. Corporate entities for the most part, have to file an annual report in a government entity some where. Because Corporations are created, legally and literally, by someone submitting, paying for, signing with the “Secretary of State” (who is a public employee, and part of government, this tells us that Government actually has power of the Corporation. It is the greater legal authority, and (regardless of consistent enforcement) is the underlying authority for anything to exist.

[IF GOVERNMENT, WHICH BRANCH, AND WHERE. EASIER TO FIND OUT, AND NOT DISCUSSED RIGHT HERE. NEXT, KINDS OF CORPORATIONS ARE PRETTY SIMPLE BASIC QUESTIONS — ALL RELATING TO THEIR IDENTITY, ORIGIN, AND ARE THEY DOING BUSINESS LEGALLY (UP TO DATE WITH THEIR STAYING INCORPORATED) OR NOT? WHY? BECAUSE THAT’S A REAL CHARACTER INDICATOR, A KIND OF QUICK & DIRTY LIE DETECTOR — DOES THEIR WEBSITE INFO MATCH THEIR SECRETARY OF STATE INFO, OR NOT.

2. If a Corporation — “WHERE DO YOU LIVE?” (Now, that is).

If they are a corporation, in this country — so they have to file somewhere, tying their location to ONE state (or D.C. or Territory) as “domestic” and if they register or do business in any other state, that makes them “foreign” to that state. If I set up in Delaware, but sell in Massachusetts, I am a domestic corporation when in Delaware, and a foreign in Massachusetts. Go look it up.

3. If a Corporation — “HOW OLD ARE YOU?” [When did you incorporate?”] That will be found when one looks up at least the current name. At this time you will also find out, or should want to, “What other names do you go by?” (i.e., the d/b/a or trade names section of any “business entity search” site).

4. If a Corporation — “Who’s your Daddy, or Mommy?”. The simple answer is — who incorporated, and who is the registered agent. This is shown on the paperwork. Depending on the state, this can be looked up in 5 minutes or less. It’s just doing it so frequently which is a pain in the neck; but made habitual — it’s easy enough.

4a. If a Corporation (this will show up quickly) — ‘ARE YOU LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE?” Doesn’t have same connotation as legitimate (married parents) or illegitimate (unmarried parents). It is basically an honesty check on any corporation — if it’s still up and running, but it’s corporate status is NOT, it’s illegitimate — then those bastards need to either quit selling and taking donations — or fix their corporation status. When this becomes large scale and involves public money — that’s a VERY big deal.

5. If a Corporation — ARE YOU FOR-PROFIT OR NOT FOR PROFIT?”. THIS IS A MAJOR DIVIDING LINE AND SHOULD BE FOUND OUT, up front. One way profits, assets, and real estate can be seriously incorporated (which isn’t exactly news to those doing it) — is to reduce tax liability by forming an not-for-profit. Our economy, after all, does distinguish between taxable and nontaxable income. Nonprofits are ostensibly for charitable, scientific, religious, etc. purposes.

A.
IF IT’S A NONPROFIT, YOU CAN GET THEIR EIN# (HOPEFULLY) AND GO FOR THE TAX RETURNS. It’s also searchable on the TAGGS.hhs.gov database, and others. It’s not a searchable element on the USASpending.gov; for that you need a DUNS# or more name detail. Both of those sites are “for reference only” anyhow and not the most accurate source of information; just helpful for leading to other info.

IF IT’s a NONPROFIT, what kind? Religious or regular? 501(c)3, 4, or what? Is it also a Private Foundation? If it’s a privately controlled foundation, then “who’s your Daddy” (or Mommy, or both) still applies — some wealth was put together and funded a foundation. What field was that wealth made in? Auto industry? Pharmacy? Telecommunications? Computers? i.e., mean, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford etc. — I have a “Private Equity” page (and/or post) from 2013 which lists the top ones in the US. It’s good to know, and may explain why certain foundations want certain things done.

B.
IF IT’s a FOR-PROFIT, it could be either PUBLIC, in which case information on its stock offerings might be available through certain sources, or if PRIVATE, good luck! Which is it?

These are just a few basic terms and habits to form when cruising various websites, or arguing with someone whose point of view comes with what looks like a corporate (or looks like a governmental) name attached. Make no mistake, there is an effort to make things look like government which aren’t. And that’s all I want to do right here.

(A click on post title & link takes you back to the top of this post):

“Where’s Waldo?”… “Who’s Your Daddy?” (How and Why to Run Background-Checks on (any and all) “POLICY,” “RESOURCE” or so-called “JUSTICE” Centers) [Publ. Sept 1, 2013, Rev. Mar., 2014 and [to reformat, update links, expand intro.] Nov.-Dec. , 2021]., short-link ending “-1Uh.” About 14,000 words (as of Mar. 2014). I see at the bottom I added 8 comments to the post (for when, see them); take a look…

Post-Game Exhortation:

However, with some language skills acquisition, perhaps it will be MORE representative than it would be if people were unconscious about the impact of the internet upon government, or failed to understand that behavioral science and psychology began, in larger parts, dealing with traumatized populations (en masse, or individually in therapy) — and that this trauma relates often directly to such uniquely human (the “downside” or our ability to organize, symbolize, inspire to mass action, and reduce people to the “swarming” or herd status — and to visualize the profits from this before starting the swarm).

The trauma under which people’s reactions and responses can be coldly, and with an ulterior calculated purpose studied — includes captive audience group populations AND isolation-tank populations, available now almost womb to tomb. often what disrupts people’s healthy interaction with each other in life-sustaining interactive and warm, (sensory rich versus sensory-deprived) activities (like raising food, defending or raising families, doing commerce, communication in social groupings and outside them) are specifically created institutions for mass-managing us:

This long-term, intergenerational trauma can and does come from war, or from personal violent physical or sexual, or psychological (etc.) abuse, of which isolation is one form. Slave-labor-camping is another. Work is good, but not all of it is intended to develop moral characters or future leadership abilities, as ideally might help in communities with more group/regional integrity. Trauma can come from drugging, from hurting, from exporting, from alienating (in the larger sense of the word) or from demanding undue sacrifice of life to protect private interests. It can come from dumbing down one sector, while priviledge-information-ing the other.

By freeing up our time — somehow, it MUST be done — and expediting our learning curves, by focusing our attention (as opposed to letting it freely roam unfocused MOST of the time, or hyper focused half the time and unfocused the rest) — we will see our individual importance as BRAKES on a system heading towards exterminating most of us, while de-sensitizing what’s left of us.

Living together takes serious work — and that’s also the joy and privilege of freedom, self-government and in short, life. It is INNATE to man, and to handle each other, otherwise, is to diminish man. Is that what we would like to leave for the next generation, including (if there are some), our own offspring? More dumb-down, desensitized, uprooted, don’t know-the-past-except-as-propagandized viewpoints?

Perhaps this is just my upbringing or temperament, but it seems to me that we do better, overall, as hunter-gatherers in moderately sized groups, with a little bit of settled down farming than as major agricultural societies who in their free time, start wars, build monuments, and write fanciful narratives of their own origins.

There has to be a way to balance time for the imagination and the visionary with the practical AND putting a lid on this NWO remote-control governance which exploits some sectors in favor of the others.