Archive for March 2016
My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers, Pt 3 of 3, “Same text, better formatting,” [From June 4, 2011 \ Updated Formatted, Publ. Here March 30, 2016].
Post title (with publish dates added), updated April 2022, to get the short-link. I also changed background-color to white (from light-blue) and removed the default font specs for this post. My new blog default font is “sans-serif” but too many paragraphs within this one copied “Georgia” which is more curly in look. I’m not re-doing fonts para. by para., so individual paragraphs will not all be in the same font. //LGH Apr. 22, 2022.
My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers, Pt 3 of 3, “Same text, better formatting,” [Updated Formatted, Publ. Here March 30, 2016]. (short-link ends “-3e7”)
Last post left off at my 2011 exclamation about,
WHO IS MPDI? …WHO are these guys??
WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:
(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention. From HHS):
..and discovering (2016) that the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” quoted and featured SO MUCH in this blog, just has gotten a facelift. Over the years I have raised MANY questions about the integrity, organization (flexibility for the public) and reliability of this data, and even set up a blog in Fall 2013 to exhibit some of the seriousness of the issues: HHSGiveways, Government Shutdowns. The project was not finished, but the Pages and Posts up so far show-and-tell some of the accountability issues.
The new interface will take some getting used to.. but may make blogging easier, as it does produce those reports in several different formats. My most immediate concern was no field labeled “Recipient” (but a prompt to type in recipient name into “Keyword” field — and NO search field to input an EIN#. DUNS# option remains, but the EIN# Select Option does not seem to.
Report Totals of HHS Grants for 2016 at https://taggs.hhs.gov/SearchRecip, this morning, Year 2016 only, is $241,236,771,196, a.k.a. $241B, approximately one quarter-year’s worth. Maybe we should pay better attention…
Unlike Parts 1 and 2 (of this mini-series), most of this post is actually what was written in 2011, about two years after I first started this blog. Further down on the post is a photo of the building MPDI was in, which I also found interesting… I’ve attempted several clean-ups of the charts, especially, TAGGS.hhs.gov charts, shown then. I’ll mark 2016 Updates with a different background color and teal-green borders, like this:
UPDATE interjection:
If the charts are still hard to read below, I suggest use the “ADVANCED SEARCH” link at the new-user-interface-website “TAGGS.hhs.gov” — here’s a link. It’s a good habit to develop anyway!
The post might still be a little complicated reading. If a chart isn’t clear enough — re-run it. The conclusion of the matter (or at least, the post written 6/4/2011) I think still makes sense:
(Sorry about the laborious length of this post, which started when I saw several DAIP-type programs at a Family Justice Center ALLIANCE Conference in San Diego.)
Now, we need more “justice centers”? ?? At what point does a person get to say STOP? Where’s the justice, and why hasn’t domestic violence — or family violence — stopped by now, with all that intervention going on? Are we chasing the virtual Holy Grail here, or what?
While “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” is not of the size and funding of “MDRC” — I feel it’s in the same business, with slightly different staffing and origins. It is in[to] the Development of PROGRAMS based on personal visions of the founders — and being spread with Technical Assistance and capacity building public funded help like a fast growing tree nurtured by the IRS and the dual prongs of HHS and DOJ (all EXECUTIVE BRANCH of USA) grants.
I understand that people want to respond to PROBLEMS and then start and continue PROGRAMS to solve them. But now the PROLIFERATION OF PROGRAMS has really become a major PROBLEM itself. These programs have tremendous leverage because of their existing structures, and relationships. Too much of the public remains clueless that half of them even exist.
And — people “served” doesn’t mean people — or even lives! — “saved.” Nor do judges (etc.) trained necessarily increase judicial ethics or “domestic violence awareness.” I see the grants, I see the people, I see the programs described, and you can’t beat those website — but where is the data that any of this is actually helping?
Instead, the Supervised Visitation Network is being used AGAINST the mothers and children it supposedly is to protect.
And, because we are here looking at “MPDI” which is in effect, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (with a new name), this quote from their website (link probably no longer current) showed their statewide influence as far back as 1991s. We might ask why it was so well-received in just a decade’s worth of operations (and how much any pre-1995 HHS grants may have helped with that reception):
(RESULTs/Accomplishments at “TheDuluthModel.org”) Due to DAIP’s success, in 1991 the Minnesota Legislature mandated that each of the 38 Legislative Assignment Districts establish an intervention project coordinated by a battered women’s advocacy group. As of 1997, there were 44 intervention projects in Minnesota.
This set up for the coordination of the entire criminal AND family AND social services AND nonprofit (Community referrals) system based on the ideas, in part derived from a Brazilian Christian Socialist / theology of the oppressed (Ellen Pence/Paolo Friere — look it up), and in part from a Toronto institutional ethnographist[?] professor (again, look it up), i.e., the art and practice of systems change to affect mothers, fathers, and children nationwide, and internationally. That takes a certain amount of arrogant, sheer, abusive/controlling/coercive narcissism to push through — which in some ways reminds me of characteristics of batterers as described by the same groups….
//LGH
This now begins the older post text:
WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:
(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention. From HHS):
(HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC | DULUTH | MN | 55802-2152 | ST. LOUIS | 193187069 | $ 18,027,387 |
Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients
(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).
| Recipient: | MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC |
| Address: | 202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET DULUTH, MN 55802-2152 |
| Country Name: | United States of America |
| County Name: | ST. LOUIS |
| HHS Region: | 5 |
| Type: | Other Social Services Organization |
| Class: | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations |
SHARE THIS POST on...
Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”). [Publ. again March 29, 2016<~~].
You will notice that some grants refer to the “Special Issue Resource Center.” …
Given the column headings I selected, that of over perhaps twenty years, only THREE different women are shown: Ellen Pence and Denise Gamache headed up most of them as “Principal Investigator”, then in about 2000, mostly just Denise Gamache, and in 2016, I see a “Renee Gutman.”
Denise Gamache is now associated with “Battered Women’s Justice Project” (and was while working also at DAIP) which decided to “come out” (incorporate in MN) in the year 2013. I see that “Renee Gutmann” got her degree in 1993, and has worked for DAIP since 1993 (LinkedIn) and is characterized as “Accountant” for DAIP.
THIS POST IS:
Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”). [Publ. again March 29, 2016<~~] (short-link ends “-3ck”).
Part 1 (most recent post) explains why I’m re-blogging it with some updates. It was recently reblogged on Red Herring Alert, in an interesting juxtaposition of articles.
This version of the same post makes some charts more readable. The gist of the material is the Ellen Pence / Casey Gwinn connection (representing the Duluth, MN-based “DAIP” as it now goes by, and the Family Justice Center concept (now called “Alliance for Hope International” as a California nonprofit of which the “Family Justice Center Alliance” has become a program). It also intersected with Telling Amy’s Story, and got under my skin at the time, as it still does.
As does the entire “Family Justice Center” setup. I still remember “connecting the dots” on discovering that the San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation (it’s full original, corporate name) existed to funnel money to Camp Hope, Inc. — but Camp Hope, Inc. wasn’t staying properly incorporated. No matter, shut down one version, file for a new one, move the money. It was a minor, minor detail — charitable registration number was so close, and more recently realizing it’d changed names AGAIN, that got me reviewing the earlier tax returns of this operations. I have been living IN California before, during, and while, this business model was created, funded, and replicated. It’s worth an entirely separate blog to alert people to what, exactly IS that business model — but I am only one person.
The fuller background on the original (a) philanthropic private wealthy couple and (b) public funds behind the multiple names surrounding both the San Diego Family Justice Center and the associated “Camp Hope” theme, are another separate story which I also learned considerably more fascinating background on this past summer. By doing, the usual thing — scrutinizing tax returns and looking up the entities and people named in them. Some of this is exposed below in the section with light-brown-background and teal borders. Actually, influence from “Fuller Seminary” leadership may have been involved so, “fuller background” could be a pun, also.
“Getting” the reality of the Family Justice Center Alliance is, I’d say, as important as getting the reality of the Duluth Model, CCR, treat everyone and let us be the train-the-trainer people concept. So I will continue to bring it up, where it ties into the other subject matter. Both involve replicating BUSINESS models. A close diagnosis of the original models then, is always appropriate — and by “diagnosis” I mean, accounting-wise. This can’t be just one organization, but involve the various related organizations (translation: “networks”) to construct something of a picture of operations. Even for people who weren’t “there,” right on scene locally — it can still be done.
SHARE THIS POST on...
My June 4, 2011, Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI), a 2016 Intro (Pt 1 of 2)
Two excerpts from the post. Fair warning, I may still revise after publishing it today, 3/28/2016. Also, some of its many tags actually refer to the one I just published yesterday, which also has some (minor) revisions, relating to list of YE 2014 sub-grantees from Futures without Violence, towards the bottom of the post…I took that post from the middle of this one, in order to keep this one shorter, and linked with the “Part 2” for which it is “Part 1.”
ABOUT THIS POST
This “Part 1” INTRO commentary introduces occasioned by a re-post of my 6/4/2011 “Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?“by Dede Evavold on Red Herring Alert 3/15/2016 under the title “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs,” In “Part 2,” I simply block-copied the text (but not comments on original post) of my June 4, 2011 post to clean up the html (formatting of quote and tables) for easier reading, and possibly updated broken links or some of its information.
and:
- Many of us may know about the 1994ff “VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which brought funding (grants, presumably also contracts) through the USDOJ along certain lines.
- However, there was an earlier 1984 “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention Services Act) passed by Congress, from which some of these resource centers apparently date. HHS itself only dates to 1980 (before, there was HEW, Dept. of “Health, Education and Welfare).
As you can see from the excerpts, I’m (a) responding to a recent re-post from 2011, and, as ever (b) have certain topics I wish to continue talking about. As I learn, so I also teach. This post then concludes with some information about the Colorado-based NACC (National Association of Counsel for Children), as it came up in a Huffington Post article quoted by the re-blog and a reference to NCJFCJ’s “Project One.” For “Project One,” …”One World Order,” despite all the talk of desired outcomes protecting human rights, women, children, reducing poverty, increasing justice and equity, etc., this One World Order (Government) seems to be the overall agenda — total control of major aspects of life and commerce (including of domestic human livestock — which is a “resource” of a different kind — breeding and training).
Despite how “special” we in the USA may wish to believe our country is, and that in many respects, no question it IS quite special, a lot of this type of programming can be traced back — which I can say because I have been tracking several programs and operations back to originators and designers — to two countries, both of which attempted to and to a degree established empires: England (Great Britain), and Germany. Both tried this in Africa as we know (along with others) AFTER the USA fought England in a war for independence in the late 1700s. Include some Freud et al., for the 1900s, maybe a few more countries could be referenced.
What I would like to call attention to is the use of private corporations as a method, in addition to the combination of tax / tax-exemption to sway the outcomes AGAINST the individual rights and against individuals, in the name of services provided and problems solved. All I’m saying is, the “solutions” seem to trend in a certain expansion of scope and shrinking of accountability to taxpayers, which continues to turn up the heat on the public at large. It’s not good enough to provide even some very decent services while progressively compromising justice and fiscal accountability. Fiscal accountability is EVERYTHING when it comes to administering justice!!
My most recent post (published March 27, 2016 — yes, on Easter Day) fills in some background on the networked organizations involved in the HHS-funded “DVRN” (Domestic Violence Resource Network) as set up, I learned, under the “FVPSA.” In 2011, obviously, I didn’t know all this. It’s important information to know, however… In expanding such “resource centers” which then receive — and, to a degree, sometimes redistribute — public and private money both — the trail of public “ROI” (Return on Investment) of tax revenues continues to expand, become more complex, and become less carefully watched.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Most have heard of the VAWA (passed 1994), But what about the earlier (passed 1984) FVPSA? Or, the “DVRN”? [Published March 27, 2016].
Post Title: Most have heard of the VAWA (passed 1994), But what about the earlier (passed 1984) FVPSA? Or, the “DVRN”? [Published March 27, 2016]. (shortlink ends “-3dk”). Looks like about 10,800 words.
UPDATE COMMENTS: (Font-change, date added to the title itself, and this short-linked title added to the body of post, added December 12, 2020, during my construction of a 2020 Table of Contents. No, I’m not going to go through and re-format this one otherwise!
I may refer to it in the context of there actually being an “FVSPA” in addition to the VAWA, which still seems conveniently ignored (though is most certainly known by grantee organizations in the network) when most talk about the state of “Prevention of Violence Against Women” movement in the USA, whether talking about it within the USA, or as seen from other countries.
I’m sure the membership of the DVRN has changed meanwhile, but as it’s not a specific organization, but an amorphous, mixed group of entities and non-entities CALLED the “DVRN,” this is still important to comprehend. As I understood the situation in March, 2016, obviously. Thanks for any time you spend reading this and other posts. //LGH Dec. 12, 2020.
(AS WRITTEN IN 2016…)
It seems to me that the national response to wife-beating and/or child abuse may have already been put on a sort of auto-pilot, knee-jerk response decades ago, and is simply being refined, fine-tuned, and turf-and-territory-protected ever since. The more I learn about HHS programs inspired or validated by Acts of Congress focused on stopping abuse or preventing family violence, reducing juvenile delinquency (etc. — remember my two “About NCJJ” recent posts** showing the privatization conflict of interest covered up by “NCJFCJ” which is also benefitting from the FVPSA-inspired funding as a “Special Issue Resource Center” ???) the more aware I become of what was set in motion, a lot of which I would take issue with, but probably “too late and too bad,” as it happens.
** link added 4/24/2022, in expectation of re-promoting ALL March, 2016, posts, and publishing some which had remained in draft: Updated title corrects “UNevada-Reno format, adds dates published/update (to the title itself) and corrects, which I hadn’t caught before, the spelling of “TUCSON.” //LGH: About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III (d.2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022]. (short-link ends “-2Se” About 7,500 words)
Nevertheless, it’s still important to be aware of these things and come to some opinion on them.
But, let’s Look at the FVPSA-inspired, HHS-funded and facilitated “DVRN.” Like that “National” “Responsible” “Fatherhood” “Clearinghouse,” what the heck it is, or is doing, is less than clear from the official sources, such as HHS websites talking about the network, its member agencies, and its “special issue resource centers.”
I’m tempted to personal comments here, but they are stowed at the bottom of this post, for now.
File this under federalizing, evaluating and quality control (?) of EVERYTHING that relates to anyone under 21 — and their caretakers, which is almost everyone else..
The DVRN is multi-jurisdictional, subject-matter defined, and its presentation seems designed to confuse the readers and discourage identifying just how FEW organizations have been given control of policy, or operations designed to influence policy from the Executive Branch of government and so to speak “from the sidelines..”
This post follows logically from my attempt to explain “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (in connection with a recent reblog of my 6/4/2011 post on this) as one of “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” — when the HHS report of those same Special Issue Resource Centers (numbering, actually 5, not 4) doesn’t even mention that organization’s name. In fact, it downplays actual names of recipient organizations in their description.
I trust this will be an interesting and illuminating post to why certain things seem so much the same from state to state when we (parents) go to court.
The “DVRN” – Domestic Violence Resource Network
(Described @ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/fv-centers)
Family Violence Prevention & Services Resource Centers Listen
The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN) is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to inform and strengthen domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts at the individual, community and societal levels.
It’s promoting awareness and policy through digital dissemination, with help from certain organizations…..
The DVRN works collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice not just a priority, but also a reality.
Note the grammar — the “DVRN” is being given anthropomorphic qualities, as if it was a single living entity — or, in the case of “corporate persons” (our system in the USA), a single business entity. BUT, it’s not. It’s by definition networks synched along certain policies and practices, and also as to some of their sources of funding. But the network elements span different states.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Now, the “Find,” About NCJFCJ (Nevada), its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and so-called NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded (“PRSC”) Providence Service Corporation (and, its Board Members’ background companies)[Publ. March 16, 2016]
Post title: Now, the “Find,” About NCJFCJ (Nevada), its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and so-called NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded (“PRSC”) Providence Service Corporation (and, its Board Members’ background companies)[Publ. March 16, 2016] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-39r” and post is about 18,800 words!)
If you haven’t read the previous (3/10/2016) post — go back and read it, for the context and significance! Thanks (it took about two days to compile and write up).
“Post-Publication Preview:” Section titles in this post include:
- Was “Kids-For-Cash” just “The Tip of the Iceberg”?
- What is, and is not, RICO? (Jeff Grell Interview). For example, BCCI)
- Pre-Game Pep Talk (on Why we all should understand RICO, and “Models for Change”)
- The “FIND” and Questions It Raises:
- SOME (not all!) INFORMATION on PROVIDENCE SERVICE [singular, not “services”] CORPORATION, its SOLD-OFF SUBSIDIARIES, and SOME (not all) of its BOARD MEMBERS and their PRIOR COMPANIES
- How I found this one (the NCJFCJ / Providence Services Corporation connection)? (I read tax returns, cont’d.)
- More on NCJFCJ and NCJJ (Including some of its donors)
- “Gratuitous Posting” (not essential to the post) and some more Food for Thought on Moelis & Company (Providence’s Financial Advisor for latest subsidiary sell-off): [[aka what hard work (and your family’s three generations of Wharton School of Business, plus strategically choosing work likely to produce multi-million-dollar fees) can do]]
My eyes were crossing towards the end of this, but I still question what kind of positive juvenile justice reform is likely to take place under the watchful (?) eye of a nonprofit judicial membership association (NCJFCJ) claiming a subsidiary “NCJJ” which neglects to mention the NASDAQ-traded multi-million-dollar business one of its devoted employees has been directing since 1997 apparently, or that some of the subsidiaries are getting in trouble at the state level for, oh, racketeering (South Carolina-based subsidiary) and coverup of sexual abuse at one of the institutions at least two board members had ties to (Florida-based Youth Services International)? Meanwhile NCJFCJ is primarily government funded, but also takes donations.
I just found after publishing last night, that the IPO (Public Offering Registration with the SEC) on The Providence Service Corporation (found at “NASDAQ.com”) took place only in 2004. This link also reveals, I think, who backed it when it was still private. I’m setting up a separate page to show it off as an example of how centralized control of the “diversionary services” nationwide was attempted by a for-profit corporation.
As familiar and conditioned as we are with the for-profit / not-for-profit tax sectors throughout this country, I still say that income-taxing “all” (except those who file for or are tax-exempt) HAS created (perpetuated) a caste system, an administrative nightmare, and an inherent imbalance of power between government and people because the people cannot fully see or monitor what government is doing with revenues they help provide. It has driven revenues underground and work opportunities into the nonprofit and government sectors. Let alone it creates a statistical impossibility — it is impossible to track all the nonprofits, and that impossibility sets the stage for crooks vs. IRS (actually, IRC, Internatl Revenue Code)-compliant to the DISadvantage of the IRS-compliant. And transparency/accountability to the public supporting all this? Forget it. That system has been around now for just over 100 years (1913-2013), and we are reaping the consequences…..some are reaping profits, but most, consequences.
That Prospectus Summary starts:
(From 2004 IPO (Public Offering Registration with the SEC) on The Providence Service Corporation)
Our business
We provide government sponsored social services directly and through not-for-profit social services organizations whose operations we manage. The recipients of our services are individuals and families who are eligible for government assistance pursuant to federal mandate. The governmental entities that pay for these services include welfare, child welfare and justice departments, public schools and state Medicaid programs. Our counselors, social workers and mental health professionals provide our services primarily in clients’ homes and communities, instead of in institutions. Our delivery method reduces the government’s costs for such services while affording the clients a better quality of life. As of December 31, 2003, we served, directly and through our managed entities, 13,371 clients from 99 locations in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
Our services
Among the services we deliver are:
• Home and community based counseling. We provide counseling in clients’ homes and help schools manage at-risk students through training and counseling programs on school grounds. Our counseling services address such social problems as marital and family issues, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, chronic truancy, hyperactivity, and criminal and anti-social behavior.
• Foster care. We recruit and train foster parents and license family foster homes. We also offer therapeutic foster care to emotionally disturbed children and adolescents who might otherwise require institutional treatment.
• Provider managed services. We manage the delivery of government sponsored social services by multiple providers on behalf of the not-for-profit entities we manage. Management services we provide include intake, assessment and referral services, monitoring services and network and case management services. Our contracts and revenues
Our revenues are derived from our provider contracts with state and local government agencies and government intermediaries and from our management contracts with not-for-profit social services organizations. Under the majority of our provider contracts, we are paid an hourly fee. In other situations, we receive a set monthly amount. Where we contract to manage the operations of a not-for-profit social services provider, we receive a management fee based on the number of clients enrolled with that entity or a percentage of its revenues. As of December 31, 2003, we and our managed entities operated pursuant to 202 contracts. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, our revenues grew to $59.3 million, an increase of over 42% from our $41.8 million in revenues for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2002. Additionally, during the same period we increased the revenues of the social services organizations whose operations we manage to a total of $62.8 million from a total of $46.1 million.
(End of “Post-Publication Preview”)
In fact, here are the first 9 posts of 2016 in a table (or see Table of Contents page for the blog).
Read the previous post, #9, get the juicy details on this one, and by the end of both posts, didhope readers will start to comprehend the size of the problems generated by having public/private partnerships run government institutions, and be persuaded to do further research on NCJFCJ, Providence Service Corporation (and maybe even the organizations run by some of its earlier board members, as shown below)!
Then, in another post, I will (I hope) raise my concerns about how Models For Change, through its constant focus on “diversionary services” actually may have helped set up RICO, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and by way of the Juvenile Law Center (location: Philadelphia), although that center then became even so the organization filing a class-action suit on behalf of victims of the similar type of RICO (Kids-for-Cash Scandal in Luzerne County, ca. 2008) in the juvenile justice system within the state. (see their website for the full account. There’s actually a menu item (link) for the Luzerne County scenario on the top banner, but it’s no longer current. I found the description under “Legal Docket” paging back by year, to 2009:
FEBRUARY 26, 2009
H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al.Filed a federal class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of the children and families of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, who suffered significant harm as a result of ex-Luzerne County juvenile court judge Mark A. Ciavarella and the “kids-for-cash” scandal.
Was “Kids-For-Cash” just “The Tip of the Iceberg”?
SHARE THIS POST on...
About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E. Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022].
About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E. Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022]. (short-link ends “-2Se” About 7,500 words)
UPDATE 2022 comments: About more 1,000 words which I may move later except the first paragraph: All relate to UNR.edu and its recent Carnegie Classifications and some background (and news) on both.
(In the update, I changed the title from “UNevada-Reno” to match what the university calls itself: “University of Nevada, Reno.” Since I was using it as an adjective, I kept the hyphen: “University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ“). (And I corrected the spelling of “Tucson”!)
For more on the university, see its “About/History page, but remember you’re looking at a 2022 not a 2016 page. Changes since include its becoming a Carnegie Level R1 institution** — but only in 2019, repeated in 2021…and more partnerships in 2022). This post is about NCFJCJ AT the university, not the university. Anything extra in this “updates” section is for the wider context (always relevant, but more incidental to this post).
**In 2019, the University learned that it achieved one of the most prestigious honors an institution of higher learning can ever receive: It was chosen as one of just 130 universities by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education as an “R1” institution — “very high research activity” — which is reserved for doctoral-granting universities with exceptional levels of research activity. In 2020, it was announced that the University had reached the prestigious Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, becoming one of only 119 institutions in the country so honored.
https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu
Looking for brief reference to exactly what the Carnegie Classifications represent, because I do not know how many readers of this blog might know, I see a recent consolidation with the American Council on Education, points of reference in time (1970s) and (see the “IU” in the url here), at the bottom in fine print that Indiana University is licensed to use this, and who (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) holds the various trademarks lists (again, in fine print at the bottom / footer banner, to this page).
CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION and THE CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION are registered trademarks of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, used here under license agreement by the Indiana University Center on Postsecondary Research.
Check out (AFTER you read my 2016 post please!), A Feb. 2022 news release: https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/news-releases/carnegie-foundation-and-american-council-on-education-announce-partnership-on-the-carnegie-classifications/, and don’t forget to read what the Foundation says about itself (including its 1906 Charter by Congress, and its new, improved goals, at: https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about-us/ It shows a street address in Stanford, California (probably at Stanford University)
I thought this might be a mistake (I’d always assumed Stanford University was in Palo Alto, and I lived near-enough for many years (i.e. I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the County of Santa Clara) by to know better!) until Wikipedia enlightened me: Stanford University sits on Stanford, which is not a city, but an UNINCORPORATED part of Santa Clara County. Palo Alto is adjacent:
…Most of the Stanford University campus and other core University owned land is situated within the census-designated place of Stanford though the Stanford University Medical Center, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Research Park are officially part of the city of Palo Alto. Its resident population consists of the inhabitants of on-campus housing, including graduate student residences and single-family homes and condominiums owned by their faculty inhabitants but located on leased Stanford land. // The population was 21,150 at the 2020 census.[3]
While CFAT is in California, it’s just recently decided to move its Classifications over to ACE (American Council on Education), a membership organization, which is in Washington, D.C., and claims to educate two out of every three individuals educated by certified colleges (Public or private). ACE in “convenes” institutions through the Washington Higher Education Secretariat (see very fine print, bottom right of web page. I didn’t even click on all the pretty and engaging photos; I’m looking for self-definitions, place, and who does, as opposed to who does not, post their financial statements and (if applicable, which it may not be) Forms 990) of “Washington Higher Education:
ACE is a membership organization that mobilizes the higher education community to shape effective public policy and foster innovative, high-quality practice. As the major coordinating body for the nation’s colleges and universities, our strength lies in our diverse membership of more than 1,700 colleges and universities, related associations, and other organizations in America and abroad. ACE is the only major higher education association to represent all types of U.S. accredited, degree-granting institutions: two-year and four-year, public and private. For more information, please visit www.acenet.edu or follow ACE on Twitter @ACEducation.
CFAT Foundation History tells more, you can’t help but learn from reading such timelines to understand coordination of setting government policies in (here), the 20th century. And, I can’t help but notice neither one posts its financials…. Nevertheless, the Carniege Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching timline (that link) explains that for THIS century, the 21st century, it’ll be focused on:
The work of the Foundation in the 21st century joins the discipline of improvement science with the capabilities of networks to foster innovation and accelerate social learning. Specifically, the purposeful collective action needed to solve complex educational problems can be found in networked improvement communities. These NICs are distinguished by four essential functions. (etc.).
This post was drafted January 20, 2016. It holds a significant “find” that I don’t know who else has found, or would ever have found. Probably, only people who drill down on organization tax returns and notice what might be missing when any organization describes itself, boasting about the public service it’s done over the decades, would have run across this information. There are indicators that the organization involved did not want this information to be found.
I am under considerable personal pressure this year (more than last year), and because of possible consequences depending in how I may find a way to stand up to it, I am concerned that this information might not get out. So, although it may not be in perfect sequence with other posts, or even various sections within this post in the best sequence, I am publishing it now.
The “find” on this post speaks loudly as to whether or not the private and government-funded organizations collectively driving national family court and juvenile justice policy (including responses to child abuse and domestic violence, i.e., criminal matters) can be trusted AT ALL, and as to whether they should be permitted to continue setting standards and driving policy, let alone receive cooperation and government financing (grants and contracts).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap (While We Were Being Battered or Seeking Safety, These PhDs were Debating Batterer Typology for PsychoEducational Treatments and, of course More Forensic Clinical Research with (AFCC) Colleagues)
! ! !
The opening section here, actually opening sentence (after this one and the paragraph below it), is intentionally long — it includes some thumbnail photos, organization names and descriptions (even one table of tax returns), for a little consciousness-raising about the “standardizing / centralizing public-private, HHS-DOJ” high-ranking individuals involved with some projects which, well, overlap with some of the people doing Batterer Typology and Sub-typologies…..see post title…. Raising those issues here is also “for future reference..” I usually write several drafts ahead of anything posted, and know I will be writing more on the issue.
So, after this first bit, we are going to have some old-fashioned fun. In other centuries or places this might be accomplished by physically tying individuals in embarrassing, vulnerable postures to a post in the public square, for humiliation, embarrassments and routines typically involving outdated vegetables, or other sloppy, stinky projectiles.**
Journeymanfilm.com (2011/01/Locked Stocks a Barrel of Laughs)
(Public domain.zorger.com -man in stocks)
…but this being a virtual world, here I am simply taking what was intended for private professional-journal consumption and academic deliberation, and slapping it up on this post for public consumption. *Disclaimer: We know much worse physical exposure, humiliation and punishment still goes on in America — inside prisons, abusive homes, or other places. But being a more “developed” country, we also have developed the art of virtual (digital, print, long-distance) shaming.
Putting people in the stocks and throwing nasty things at them served for scapegoating and obtaining public consensus in what’s good and what’s bad, by calling public attention to previously private behavior. Basic behavioral modification, this ritual warned both the individual in the stocks and the crowd what behaviors the “powers that be” disapprove of. It gets the crowd to do the dirty work of “the powers that be,” by isolating troublemakers.
So far on this blog, I’m the “powers that be” so here’s my “one-sentence” intro, after which, look for a public display of academic discussions of batterer typologies which were never intended for readership by us “commoners,” whom they discuss:
“IN THE COURSE OF NOTICING….
In the course of noticing some money matters (fiscal stuff) surrounding brilliant pieces such as the HHS $2.3 million-dollar grant-funded project “Couples Together Against Violence” (CTAV), and with my awareness of the brilliant (?) discrepancies between nonprofit-tax-return-reported funds received, and federal-agency-reported funds distributed by the organization running the project
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Still Caught up in DV/Custody Drama? For 2016, What about Catching up on OVW Discretionary Grants (2013) and these SIX, ah, “Groups”? (Publ. March 2, 2016).
FYI: This post has several sections, and puts the post title in a larger framework, which means some of those sections have a lot of quotes. This post is also: conversational (more than “developmentally edited”), informative, and almost 15,800 words (not including this “FYI”), which seemed like a good place to put a lid on it!
Feedback pro/con welcome (Comments available at bottom of post. Comments with links to other relevant information are particularly welcome. If you are sharing experientially and it’s OK, a geography (at least what state if it’s re: a custody experience) might be helpful to reference. Feel also free to argue (=/= namecall; bring something to the table to argue with!) — I may argue back (that’s my style, and it’s also a process), but if I’ve got my facts wrong, I do want to be corrected — with links, quotes, or cites on what basis. Also, feel free to use those “DONATE” buttons on the sidebar — this blog is a one-woman operation! Thanks…//LGH
POST TITLE:
Still Caught up in DV/Custody Drama? For 2016, What about Catching up on OVW Discretionary Grants (2013) and these SIX, ah, “Groups”? (Publ. March 2, 2016). (case-sensitive short-link ends “-2SM”)(This post is nearly 17,000 words long. That includes many quotes and my responses to them, and some repetition (because it’s so long!)) //LGH this labeling added Apr. 24, 2022. I’m planning to republish ALL March, 2016 posts soon, on a single new one (with links and titles).
“DV” in this context, of course, means simply “domestic violence,” which alternately goes by any other number of names, depending on the speakers and the speakers’ intentions, whether to highlight the violence or frame it as a relationship disease.
- My next intended post (split off this one for length!), through multiple quotations, treats the rest of us to collegial discussions on Batterer Typology with a view towards future research on screening instruments to bring low-income, situationally-violent couples into psycho-educational interventions, with of course a heavy sprinkling of impressive (or what ought to impress) terms such as multi-variate, bi-modal, and implications for — of course — “future research.” In at least a few of the speakers’ cases, I have already posted some cheating on tax-returns and falsifying how much federal money actually came their way (OR, HHS falsifed it — but the reports don’t match, so both cannot be concurrently true!) and seeking “fees for friends” while being employed by the state. As well as a few more overtly AFCC professionals and professors.
I wrote this post as part of an ongoing, I hope, dialogue about some of the groups which I already know, but bet most blog readers don’t, are serving to standardize and internationally align common practice in the courts whether or not it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or state law, or citizens’ individual rights as residents in a specific state.
- “Dialogue” — There are always comments fields, and I will be re-posting a feedback form soon. But more important than individual discussing this with just me, I hope this information will continue to inject some startling, but significant truths into other discussions already taking places about distressing realities, or outrageous injustice when it comes to handling of parents and children in the courts.
Rather than violent, revolutionary overthrow (of government), around the time of the World Wars and particularly World War II, a progression of paradigm switches, systems changes and plans to undermine jurisdictional boundaries, including national sovereignty, was set up to take place incrementally, by stages: “plan the work, work the plan” for decades (at least) now. Principles were involved, some of which include regionalization, privatization / functionalism, and within the USA at least the Congressional authorization of “Reorganization Act” special procedures for the President. (See also two pages I have on this, on sidebar).
In addition, setting up networks among universities, and at times privately funded “centers,” within them. Such centers are not bad “per se” but as parts of an otherwise coordinated system with the intent to change justice systems — and doing this below the radar for anyone who doesn’t happen to be tracking the universities and their various centers — it’s not exactly open, transparent, and, well, “American.”
Over all of this, a system of taxation which while promising a levelling of the field, in fact does the opposite. This system also tends to “separate the men from the boys,” meaning, those who know accounting –including government accounting — from those who do not, and those who comprehend the scope and operations of government, conceptually — from those who are clueless.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 