! ! !

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vulnerable postures to a post in the public square, for humiliation, embarrassments and routines typically involving outdated vegetables, or other sloppy, stinky projectiles.**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
…NOT TO MENTION FIASCOES INVOLVING THESE ENTITIES AND FAMOUS PEOPLE….

…not to mention the personnel-related fiascoes swirling around the state-level California Mental Health Oversight Commission Evaluation staff (formerly on the “CTAV” project) recommendations to bring in a New York-based (until they filed in California) “Stewards for Change” with personnel in common with “Aspiranet” (formerly Moss Beach Home for Boys, but under this name now “Strengthening Children, Youth, Families and Communities“; the person in common being Vernon Brown– or was it Vernon McFarland Brown? (both versions used) and incidentally formerly high-ranking HHS Assistant Director (Carmen Nazario (<==See bio blurb from 2010 announcement of her giving Boston University School of Social Work’s Commencement address )

Carmen Nazario, Ass’t Sec. of HHS/ACF (2010)

and  former high-ranking USDOJ  Paul Wormelli, Executive Director [Emeritus] of the IJIS Institute…** (**This link for Wormelli Consulting, LLC (address, Auburn, VA) gives background of both the man and IJIS; see excerpt below).

See also (for Ms. Nazario), Building Human Service Research Partnerships Puerto Rico (“BHSRPPR”), which appears to be a US HHS/OPRE project of the “Inter-American University of Puerto Rico” in which (assuming we have the same person) she is “Principal Investigator” among many others involved in this Public/Private Partnership:

The main purpose of Building Human Services Research Partnerships Puerto Rico (BHSRPPR) is to promote effective research and the development of a culture and practice of evidence-based policy making for low-income families and children in Puerto Rico. Under the auspices*** of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration of Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) and the leadership*** of the Inter-American University of Puerto Rico Metropolitan Campus (IAUPR-MC) the project brings together key stakeholders from academia, government agencies, non-profit organizations and providers, philanthropic institutions and the private sector##to develop a multi-stakeholder partnership to advance research focusing on low-income families and children. The project will result in a needs assessment and identification of successful approaches and best practices to improve self-sufficiency among poor families and children in Puerto Rico.

---

The IJIS Institute unites the private and public sectors to improve mission-critical information sharing and safeguarding for those who protect and serve our communities. The IJIS Institute provides training, technical assistance, national scope issue management, and program management services to help government fully realize the power of information sharing. Founded in 2001 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation with national headquarters on The George Washington University Virginia Science and Technology Campus in Ashburn, Virginia, the IJIS Institute has grown to over 400 member companies and individual associates from government, nonprofit, and educational institutions from across the United States. For more information, visit our website at http://www.ijis.org, follow us on Twitter @ijisinstitute, read the IJIS Factor Blog, or join our LinkedIn groups: Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing and/or the IJIS Institute.

. . . . .One  “Stewards of Change” professional (Carmen Nazario) is dealing primarily with health and human services, primarily — sociology, psychology, and another as we see is dealing with criminal justice — law enforcement.  Both sectors HHS and DOJ — and any major agency — also is going to deals with serious levels of data-crunching and reporting.  A quick look (for) BHSRP (Building Human Services Research Partnerships) at TAGGS.hhs.gov.  After not finding it under “Award Keywords” I searched for anything under “OPRE” (grant-sponsoring agency within HHS) with Principal Investigator last name “Nazario,” and got two awards, 90YR0072 and 90XP0120.  NOTE: these are only the ones showing Carmen Nazario as Principal Investigator; do another “Advanced Search” by award number for more information.

A quick look at IJIS Institute (Virginia address, Delaware Corporation formed in 2001 it says) which seeks to standardize this, and even has an SAR (Suspicious Activity Reporting) project….

….IN THE COURSE OF ALL THIS, I ALSO ….

In the course of all this, I also did some more authorship searches of Renay P. Cleary and John M. Gottman, the latter particular as one among many HHS Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grantees (here, it was welfare reform evaluation, technically speaking) with psychoeducational intervention product for sale, and whose involved nonprofit (Relationship Research Institute) had some discrepancies on the IRS reporting of grants received. 

As the search on Gottmans, particularly John M., on Renay P. Cleary Bradley and — when some of the cites of the articles were looked up — others associated with, well, the University of Washington, and as it turns out, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in at least a  few cases — and a conference-circuit gentleman with BOTH a J.D. and a Ph.D. (and not just one, but two extra initials within his name before those initials after it

(“G. Andrew H. Benjamin,  J.D., Ph.D., ABPP”)

Parent Education Training Program (plus co-parent psychotherapy)

 How to Build A Successful Practice in Psychology at the Crossroads of Law and Behavioral Health (Workshop)

and that this gentleman had participated in the 2012 “Our Broken Family Courts Conference” in (I believe it was Arizona)….

…IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE ABOVE….

In light of all the above, I was not about to keep this information OR the close connections between said individuals — and especially not the verbiage involved– to myself.

For convenience and recent reference, here’s the 2016 blog Table of Contents so far..Because so many of my posts are developments from previous posts, I may start putting it at the top of all posts, at least while it’s still a relatively short list:

The term “Dumpster-Diving” may offend some —  however it is what came to mind as characterizing reading through the abstracts of the multiple publications, some of which I knew to be HHS grantees referencing other HHS grantees about TANF-Diversion-type funding, i.e. marriage-mongering-money.

Over the years, I’ve actually read, or rather waded (dredged, plowed) through so much of the specialized jargon about “Batterer Typologies” and “Differentiation,” I thought I was immune to the gut-instinct reaction of the quasi-clinical posturing.   The detached (dissociative?) attitude which is supposed to characterize, or some some seem to think — a scientist, and clinical research.

QUESTION.  I admit, a LOADED QUESTION….

WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER DO, IF YOU WERE, WELL, “GOD,” THE PRESIDENT, OR MAGICALLY ABLE TO DO SO — STOP “PERPS” (NO MORE INTIMATE PARTNER  OR MARITAL BATTERING) AND WITH EXISTING CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY — SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME,  THAT OTHER EXISTING, OR WOULD-BE “PERPS” SHOULD LEARN — REAL FAST — THAT THE BATTERING IS UNACCEPTABLE? —

– – – – – – – – – – OR – – – – – – – – – –

AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, TYPICALLY THROUGH HHS/NIH GRANTS AND PRIVATE ONES TOO — HAVE A NICE, LONG CAREER — WITH PRIVATE PRACTICE AND/OR UNIVERSITY POSITION — SORTING THROUGH VARIETIES OF THE PERPS WHICH POSE NO IMMEDIATE DANGER TO YOU, OR YOUR FAMILY (IF ONE EXISTS), AND FOCUS ON DEVISING ANCILLARY MARKETS FOR YOUR, or your colleagues’ PRE-EXISTING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS-BUILDING CLASSES? AND WRITING UP JOURNALS FOR COLLEAGUES NOT REALLY INTENDED FOR THE PERPS OR THEIR TARGETS AND/OR OFFSPRING, TO READ?

AND FROM THIS BASE OF OPERATIONS, WORK THE CONFERENCE CIRCUIT, JOIN ASSOCIATIONS, DO PRESENTATIONS, PUBLICATIONS, AND AT TIMES FRANCHISED TRAININGS PRODUCING CERTIFICATES THAT ONE MADE IT THROUGH (THE TRAINING, I.E., QUALIFIED TO SIT FOR IT, PAID UP, TOOK THE CLASS (ON-LINE OR IN PERSON) AND POSTED ONE’S “CERTIFICATED” STATUS ON-LINE?

This post quotes those who took the second choice, and don’t appear to have seriously considered the first one — a focus on refining the labeling with a view to treating the battering, versus putting their collective brains, expertise, and efforts to stopping the battering, leaving no sociological excuse for it.

Creating a taxonomy of “batterers” pretty well tells me that someone expects them to continue indefinitely in the human species.  It seems to me that the taxonomy of labelers and discussants come from professions with approximately two primary root words:  Psych- and Socio (or Social).

Some of the publications I found and quoted below were published in the mid-1990s.  During this time, I was married, and being assaulted (and battered) by a variety of means in the home. It has occurred to me since that if the intention had been truly prioritized to STOP, rather than to STUDY individuals who feel entitled to engage in physical abuse of their spouses or “intimate partners” (or, kids, or parents) we might actually have made some serious progress.

How Scientific, really, is all this clinical, detached, officious language.  Is that “science” or is it a linguistic posture hoping to pass as science?

In reality, many creative or “problem-solving” people (which many scientists are: the words, inquiring, curiosity, etc. are often involved) can be passionately driven to answer questions, or solve a problem that has been particularly irking them year after year, or for a period of time. This question may of their own devising, or assigned by an employer or funder — but that employer or funder is likely to look for someone who might be prone to solving that problem, and who is driven by curiosity (not just paychecks or social positions). It’s the curiosity, the drive to understand, to unravel mysteries, etc.

Thanks to such people we have many discoveries today, and will continue having more, that is, if those types of people are not going to be bred out of the populace (which seems to be a possible agenda at this point) — too many of them stir up trouble.  Just enough, commandeered by the corporate sector, will continue to develop technologies.  Those in government — well, I don’t think this is where the more creative sorts look for a livelihood.

In the psychological and social sciences, however, the application is going to be upon other human beings with, usually, a drive to convince them to act, believe, think, or perceive the world differently than they do — for better management and classification.

Sometimes the classification attempts get really out of hand. In this post, I have simply stuck them up the billboard for public consumption, and as appropriate (which I do think at times, IS appropriate) mocking. Among the professionals involved, colleagues, etc. — this talk is apparently normal, and delineates a professional class. But some of the terms actually do translate into common English, and when read in that sense, the purpose (other than “Publish, don’t Perish”) often shows up.

We also have conflicts of interest rampant throughout the grants system when it comes to who’s associated with whom in “evaluating” the pilot programs (business models) before deciding on the basis of a few samples, they should go nationwide).

This conflict of interest is often conveniently pointed out — usually by someone on the extreme other side of a political, gender, or religious viewpoint about someone on the opposing side.  Why this doesn’t always go to far?  Well, for one face it:  In this country we have two different (at least) genders and will likely continue doing so.  Likely, also religious differences, and political differences in this basically two-party system, and personal values differences about the role government should play, as in, “conservative vs. progressive.”

The money-making goes on in similar fashions on both sides of ANY of those divides, and those involved surely must be laughing (en route to enjoying the profits of money lost in system cracks, and money continuing to come their way so long as they choose to participate).  Take a look at my last, incredulous post on the Gottmans (a Washington State well-known marriage-mongering couple with a nonprofit on the HHS take which did NOT report that which they took properly on a tax returns, but apparently continued capitalizing on it).

You can argue all you want, but don’t argue with me — argue with the financial facts as shown ON those grants (from HHS.TAGGS.gov) versus those Form 990s. Pick an example; I’ve been doing this throughout the history of this blog.  How about a recent post?  February 27:

Milton H Erickson (Clinical Hypnosis), The Gottmans, The HHS of Course, and Psychoeducational Interventions for Situational (not “Characteriological”) Violence..and California’s “Mental Health Oversight and Accountability Commission” — REALLY?? Yes…

Couldn’t squish all the subject matter into one title, but this post also –check out — included some studies of the Relationship Research Institute (Washington State), and Stewards of Change, Inc. / Institute / Consulting, LLC in association with “ASPIRANET.org” [Running foster care, after-school, and residential treatment programs, last revenues posted, $51M/year, mostly government grants, and from a whole LOT of individual public entities, by county, by city, etc., throughout California) and a Stewards of Change (the nonprofit) program purpose statement which has three mis-spellings and a missing word or so, including the words:  “Educatate” “Juristictions” and “Contimium.”  Nevertheless, someone formerly from Relationship Research Institute (i.e., associated with the Gottmans), positioned at the California state level, attempted to get an “up to $300K” contract for her buddies in the field, a NY outfit which suddenly incorporated in California just about in time for the proposal.

RESEARCH, ASSIST, ADVOCATE AND EDUCATATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC GOVERNMENT JURISTICTIONS JUDICIARY,PRIVATE BUSINESSES FOUNDATIONS,AND NOT FOR PROFITS THE ABILITY TO SHARE AND UTILIZE INFORMATION ACROSS THE CONTIMIUM OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM

Then ask why it’s “Vernon Brown” on one filing, and Vernon McFarland-Brown on the other (Aspiranet).  The table below (though not colored in) is from California Secretary of State site, “Kepler.sos.ca.gov”

But “Vernon McFarland Brown” on the website (but not tax return) of ‘Aspiranet,” yet simply “Vernon Brown” on the Stewards of Change website?

Ask why a woman formerly involved with a tax-return-falsifying research institute in Washington** should be appointed Executive Director (or was appointed) of “Research and Evaluation” on an Oversight Commission overseeing a statewide Authority which was legislated into existence under California Mental Health Services Act.

**Cleary Bradley, R. P. and Gottman, J. M. (2012), Reducing Situational Violence in Low-Income Couples by Fostering Healthy Relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38: 187–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00288″ (Cited in Wiley On-Line, showing contact information for Renay P. Bradley at this time was “Family Consumer Sciences, Dept. of Child and Family Development” at University of Georgia…. for this HHS-supported study, published Co. 2012 by AAMFT)

Author Information / Affiliations:

1. The University of Georgia
2. Relationship Research Institute

^*Address correspondence to Renay P. Cleary Bradley, The University of Georgia, Family and Consumer Sciences, Department of Child and Family Development, 114 Dawson Hall, Athens, GA 30602; E-mail: renayb@uga.edu

---

This work evaluated a psycho-educational intervention designed to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) in low-income situationally violent couples. The primary objective was to evaluate the mechanism through which violence was reduced. It was hypothesized that IPV would be reduced via use of therapeutic skills taught during the intervention (i.e., friendship, sex/romance/passion, shared meaning, and conflict management skills). One-hundred-fifteen couples were randomly assigned to a treatment or no-treatment control group. Couples self-reported attitudes reflecting healthy relationship skills and IPV at multiple time points (baseline, post-intervention, and long-term post-intervention). ** Results support the notion that violence was reduced via an increase in intervention-based skills. Findings suggest that IPV can be safely reduced in low-income situationally violent couples via conjoint treatment focused on building healthy relationship skills.

---

This study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (90OJ2022). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ACF. We express our gratitude to the following people who helped make this project possible: Julie Gottman and others who assisted with the intervention, Robin Dion, Dan Yoshimoto, Daniel Friend, and all of the staff and volunteers at the Relationship Research Institute who worked on the CTAV project.

(*If you made it through my post,you’re aware that couples were also dropping out like flies at the multiple time-points; in the end about ¾ dropped out, showing a true “grass-roots” interest in the study….while what the treaters (the institute, the Gottmans, the practitioners) want is to split off at least SOME of the “domestic violence” sector for “conjoint treatment,” even being aware that they can’t stuff ALL violent couples under that umbrella.  Other articles written in this company (i.e., similar authors) by Renay P. C-B include:

Typologies of Intimate Partner Violence: Evaluation of a Screening Instrument for Differentiation Journal of Family Violence (Impact Factor: 1.17).  10/2011; 26(7):551-563. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-011-9392-2 (Co-authors:  Daniel Joseph Friend, Rebecca Thatcher, John M. Gottman, Renay P. Cleary Bradley). (posted at “research-gate.”

Join for free to read the whole article, but here’s that abstract, notice the prevalence of “self-reported” in association with scientific-sounding words like “hypothesis” “Multi-variate” and “implications for application of the screening instrument…” Notice also the first SUPPOSition, i.e., what a therapist is naturally going to “Suppose” — that as there’s so much “IPV” around (in “community and therapeutic settings”) (FYI, folks, let alone privately in the home… does “community” include homes? Is community anywhere not particularly clinical or therapeutic?) — if it’s going to be “treated” (which is one SUPPOSition, and their POSITION) that the first business at hand is to classify the “varying typologies of IPV.”  

Just in case we don’t get how clinical this is, FYI, it’s not “this study” but “the present” study.  …. naturally, there will need to be future studies of this kind….

Abstract (from link above): Given the prevalence and impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) in both community and therapeutic settings, it is vital that the varying typologies of IPV be identified and treated accordingly.

The present study sought to evaluate the efficacy

of a screening instrument designed to differentiate between characterologically violent, situationally violent, and distressed
non-violent couples; focus was placed on identifying situationally violent couples so that they could be invited to participate in a conjoint pyschoeducational workshop.

Couples from two samples were assessed to achieve this goal. Situationally violent couples (N = 115) from Sample 1 were screened into the study via a phone interview and participated in an in-home assessment, which assessed self-reported relationship violence. These couples were compared to a previously collected sample (Sample 2; Jacobsen et al. 1994) of characterologically violent, distressed non-violent, and situationally violent couples. The main hypotheses stated that
couples from Sample 1 would report less severe relationship violence than characterlogically violent couples from Sample 2, and would report greater amounts of low-level violence than distressed non-violent couples from Sample 2. Additionally, similar rates of both self-reported violence would be seen for situationally violent couples from Samples 1 and 2. Multivariate analyses supported this with the exception that situationally violent couples from Sample 1 did not differ significantly across all
domains from distressed non-violent couples in Sample 2. Implications for the screening instrument’s utility in clinical and
research settings are discussed.
Again, that was: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225755557_Typologies_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_Evaluation_of_a_Screening_Instrument_for_Differentiation [accessed Mar 1, 2016].

Back in 1998, John Gottman was writing on:  Battering and the male rejection of influence from women  AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 23, Issue 5, 1997, Pages: 375–388, James Coan, John M. Gottman, Julia Babcock and Neil Jacobson Article first published online : 6 DEC 1998, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:5<375::AID-AB6>3.0.CO;2-H

And differentiating batterers as Type-I, or not Type-I…. Nice to know. See abstract for how to tell the difference.  Nice information, if you can get at the Type-I batterer (presumably in the context, male) to show up for treatment and assessment, which involves checking the pulse rate:

The propensity of men to reject influence from women and individual differences in this tendency were examined in the present report as potentially related to two types of domestically violent men. We operationalized rejection of influence in sequential analyses of emotional behavior during a 15 min marital interaction. In our previous research, we identified two types of batterers: Type-1, whose heart rates decelerated below baseline during the marital interaction; and Type-2, whose heart rates accelerated. We found that only Type-1 husbands reject any and all influence from their wives.We postulate that Type-1 batterers reject influence as a means of maintaining power and control. Aggr. Behav. 23:375–388, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

This one got 16 cites (see this link) including from the “Reducing Situational Violence” article… but I think it worth mentioning that:

• At least two involve a known AFCC professional and awardee based at University of Indiana — (also on the editorial board of the Family Court Review, per its website up at Hofstra University, Maurice A. Deane School of Law (in New York), which co-publishes the journal with AFCC), and that’s Amy Holzworth-Munroe.  Searchable on this blog.

To document my statement, from AFCCnet.org, “Awards” Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award:”

The Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award is sponsored by the Oregon Family Institute. The award was created to recognize outstanding research and/or research achievements in the field of family and divorce. The award is named for the late Dr. Stanley Cohen, founding member of AFCC who served as executive director and co-editor of the Review.

WOW.  I just reviewed this information and decided to post not just the awardees, but significant details from one of the more famous ones — Marsha Kline Pruett.  I think it illustrates how one can have a great travel experience by getting one’s degrees, and going 100% Association of Family and Conciliation Courts agenda — which, did I mention — is primarily father-promotional?  This also shows the significant foundation funding.

If I put it all here, would lose the momentum on the “Batterer Typology Discussion” so look for it on another post, titled “Stanley Cohen AFCC Awardees and You, Too, can have a Foundation-Sponsored Career and Expense-deductible Travel, via the Conference Circuit, through Tax-exempt Association Connections “ (or similar, sarcastic wording).

• Scroll through the magazines listed, and you will not see one legal reference:  Psychology, Trauma, Behavior, Orthopsychiatry, and journals on violence itself.  This is the entire approach being pushed, and which plays into the HHS grants.  Here is a sample (but, see the link for all 16/auto-numbering will change where they are on the list to 1, 2, 3 etc.):

1. Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Female Perpetration of Physical Aggression Against an Intimate Partner: A Controversial New Topic of Study, Violence and Victims, 2005, 20, 2, 251CrossRef
2. Lynn Fainsilber Katz,## Sabina M. Low, Marital Violence, Co-Parenting, and Family-Level Processes in Relation to Children’s Adjustment., Journal of Family Psychology, 2004, 18, 2, 372 CrossRef
3. Edward Dunbar, Symbolic, Relational, and Ideological Signifiers of Bias-Motivated Offenders: Toward a Strategy of Assessment, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2003, 73, 
4. Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Jeffrey C. Meehan, Katherine Herron, Uzma Rehman, Gregory L. Stuart, Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2000, 68, 6, 1000 CrossRef

co. 1994 American Psychological Association, Inc.:
Psychological Bulletin, 1994,Vol. 116, No. 3, 476-479

Typologies of Male Batterers:  Three Subtypes, and the Differences Among Them by Amy Hulzworth-Munroe and Gregory L. Stuart

Previous typologies of male batterers, including typologies developed by means of rational-deductive and empirical-inductive strategies, are reviewed. On the basis of this review, 3 descriptive dimensions (i.e., severity of marital violence, generality of the violence [toward the wife or toward others], and psychopathology/personality disorders) that consistently have been found to distinguish among sub- types of batterers are identified. These dimensions are used to propose a typology consisting of 3 subtypes of batterers (i.e., family only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial). A developmental model of marital violence is then presented, and the previous literature is reviewed to examine how each batterer subtype might differ on variables of theoretical interest. Finally, some of the methodological limitations of previous typology research are reviewed, and suggestions for future work are offered.

A new (in 1994) study of course should review older studies (of batterers, here, “maritally violent men”) which might suggest why more studies are needed.  From page 1 (of 22) in this article by two individuals at the Indiana U. Dept. of Psychology, we learn that batterers are not a homogenous field (other than — they were found battering women…) and that the more refined and differentiated the next study is, the better treatment might be matched to batterer type! In 1994, although the problem had been acknowledged for at least twenty years at this time…

(Cont’d. from APA’s Psychological Bulletin 1994, above, Typologies of Male Batterers:  Three Subtypes, and the Differences Among Them by Amy Hulzworth-Munroe and Gregory L. Stuart)

Researchers studying maritally violent men have often treated batterers as a homogeneous group, averaging scores on measures of interest across all of the violent husbands in their sample and then comparing the mean score of the violent sam- ple with that of a nonviolent sample. However, averaging scores across different violent men may result in a lack of significant violent-nonviolent group differences, leading researchers to discount the potential importance of some variables. For exam- ple, some researchers have failed to distinguish batterers and nonbatterers on measures of attitudes toward women (e.g., Neidig, Collins, & Friedman, 1986). Saunders (1992)** noted that the reason may be the variability of such attitudes among violent men; in his sample of batterers, scores on a measure of attitudes toward women were distributed bimodally (i.e., one group with liberal attitudes and another with conservative attitudes).

BiModal — One “mode” being liberal, one being “conservative.”  As opposed to, say, “bipartisan” saying, you can get along with both sides of the aisle.

I find this fascinating as in my own case (with the violent years and the family court gauntlet years taken together), I noted that while my husband (batterer) could safely be classified as “conservative” especially when it came to religious matters and the role of women, he got along JUST FINE and in fact found common ground (opposing my attempts to leave the abusive relationship and function independently as a single mother) with an in-law (mine) who made it absolutely clear that he despised Christians, in general, and whose marriage and lifestyle I would have to describe overall as politically-correct liberal/yuppie/”ex-Hippie” in general.  These world views had nothing in common.  However the “bimodal variable” I DID note in this situation is that both were male, and I was a female asserting her independence.

Another variable which probably Dr. Saunders might not have explored then, or now, was the presence or absence of financial reward (regardless of political persuasion) as a direct result of putting down women during, or after, marriage.  Another thing we, personally, were “bi-modally split” upon was my intent NOT to be silent about the abuse, and others’ intent that I go back to pretending it had not happened.

I could say more, however, it’s quite possible some family members might be now aware of this blog.  But, to reiterate — there’s that financial incentive often afoot in such things, long-term, or short-term.

(Cont’d. from APA’s Psychological Bulletin 1994, above, Typologies of Male Batterers:  Three Subtypes, and the Differences Among Them by Amy Hulzworth-Munroe and Gregory L. Stuart)

Similarly, in recent research, violent husbands have been found to vary along a number of important dimensions, including severity of violence, anger, depression, and alcohol abuse (see later review of typologies).
Such findings suggest that a reliable and valid typology of male batterers would yield valuable information. Comparing the various subtypes of violent husbands with each other, and pinpointing how each type of violent man differs from nonviolent men, could increase the understanding of marital violence and help in identifying different underlying processes resulting in violence. Developing a typology of violent men would allow a systematic examination of how and why different men use violence against their wives.

Let’s get the theory right —  “In recent research, violent husbands have been found to vary along a number of important dimensions….. Such findings suggest that a reliable and valid typology of male batterers would yield valuable information…”

What a radical statement — there’s variety among violent husbands.  This variety is along important dimensions.   Let us now count the ways…

Moreover, such a typology could lead to increases in therapy effectiveness, eventually resulting in patient-treatment matching. Many current treatment programs for batterers are standardized and uniformly applied to all violent men seeking help. However, one treatment may be better suited for one subtype of violent men than for another. Tailoring treatments to meet the needs of each subtype of violent men might improve therapy efficacy (Gondolf, 1988; Saunders, 1992).

Holzworth is overtly AFCC, and AFCC is also pro-Holzworth.  Holzworth is quoting her colleagues, including Saunders.  Barry Goldstein of the BMCC (who says nothing about AFCC in his publications or presentations to the mothers about the AFCC — or, pretty much, welfare reform’s federal incentives grants streams) also considers Saunders a colleague.  Is it then fair to say that Goldstein, despite no longer being an attorney, maintains “collegial” friendships with AFCC_affiliated professionals?

**Barry Goldstein fans (Barry Goldstein is a disbarred attorney who was involved in the Genia Shockome case (NYS) and hangs with the BMCC crowd and is promoted by them, and has co-edited a “tome” on Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (quoted in a recent 2016 post in the context of what does NOT cause custody-switch; it’s near the bottom) may have noticed his recent (years’) constant promotion of Saunders as “now we have scientific proof!”  This is the Saunders referred to (I am fairly sure) who is among the same philosophy of treating batterers, and refining how to do so best.  I also blogged this in late 2014.

More, from that same document — a few pages later (after a chart):

Three early researchers used psychopathology and personality disorders to explain possible motivations for violence among subtypes of batterers. After interviewing 23 men arrested for marital violence, Faulk (1974) proposed five types of male batterers: the stable/affectionate batterer (17% of the sample), who has a stable marriage but uses violence during a time of mental disturbance, particularly during a depressive episode; the dependent/passive batterer (39% of the sample), who generally tries to please his wife but explodes violently in response to some precipitating action by the wife; the dependent/suspicious batterer (17% of the sample), who is irrationally jealous of his wife, very dependent on her, and controlling of her actions; the dominating batterer (22%), who wants to control his wife and uses violence to do so; and the violent/bullying batterer (4%), who uses violence and intimidation to solve many of his problems and to get what he wants.

---

On the basis of clinical observations, Elbow (1977) identified four groups of batterers: [[SAMPLE SIZE?]] the approval seeker, who needs his wife to approve of him and uses violence to bolster his self-image; the defender, who is dependent on his wife and overprotects her, mixing love and hate; the in- corporator, who sees his partner as part of himself and needs her to define himself; and the controller, who views his wife as an object he controls and will use violence to achieve that control.

---

Caesar (1986), on the basis of interviews and administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1967) to 26 wife assaulters, suggested three types of batterers. The first type, the nonexposed altruist, is unassertive and tries to inhibit his anger and please his wife, but he is ambivalent about his dependence on her. The exposed rescuer has histrionic personality traits, is unable to express his resentment, and wants his wife to be dependent on him. Finally, the tyrant shows psychopathic, hostile, and paranoid traits; uses fear and psychological abuse; and shows little remorse for his violence.

In a recent study, Hershorn and Rosenbaum (1991) used an MMPI-derived scale measuring overcontrolled hostility to di- vide 41 batterers in domestic violence treatment into two sub- groups: those who overcontrol their hostility (i.e., do not express anger until it summates and explodes) and those who undercon-

trol hostility (i.e., have few controls against the expression of angry and aggressive impulses). They found that overcontrolled hostile batterers engaged in more severe marital violence; un- dercontrolled hostile batterers engaged in less severe but more frequent violence, were more likely to engage in aggression out- side of their marital relationship, and were more generally hostile.

Can we talk, please about the psychologist’s penchant for believing that interviews reveal causation?  And, the penchant for extracting extended findings based on minuscule samples (23 arrested men — seriously??).  A sample of 23 people only!!

Here is a 1994 example of an AFCC-affiliated and honored (whether before or after, I’d have to check) professor, I believe, Amy Hulzworth-Munroe, at the (famous) Indiana University’s Psychology Department (well-known for its involvement with Alfred Kinsey) dissecting batterer typology and citing a colleague, Saunders./

However good a psychologist or sociologist Saunders may be, he comes from the batterers’ treatment philosophy, which supports the system of BIP programming, Supervised Visitation Programming, and essentially the Duluth Abuse Model of “get better experts to better understand their behaviors, change the behaviors, and you’ll have more peace and less violence.”  Along the way, some get their careers and conference circuits, and others — often the other parent — become fugitives, or their children do, while being tagged with the bill directly, in a case, and the public, indirectly, as so much of this occurs in public institutions (including but not limited to state university systems).

Put another way, the emphasis on studying, classifying and labeling men who have been found, accused, or convicted of physically beating (battering refers to the actual contact) their, in this case, wives, is important so as to better treat them.

This differs somewhat from the perspective of those being battered, whose primary concern is restraint, and protection from repeat incidents, especially with children involved, and especially as over time, or in situations of specific extreme incidents, it tends to mess with every other critical area of life, significantly so for some, in holding sustainable employment, i.e., independence.

So, treatment is the psychological viewpoint.  This viewpoint is now  BUILT INTO the system as an assumption, and it became built-in as control of this field at the policy and federal funding level (with help from private, no question) was early on centralized, coordinated and controlled at the highest (which is to say, federal) levels.

This is why it’s so important to understand when small, strategically-aligned (into how to view, classify, treat and “correct” the social pathology of violence against women — as opposed to stopping the criminal activity of assault and battery on other human beings one has regular access to as a spouse or partner. And, as opposed to classifying “violence against women” as an actual hate crime.  I learned that the FBI, as far as investigating things under their jurisdiction, considers many things “hate crimes” but not crimes against women as women.  Check out their site…

Interesting, in that while women were continuing to be beaten, which is acknowledged, the scholars were most interested in the taxonomy (categorizing, naming, labeling) with an intent to “treat” the behavior.  Behavioral modification; violence as a disease, not an action or series of actions.

(After writing this, and co-incidentally to another search), I found Lynn Katz’s CV.  She published 6 times alongside Cleary-Bradley (who was listed as a graduate committee she also supervised), about 32 references to (publishing alongside) Gottman — and one presentation at AFCC, in Washington, 2014.  She’s been active in Washington State, King County, and I searched and found 42 references to “Society for Rearch on Child Development.

Actually her web page at least (not all AFCC professional members do) acknowledges her AFCC involvement, as well as contains a link to the C.V.:

I am nationally recognized as a leading expert in the area of family relations.  I have been awarded over $10 million of funding from the National Institutes of Health for my work on parenting, domestic violence, childhood aggression, adolescent depression and family adjustment in the context of pediatric cancer.  I have lectured extensively on the effects of marital conflict on children, and on parenting qualities that buffer children from marital dissolution.  I have also taught courses on child and adolescent behavior disorders, children’s social development, emotion, and adult psychopathology at the University of Washington.

I received my B.A. in Psychology from McGill University [[CANADA]], and my Ph.D. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  I have a Parenting Evaluation Certificate from the Parenting Evaluation Training Program at the University of Washington, and am a licensed clinical psychologist in the State of Washington.  I am a member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) as well as the Washington Chapter of AFCC.  I am also a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD).

• Serving as a Research Professor in Child Clinical Psychology and Developmental Psychology at the University of Washington.

• Being appointed as Associate Director of the University of Washington’s Center for Child and Family Well-Being. [“CCFWB”]

• Working with children and families on issues relating to marital conflict, parenting and family relationships for 25 years (click here for Dr. Katz’s CV).

Dr. Katz lists here AFCC affiliation before her APA affiliation. As AFCC definitely represents a philosophy, world view, and strategic goals as a membership association, this is going to color the other work.

Parenting Evaluation Training Program Certificate (“PETP”) — ready for some more degrees and a guru?

G. Andrew H. Benjamin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP
Director, Parenting Evaluation Training Program
William H. Gates Hall, Box 353020
Seattle, WA 98195-3020

January 1, 2009 

More information about other areas of Dr. Benjamin’s practice can be found at his profile on LinkedIn.

(not showing readily there, but brief references to his academic background:   “Dr. Benjamin received his B.A., University of Oregon Honors College; M.A., J.D., Ph.D., University of Arizona“)

Since publishing Family Evaluation in Custody Litigation: Reducing Risks of Ethical Infractions and Malpractice (Benjamin & Gollan, 2003, American Psychological Association Press), word has spread about PETP’s protocol for conducting parenting evaluations. A burst of training occurred in other jurisdictions around the United States and Canada. Workshops and training in other jurisdictions continue to occur.

After 18 years in operation, PETP has prepared more than 120 accomplished mental health and law professionals to work effectively as evaluators and treatment personnel. Using the protocols developed by the program, they have learned to protect the interests of vulnerable children and help resolve high-conflict family law litigation. A list of PETP graduates now conducting parenting evaluations and co-parent counseling in Western Washington is available on the “Graduates” page of this Web site

Workshop: How to Build A Successful Practice in Psychology at the Crossroads of Law and Behavioral Health

Also pushing “co-parenting psychotherapy.”  High-conflict is bad.  Everyone should get along.  Get the overall picture?  All fees paid in advance (sounds like $300 up front and then a per-email charge).  No phone calls between parents — only emails — during the therapy time (that’d be a trick in many cases).  If the co-therapist declares an impasse, someone can be started in treatment, or it goes to arbitration. Arbitration is binding.  If a parent appeals, the parent pays retainer fees for opposing party and unless their position is improved through the appeal, all litigation fees:

During all phases of co-parent psychotherapy you will contact your co-parent only through e-mail. Review of your e-mail messages is provided as part of the 20 hours of co-parent psychotherapy. Each e-mail message reviewed is charged at $5. Any e-mail message reviewed that requires a response from the co-parent psychotherapist is charged at $20 per e-mail message.

(What parent in his/her right mind could “resist” such a deal?  What provider wouldn’t jump at such a deal?)…

An impasse will be handled in one or more of the following ways as designated by the psychotherapist:

• Ending treatment by the psychotherapist without any prejudice.
• Starting a party or a child in other psychological evaluation or treatment as specified above.
• Resuming the psychotherapy process after a sufficient period of time, not to exceed 90 days, and the parties have followed the interim recommendations of the psychotherapist during this period of time.
• Arbitrating the impasse through the services of one of three qualified arbitrators. PETP will provide three options.
• Any arbitration decision shall remain mandatory on the parties. If either party appeals an arbitration decision to the Court, the party who files the appeal must pay the retainer fees of the other party. Unless the legal position of the appealing party is significantly improved, the appealing party must pay the entire fees and costs of the action in the Court.

Termination of Co-Parent Psychotherapy

Termination of co-parent psychotherapy is based upon the parents and co-parent psychotherapists assessment and decision about the degree to which therapy goals have been met. Co-parent psychotherapy may also terminate if the parents reach a sustained impasse or violate the terms of the treatment contract, at which time their dispute resolution process shall be initiated.

I am showing context of Lynn Fainsilber Katz (in that she is also AFCC, and references having gotten this training, as a provider, of PETP).

A few pages down in search results for G. Andrew H. Benjamin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP shows a FamilyCourtInAmerica reference to the 2012 “Our Broken Family Court System” conference — cosponsored by “NAPPP” and the Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Foundation, on which I also have blogged, prominently, at that time, and also under “Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson…”).  Read the fine print on the poster — he’s there along with others.  This puts in time, place, and philosophy, this particular trainer, alongside Leslie Drozd (known AFCC), Toby G. Kleinman (attorney, practice I believe in NJ, and has presented at BMCC),

Finally, posted at “ISB.Idaho.gov” under “forensics conference” — a Continuing Education Conference (Oct. 24-25, 2014).  It’s a colorful, tri-fold brochure — designed for mailing by the IPA (Idaho Psychological Association).  Take time, please to look at the presenters –everyone with an “ABPP” (American Board of Professional Psychologists) and coincidentally, all men.  Dr. Benjamin’s description, as well as reference to his books, says he supervised over 900 family evaluations by non-lawyer psychiatrists and psychologists “without a single ethical complaint.” He is also the Keynote Speaker (8-9am) on the topic of his “avoiding ethical complaints” theme, and First (Plenary?) session 9 – 10:30am on Building a Practice, with a panel on this (involving a judge and family law professionals, it looks like) to follow right after lunch:

KEYNOTE: How to Prevent Ethical Complaints & Malpractice Claims in Forensic Evaluations

The legal and ethical issues in the conduct of forensic evaluations can be managed by engaging in steps that cut across all types of evaluations. Presented by: G. Andrew H. Benjamin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP.

Conducting family evaluations for courts, attorneys, and litigants in child custody disputes can become a rewarding frontier of private practice. However, it is a specialty with many pitfalls and risks of error, malpractice, and professional burnout for practitioners who are not adequately prepared to deal with the technical and experiential requirements of this challenging work. Dr. Benjamin’s workshop gives point-by-point practical guidance that shows mental health providers how to get started and to refine their skills in this productive and expanding field. Corresponding panel presentation at 1:30PM. Presented by: G. Andrew H. Benjamin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP.

(and the panel presenters):

Family Law Panel (This panel correlates with Dr. Benjamin’s 9-10:30AM presentation above & must be attended for CE purposes). Panel presenters: The Honorable Russell A. Comstock-Fourth Judicial District Court; Andrew Benjamin; and Austin M. Reed, LCPC-Clinical Supervisor/Assessment Specialist, Family Court Services, Ada County Fourth Judicial District Court. Moderator: Cynthia Brownsmith, Ph.D.-Private practice, Boise.

The University of Washington “CCFWB” reminds me of Columbia University’s: “The Center for Research on Fathers, Children & Family Well-being, [“CRFCFWB” — memorize that acronym, if you can!!] run by Professor Ronald B. Mincy, aims to expand knowledge and disseminate new findings on the role of fathers and father figures in the lives of disadvantaged children.

(The Columbia one is long-standing and well known.  I see a 2009 conference at the Institute for Research on Poverty (“IRP”) at UWisconsin-Madison (Madison being HQ also of AFCC, although its legal domicile remains Illinois) sponsored in part by a Program Office or OpDiv of HHS, with a definite focus on disadvantaged, young men:

Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy September 2009, University of Wisconsin–Madison

This conference brought together scholars and policymakers to examine strategies for reducing barriers to marriage and father involvement, designing child support and other public policies to encourage the involvement of fathers, and coping with fathers who have multiple child support responsibilities.Representatives of the Obama Administration were in Madison to respond to the ideas put forth at the conference.

IRP hosted this working conference in coordination with the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being and the Columbia Population Research Center, at Columbia University. Tim Smeeding, Ron Mincy, and Irv Garfinkel organized the conference and co-edited a conference volume. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is also providing financial support for this conference.

Conference papers are available in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 635 (May 2011): “Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy.” Special Editors Timothy M. Smeeding, Irwin Garfinkel, and Ronald E. Mincy.

Irwin Garfinkel — very influential.  And, I just learned he’s married to Sara McLanahan (a sociologist at Princeton University, and whose writing also comes up a lot in these fields) of Princeton!!  (See bottom of next quote — together, they started the “Fragile Families and Child Well-Being study in 1996…..  meanwhile, at Columbia, Ronald Mincy comes from the “Strengthening Fragile Families” initiatives at a major foundation, and works at another center (at Columbia) using the term “Child Well-Being.”  Sound like a social policy public relations promotion?

He is the co-founder of the University of Columbia “Center for Population Research” and cited as influential in welfare reform.  I should perhaps note that of the big Ivy-League and “running-the-country” type colleges and universities (Columbia being one), despite having Barnard (for women) right nearby in NYC, was among the LAST to admit women — as late as 1983, I heard.  Harvard, Yale, (Bowdoin College in Maine), others –admitted women at least in the 1970s.  It is still, apparently, a bastion of focus on urban men, although doing so with women professors and staff.  Interesting…

Irv Garfinkel

Focus: Low-income children and families in NYC, the U.S., and other developed countries
Research: Over 200 articles and 16 books or edited volumes on poverty, income transfers, program evaluation, single-parent families and child support, and the welfare state.

DOWNLOAD CV (PDF: 5 pages)
DOWNLOAD HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTO

Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems and co-founding director of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC). Of the 37 population research centers funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), CPRC is the only one to have been founded within a school of social work. Its signature area is children, youth, and families. Previously, Professor Garfinkel was the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty (1975-1980) and the School of Social Work (1982-1984) at the University of Wisconsin.

Between 1980 and 1990, he was the principal investigator of the Wisconsin child support study. His research on child support and welfare influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the U.S. Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. 

In 1996, Professor Garfinkel, in conjunction with his wife, Sara McLanahan, the William S. Tod Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. initiated the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Nearly 5,000 children in 20 large American cities were enrolled in the study at birth and are now adolescents. A recent study found that harsh parenting increased in the wake of the Great Recession.

Professor Garfinkel received his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. A social worker and an economist by training, he has authored or co-authored over 200 scientific articles and 16 books and edited volumes on poverty, income transfers, program evaluation, single parent families and child support, and the welfare state, including, most recently, Wealth and Welfare States: Is America Laggard or Leader?

He has this influence in part when federal agencies fund academic centers, and so do private foundations.  For those who may have read about the years leading up to Welfare Reform of 1996## Wisconsin was, I believe, a “Right to Work” test state.  There were major ramifications with the testing of “right to work” in Wisconsin, including lying, stealing, racism and sexism involving a major child support enforcement contractor called “Maximus.”  Garfinkel’s social model is, clearly, international in scope.

(##I’d like to call it Welfare “DEform” for what it’s done to women and mothers, particularly ones who believed we had equal rights — to work, under the law, and to make life choices for ourselves and children, so long as those choices were within the boundaries of non-criminal, non-abusive, and basically sane, creative, self-sustaining and contributing to our local communities as we saw opportunity activity.  Including, supporting an education track that might reasonable lead to scholarships to college for our minor children.)

Sarah McLanahan’s site at Princeton (website hasn’t been updated since 2005, it looks like, but):

Sara S. McLanahan

Sara McLanahan is the William S. Tod Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University. She directs the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and the Education Research Section (ERS).  She is the principal investigator on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study and Editor-in-Chief of The Future of Children, a journal dedicated to providing research and analysis to promote effective policies and programs for children.

She is the author of many articles and books including Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement (1998); Social Policies for Children (1996); Growing Up with a Single Parent (1994); Child Support and Child Wellbeing (1994); Child Support Assurance: Design Issues, Expected Impacts, and Political Barriers, as Seen from Wisconsin (1992); and Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (1986). She received the Distinguished Scholar Award from the American Sociological Association Family Section in 2004.

Dr. McLanahan currently serves on the Board of Trustees for the W.T. Grant Foundation and the Russell Sage Foundation and the Advisory Boards for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholars program, the National Poverty Center, and the Pew Charitable Trust Economic Mobility Project. She is a Past-President of the Population Association of American and has served on the Boards of the American Sociological Association and the Population Association of America. She also served on the Institute of Medicine Board on Children, Youth, and Families. McLanhaan was named the James S. Coleman Fellow of the American Academy of Political Science in 2005 and was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2011.

Dr. McLanahan earned her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Texas at Austin in 1979.

Sara McLanahan, Ph.D.
Center for Research on Child Wellbeing
Princeton University
265 Wallace Hall
Princeton, NJ 08544

Copyright © 2005 Center for Research on Child Wellbeing

Was Moynihan Right?  What happens to children of single mothers…

By  Sara McLanahan and Christopher Jencks   SPRING 2015, Vol. 15 No. 2

This article is part of a new Education Next series on the state of the American family. The full series will appear in our Spring 2015 issue to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1965 release of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” (generally referred to as the Moynihan Report).

In his 1965 report on the black family, Daniel Patrick Moynihan highlighted the rising fraction of black children growing up in households headed by unmarried mothers. He attributed the increase largely to the precarious economic position of black men, many of whom were no longer able to play their traditional role as their family’s primary breadwinner. Moynihan argued that growing up in homes without a male breadwinner reduced black children’s chances of climbing out of poverty, and that the spread of such families would make it hard for blacks to take advantage of the legal and institutional changes flowing from the civil rights revolution.

Moynihan’s claim that growing up in a fatherless family reduced a child’s chances of educational and economic success was furiously denounced when the report appeared in 1965, with many critics calling Moynihan a racist. For the next two decades few scholars chose to investigate the effects of father absence, lest they too be demonized if their findings supported Moynihan’s argument. ### Fortunately, America’s best-known black sociologist, William Julius Wilson, broke this taboo in 1987, providing a candid assessment of the black family and its problems in The Truly Disadvantaged. Since then, social scientists have accumulated a lot more evidence on the effects of family structure.** This article will offer some educated guesses about what that evidence means

WELL, BACK TO THE CENTER FOR CHILD WELL-BEING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

The context was Web Page and C.V. of Dr. Lynn Fainsilber Katz.  I’d said:

Lynn Katz’s CV.  She published 6 times alongside Cleary-Bradley (who was listed as a graduate committee she also supervised), about 32 references to (publishing alongside) Gottman — and one presentation at AFCC, in Washington, 2014.  She’s been active in Washington State, King County, and I searched and found 42 references to “Society for Rearch on Child Development.

Actually her web page at least (not all AFCC professional members do) acknowledges her AFCC involvement, as well as contains a link to the C.V.:

It exists under the Department of Psychology within the University, but funds are still being solicited which, apparently, still go to the university (EIN# 916001537) or Foundation.

Interesting, of 23 faculty, only 5 are men.  It’s a woman-dominated center. Hover cursor for the the descriptive page which describes there interest in “multidisciplinary” (basically all aspects of life), mindfulness, and social, emotional, and cognitive development of children, etc. — and to learn absolutely nothing about who started it, how long it’s been around, or much else.  Very “generic.” The label “Child and Family Well-Being” could refer to almost anything. The “about us” page concludes:

“We intend to be a resource for education, intervention, outreach and advocacy to infuse the broader community with a multi-disciplinary understanding of children’s development and to inform policies and programs in Washington and beyond.”

I remind readers (it’s one one of my 2016 posts, I believe the second) I was also researching a “Miami Child-Family Well-Being Court(™)” Model, also rooted in the psychoanalytical, psychological sciences — but of course involving at least one judge.  So, this terminology is definitely catching on — through the networks, obviously. Child-Family Well-Being if promoted enough could certainly supplant “liberty and justice for all” or such things as references to the law as a standard for due process protecting individuals.

In addition. references to the Gottman article above — there were two articles (one by men, one by women, apparently) about the “Generalizability of Gottman” (!!).  Generalizing it looks like two different “process models” — but still….within the Journal of Marriage and Family.

1. Hyoun K Kim, Deborah M Capaldi, Lynn Crosby, Generalizability of Gottman and Colleagues’ Affective Process Models of Couples’ Relationship Outcomes, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2007, 69, 1

   Direct Link:

   • AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(142K)References

2. James A. Coan, John M. Gottman, Sampling, Experimental Control, and Generalizability in the Study of Marital Process Models, Journal of Marriage and Family, 2007, 69, 1

   Direct Link:

   • AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(71K)References

Top one, Abstract:

The generalizability of the affective process models of J. M. Gottman et al. (1998) was examined using a community-based sample of 85 married or cohabiting couples with at-risk backgrounds. Predictive associations between affective processes assessed at about age 21 years and relationship status and satisfaction assessed approximately 2.5 years later were examined. The major findings of Gottman et al. failed to replicate.* In particular, men’s rejection of their partners’ influence, the lack of men’s de-escalation of partners’ negative affect, and women’s negative start-up were not predictive of relationship status. Further, differences in affective processes were found when comparing discussion sessions of the men’s versus the women’s chosen topics.** The findings suggested that the validity and utility of the affective process models need further investigation.***

*It seems that part of Gottman’s (the Gottmans, plural, I should say) “claim to fame” is the ability to predict who’ll stay married vs. who will get divorced (separating the  love & relationship “masters from the disasters”).  As human beings are involved, being able to “replicate” experimental behavior results might be questionable anyhow.

**A stunning revelation — given a choice in discussion sessions, men may choose different topics than women.

***Does any finding EVER say, “forget this line of inquiry?”  Is there a professional courtesy to never suggest that someone else’s research funding and publish-don’t-perish situation should be diminished “for cause”???

Bottom one, Abstract is actually first page of the article, which shows one author was from the UVirginia Dept. of Psychology (James Coan) and, in responding to the other study, that somehow an Oregon Youth Study was involved….at the tail end of the first page, a quote from “Amato” (Paul R. Amato, see recent 2016 posts, and Oklahoma Marriage Initiative commentary).  (Here’s Amato’s 9/2013 C.V. showing he’s a Sociologist with a Ph.D. from an Australian institution, but two previous degrees from (Northern) California, and working out of UPennsylvania at the time of the C.F.)

<=James A. Coan, from “JamesCoan.com” (published alongside Gottman, UVirginia Dept. of Psychology

Dr. James Coan is Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology and Director of the Virginia Affective Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Virginia. Dr. Coan has consulted for clinicians, businesses and researchers, working with groups as diverse as the Stanford University Psychiatry Department, the Oregon Social Learning Center, Linkage Inc., the University of Arizona Communication Department, InsightLabs, Cambridge International Consulting, the Anna Freud Center, the Kurt Lewin Institute, Community of Democracies, Creating Connections, and the Mindsight Institute. He is co-editor of the Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment and has authored more than fifty scientific articles. He has been featured in Science, Nature, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine, the New Yorker, The Atlantic, BBC News, Discovery Channel, New Scientist, Scientific American, CBS Sunday Morning, and other major media outlets.  Dr. Coan received the inaugural Janet Taylor Spence Award for Transformative Early Career Contributions from the Association for Psychological Science, and the Award for Distinguished Early Career Contributions from the Society for Psychophysiological Research. He is also Chief Scientific Advisor at Movius Consulting.

(University of Virginia is now the home of the National Marriage Project (headed by conservative, and Opus Dei (?) Bradley Wilcox; it had formerly been at Rutgers…started by David Popenoe in 1997 (conveniently, right after welfare reform).  See the main content of this blog, and you can see why the National Marriage Project might have come across my path before.

Coan’s C.V. shows he’s younger than John Gottmans (got his PhD in 2003, other degrees in the 1990s) has a slightly different interest, co-published one book with him (and others), but most of the articles published with Gottman preceded his own doctorate.  That book and those articles (plus one more I included for general interest of the concept).   You can see from “EDUCATION” that he probably crossed paths with the Gottmans during his time at University of Washington as an undergraduate:

EDUCATION:

• 2003-2005, Post-doctoral Fellow, Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, University of Wisconsin–Madison
• 2003, University of Arizona, Doctor of Philosophy—Clinical Psychology with specialization in Psychophysiology, Measurement and Research Methodology.
• 1999, University of Arizona – M.A., Clinical Psychology
• 1993, University of Washington – B.S. with departmental distinction, Psychology

BOOKS: (two)

*Coan, J. A. & Allen, J. J. B. (2007). Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gottman, J., McCoy, K., Coan, J., & Collier, H. (1995). The specific affect coding system (SPAFF) for observing emotional communication in marital and family interaction. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Among peer-reviewed articles:  The one on Battering was the earliest one listed:

Boeschen, L.E., Koss, M.E., Figuredo, A.J., & Coan, J.A. (2001). Experiential avoidance and posttraumatic stress disorder: A cognitive mediational model of rape recovery. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 4, 211-245.

Carrere, S, Buehlman, K.T., Gottman, J.M., Coan, J.A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Predicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal Of Marriage and the Family, 14, 42-58.

Gottman, J.M., Carrere, S., Swanson, C, & Coan, J.A. (2000). Reply to “from basic research to interventions.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 265-273.

Gottman, J.M., Coan, J.A., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5-22.

Coan, J.A. (1997). Lost in a shopping mall: An experience with controversial research. Ethics and Behavior, 7,271-284.

Coan, J., Gottman, J.M., Babcock, J., & Jacobson, N. (1997). Battering and the male rejection of influence from women. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 375-388.

So, from “Battering and the male rejection of influence from women  AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 23, Issue 5, 1997, Pages: 375–388, James Coan, John M. Gottman, Julia Babcock and Neil Jacobson” above …..

How nice to know that other types of batterers just do it for fun, sport, or other reasons than maintaining power and control.  All us battered women / wives / mothers thank you from the bottom of our hearts for knowing that our serious injuries, and disrupted lives, were maybe the results of something other than complete rejection of female influence.

[Confession: I’m not exactly neutral in this matter either.  In the late 1990s, I was so desperate for intervention that I sought help from a local pastor; at this time, the Christian-based (?) battering had been going on (off and on, but serious when it occurred) for years.  Churches were viable places I could go without retaliation or suspicion — until I sought counseling there. We were put into JOINT counseling, during which time, as I reported what was happening in the home (some of it involving sharp-edged, others involving projectile-spitting weapons as a routine form of threat, in addition to the assault and battery, verbal abuse, withholding sufficient transportation funds to do –most things, etc.).  During this period, I, and our children, came closer to being killed than at any time previously that I can recall.   It was a most stupid move on the pastor’s part, and at the time, a misinformed one on mine.  The pressure from the religious sector to “kiss and make up” “reconcile” “forgive and forget” has hurt a whole lot of women…and their children]

So, above, in 2012  ….again, that’s at Cleary Bradley, R. P. and Gottman, J. M. (2012), Reducing Situational Violence in Low-Income Couples by Fostering Healthy Relationships. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38: 187–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012.00288″ ….we have a Washington state research institute somehow hooked up with a University of Georgia-affiliated individual (Dr. Renay P. Cleary-Bradley) taking federal HHS grants, and I do believe these were classified as welfare reform national evaluations. This was only cited (it says as to Wiley On-Line, so far) in the past nearly 4 years, 5 times.

One of these cites I recognize coming from another author known to be taking marriage/fatherhood grants out of Alabama regarding Step Families (Francesca Adler-Baeder; searchable on this blog) (for the same information with active links, use the link above):

1
Elizabeth O. Parker, Jennifer Chang, Volker Thomas, A Content Analysis of Quantitative Research in Journal of Marital and Family Therapy: A 10-Year Review, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2016, 42, 1
Direct Link:
AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(254K)References
2
Katie Lee Salis, Soren Kliem, K. Daniel O’Leary, Conditional Inference Trees: A Method for Predicting Intimate Partner Violence, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2014, 40, 4
Direct Link:
AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(285K)References
3
Mallory Lucier-Greer, Francesca Adler-Baeder, Kate Taylor Harcourt, Kimberly D. Gregson, Relationship Education for Stepcouples Reporting Relationship Instability—Evaluation of the Smart Steps: Embrace the Journey Curriculum, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 2014, 40, 4
Direct Link:
AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(231K)References
4
W. Kim Halford, Guy Bodenmann, Effects of relationship education on maintenance of couple relationship satisfaction, Clinical Psychology Review, 2013, 33, 4, 512
CrossRef
5
Alan Carr, Thematic review of Family Therapy Journals 2012, Journal of Family Therapy, 2013, 35, 4
Direct Link:
AbstractFull Article (HTML)PDF(129K)References

And, if you look at the reference involving Adler-Baeder, that’s also courtesy a different HHS grant:

This study was supported in part through a grant from the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (90FE0001). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

---

Smart Steps: Embrace the Journey is a research-based educational curriculum for stepfamily couples (“stepcouples”). The curriculum is designed to build couple strengths while addressing the unique challenges of repartnering with a child or children from a previous relationship. This study evaluated the effectiveness of this curriculum with 151 individuals in relationally less stable stepcouple relationships who either engaged in the Smart Steps curriculum (n = 97) or were part of the comparison group (n = 54). This study represents methodological and conceptual advances in the study of stepfamily programs with the use of a comparison group, a racially and economically diverse sample, and a relationally at-risk population. Results indicated that those who participated in Smart Steps reported significant increases in individual empowerment, couple quality, family harmony, and parenting efficacy while these measures were unchanged for those who did not receive the program. Implications for future research and for practitioners are provided.

WELL, when all that’s “Said and done,” I did one more search on Dr. Bradley, or Cleary-Bradley’s name, and found a resource showing state salaries.  As both the University of Georgia and the University of Washington are actually state employers, I got that information, plus apparently in 2012 and 2013 she was “State of California Research Scientist IV (Social/Behavioral Sciences) at a considerably higher rate (“Base Pay $69.7K, her pay $85.4K”)  You can compare here: In 2011 Washington, she was Lecturer, in Georgia, post-doctoral associate, and in California, paid considerably more (and probably working closer to full-time).

Meanwhile, I don’t have it by memory, but chances are she was also paid from the nonprofit Research Relationship Institute which took HHS funds, but didn’t report them honestly.  How honest, then, will the research reports be?