**PUBLIC/PRIVATE in other words.  ## “Income security polices” is referring mostly to welfare and child support.  They are talking about “welfare reform” and subsequent programming.  “Social Security Act” revenues delivered to the states for “Temporary Assistance to Need Families” (Title IV-A), Child Support Enforcement (TItle IV-D) and all the other sections under all those Titles.

[Gray-background section here = Post-publication FYI material added: from my prior readings.  I believe it is basically reliable enough that if people chose to search the organizations or terms, it would be validated (at least where facts are being put forth; interpretation of them is mine…).  To say time on this insert, I’m not including links for every single organization referenced, or posting their tax returns.  Anyone can look up a tax return from a public database the moment he or she decides to!

Right there is the PUBLIC/PRIVATE with the “PRIVATE” being a major privately controlled, nonstock (meaning board of directors runs it) tax-exempt foundation, and despite its huge size, certainly as these things go, not the only foundation involved with this family’s heirs.

In 1968 The Ford Foundation also started up “Fund for the City of New York”  which now (and more recently) is jointly with the NYS Unified Court System running a major “Center for Court Innovation” (not itself a nonprofit — the nonprofit involved is that “Fund for the City of New York”).

In 1974, the Ford Foundation also, with several federal agencies, set up “Manpower Development Research Corporation” now called MDRC. On the board of this sits Ron Haskins of Brookings and Isabel Sawhill of Brookings.  I have known for a while that they are under the “Center for Children and Families” at Brookings, but just learned today (according to a recent article, link below) that these two set up that Center.

This directly hooks up these individuals with the Princeton “Center for Child Well-Being” under Sara McLanahan by way of a journal the Princeton Center sets out called “the Future of Children.” The MDRC is the “evaluation” arm justifying many of the fatherhood/marriage/ Federal Family Design programs as “scientific” through running their Social Science R&D projects on poor people, and writing it up. The Board of Directors is like a Who’s Who of powerful universities (esp. Princeton & Harvard) and firms.

These organizations have no problem promoting or featuring women on the boards or as writers/publicists to discourage any implication they’re sexist, or prominent African Americans such as Ronald Mincy (who has plenty of credentials — Harvard & MIT both — and he also did this growing up, guess what, essentially, FATHERLESS, which kind of defeats his main thesis…) to discourage any implication they’re not racist, when in fact, the policies — are both. The presence of both a Democrat and a Republican in the Haskins/Sawhill duo is also featured to show they’re nicely “bipartisan.”

In truth, the whole scenario is ELITIST. And this country began, as did many of its elite universities who TO THIS DAY still set policy, without the slave vote, obviously, and AFTER that not until the 1900s, the women’s vote (AFTER the 13th Amendment instituting the income tax, which would speed wealth accumulation and stockpiling for those who knew how to avoid taxation through nonprofit incorporations).

When around the 1960s, the ONGOING civil rights movement made some headway in the 1964 Civil Rights Act as to African-Americans, I’m sure the “handwriting was on the wall” that women of more than one race (minority and majority) might also want some of this too. In the 1970s, often considered a time of increasing women’s rights in the legal and job arena too. It’s my understanding that around this time, in addition to “no-fault divorce” (first year, California, 1970), allowing some women in violent marriages to get out of them, there was also more attention to prosecuting domestic violence and battery; battered women’s shelters and organizations running them began to rise on the landscape. It was a time of hope for some to get out of the dual traps of family violence and forced poverty, and functioning independent (including at times unmarried if that was the choice).

In this timeline — which I’m including to make the next point — the year 1965 was critical as Daniel Moynihan put out his well-known “Moynihan Report” while still at the USDOL (he later — you can research) and by the 1990s was one of the most powerful US Senators on Capital Hill….He grew up fatherless too.

That report is shocking to read today — first of all, it’s a call to action to get the Federal government involved in the marriage business regarding African-Americans: “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” and its (in)famous Chapter IV: The Tangle of Pathology, condescendingly blames single-mother household and “matriarchy” as out of step with, essentially, “the way we do business in the USA.”

Essentially he was saying -pay less attention to income and education levels, and more to sociological matters — and make THIS the federal focus.  I should probably mention that Moynihan, while I believe considered a liberal, was still Catholic.  This quote is from the introduction to that actual report:

{from “Blackpast.org” “Black Past Remembered and Reclaimed”}}

“The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”  The Case For National Action | Office of Policy Planning and Research United States Department of Labor March 1965

I just remembered from my “history of HHS” timeline, that from 1953 – 1980 (or 1979), there was “HEW” — and I think the USDOL would be separate from those.  If so, this report was being written from a source or department not normally dealing with (as in, actively handling) appropriations to needy families under the Social Security Act.  ALSO, the 1975 Family Support Act had not yet been passed, which went after noncustodial fathers more forcefully, and so indirectly fed the family law sector.  And it was still three years before the startup of MDRC, it seems.  MDRC may have been in part responding to this report also.  It was famous and controversial, including in the black community, at the time.

…Indices of dollars of income, standards of living, and years of education deceive. The gap between the Negro and most other groups in American society is widening.

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence — not final, but powerfully persuasive — is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle-class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated. There are indications that the situation may have been arrested in the past few years, but the general post-war trend is unmistakable. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself.

The thesis of this paper is that these events, in combination, confront the nation with a new kind of problem. Measures that have worked in the past, or would work for most groups in the present, will not work here. A national effort is required that will give a unity of purpose to the many activities of the Federal government in this area, directed to a new kind of national goal: the establishment of a stable Negro family structure.

Not mentioned:  Once refined and perfected on “The Negro Family” it could then be applied to ALL families, in fact not even to all low-income families, but ALL, as things developed in the fatherhood movement…

This would be a new departure for Federal policy. And a difficult one. But it almost certainly offers the only possibility of resolving in our time what is, after all, the nation’s oldest, and most intransigent, and now its most dangerous social problem. What Gunnar Myrdal said in An American Dilemma remains true today: “America is free to chose whether the Negro shall remain her liability or become her opportunity.”

Table of Contents

Chapter I. The Negro American Revolution.
Chapter II. The Negro American Family.
Chapter III. The Roots of the Problem.
Chapter IV. The Tangle of Pathology.   <=<== = =
Chapter V. The Case for National Action. 

– See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/moynihan-report-1965#sthash.ohsFi6Zp.dpuf

How does this relate to the Columbia – Princeton – Brookings – MDRC //Center for Court Innovation (Ford sponsored project in that “Fund for the City of New York” represents the major “private” part of the “public/private” mix)? Well, for one I found recently that “The Future of Children” announcing that Ron Haskins (again, a fatherhood promoter formerly highly-positioned within HHS and writing constantly on the topic of marriage and low-income families) and Isabel Sawhill (whose background is more economics) “The Moynihan Prize” for 2016, a joint award:

Brookings Announcement of this:  Date: May 23, 2016…quite recently. I see this will also help Ms.(see degree level?) Sawhill promote her latest book, “Generation Unbound.”

In Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize speech, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill stress importance of evidence-based policy

James King | May 23, 2016 4:33pm

Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill, winners of the 2016 Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize (AAPSS)

---

Senior Fellows Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill are the first joint recipients of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize from the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS). The prize is awarded each year to a leading policymaker, social scientist, or public intellectual whose career focuses on advancing the public good through social science. It was named after the late senator from New York and renowned sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The pair accepted the award May 12 at a ceremony in Washington, DC.

In their joint lecture delivered at the ceremony, Haskins and Sawhill emphasized the importance of evidence-based public policy, highlighting Sawhill’s latest work in her book, Generation Unbound (Brookings, 2014). Watch their entire speech here:  …(video available through title link):

Notice what each of them has to say about (Sawhill) Marriage, demographically and educationally speaking, and (Haskins) a unique admission that many social science programs (!!!   after 50 years of them, almost, at MDRC alone?) are not evidence-based, but there is an “Evidence-based” movement within this field.

“Marriage is disappearing and more and more babies are born outside marriage,” Sawhill said during the lecture. “Right now, the proportion born outside of marriage is about 40 percent. It’s higher than that among African Americans and lower than that among the well-educated. But it’s no longer an issue that just affects the poor or minority groups.”

How many white people does it take to keep track of the sex and reproductive, and marriage, habits of black people, and how much are they paid for it, over time, from public resources?

Notice the first ethnic group mentioned, and then subset “among the well-educated” (well-educated African Americans, she means? That’s primarily what Daniel Moynihan was saying in 1965, Chapter IV [matriarchy is the main part of the tangle of pathology trapping “The Negro Family.”)….

Next, here are Haskins’ comments on that article, and yet more paragraphs in which it seems to state that HASKINS and SAWHILL actually created this CFCC Center at Brookings.  As well as pushing the realm of Social Science to solve the nation’s problems.  There’s a lot more to that story (but not for this post!) as I followed up on who is the AAPSS and SAGE publications / The McCune family.  It’s an interesting story of how a powerful publisher can promote or demote fields of study; and Miller-McCune [dbl-check name] (appears to have been very controlling personality) was adamant about promoting social science throughout the United States.

“THE POWER OF EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY”

In Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize speech, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill stress importance of evidence-based policycont’d.)

The power of evidence-based policy is finally being recognized, Haskins added. “One of the prime motivating factors of the current evidence-based movement,” he said, “is the understanding, now widespread, that most social programs either have not been well evaluated or they don’t work.” Haskins continued:

Perhaps the most important social function of social science is to find and test programs that will reduce the nation’s social problems. The exploding movement of evidence-based policy and the many roots the movement is now planting, offer the best chance of fulfilling this vital mission of social science, of achieving, in other words, exactly the outcomes Moynihan had hoped for.

He pointed toward the executive branch, state governments, and non-profits implementing policies that could make substantial progress against the nation’s social problems.

Richard Reeves, a senior fellow at Brookings and co-director, with Haskins, of the Center on Children and Families (CCF), acknowledged Haskins and Sawhill’s “powerful and unique intellectual partnership” and their world-class work on families, poverty, opportunity, evidence, parenting, work, and education.

Haskins and Sawhill were the first to be awarded jointly by the AAPSS, which recognizes their 15-year collaboration at Brookings and the Center on Children and Families, which they established. In addition to their work at CCF, the two co-wrote Creating an Opportunity Society (Brookings 2009) and serve as co-editors of The Future of Children, a policy journal that tackles issues that have an impact on children and families.

Well, societies, including the AAPSS, often award professionals in their field as part of promoting the field.  Promoting the Moynihan Report by naming a prize after it is in effect also promoting social science as the basis for public policy.

See my two pages on the sidebar, one of which reads “The Social Scienci-fi-cation” of America for more information on just how far back this goes.

2016 – 15 = 2001.  This CCF apparently then was set up within Brookings around 2001 (Beginning of the Bush Administration, and within five short years of welfare reform).   RE: Pushing Social Science (my comments above), here’s the announcment of their winning this prize at ‘SOCIAL SCIENCE SPACE” a little earlier (March, 2016).  This announcement was where I again learned more about the publisher of Social Science Space and McCune family:

Experts on Economic Mobility Win 2016 Moynihan Prize (in ‘SOCIAL SCIENCE SPACE’)

By American Academy of Political and Social Science | Published: March 2, 2016

Social policy experts Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill have been named the 2016 winners of the 2016 Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize by the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

“Their commitment to creating strong public policy despite political differences and to encouraging civility and scientific partnership,” said AAPSS President Ken Prewitt, “make Belle and Ron most worthy recipients of this award. Senator Moynihan spent a great deal of his career in public service working for evidence-based policies that support child development and strong families;** the careers of Sawhill and Haskins are proof of that ideal continuing in public life today.”

**As I’ve noted before, Moynihan basically grew up fatherless (abandonment) and dirt-poor, but after ending up in NYC from being born during the Depression in Oklahoma, he most definitely did “OK” I’d say.  The religious background of the family was obviously, Catholic.  Regarding “evidence-based policies that support child development and strong families” the history of Child Development (and Head Start as targeting “Child Development” — for poor families) is another theme I’ve noticed two other universities — Yale (Child Study Center) and Cornell (there’s a BCTR — Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, with “Translation” meaning from theory to practice) named after Uri Bronfenbrenner.  I found his 1979 THEORY being quoted in another fatherhood network, of which a center at Yale (under the Department of Psychiatry) was involved, that network being called the MIN (Male Information Network).  I have posts in the pipeline on this one as I am learning just how much of our ENTIRE (excepting the upper-class, elite education track with Ivy League feeder schools, plus the Ivies and the Almost-Ivies (such as Bowdoin College in Maine)) is being modeled on how to manage the poor… Including do NOT fully educate them to the level of those who will be making a living managing them.

SOCIAL SCIENCE fits in here as just a few and a few SHORT steps, historically, from eugenics.  Eugenics is no longer fashionable or politically correct (see “Hitler”) — however calling similar but not quite practices in study and choices of what to study “social science” is a lot more palatable. And, as ever, is being forced on the poor while being also funded in large part by them as well, which probably contributes as much to the poverty as their particular marital status.

BACK UP 150 years or more, and imagine the rationale that slaves were actually poor because they were not married (when this was so) rather than because of slavery itself. WOULD IT MAKE SENSE? Moynihan turned this upside down and said that BECAUSE “the Negro Family” had  been so broken up, it needed to be put back together federally — and as I quoted above “indices of income education can be deceiving.”

Essentially he was saying “pay no attention” to the issues that were at that time front and center.  The Civil Rights Act has just been passed on those matters, and here was the groundwork to essentially move the whole program of “helping” over into a different federal agency, then called “HEW,” and STILL TAKING PUBLIC FUNDS, re-direct them towards life-coaching with a view to tow-parent families, like the better-endowed middle and upper class people did (pay no attention to how many wives the rich had — OR how they made their livings, often NOT primarily through “jobs.”

Haskins and Sawhill were jointly nominated, making this the first time two awardees have been chosen to receive the prize. Their collaboration began in 2001 when they worked on the effects of welfare reform legislation with a shared goal of creating opportunity for children and families. Their collaboration led to the establishment of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution.

Their lengthy partnership is especially notable given their ostensible political differences. Sawhill served in the Clinton administration in the Office of Management and Budget at the same time that Haskins worked for the Republican majority on the House Ways and Means Committee. Haskin later served as senior adviser for welfare policy in the second administration of President George W. Bush.

When, and who brought them together, might be interesting to explore.

Often (always!) helpful to look when on-line at who’s supporting the website, i.e., the publisher.
SOCIAl SCIENCE SPACE (an on-line social network) was launched by SAGE, see also Sara Miller McCune. What’s also interesting re: timing — SAGE was launched in 1965. Its main HQ is currently in England, not the US.

About Social Science Space 
By Ziyad Marar  [“Ziyad Marar is global publishing director and deputy managing director of SAGE.’}

Social Science Space brings social scientists together to explore, share and shape the big issues in social science, from funding to impact. This online social network features blogs with the most current thinking from key players in social science, a forum for discussions, a resource center with free videos, reports and slides that support these discussions, as well as funding and job opportunity notices.

---

Social science plays a crucial role in contributing to a better quality of life. It underpins many successful public policies from poverty alleviation, macroeconomics to crime prevention. Yet the contributions made by social scientists remain under-recognized in many circles. There is an urgent need for social scientists to demonstrate the value of their research and the power of their expertise for addressing the local and international challenges of our age.

---

SAGE launched Social Science Space in January 2011. As the world’s leading independent social science publisher, SAGE celebrates and champions the value and impact of social science. We were founded in 1965 by philanthropist Sara Miller McCune with the firm belief that publishing engaged scholarship could change the way we look at the world. Today we publish more than 950 journals and more than 800 books each year, a majority of them drawn from across all major social science disciplines. We publish the very best authors, editors and societies in these fields, and disseminate their important research across the social science disciplines around the world

Philanthropy Journal announcement “US Nonprofit News 5-23-2016,”  listed among many others:

…Dr. Ron Haskins and Dr. Isabel Sawhill were honored at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lecture on Social Science and Public Policy as co-winners of the American Academy of Political and Social Science‘s 2016 Moynihan Prize.