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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016,rev.2017 & (minor) 2019. See its tags]

leave a comment »

(Format (not basic content) Updates July 28, 2022. I want to reference this post again, so I tweaked some of the introduction to feature the opening phrase and to make the short-links clear for related posts, etc.. My overall theme (this time) is to identify specific universities with specific relevant centers, and at each point, know what type of university (among the available types in the American system) you’re dealing with. I’m looking at Denver University currently.

I went looking for prior posts on the university system and found several, including this one a full six years ago!  

FYI, in July, 2016, I had no stable lease and had been forced into prolonged hotel-living instead (fiduciary abuse).  Since then, I’ve migrated out of state (for related and safety reasons as I enter my senior years) and for both June and July, 2022, I have AGAIN been forced into the hotel/transience situation. Any blogging I get done during this period is “pro bono,” and out of conscience only. I’ve been somewhat active on Twitter (less formal, easier to get some messages out) but publishing a series I started in May has been difficult from this condition.    //LGH)

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some:

University Centers / Key Professionals / BIG Foundation Sponsors / Related Networked Nonprofits

and a Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report (1965).

If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in.

This 11,700 word post is well worth reading. If you disagree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap.

[Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from its July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative

THIS POST came from the middle of the following sequence.  It is a large section extracted from “Re-Organizing The World through International Institutes….” after publication.  In case you haven’t noticed, that’s how I work —  I write, I post, I review, I continuing considering and writing on the subject matters, which results in posts extracted from the middle.

The fabled “some day” maybe I’ll get a blog laid out differently so will not need to rely on the “One Main Page, Linear / Serial Installment” features of a blog.   And/or, get this into proper book format, maybe online, and hit the road with it (?? Maybe I’ll even catch up or run across some of the personnel I’ve been blogging who do this for a living — only on the public dole with private supplementation….).

Related posts:


“Re-Organizing” The World through International Institutes, Strategies, Dialogues, Peacemaking and Programs Targeting Fragile Families, Communities — and Countries... (short-link ends “-41x:) and, Part 2 of it, UNESCO’s IIP Rutgers|”Partners” + ISD and the Strong Cities Network (Reorganizing the World through International Strategic Institutes, cont’d.) (short-link ends  “-41S”

Extracted from the middle of THIS post:  SFFI – CFFPP – JustGive, Inc. – IronPlanet, Inc. – ZOPB – Texas DOTs $1B GrandParkway Project – US Gov’ts Big Banks Bailout|SunTrust (while Fixing Fragile Families?) and to be published simultaneous on 7/26/2016.  The starting point for this one was JustGive.org as a CFFP funder (one of many).

UPCOMING:   “Munich,” and the Strong Cities Network [ISIL/ISIS aren’t the only ones who want to control the World] upcoming) (short-link ends “-42b”)

Also, a shortlink (if you copy the url) to THIS one, Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? (short-link ends “-42K”)…If there’s any mixup on the shortlinks, go to main blog, Sidebar “Most Recent Posts” or simply to Archives by date.

As this post is basically almost complete, I’m putting it before publication of the third post in the other sequence,  “Munich,”  and the Strong Cities Network although that one’s just about ready to go as well.

Since “FRAGILE FAMILIES” is such a key phrase and policy, let along strengthening them (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”) I start there, for the most part. …. which pretty much brings up the Ford Foundation.  But, it’s hardly operating solo in the overall cause — this is a COORDINATED Public/Private effort, with the end-game completely outsourced and privatized government, and what’s left looking like a legal system, pretty much in name only.

While that’s kind of obvious (if one pays some sustained attention to various centers, or nonprofits), a simple and interesting example below in the funders of a 1995 nonprofit that calls itself “the policymaking arm of the Strengthening Families Initiative“** does tend to crystallize the “many coordinated into one purpose” funding that larger philanthropies do.  They pick causes, and then target midsized (including community) funding by cause, and get public funds involved too.

**Minutes before hitting ‘PUBLISH’ on this post, I checked the IRS “Exempt Organization Select” website to clarify a contradiction in EIN# show for this organization (the one filed 2003 and associated with a state and namechange showed an EIN# off by one digit from the subsequent one).  I found that they were just revoked in November 2014, which was not published for a full year.  Results below).

Maybe it’s felt that as this policy is now so firmly entrenched, the organization is no longer needed. I noticed that its tax returns are basically showing mostly private (but some) government-supported salaries for people to write on the topic.  On the other hand, their website is still up and soliciting Donations.

I also ran across an HHS conference with a (kazillion) speakers, that now meets every two years, called “RECS” (Research and Evaluation Conference on Self-Sufficiency). This conference just took place last month: June, 2016. Link below, and you can see the Social Science PolicySpeak in the Conference Agenda. It seems to be HHS/OPRE (“Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation) which hosts it.

I’ve been looking at the interlocking pieces of this things for some time now (the strangely inbred role of centers at Columbia and Princeton with Fragile Families studies with the Brookings Institution, MDRC (formerly Manpower Development Research Corporation, until year 2003), not to mention “the Urban Institute,” for at least a year.  This might have been in part from the 50th Anniversary of the 1965 Moynihan Report, although I was already aware of many of these centers simply because I track Marriage and Fatherhood Funding from the TAGGS.hhs.gov level outwards, at a minimum.

This is not the first reference to them in my writings, or my first run at a summary write-up, in combination with references to the 1965 Moynihan Report and pointing out that, as controversial as it was then, and is now, its basic tenets are now mainstream welfare policy, as evidenced by influential welfare spokespeople referring to it.

I blurted this out, with the details, post-publication in the post “Re-Organizing the World….”   That post already had a pale-yellow section labeled “PREVIEW” (of the same post).  I started adding explanatory sections to it today Sat. July 23, 2016, further reflecting on the subject matter, and finally decided to just rip the whole section out, brutally, and hang it out to dry on this post.

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 (as of now) as explained at the top of the original (in this sequence of posts) “Reorganizing the World” post — and for good cause, I still say…  I have expanded that middle section of that original post, again,   All of it is food for thought about how Public & Private sectors interact, and what, exactly, has been the practice and remains the overall agenda.

I hope this doesn’t get me in too much trouble (telling the truth, that is); I noticed the CIA was on this blog recently.  I’m hoping probably because I simply reported recent international news and for no other scary purpose.

Following the Financing of the well-fed and well-equipped (at least for their chosen tasks of publishing, proselytizing, conferencing and influencing legislative policies) Armies of Experts Studying the Poor for the Purpose of Reducing Poverty and Inequality, Outpost by Outpost– no simple Task. It seems that either the money is buried in university budgets, or when it’s NOT, it often gets “lost in transition” for smaller nonprofits.

There is a LOT of money floating around “under the table.” Showing how this happens doesn’t make many friends with those engaged in moving it.  In the matter of how HHS Marriage/Fatherhood programming (plus the organizations tag-teaming with revolving door court, and/or prison policies) fits in at a significant scale, overall, and I’m sure it bothers some people involved to have a ‘nobody’ (unaffiliated with a nonprofit, university, or government entity) blogger such as myself, “Let’s Get Honest” simply exposing by posting it what sociologists say about poor people in places where they don’t expect poor people to actually look, and pointing out just how arrogant — sexist, racist and elitist — the material is (when it’s not busy being condescending — same thing) … or at times ridiculous. I’m also exposing, which we aren’t really supposed to think too hard about, where it’s being said, and more recently, identifying by label, name, and subject matter, some of the key networks.

What’s worse, I make a consistent attempt when labeling any group (for purposes of keeping them all straight!) to, where $$ figures and age of corporation IS available, making it known, alongside any screwy business on their tax filings. Such as “The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven” moving assets to the Cayman Islands in 2015, while continuing to NOT post proper grantee details on Schedule I when a significant purpose of the foundation is grantmaking in the first place — and the Year-end 2015 amount was declared to be $29M!… and more “missing info” filers where that came from.

I mean, one of the main things that separates these people from normal people is the use of jargon meaningful among themselves to elevate the “scientific, rational objective” in the sexist, racist and elitist policies” which always seem to require diverting wealth FROM the poor unless they come under a designated, favored program, prefers operating tax exempt, then acquiring assets and paying subcontractors hefty fees to crunch some of the data, and whether operating from private OR public universities (also supported by the same public being population-categorized, sorted, labeled, analyzed, and designated by who gets what interventions) these same professionals’ careers are typically marked by both government and private grants to start with. So, in comparison with the amounts exchanged, who, really, is on “welfare”?

I’m not saying I can quantify the numbers (that’s the purpose of ANYTHING being “under the table” to start with — that it’s NOT tracked), but I can see, and can document so others may recognize other situations where this happens, potential cracks in accountability that don’t seem accidental.

The more attention to detail, and comparing websites to tax returns to (where possible) where “government grants” are all lumped on one single line, to available records on the grants databases (themselves not comprehensive, or always reliable) the more questions arise.

I have no respect for “don’t ask don’t tell” when it’s about public funds and telling is part of just the right thing to do.  

Chameleon/State-Skipping Business Entities (Organizations) — not my main point here, but it came up. When an organization is involuntarily dissolved, thereby losing its right to operate legally in one state, and decides to move to another: State, Name, AND EIN# — what’s with that?

The final detail in deciding to move this post was when I noticed a smallish nonprofit which let its corporate status slip — in Illinois — and then when seeking re-instatement did a name-change, and moved to a Madison Wisconsin address, obtaining thereafter, looks like, a new EIN#.

Any EIN# could be associated with an existing bank account, and unless the associated bank account (NOT just the business entity with which it’s associated losing legal status through failure to file annual reports, or tax-exempt status for failing to file tax returns) is ALSO shut down — which the average person, especially out of state, wouldn’t have any convenient way to tell, then potentially that same entity might be maintaining multiple (or at least in this case, two) separate bank accounts, in different states, with different EIN#s, while the MANY foundations then showing up on the website get to claim tax deductions (which, due to their size, they need) while donating to either EIN#.  Or, as it may be, not donating but just saying they did.

State-skipping and business entity registrations which are let slip (and it’s so easy to maintain, I believe that most organizations which let themselves be involuntarily dissolved, simply chose to let this happen.  Intentional dissolution by the board leaves more of a paper trail as in, where did the assets go TO?  So those types of behaviors are red flags.

Total results: 4Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

Center for Family Policy and Practice WI 2015 990 10 $299,210.00 36-4038873
Center for Family Policy and Practice WI 2011 990 20 $245,922.00 36-4038873
Center for Family Policy and Practice WI 2010 990EZ 14 $213,921.00 36-4038873
Center for Family Policy and Practice WI 2004 990 19 $401,353.00 39-4038873

It took me too long to recognize this was only a single-digit difference. (“36-” vs. “39-“).  I checked the IRS website for 36-403883. and found this (first quote explains the process of posting revocations):

Exempt Organizations Select Check Exempt Organizations Select Check Home

Automatic Revocation of Exemption — Search Results
The federal tax exemption of each organization listed below was automatically revoked for its failure to file a Form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years. The revocation date listed below for each organization is historical; it reflects an organization’s effective date of automatic revocation for not filing a Form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years, but not necessarily its current tax-exempt or non-exempt status. The organization may have applied to the IRS for recognition of exemption and been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt after its effective date of automatic revocation. Click on an organization’s name to see more details on that organization. To check whether an organization is currently recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt, call Customer Account Services at (877) 829-5500 (toll-free number).

Look at that chart above, one more time — notice the gap of filings between “2015” and “2011”?   

EIN Sorted Ascending Legal Name
(Doing Business As) Sorted Ascending
City Sorted Ascending State Sorted Ascending ZIP Sorted Ascending Country Sorted Ascending Exemption
 Sorted Ascending
 Sorted Ascending
Posting Date
Sorted Ascending
Reinstatement Date
 Sorted Ascending
36-4038873 CENTER FOR FAMILY POLICY & PRACTICE MADISON WI 53703 US 501(c)(3) 15-Nov-2014 13-Jul-2015

Their fiscal year end 6/30/20##, therefore the “2015” IRS filing seen above is for the FISCAL year 2014. Meanwhile (?? no real times shown) all the famous foundations below seem to have been contributing to them (only a foundation-by-foundation check on grants they claim to have distributed would show, without further research) to what looks like a NONCOMPLIANT well-known in this field organization.  First time in recent posts this has come up ??? How about in Connecticut, New Haven Family Alliance stopped filing around the same year….Yet continued getting grants.

I checked whether the 36- number, from same basic IRS website, was “eligible to receive contributions” and yes, it was. So, we have this issue of a year’s delay on the IRS’ part of publishing who was revoked, or when it was reinstated.  See tel# above, maybe they will tell, but as of 7-25-2016, this is the record for an “ELIGIBLE?” search:

EIN Sorted Ascending Legal Name (Doing Business As) Sorted Ascending City Sorted Ascending State Sorted Ascending Country Sorted Ascending Deductibility Status Sorted Ascending
36-4038873 Center for Family Policy & Practice Madison WI United States PC

Something in this mix, and more than, is just not credible.

Images and pdfs of CFFPP funders page (two-column format), see website under “About Us” menu).
Funding Resources - Center for Family Policy and Practice [http-:cffpp.org:funders: PAGE 1 of 2 only!]Funding Resources – Center for Family Policy and Practice [http-:cffpp.org:funders: PAGE 2 of 2 only!] ##### Funding Resources – Center for Family Policy and Practice [http-::cffpp.org:funders: PAGE 1 of 2 only!]

Funding Resources - Center for Family Policy and Practice [http-:cffpp.org:funders: PAGE 2 of 2 only!]

(Pale-yellow background are excerpts from the post, i.e., a preview).  Two expansive, gray-background sections within the pale-yellow background “Preview” represent post-publication expansions (added 7/23/2016)/ explanations on some of the key phrases or centers.

I wish to show some of the networks and common languages between them, as well as reference to their financial sponsors, and their “venues” (i.e., free-standing nonprofit, or center at a well-known university, or other).  Some helpful terms here will be combinations of CFCC, of CCFC, “Centers for Children and Families” as well as the phrase “CHILD WELL-BEING” as well as the concept of “FRAGILE FAMILIES” which of course need to thus be STRENGTHENED, as in “STRENGTHENING FRAGILE FAMILIES.”  

FYI, overall, this would be called “Strategies” to refer to common language of terms while pushing for change in how welfare funds are used and the assignment of greater or lesser inherent VALUE to these concepts a father, versus a mother, is thought to have.  Look closer and you’ll see the mighty engines of the tax-exempt foundations:  Ford is a MAJOR one, but far from the only one.

I also have a discussion (in the second gray section) on the continuation of racism and sexism under the “social science” banner.

The FAMILY PRESERVATION INTERVENTIONS are not for the elite — they are for the low-income and the blue- and white-collar-professional classes that the elite employ.  Not only is this fairly obvious, the social science materials in talking about this, say so. So, somehow, there’s always enough money for decades of Institutes to Research Poverty — but not enough to eradicate it?

  • IRP is a center for interdisciplinary research into the causes and consequences of poverty and social inequality in the United States. It is nonprofit and nonpartisan. It is based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As one of three National Poverty Research Centerssponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it has a particular interest in poverty and family welfare in Wisconsin as well as the nation.

Look where that funding comes from — HHS. !


Research and Evaluation Conference on Self-Sufficiency (RECS) June 1–3, 2016  |  Omni Shoreham Hotel   |  Washington, DC

The 2016 RECS* took place June 1–3, 2016 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. For nearly 20 years, the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has convened researchers, State and local administrators, practitioners, and Federal officials and policymakers to discuss cutting-edge research on family self-sufficiency and social welfare programs and policies. The 2016 RECS provided another opportunity to gather in D.C. and hear the latest findings from evaluations of social welfare programs and policies, discuss ways to incorporate findings into the design and implementation of programs, and develop strategies for future evaluations.

*Please note that the RECS was formerly called the Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference (WREC).

I suppose someone pointed out that an acronym so close to the word “WRECK” probably needed a change.

There were so many presenters they need a Alphabet directory at the top for easier navigation..   Look at the “Agenda” for this JUST HAPPENED” conference, and please notice a certain buzz-words (phrases) are, obviously, part of official social policy:


And there’s plenty of money for studying “Fragile Families,” Ford Foundation was into this, too, as well as obviously the private universities of Columbia (Center for Population Research) and Princeton:

There’s your soundbytes “FRAGILE FAMILIES…” and “CHILD WELL-BEING” .and the phrase “CENTER FOR CHILDREN and FAMILIES”.. but it seems to me someone missed a key-policy-concept word that brings more funding for more studies there… where is it?

Oh, here it is… and also at Columbia, like the “Center for Population Research” it’s under the larger “School of Social Work” along with several other centers http://socialwork.columbia.edu/faculty/research-centers-programs/

Found at “Blogs.CUIT.Columbia.edu/crfcfw/…”etc. (2011 upload)

An October 2012 announcement at this site seems to say that he is losing research staff in assisting with the center.  From the “Staff” link bio, we can see where the term “Fragile Families” (and Strengthening them as a concept) came from:


Prior to joining the Columbia faculty, Mincy was Senior Program Officer in the Ford Foundation’s Human development and Reproductive Health Program, where he developed the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative (SFFI). SFFI was a Ford Foundation grantmaking initiative working with federal, state, and local human service agencies** to reform income security policies## to enable low-income mothers and fathers to provide emotional, financial, and development support to their children receiving welfare. As a result of SFFI, Mincy is widely regarded as a critical catalyst for changes currently underway in the treatment of low-income fathers by U.S. welfare, child support, and family support systems.

**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.”
Over 40% of all children are born outside of marriage

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.


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.

Obviously, emphases in that quote are mine and not the articles.  When it comes to tossing aside “most social programs” and publicizing a so-called “EVIDENCE-BASED MOVEMENT” (which MDRC has been in the business of since about 1968…)  it’s “out with the old” and “in with the new.”  Whoever’s “evidence-based practices” are in favor, that’s the leverage for change (“pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,”  i.e., who paid for each wave of evidence..)

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’)

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.



We forgot that FAMILIES consist of CHILDREN and FATHERS (Not, policywide in these centers run by both men and women, “Mothers”.  Where the mothers are go, we are starting to see practically nationwide — sometimes, to jail, sometimes fleeing the United States of America for asylum, with and without their children; some, into dependency not having been there before, some, into family court obviously….)

From a different descriptor, actually Dr. Mincy’s page under the Center for Population Research, we see a lot over overlap with the other centers and individuals. THis is about two-thirds (not the “Past”) part of the page, all delivered in fine-print with few links, just narrative):

Present Research:Current research, funded by the Ford Foundation, is intended to show that despite lower response rates, data reported by fathers in the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study is indispensable for studies of important policy questions and that multiple imputation (MI) techniques can be used to recover missing father data.

Multiple Imputation Techniques” must be in use a lot around some of the fatherhood studies — recruitment seems to be a constant problem.  Looks like this is a glorified term for speculating, which puts it in familiar territory within this field (“Social Science”) along with of course psychology.

One paper in progress (with Hill and Sinkewicz), using MI to recover missing data on fathers’ earnings and its determinants, finds that transitions to marriage have no significant causal effect on the earnings of disadvantaged, unmarried, and disproportionately Black fathers, after accounting for selection.

I’ve heard of disproprotionate incarceration of blacks and Latinos, but how in the world can “fathers” be “disproportionately Black”??  100 years ago, there might have been more technical resources for determining “how black is this person? (although the word would begin with “N” not “B”).

The word is used to describe “fathers” — so what is the “proportionate” degree of Black fathers should be?  Or perhaps there was a missing imputation for the word “disproportionately” in this research summary?

The paper also suggests that ‘differencing,’ the primary way studies control for selection in this literature, may lead to biased estimates of the marriage differential. A second study (with Meadows, Garfinkel, and McLanahan) uses MI and latent growth curve models to examine the effects of union transitions on the age-earnings profiles of unmarried fathers.

There seems to be a warm working relationship between Columbia and Princeton when it comes to this subject matter, in addition to the warm (I hope — they’re married!) relationship between Sara McLanahan at the “Center for Child WellBeing” at Princeton, and Professor Garfinkel at Columbia.  The People that Publish Together suggest Social Policy Together?  

So, Yeah.. And there will never be an end to how many ways this pie can be sliced, particularly considering where funds are coming from — in general, looks FOR SURE like, Columbia University, and while there, HHS (through one NICHD-funded Center) and Ford (through this center), and I doubt that’s all.  QUESTION:  WHO FUNDS NICHD, that is, the HHS?  The public, including in part the public that’s being studied closeup and demographically?

Future Research: Mincy is a co-principal investigator (with Garfinkel, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn) on the recently-awarded grant form NICHD that is supporting collection of the 6th wave of data for the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study {{SHOWN ABOVE….}}}, when the focal children become pre-adolescents (around age 9). He plans to use these data for follow-up studies of the earnings trajectories of unmarried fathers and the effects of union transitions (especially marriage) on earnings trajectories. He also plans to seek support from the Administration for Children and Families to study child support, visitation, and health trajectories of unmarried fathers, and the effects of re-partnering by mothers or fathers on these trajectories. Mincy also plans to study the effects of visitation and child support payments by fathers on mothers re-partnering and on fathers’ subsequent fertility. Finally, Mincy plans to evaluate a program that equips non-resident fathers to reduce violence, substance abuse, and early sexual debut among their early adolescent sons (ages 8-12).


***… and from the “blurb” on the page “Fragile Families Working Group”, here’s one of its links:

Logo from Columbia Teacher College’s “PolicyforChildren.org” website.

NCCF Co-Directors Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (left) and Sharon Lynn Kagan (right) (see “PolicyforChildren.org” @ Columbia University)

Our Leadership  (Brooks-Gunn is “Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor of Child Development and Education” while Sharon Lynn Kagan is “Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor of Early Childhood and Family Policy”  That link (PolicyForChildren.org) has both resumes (CVs) and more information….

“OUR FUNDERS” (copied from that link):

The NCCF operating budget is approximately $3 million annually, with research activities supported by an endowment from the Marx Family Foundation and a broad range of private and public funders, including:

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • State governments of Washington, Ohio, Mississippi, Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina
  • The Rauch Foundation
  • The Pew Charitable Trusts
  • The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • The David and Lucille Packard Foundation
  • The Carnegie Corporation of New York


NCCF advances the policy, education, and development of children and their families. Housed at Teachers College, Columbia University, the Center produces and applies interdisciplinary research to improve practice and to raise public awareness of social issues that affect the well-being of children and families in the United States and around the world.


NCCF’s extensive research programs benefit multiple constituents, including researchers, policy-makers, early childhood teacher educators, Head Start teachers and directors, practitioners, families, and the general public.

Interesting — WHO is mentioned last? “families, and the general public.”  Now, WHO are they working, on, first listed?

  • From inner-city neighborhoods to rural preschools and public schools, from state capitals throughout the U.S. to ministries of education in developing nations, our work has three primary goals:

My point exactly:  Somehow, there’s not much concern about private school system here, nor it is mentioned.

In fact, it seems to me that inner-city POVERTY and URBAN PROBLEM AREAS are an integral part of the national economy and without them, a lot of professors and researches might land up otherwise on the open market and not on the winning side of the caste-perpetuation, dual-track (at least two-track) educational system within this country.

THIS caste system is being perpetuated with a goal to research, test, and write-up how similar programming might work with similarly oppressed or poor populations in other countries, specifically “under-developed” ones, specifically NOT on the European (or Australian that I can see) continent.

Without question (hit me with a comment if you want more links) there is a collective intent to develop programming useful in both urban areas AND under-developed, war-torn countries.  It is the university-affiliated nonprofit sector promoting this too.

For recent examples, see “Institution for International Peace” at Rutgers, featuring Aldo Civico (Italy/Columbia conflict resolution specialist and I see from his personal website…p

END of “PREVIEW” text.

Related posts:
“Re-Organizing” The World through International Institutes, Strategies, Dialogues, Peacemaking and Programs Targeting Fragile Families, Communities — and Countries... and, Part 2 of that, UNESCO’s IIP@Rutgers|”Partners” + ISD and the Strong Cities Network (Reorganizing the World through International Strategic Institutes, cont’d.)

UPCOMING:   “Munich,” and the Strong Cities Network [ISIL/ISIS aren’t the only ones who want to control the World] upcoming)

Also, a shortlink (if you copy the url) to THIS one, Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report?

Extracted from the middle of THIS post:  SFFI – CFFPP – JustGive, Inc. – IronPlanet, Inc. – ZOPB – Texas DOTs $1B GrandParkway Project – US Gov’ts Big Banks Bailout|SunTrust (while Fixing Fragile Families?) and to be published simultaneous on 7/26/2016.  The starting point for this one was JustGive.org as a CFFP funder (one of many).

…If there’s any mixup on the shortlinks, go to main blog, Sidebar “Most Recent Posts” or simply to Archives by date.

The “UNESCO” post has more on the Rutgers Institute mentioned above; I also have some posts in draft showing their corporate/tax return financials as well as (from the website) interesting programming. Any of this of course could be searched by the average person willing to pull up the same information on-line from sources I am constantly referencing in these blogs:

State Corporate Business Entity registers | Tax Return Databases |in California, the “Charitable Registry” run by the OAG (Office of Attorney General) is particularly helpful (though not always complete) for another POV on any group — including which ones never get registered as charities when they should, and those that do — sometimes only after the OAG goes after them and demands it.

I have looked at other states’ charitable registry sites, but am not so adept at using them, and it’s my impression they don’t always give out much information beyond “registered” or not. Be aware some types of organizations are not required to register at the state level on those sites also.

I believe exploring some of these organizations in more detail will give any person a “heads-up” about the “time of day” we are in national borders as opposed to regional government, and the tendency to put really wonderful, public-interest / global-interest, positive spin on the purposes behind undermining nations, state or province identities within nations (see Strong Cities Network / Members list for one good example of this — it omits state names !), AND household, and standardizing practices across the globe in the interest of population control, as William Hesketh Leverhulme did in “Port Sunlight” (housing for workers in his soap factories) combined with the working conditions in the Congo, having cut a deal with the Government of Belgium at that time, maybe 100 years ago).


Other searchable terms — HUD Intermediaries.

Here’s a more positive version of Lord Leverhulme” in a UK History site — it’s short. and written in simple language, I guess for school children,. but still interesting if you don’t know the information. It glosses over the Belgian Congo atrocities, and compares this man’s model villages and attempt to set up a Soap Monopoly (Trust) with the “American Robber Barons” for which cause, that attempt was defeated.  (Or, was it, in the long run?)


Lord Leverhulme (“Hulme” was his wife’s last name added to his own) From http://History.co.UK

William Lever built Britain’s largest company and in so doing, made the first modern multinational. And unlike the US Robber Barons, for Lord Leverhulme his workers’ welfare was as important as his wealth. But this didn’t extend to his African workers, with fatal consequences.

William Hesketh Lever is born on 19 September 1851. After six daughters, his father’s happy he finally has someone to inherit his successful Bolton based grocery business. William’s brother, James Darcy Lever, joins the family three years later. Unlike the robust William, James will suffer from ill health throughout his short life.

Aged 16, William leaves school and joins the family business. In 1874, he marries. His wife, Elizabeth Hulme, not only lived on the same street as him, but attended the same church. The Congregationalist Church infuses him with many of the ideals he will make real with his business empire. The couple will have a number of children, but only one, also called William, will survive.

In 1885, the brothers enter the soap business by buying a small soap and cleaning product works in Warrington. Lever Brothers is born.

They partner up with William Hough Watson, a chemist from their home town. His newly invented soap uses a colonial raw product, palm oil, and glycerine rather than tallow. It’s a free-lathering soap first named ‘Honey’ and then ‘Sunlight Soap’. Thanks to William’s marketing acumen,** within a decade of its launch it is on sale in 134 countries. By 1888, they’re producing 450 tonnes. Business is good. Five years after moving into the village of Thornton Hough, William buys the manor there. Next, he’ll buy the village.

Needing larger business premises, William purchases 56 acres of land in Cheshire. He builds on marshes and creates Port Sunlight. The model village is developed between 1888 and 1914.

“Some 30 architects were commissioned to create a complete ‘garden’ village in what was unapologetically called the ‘old English’ style”
Simon Schama, A History of Britain

**And slave labor on another continent, resulting in torture, exploitation and death for the sake of this product

In 1906 copying the trust set up by the American Robber Barons like JP Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie, William creates a soap monopoly. But the British have seen how the Robber Barons virtually run their country according to their whims. A press campaign by the Daily Mail orchestrates a consumer boycott. There is such a colossal loss in sales and shareholder value that William abandons the idea within just four months of its creation.

The same year and somewhat more successfully, William stands for and is elected as a Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party in the Wirral constituency. In his maiden speech he urges the government to copy the old age pension plans he’s set up for his workers. He will go onto become a baronet, a Lord and even a High Sheriff. The ‘Hulme’ part of his name is added in honour of his wife. Combining his family name with that of his wife’s is at his insistence and is against all precedents.

In 1911, he travels to the Belgian Congo to establish palm oil plantations. Some estimates put the death toll of Belgian control there at 10 million. Lever requests 750,000 hectares from the Belgium rulers. The Lever plantations that are set up use forced labour. Though not technically slavery, the semantic difference means little to the many Africans that died because of horrific working conditions. In his defence, Lord Leverhulme did attempt to build African village versions of Port Sunlight for his own employees. But beatings and squalid conditions are the daily reality for many of the African workers.


Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 26, 2016 at 11:46 am

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: