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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?

leave a comment »

Another Sequence of Three (or Four) Posts on Similar Topics

For now, I’m publishing this without the tags, 8/9/2016.

This post (<=that’s a shortlink) comes from “CVE | BAMF | GIRDS | Hayak and reading Form 990s too?  C’mon, Let’s Get Honest, Whaddaya Want?

From the bowels of this one, the Show and Tell on how yes, I do expect a certain public learning curve among us commoners, even if it means some CHANGE and a short vocabulary list with even some drills on usage, I felt it helpful to better explore the UN-related word “NGO,” how we’re supposed to classify such organizations, and how (to the contrary, and why) I look at them.  Called: “What’s an NGO?  What’s a UNESCO-affiliate NGO at Rutgers?  In fact, What’s Rutgers (A look at the State of NJ CAFR)”  The NGO topic is introduced, briefly, here but a closer look at the CAFR really does communicate the range, power and types of holdings any State might hold.  I look at component units, assets, investments and parts of that financial statement which simply tells about the operating structures (Authorities, Public Universities, etc.) any state might be operating.  NJ’s position makes it real interesting — consider “the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey” (Address:  4 World Trade Center, NYC)

Why: The example of NGO came up with the recently posted “Institute for International Peace at Rutgers” which simultaneously (and right after formation somewhere in 2011) became a “UNESCO-affiliated” Institute, with partners, even.  I am still curious how a state-supported university in the US allows an international organization to simply set up shop and label it part of “UNESCO” with its clear UN affiliation.  I went looking for traces of the IIP as a fiscal event — or fund — or ANYthing referenced in the very large entity that comprises Rutgers.



If  or when most people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the financial dots between federal/state relationships well enough to make sound judgments about the same (about key organizations being funded, and from there, about key social policies being enacted), what about when the NGOs:  <> span different continents; <> are not even run from the USA;  and (but still) <> involve the US Department of Justice – – –  THEN what?

Post Title:

If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?

Below this next section: Regarding My use of “NGO” vs. not “Nonprofit” or “501©3”…. look for two sections labeled:

Databases referenced in this this post.  Call these “The Tools.”    


WEBSITES referenced on this post (the main ones).  Call these “The Topics.”

That was how I first organized this post.  As about to be published today, 8/9/2016, I could drill-down deeper on the data (as put into this Show and Tell).  I already have, personally, but at this point, am leaving it up as the tools and the databases.  An intelligent persistent person could discover the same material, with time.  Some of the deeper level I noticed this time was on the “Participation with BWJP” page of NCDBW (National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women) and the history page of the same, which (at date about 2006) relates how they were asked to participate in the HHS grants series (Family Violence Prevention and Service Act) around 1993, which by association connects this NCDBW to the Pennsylvania “PCADV” (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence) with which Barbara Hart has been associated or was, for years.  PCADV is also a “Special Issue Resource Center” grantee.

So when the Minnesota-based DAIP calls grants to NCBDW (and a few others) its “Battered Women’s Justice Project” and its tax returns show this to be, up to a certain point, THE main focus of Minnesota-based DAIP, at which point (including after founder Ellen Pence died, true, in 2012), the BWJP with similar personnel in charge (Denise Gamache, whose name was on those million-dollar DAIP grants from HHS over the years) suddenly shows up — or rather, a normal IRS Form 990 does NOT show up, but in three years since its formation, a single Form 990EZ (has less information) and two postcards (Form 990-Ns saying, we didn’t receive any funds over $50,000), I have to ask whether the federal bucket ran dry, or whether BWJP (new spin-off organization, new street address, similar personnel) doesn’t want to openly show its operations.  FYI, the BWJP is also involved in “FCEP” (Family Court Enhancement Project”) One pilot site chosen, “coincidentally” was Hennepin County, MN, as Technical Consultant or Trainer.  The term “BWJP” has been used for eyars in AFCC presentations, when in fact that was not the name of the organization.  Hmm…

If you refuse, however, to “drill down, and note the details” at ALL on these topics, and only listen to the rhetoric, you could be properly classified as “clueless” though since this has been up and continued being posted on-line at LEAST since I started doing it, that doesn’t mean with a solid alibi for the cluelessness, unless conditioning or being brainwashed counts.

And that’s a LOT of the population right now, from what I can see on the blogging protesting treatment of DV victims in the family courts.  Many of them simply do not want, I guess, to grow up and look it up.   Oh well…..

This next section is for clarification of why my focus on NGOs differs from the standard focus.  Again, it’s called;

Regarding My use of “NGO” vs. not “Nonprofit” or “501©3”

[This topic introduced here, but discussed more in a subsequent post which references the Institute for International Peace at Rutgers, and “CANVAS” (an “international non-government, nonprofit network”) claimed as that IIP’s partner, and then takes us looking for ANY fiscal or accounting mention of this institute, first through a State of New Jersey CAFR, and briefly also through Rutgers’ own CAFR (which as a public university, one of 11 in the state, and a Land Grant College dating back to Colonial times, is a “Component Unit” of “The State of New Jersey”)

Regarding the term “NGO” — I don’t normally use it, preferring to say “nonprofit” or (if it applies, and of course this is a reference to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and so applies exclusively (??) to the United States of America, the term “501©3 (or “4” or “6” etc.) referring to parts of that code defining who does NOT pay “income tax.”  Or, I’ll refer to tax-exempt entity // foundation etc.  My focus, while looking at categories of causes certain tax-exempt entities are taking up, or how they operate collectively on certain favored causes across-state (or country) jurisdictions, is typically on the Revenues to Expenses (and public vs. private sources of the revenues), Assets to Liabilities (and where assets are being invested or held), related organizations (and what type of entity).

That focus requires me to be more specific on individual groups or organizations than the label “NGO.” My overall concern is for balance of power between individual citizens — of the USA — and governments — of the USA or the states and territories which comprise this country.

At the bottom of the last post which itself came as a show-and-tell example on looking up domestic nonprofits, the post “CVE | BAMF | “Whaddaya Want, Let’s Get Honest?” {{just published 8/9/2016 evening}}

This concern comes from both person experience as a battered wife and mother and in the family court system, wrongly assuming I would be allowed to leave the violent relationship without having to pay all but the ultimate sacrifices upon the altar of “this is America, I thought we had due process; this is the 21st century:  women can both vote, and work, and raise children and are there are criminal laws against domestic violence causing serious injury, stalking, child-stealing, child-abandonment, and other protections in place actually available to women, EVEN IF they are also mothers….”

Eventually I found out there were federal incentives grants, and professional nonprofit trade associations driving this court system, profiting the professionals and harming half or more of the people.  So on hearing of this money, following its course from federal to state, through subgrantees, of course was a major concern, and taking all the talk at face value any longer, not so much….

I had to flee to a hotel this past year for reasons related to greed and collusion in the matters swirling, originally, around my simple issuance of a legal “No!” and “Stop!” and thereafter, clear notice of boundaries, to people who, to that point, had not expressed any particular concerns about the violence I was enduring in the home.  While there, I found another woman / mother, half my age,  working a night job at the hotel, and found she’d had come through assault-and-battery| drug-involved in front of a youngster, had remarried, and was feeling safe currently because the (father) was in jail for a while.  I remember working a night job nearly the same hours, while married, and then being forced out of it through the home situation, taking NO unemployment with me when I had to choose between safety for children at home while I worked, and retaliation for my increasing independence, and this job.

The situation continues to be prevalent.  The problem-solving family courts were NOT designed to handle this situation; in fact they were specifically organized NOT to handle such matters in the criminal sector, but downgrade to civil, and out-source to, even less reliable system than the civil, to the family system and its endless outsourcing to behavioral-science privatized quasi-judicial fauna and flora in hopes (or pretenses) that someone will be detoxed from bad behavior if enough time and money is poured the direction of those professionals and their nonprofits & institutions.

Then more nonprofits (grants-funded) to reunited the incarcerated with their families, meanwhile the rest of the public sector is drenched with propaganda designed to eradicate the usage of the word “mother” (but not “Father”) in association with “Children and Families” and undo what the system just did in the first place.

Women who have already fled battering relationships with their children and then had to fight for them in court again, are all around.  IF YOU TALK to the public, and listen to others’ stories in general, this comes up often.

However, the circles I’m reporting on now (especially after the “Munich” post and regarding recent terrorist attacks outside the USA, and strategies advertises to counter them —  internationally (including but not exclusively in the USA) — tend to use the phrase NGO, so I  used it at least in this post title, while discussing that situation.

The term “NGO” actually seems to relate to the UN, and imply not-dependent on government, and possibly having consultative status at the NGO.  However, any nonprofit-organization within the US is dependent upon the US (as to the IRS) and the state registrations (as to their business entities, where they are required to have one) for the permission and benefit to do commerce here.  The terms are not exactly interchangeable, in other words.  These two links say a few things about the term, including how it apparently was originally associated with the UN (wiki link).  The other “NGO.org” link talks about an NGO with consultative status (as a watchdog) to the UN, beyond scope of this post for now.

http://www.ngo.org/ngoinfo/define.html  | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

(from the WIKI link)  NGOs are difficult to define, and the term ‘NGO’ is not always used consistently. In some countries the term NGO is applied to an organization that in another country would be called an NPO (nonprofit organization), and vice-versa. There are many different classifications of NGO in use. The most common focus is on “orientation” and “level of operation”##. An NGO’s orientation refers to the type of activities it takes on. These activities might include human rights, environmental, improving health, or development work. An NGO’s level of operation indicates the scale at which an organization works, such as local, regional, national, or international.[5]

The term “non-governmental organization” was first coined in 1945, when the United Nations (UN) was created.[6] The UN, itself an inter-governmental organization, made it possible for certain approved specialized international non-state agencies — i.e., non-governmental organizations — to be awarded observer status at its assemblies and some of its meetings. Later the term became used more widely. Today, according to the UN, any kind of private organization that is independent from government control can be termed an “NGO”, provided it is not-for-profit, nonprevention, and not simply an opposition political party.

So the term “NGO” has a UN-observing flavor. Good to know when you read it, for example, at the Brookings Institution talking about where expert ideas for counter-terrorism tactics are found…

##It’s important in what I do and why I do it to understand that my main focus is NOT on orientation OR level, other than to point them out while targeting the source of financing, and looking at those databases.  I am USA focused because I live here and because federal social policy HERE has caused significant suffering and damages to my own family — and I know to many others, specifically policies set in place 1960 forward and as a counterpoint to the concept of women’s rights.  Tax-exempt of organizations registered HERE is a privilege provided in good part by sacrifices (wage garnishments and income tax payments, licensing fees, all that) also provided by US citizens (here and abroad, per our basis of taxation)….

See section “DOMESTIC — the USA and its NONPROFITS vs. the term NGOs” towards the bottom of this post. I’d say it now as primary, but there is only so much room at the top of a post!

Databases referenced in this this post.  Call these “The Tools.”  

However because of how they function, and where/how they don’t, they eventually become part of the subject matter. But to start with, these are basic Looking It Up On-Line. Refusal to even pick them up is inane and irresponsible, and probably ubiquitous”(“everywhere”).  

It’s that last part, “ubiquitous” refusal to pick up these tools which must change if people, meaning the public, the common working or hoping to work people, parents, general population (NOT the 1% or 4% or even top 25%) are to hold certain basic, intelligent discussions on the macro issues as we should.

While I’m here, “FEDMINE” is a subscription database aimed mostly at contractors.  That is their “about” page — please read at least the first several paragraphs… Pardon me for this short interjection.  I have seen this database grow and alter its shape over the years also, and a few times subscribed to its “trial samples” in attempting to communicate “size” of agency operations (HHS especially) or some key contractors, on this post.  I’ve also seen it go from “Fedmine” to ‘Fedmine.US” which implies overseas operations too (Contact:  One Research Court, #450 Rockville, MD 20850)

FEDMINE began in 2004 as an idea that stemmed from Ashok Mehan’s intimate knowledge of the Federal Government Contracting world. His perspectives as a small business founder of three successful firms formulated his ideas to create an innovative product for achieving a level playing field for firms doing business in the federal sector….

If he could find a way to make the massive amounts of public information available on the Internet on Federal Government Contracts easily understandable, and immediately available as soon as it is released …he would have a game-changing service for any federally focused firm.

If only this “largest customer in the world” were “inspired” to make its grants information available, agency by agency, or at least as to the Executive Branch where those agencies exist (!!), in a way the average person able to run a basic search and select could access — for free; after all, who funds this anyhow? — wouldn’t THAT be the accountability day.

All agencies (Federal AND state) HAVE to (or at least allegedly have to) file after the end of any fiscal year, manipulate that information to produce a comprehensive annual report (CAFR) anyhow, why not reveal what it is in real time, and not just buried in such reports?  I mean, are we, or are we NOT supposed to even know what size and what scope of government activities (again, primarly talking federal here) we are dealing with year after year (and decade after decade)?

One of the most surprising things about us at the time was the fact that despite the US government being the largest “customer” in the worldthere were very few companies offering the business intelligence that would help aspiring contractors access the opportunities that existed.   And, those companies that did attempt to provide information were narrowly focused only on large corporate clients and on Information Technology spending…leaving non-IT and small businesses out of luck!

Today, FEDMINE is the ONLY solution to have filled that gap. Now that is the true thing about us!

Not a programmer himself, Ashok persevered in finding the expertise and the technology that would bring his vision to life.  It took several years of trial and error, design changes and edits, but by the summer of 2007, the FEDMINE web-based solution was ready for launch.

SDAT.dat.Maryland.gov/UCC-charter etc…..

(Curious about this corporation I went quickly to Maryland “SDAT” (where AT stands for Assessments and Taxation) and looked for ‘Fedmine’ to get one active, and one short-lived Forfeited “Holdings” company, both LLCs…

Dept.ID Entity Name Entity Details Status
W12648663 FEDMINE LLC General Info.   Amendments   Personal Property ACTIVE
W14444442 FEDMINE HOLDINGS LLC General Info.   Amendments   Personal Property FORFEITED

He incorporated the top one 7/24/2008 (not 2004, but if it was in another legal domicile, that might’ve been 2004), but the image isn’t currently (any longer?) viewable for free on the site. I’d looked at images from this database before.  The other was registered Dec. 2011 but forfeited in 2013 for failure to submit a “property” return.  Oh well!

FEDMINE(™) as a database is  good to be aware of and as an indicator, but it is not aimed at documenting the federal agency GRANTS, specifically, as a matter of how public money is spent.  It IS aimed, obviously, at firms who could pay for its computer resources and what it takes to keep this major set of information organized, accessible, and intelligible.  It’s only been up and running since 2007

Next image, at the risk of distracting from this post, take a look at an image from FEDMINE(tm’s) 3 circles of market segments.  Obviously, NGOs might be in circle 2 or circle 3, and either directly or showing up as some NGO’s subcontractor:

  • TAGGS.hhs.gov (in both basic and advanced search modes, and showing now only two organizations with the word “Battered” in them any more receive HHS funding — not BWJP).
  • 990finder.foundationcenter.org is the IRS search site referenced above.

Used only briefly, for some quick checks on specific organizations:

  • APPS.IRS.gov/app/eos is the Pub. 78 search site referenced above, but you should first read what it does and does not search (such as any “dbas”)  and what organizations may be eligible for tax-deductible (to the givers) donations but not be on the list, at their summary page, here.
  • MBLS (Minnesota Business and Loans System portal). Watch the triple settings (three on-off buttons) available for each search (buttons: Active/Inactive | Contains/Begins With | and Prior Name Exclude/Include).

For IRS Form 990s, other databases exist, but unless you want to subscribe to, say, “FedMINE” there aren’t for HHS grants, or in most states, more than basically one place to search for business filings at the state level.

WEBSITES referenced on this post (the main ones).  Call these “The Topics.”  

The two mentioned in the post title DAIP and BWJP by definition involved the third one, “NCDBW” which is an “NGO” with the word “Clearinghouse” in its business entity name.  Apparently also involved is another “Center” which is probably not a separate NGO and for simplicity, I’m not dealing with here, that’s the NCFFC (National Center on Full Faith and Credit).

The question arises, why indeed (throughout and historically) did not the real NGOs use a front name “BWJP” instead of leading with their own names and misleading verbiage focusing on subject matter and distracting from the financing?  Was this perhaps for Centralization and Coordination purposes under the control of (_______)?  

I am less interested (for purposes of this post) in the organization’s websites, except in this example, I show how very misleading the can be to anyone interesting in following, say, grants FROM any federal agency TO specific organizations, or in tracking how different organizations relate to each other.  The type of ‘misleading information’ seems to be common practice among other organizations, indicate an intent to mislead (throw people “off track” on actual organizations involved, while pushing the project or cause name in one’s face, continually).

(1)  DAIP = Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs in Duluth, MN (“theduluthmodel.org“)

(2) NCDBW = “National Clearinghouse for Defense of Battered Women” [main page, see left side-bar options] which comes up because it is a DAIP grantee below, and (as the IRS form will show) the actual grantee for the PROJECT run by DAIP labeled “BWJP.”  It was at the time apparently a 501©3 while “BWJP” was not.

http://www.ncdbw.org/about.htm Now look at the left side-bar link options after I clicked “About” (VERY fine print for some reason) on its main page, as clicked through from the BWJP main page.  Also in infinitesimal size print, the options read as you can see, with descriptive text I’ll deal with later, on the next image (click next, long-labelled link pdf to see full-size):

 “Participation in BWJP” link under “ABOUT US” to Nat’l Clearinghse for Defns of Batt’rd Women (p1 of 1)WebPage (written AS IF current) predates 2006 but still seen @Aug.2016 [almost 3yrs after BWJP incorporated]

%22Participation in BWJP%22 link under %22ABOUT US%22 to Nat'l Clearinghse for Defns of Batt'rd Women (p1 of 1)WebPage (written AS IF current) predates 2006 but still seen @Aug.2016 [almost 3yrs after BWJP incorporated]

Logo associated with BWJP, the NCDBW and their “National Center for Full Faith and Credit has had this logo and color theme for years.

(3) BWJP Battered Women’s Justice Project **

which has had a website far longer than it had a business identity — because it was a project of DAIP, in fact it’s main and (tax return FYear 2013 below shows) by expenses compared to any other program under DAIP, about ten-to-one the major expense on their budget.

“Promoting justice and safety for victims of intimate partner violence and their families.

“Since 1993, BWJP has worked* to improve the civil and criminal justice system’s response to intimate partner violence (IPV), as well as addressing the parallel responses of the military services to IPV among their ranks.”


  • Age of organization.  The organization BWJP is not 23 years old.  It is approaching its third year only.
  • Who was behind clouding this identity, and what might be the purpose?  The image above (at NCBDW) provides some clues, shown again at bottom of the page.

Here’s the image of the record from MBLS database:(Minnesota State level filing) and a link to see it full-size:

BWJP (File#698828200020, Orig@9:11:2013) Minnesota Business Filing Details, showing Mpls Office and Denise Gamache BWJP (File#698828200020, Orig@9:11:2013) Minnesota Business Filing Details, showing Mpls Office and Denise Gamache

“Since 1993” is a lie by twenty years — by implying “BWJP” acts or is an actor; it intentionally clouds who was working under its banner (the logo and appearance of the website has been up for many years).  There is not necessarily a major penalty for lying or presenting misleading material on an organization website about the age or identity of an organization, and as most of the underlying NGO’s clients are government jurisdictions anyhow and the majority funding for at least on of them — from the start looks to have been  primarily government, I wonder who within government would prosecute.  No one outside of government, by definition, has the right to “prosecute,” either.   Maybe it just doesn’t matter how often this happens (??).

Copyright © 2016 Battered Women’s Justice Project
Privacy Policy | Sitemap

Who funds the website?  Fine print at the bottom of the page says:

Funded by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) , Department of Justice (DOJ) and theFamily and Youth Services Bureau, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)See Details.

I did (just now) “See Details” and notice that while “GRANT” details are given for the website and “this project” the grantees of those grants are NOT named in the “Details” nor is the reader prompted to anywhere to look it up.  “Go fish, if you’re that curious, or smart enough to know that this information wasn’t the full catch” is the implication.

This website was {was ??} supported by Grant No. 2015-TA-AX-K058, 2015-TA-AX-K027, 2013-TA-AX-K012, 2013-TA-AX-K037, 2014-TA-AX-K046, and 2015-TA-AX-K039  awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women , U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

Funding for this project was also made available through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Grant #90EV0416. The viewpoints contained in this document are solely the responsibility of the author(s) and do not represent the official views or policies of the department and do not in any way constitute an endorsement by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Grant #90EV0416 comes up below (it wasn’t directly to BWJP, FYI) so I won’t cover it now.

Grants No. TAAX for years, as you can see, 2013, 2014, and 2015 (and not even in chrono order) end in numbers K012, K037, K039, K046, and K058 (I just put these in numeric order)

Here is the image and corresponding pdf to go with the above “Details” info — representing THE very bottom right corner of the home page of BWJP.org  (I spend a lot of time on organization footer pages, where better [than the top of the page] identifying info is often found):  Viewed Aug2016, BWJP website Footer Info “Details” link cites 2013ff DOJ and HHS Grants by # (<==Click this to see full-sized image.  The image, like the list of supporting USDOJ/HHS grants posted there, may change over time, so I saved this snapshot of that link)

Viewed Aug2016, BWJP website Footer Info %22Details%22 link cites 2013ff DOJ and HHS Grants by #

The website couldn’t copyright by “BWJP” (unless it was a dba somewhere) before BWJP existed, which happened in Minnesota at least, not before September 2013.  Maybe I missed an incorporation in some other state, but I doubt it.

I bolded up to the word “response” only because the purpose is to change, transform, and alter two justice systems — and regardless of why, THAT is the organizational goal.


A PROJECT or a PROGRAM is not a corporate or business “PERSON” (entity).  Some corporate or business persons (entities) do have the word “project” or “program” in them as part of the legal names. (and the above two organization have one of those words each in their name, as you can see).  But nonprofits DO things and/or FUND things, and for that function, what they do or fund are listed under Program Service Accomplishments.

“BWJP has worked…”*

If language has meaning, the subject of a sentence cannot be the direct object of the same sentence. The subject of any sentence initiates the action (is grammatically responsible for) the action OF THAT SENTENCE, even if the verb is some form of the verb “to be” or expressed in passive tense, as in the attribution-shifting “the woman was stalked by her ex-boyfriend”.   “Work” (or “has worked”) is a verb implying effort and action.  The phrase “to improve the civil and criminal justice system’s response” doesn’t even identify “what they did” but in context is an adverbial phrase, meaning here I guess “with intent” or “with the purpose of.”  It is a noncommital phrase, and doesn’t in fact, commit to having done anything concrete — just what its intents were.

One collective system — “the civil and criminal justice system”

A “project” of another NGO is not working, it is a “work.”

[Again, here are three sites in use below]

TAGGS.hhs.gov (in both basic and advanced search modes, and showing now only two organizations with the word “Battered” in them any more receive HHS funding — not BWJP).  990finder.foundationcenter.org is the IRS search site referenced above.= APPS.IRS.gov/app/eos is the Pub. 78 search site referenced above, but you should first read what it does and does not search (such as any “dbas”)  and what organizations may be eligible for tax-deductible (to the givers) donations but not be on the list, at their summary page, here.



This is the “for example” section of a post with the words “C’mon, Let’s Get Honest — Whaddaya want?” in which I again say what I do want.  The context is now international (see recent posts) and what measures are being followed to De-radicalize and prevent radicalization of people domestically, and the term is “CVE” (Countering Violent Extremism).  “Building Resilient Communities” and Family Counseling, plus training experts from German NGO “Hayak” (which is funded by the German government, under “BAMF” — their office of Migrants and Refugees) (cf. US “ORR” Office of Refugee Resettlement under HHS)…

So as the post title says, this is here as an example of looking it up., BUT., my time is valuable, and my attention is still at least peripherally on Minnesota (it has been over time), so this example is FROM Minnesota.  That a U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis was flown to Germany, and flew (college education Princeton/Free University of Berlin) Daniel Koehler of Hayak  (which is an NGO) to assess some young people convicted of plans to join ISIS and fly to (Syria?) to join them — juxtaposed with the  concurrent, outrageous Grazzini-Rucki case behavior by both courts AND law enforcement, also within range of the “Strong Cities Network” member, Minneapolis-St. Paul…. (It’s in Dakota County) I admit was another reason I chose the particular Minnesota-based NGOs to look at here.

This is the “looking up a domestic NGO (nonprofit) and looking AT the respective databases” part for which we are, if this business isn’t ever completed locally, going to have to do this internationally.

Or simply become accustomed to zero accountability levels, multiplied.

This has to do with the basic premises of government and relationship to it.  I am simply showing a common practice I developed when looking at NGOs that helped me cut-to-the-chase on a few organizations and which I quickly realized is a decent enough diagnostic tool to show us what good are even these diagnostic tools when someone MIGHT choose to apply them, SOME of the time.

The group I chose to report on is a 2013 spinoff from one of only FOUR “Special Issue Resource Centers” funded by HHS between the passage of the Violence Against Women Act and now.  The other four have been talked about on this post, but the one I chose (a) happens to be in Minnesota; (b) has all along been well-networked in not just the DV field, but also with AFCC (as a presenter over the years) and now (2008forward seems to be a turning date) with a still under-reported “FCEP” (“Family Court Enhancement Project”) which itself revealed,. most likely, what the “broken courts crowd” professionals, or at least some of the more pushy and prolific ones, were aiming towards in the first place — becoming those “technical assistance trainers” JUST LIKE they saw others doing in the same fields all along.  All that was needed in this case, was to define a “new” field — and going through the routine of training custody evaluators and judges about handling “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody” cases on the basis of 58,000 children a year (that’s a “tell” incidentally) going to the custody of batterers, and the family courts are hurting children, (etc.) …

I also am not posting, but have done a lengthy “Wayback” (Internet Archive) look at how the Fall-2013 spinoff organization, “BWJP” (for short) was characterizing itself, and was characterized by other supporting groups.

Meanwhile, DAIP (for short) as I also have probably already posted when I was posting on the Family Justice Center Alliance business model (original models as I recall San Diego and Indiana, supported by Bush Administration as a USDOJ initiative, kickstarter about $120 million in 2003), which is to say in spokesperson part, Casey Gwinn, was to be seen conferencing with and promoting Ellen Pence (of DAIP) for solutions to or prevention of domestic violence (inter)nationally.  The Family Justice Center Alliance was, like many other movements, all along intended to go international. Being a nonprofit, it certainly could.  So, from the start, we had situations such as people SUING a local Family Justice Center (happened as early as 2004 in San Diego) while the leadership hits the conference circuit and gets the interviews posted to promote it.

An attempt was made in my state to set up a network of FIVE of these as the “standard,” but the legislation didn’t pass.  Still, they seem to be proliferating.

And, if you won’t stand up for your rights, then on what basis do you intend to complain when they were sold-off (you were billed) and justice in the form of protection of rights you may expect, such as to due process, or anything remotely referenced in the US Constitution??


If people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the dots between federal/state relationships financially, what about when the NGOs are spanning different continents, not based in the US, and involving the US Department of Justice. THEN what?

This is where I started in the former post.  Now let’s get down to a core sample those details.  I’m not pretending it covers them all, but it’s a good enough sample to raise several issues:

Please show patience with this next, Minnesota (mostly)-based example here. It’s here not just for the specific situation, but also as an example of a process of looking at more than one TYPE and SOURCE of organization and making a few observations from that material of which we can be sure, based on that material. IF the database material is off, that’s another, and separate, matter.

A look at the nonprofits and at the rhetoric (not to mention connections) shows that this organization Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) (“theDuluthModel.org”) has invested into the “Technical Assistance and Training” mentality, which by definition pulls in the behavioral modification tactics (of both the people being subjected to the Supervised Visitation or Batterers Intervention services — as well as the service providers).

Sooner or later dots should connect with this Duluth, MN organization as having spun off “Batterers Women’s Justice Project” and observing its behavior and involvements, “figure it out.”

46-3584341 Battered Womens Justice Project Minneapolis MN United States PC

I notice this IRS record of the group name lacks the apostrophe in “Women’s.”  It could be significant.  Similar but not identical business names….

This group only registered in year 2013, and so far in 2013 and 2014 filed two 990-N postcards showing revenues under $50,000 and details (from IRS form) don’t acknowledge a website:

« Prev | 1-2 | Next »
EIN Sorted Ascending Legal Name (Doing Business As) Sorted Ascending City Sorted Ascending State Sorted Ascending ZIP/Postal Code Sorted Ascending Country Sorted Ascending Tax Year Sorted Ascending
46-3584341 BATTERED WOMENS JUSTICE PROJECT Minneapolis MN 55403 United States 2013
46-3584341 BATTERED WOMENS JUSTICE PROJECT Minneapolis MN 55403 United States 2014

So far, through “990finder.foundationcenter.org” by EIN# search it has not filed a normal Form 990 where the public might read some organizational details — names of directors, private vs. public revenues, where it’s spending them, and program service accomplishments, for year 2015, or, say, number of employees, how many on board of directors, or any “related” organizations.
The principal director, Denise Gamache, is a name known on the DAIP HHS grants. From the above links (IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check” — Filed Form 990-Ns search results):

Principal Officer’s Name and Address:
Denise Gamache
1801 Nicollet Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55403
United States

TAGGS.HHS.gov today (no year or state selected) shows the only organizations any more with “Battered Women” in its name in MN and taking grants this database covers (about 1994 forward) are a NJ and a MN “Coalition for Battered Women.” This search, saved. Click organization names to see that the grants are typically under $300K/year and go back for each group to about 2007.

Recipient Name
ZIP Code
Sum of Awards
NEW JERSEY COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN 88333 2645 TRENTON NJ 08690 MERCER Other Social Services Organization Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations $2,760,706
MINNESOTA COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN 07689 6112 SAINT PAUL MN 55103-1844 RAMSEY Other Social Services Organization Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations $2,135,706

By Contrast, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs in Duluth, MN, (<=HHS saved search)was more of a favored grantee, with $8M total showing (starting only back to 2007– which by the way, I believe is not the complete amount from HHS) and if you click, a typical grant was just over, just under, or at $1,000,000 every single year 2007 – 2015..

Recipient Name
ZIP Code
Sum of Awards
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS 193187 069 DULUTH MN 55802-2152 ST. LOUIS United States of America Other Social Services Organization Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations $8,526,435

Click on Organization Name to see earliest grant shown, 90EV0375, was “Four Special Issue Resource Centers – Technical Training & Assistance” and a four-year grant, followed by an apparently five-year 90EV0416, “Family Violence Prevention and Services” (last grant — last September, for $1,000,000 flat).
NOW — I just under “Advanced Search” repeated the name-search for “DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAM” and got nothing. Knowing this database is case-sensitive, I then repeated the search -using Initial caps “Domestic Abuse Intervention Program“** in the “search page.” The organization name displays in ALL CAPS anyhow (….. go figure)… I had checked certain fields including “Principal Investigator.” (**TAGGS.HHS.Gov “Saved search” means saved settings. Clicked again, it will re-run those settings; if the data changes meanwhile, such as another grant coming in, the results will differ).

**Recipient Name: Domestic Abuse Intervention (that was my search prompt)
Report Total: $23,841,530
Distinct Award Count: 39

This search result pulls up almost three times the amount of grants — dating back to 1999 Ellen Pence” and shows (click to see!) that starting in 2003 and up through last September, with Grant 90EV0104 of over $1,000 annually, besides Ellen Pence on it, EVERY ONE registered Denise Gamache. Year 2016 (no funds received yet) shows “Renee Guttman.”

OBVIOUSLY, we have a problem if a “Regular” recipient search shows $8M of grants received (nothing before 2007) and an “Advanced Search” specifying THE SAME recipient on THE SAME Database — shows $23.8M of grants going back to 1999.  “HHS, we have a problem.

From the second “Advanced” search:These grants, except the Ellen Pence ones begun in 1999, were all marked “CFDA 93562″ “Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants
I have just showed above the IRS filings (or lack thereof) of Battered Womens Justice Project (no apostrophe shown in the organization name) under Denise Gamache for 2013 (year of formation) and 2014 so far, under $50,000 is declared. Yet overlapping this, and under DAIP (separate entity now), still $1M is being credited to the same person.

Same Organization (DAIP), different database –990finder.  

Now a look at the DAIP tax return. First, if I want to look in the usual database (Form 990 finder) I have to have specialized knowledge — either what WRONG name it’s going by there, or its EIN#. I have both, so this wrong-name (defeating any name-search for the DAIP organization there) still has posted the DAIP returns (click through to see):

Total results: 3. Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

Minnesota Program Development MN 2014 990 24 $1,454,065.00 41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development MN 2013 990 26 $1,345,500.00 41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development, Inc. MN 2012 990 24 $1,244,050.00 41-1382134

Then, looking at the top row — this is a Fiscal YE of 9/30/20## so we’re looking at Fiscal Year 2013 — the first year BWJP incorporated that is, “spun off” as a separate entity in MN (I didn’t show, but you can easily check).
A number of things about both databases and about the organization DAIP vis a vis BWJP can be seen from this last return.

I’ve posted it before, but to review: Per the RETURN, In that year, with Denise Gamache NOT showing on the board of directors (she might have been among their 57 employees, however), and knowing that HHS claimed to have distributed certain amounts on certain dates — we see that their total contributions for the year (Part I, Line 8) were $3.29M. Of this (See Part VIII, Lines 1a,b,c etc.) fully $3.1M was “government grants” and only $100K private contributions. So much for any “grassroots” support for this nonprofit!!).

And of this, $980,000 for a certain grant, action award date 9/23/2014, came from HHS, so presumably the rest of the $3.18M came from either USDOJ (quite possible in context) or some other government entities (see at “Domestic Abuse Intervention Program“**)(TAGGS.hhs.gov search results just one row’s worth, in next table).  $3.18M – $.98M = $2.2M came from somewhere else.  I could go look over at USDOJ, but I’m not going to now.

2014 DOMESTIC ABUSE INTER-VENTION PROGRAMS 19318 7069 90EV 0416 Family Violence Prevention and Services 9/16/2014 93592 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants DENISE GAMACHE $980,000

Meanwhile, the Year 2013 DAIP tax return says its primary program service accomplishment was “Battered Women’s Justice Project” — expenses $2.8M, more than 10 times any other program listed.  I’ll pull up the related images, but here I’m copying Page 2, Part III, Lines 4a,b, c, (and there is no separate content for a 4d — they simply repeat what’s on 4c):

4a  (Code ) (Expenses $ 2,828,323 including grants of $ 339,372 ) (Revenue $ 170,921




NCBDW — National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, “Participation in BWJP” page reads like this, and the bottom of the page reads copyright 2006 (i.e., it’s 10 years old now).   As it appears that the US Department of HHS picked this just a few years before “PRWORA” welfare reform (1996) and ONE year (1994) before the FIRST passage of VAWA, a pre-2006 retrospective, which this page seems to be, puts the information at just about a dozen years post-VAWA and within the first decade of welfare reform. In this FINE PRINT – OBSCURED FROM PLAIN VIEW (but still up on the NCBDW website) is the definition of BWJP as a “PROJECT” and “COLLABORATION” between:

(A) an organization in Duluth, Minnesota (itself primarily government funded to this day) and (B) an organization in Philadelphia.  Meanwhile on the BWJP pages (then as now) BJPW claims to be the partner, not the partnership.  What’s more the term “partnership” used on any organization page is probably a more loose term than “partnership” on a secretary of state filing declaring what type of business entity.  But, it’s still misleading and loose usage — and in this issue, we are dealing with not just lawyers, but defense lawyers of women accused of crimes, and people (including lawyers) who have been put in place to train other lawyers at various jurisdiction as part of the “raison d’etre” (reason for existence) of the, ah er, “collaboration” BWJP.

The next quote/box (link on title “Participation in) is the entire text of page including footer (but not sidebar) information, viewed 8/3/2016).  Obviously I’ve highlit information they did not, and may interject a comment or exclamatory response (!!?? HUH??) interrupting the continuity of one single box for the quote.  Also links to this near top of page:

Participation in the Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) 

Recognized for its quality services and national leadership role, the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women was chosen in 1993 to receive funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as part of the Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP).

BWJP provides technical assistance, training, consultation, and other resources on specific areas of civil and criminal law, as well as information about promising practices to more effectively respond to domestic violence.  These services can be accessed through a toll-free telephone line.  BWJP does not provide direct representation.

BWJP is a nationally recognized partnership and collaboration between Minnesota Program Development, Inc., popularly known as the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project of Duluth, and the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women.

As of October 1, 2006, the BWJP Criminal and Civil Office, is located in Minneapolis and managed by Minnesota Program Development, Inc.  The National Clearinghouse, located in Philadelphia, manages the BWJP Defense Office.  We are pleased to report that BWJP will continue to be funded through DHHS for the next five years, starting on October 1, 2006.

As part of BWJP, the National Clearinghouse continues to be an active partner in the Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN), a coalition of DHHS-funded special resource centers on domestic violence.  The DVRN has now grown to include other projects funded by DHHS, such as the culturally specific institutes on domestic violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the National Training and TA Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health.

For more information about the Battered Women’s Justice Project, go to:

All BWJP offices can be reached by calling 800/903-0111:

  • For the Criminal and Civil Justice Office, dial ext. 1
  • For the Defense Office (NCDBW), dial ext. 3

More information about the Domestic Violence Resource Network can be found at the website of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence:

(FOOTER INFO to “Participation in” page)

DOMESTIC | the USA and its NONPROFITS vs. the term NGOs

http://www.ngo.org/ngoinfo/define.html  | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

Regarding the USA focus of this blog — it has to do with our form of government and basis for taxation to provide government services, including protection, intervention when under threat of immediate personal harm or prolonged (chronic) stalking or other attacks, or when it comes up, justice.  I have always been reporting primarily from USA perspective and from concerns about federal agency behavior HERE and about the roles of tax-exempt entities in privatized government circles HERE as regards the history and development of the family court system, under state laws, HERE in the United States of America.

I was born, raised, was educated (except briefly for about a year while a child) worked, lived, married, gave birth, and entered into the legal system by virtue of necessity to file a DV restraining order many years ago, HERE.

I have suffered significant loss and damages HERE as a mother, only to find out in hindsight on the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, that I inhabited  a social-policy-unacceptable marital/biological status (single mother) on the wrong side of HMRF funding to push that which I was not, and could not in this context be (married), or ever biologically be.

TOOLKIT: Within Reach: Strategies for Improving Family Economic Stability To support organizations in implementing effective economic stability and workforce development (ESWD) services, OFA has developed a conceptual framework for guiding HMRF programs in establishing and strengthening systems to support participants in achieving economic stability

(I am incapable of qualifying under Fatherhood promotion strategies, and while still a custodial parent obviously did not qualify for noncustodial parent increased contact promotion policy involving at times access — even from within prison as the HMRF.ACF.HHS.GOV website now openly advertises their “ReEntry Grants” — for free legal, educational, work, training, or social services advocacy from a government employee OR nonprofit organization as to retaining custody of my children once the ex-batterer spouse and father of our mutual children (I’m not using mine or posting his here…) filed for custody of our minor daughters, in that I am not a father), and that after the first restraining order, it sure seems, “domestic violence,” regardless of level of danger or felony behavior of the other party, simply doesn’t count in the family courts.

The image to right above was the third slide showing under the “HHS” HMRF site — showing just what kind of comprehensive “client / case” structure for helping “FAMILY STABILITY.”  This is their “Toolkit:  Within Reach” (while “Within My Reach” or ‘WMR’ was a low-income, tailor, demographically-targeted version of that Prep, Inc. curriculum, still in use, proceeding from the work of two UDenver professors and a central curriculum to the HMRF HHS funds…)

Enough clicks further and we find that the “conceptual framework” they want promoted has the word “COMMUNITY” (highly overworked concept) and that, again, the common noun referring to “my kind” is not mentioned specifically when the population to whom this help is to be delivered is mentioned:

Community-Based HMRF Workforce Framework (at https://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov/toolkits-and-trainings/within-reach-strategies-for-improving-family-economic-stability/)

Since 2006, OFA has funded a network of organizations to implement HMRF programs with the purpose of (a) supporting family formation and maintenance, and (b) improving the social and economic well-being of couples, fathers, and children.

when it comes to people who have had children, the only category left OFF that individual list is mothers, whether or not they are part of a couple, and it would seem particularly if they are not part of a “couple.”  What is the purpose of uniformly (this language is pretty uniform throughout) eliminating the word “mother” in description of services provided through OFA under the Social Security Act under “Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood.”?  

Incidentally, to be a mother, one must also be a woman.  Must be “coincidence” that our gender was grammatically eliminated in social policyspeak.

One key aspect of family and individual well-being is economic security, which continues to remain out of reach for most low-income families in the United States.

The way in which HMRF programs have implemented*** ESWD activities and services in the past has varied, with each program proposing, developing, and implementing services based upon their own design. Services provided by the HMRF programs have been as simple as providing a financial literacy class and as involved as providing specific job training and supported employment opportunities. To help promote the use of evidence-informed practices and increase the capacity of HMRF programs to provide quality ESWD activities, OFA developed a Community-Based HMRF Workforce Strategy. This toolkit is a key expression of that strategy.

***HMRF Programs don’t propose, develop, or implement anything!  A program is that which is proposed, developed and implemented, like an organizing or operational plan.

Even in the same paragraph, it says “OFA developed … a strategy.” So who is developing, the OFA or the programs?  The usages is parallel:

  • HMRF programs (plural) implement activities and services
  • OFA (singular) develop a certain Strategy.

The second bullet statement can be true; the first cannot, but they are presented side-by-side as if both reasonable.

VENTRILOQUISM IN ACTION:  Stating that PROGRAMS propose, develop or implement (on a public website designed to inform people about HHS and this usage of public resources) is the linguistic equivalent of making a life-like puppet and claiming it’s real just because one is talking to and about it.  It’s just one more place where labeling (vocabulary) is detached from meaning — every bit as much as eliminating the concept of “mother” and retaining the word “father” when speaking of children and families when talking about HMRF program purposes.  I guess, a sort of grammatical abortion.

Slippery language here– on this page it says “HMRF programs implement, but on the same general domain (HRMF.ACF.HHS.GOV) under “About OFA,” quoted right next, it says OFA, which is part of the federal agency administering “federal grant programs.”


The Office of Family Assistance (OFA), an office of the Administration for Children and Families, administers several key federal grant programs, including the State and Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, Native Employment Works program, and the discretionary Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood,** and Health Profession Opportunity Grants programs. Our programs foster economically secure households and communities for the well-being and long-term success of children and families

**Why no acronym “HMRF” here?  One was supplied for OFA and for TANF, why not for “HMRF,” definitely common usage at HHS?  Anyhow, as you can see here, OFA administers programs such as the discretionary Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood, showing that HMRF is simply the label for a category of federal funding. The associated “CFDA” number over at TAGGS.hhs.gov is “93086.”  It’s a category — not a business or government entity!  FYI, it’s a 1996-forward, PRWORA (“welfare”)-based category of funding.

No program administered under HHS, ACF, or OFA IS simultaneously a department within HHS/ACF/OFA (that’s the agency hierarchy, ACF is the larger unit, and OFA a subset, a part of OFA).

The role of the OFA is to administer federal grant programs.  The programs aren’t “the life of the party,” but they are what OFA administers.   They have no life of their own and are not actors. This is an important distinction.  The sources of power behind such programs are the grants and the source of power behind the grants, being “federal,” are whatever resources funds the federal government itself — which brings us back to federal “receipts” — and back to the taxpayers themselves as part (not all) of those receipts.

Which again brings us back to the government common practice of keeping most assets, often pooling them and investing them (all over the place!) and continuing to bill the public for the debt of financing the many projects.

As expressed in CAFRs.  See next post, “What’s an NGO?  What’s a UNESCO-affiliate NGO at Rutgers?  In fact, What’s Rutgers (A look at the State of NJ CAFR)” hopefully published by end of 8/11/2016.

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: