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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Don’t like long, convoluted post titles? Don’t shoot the messenger: Did I conceive, gestate, give birth to, nurture and L.A.U.N.C.H. these “Great Ideas” ? (Started mid-Dec., 2018; Publ. “WYSIWYGG” March 15, 2019).

leave a comment »


Post Title:Don’t like long, convoluted post titles? Don’t shoot the messenger: Did I conceive, gestate, give birth to, nurture and L.A.U.N.C.H. these “Great Ideas” ? (Started mid-Dec., 2018; Publ. “WYSIWYGG” March 15, 2019). (Short-link ending “-9md.”)

(Started mid-Dec. 2018, worked on periodically in January and February, 2019, and parts split off into another post, “Simply Parent” still also in draft.  Published as-is (WYSIWYGG) March 15, 2019 and just under 12,000 words including the WYSIWYGG intro.  Note:  This post has many images.  If your viewing device doesn’t allow manual expansion by some form of a finger-swipe, a double-click on image may have the same effect.  Not really recommended for viewing on cell-phone or other small screens).

“WYSIWYGG”  — “What You See (so far) Is What You’re Gonna Get.”

Its sections are far from seamless, but each section on its own makes points worth pondering with the usual links to think (read) some more. Within the section, Show-and-Tell alternates with conversational mode, my responses, on each topic. For me, “conversational mode” means longer sentences which is how I think.

The post ends a bit abruptly.  Like I said, WYSIWYGG.

This post most directly connects to this topic’s subject matter through a parent education non-profit business run out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (with obvious AFCC influence and personnel) which continues to post its “NREPP” credential.

I begin showing how NREPP has been shut down or frozen for replacement by a new acronym, EBPRC, which (to locate) requires showing several more archeological/archival digs, most residing somewhere under the umbrella of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.  The basis of pushing parent education comes, generally, from social science theories related to welfare (administered ℅ HHS/ACF/OFA) and mental health prevention and services (incl. but not limited to under HHS/SAMHSA), so a rapid expansion, that is “LAUNCH,”comes under that very large conceptual tent under SAMHSA — all of which connects to departmental budget requests…. some of which I link to.  I unearthed “LAUNCH” looking up the NREPP credentials of the parent education course.

For an AFCC-conference sponsor, that is, the owner/s of “Center for Divorce Education” to have figured out where to tap into HHS-budgeted funding streams about to go national (or having already done so) should by now be no surprise — but it should also be shown.  Incorporating a reference to “LAUNCH,” once I understood it in the SAMHSA context in what was intended to be more focused on the “Family-Court-Fixers” who ignore another part of HHS administering welfare services (i.e., primarily the OFA) was probably too much payload for one post.

This post achieved my WYSIWYGG status officially March 12, 2019, after I admitted I’ve run out of time to keep my head into this material and wrangle the formatting  into a better place. Having so categorized it, I’m going to also publish it this day.  Well (as you can see), Friday, March 15.

WHY PUBLISHING “As-is”:  As of today, it’s “evident” (speaking of “things “evidence-based”) personally that I am moving into another season of self-defense of housing and privacy in the form of litigation, as occurred June 2014 — Jan. 2016.  I do not know how long it will last, or whether it’ll be the intended “Pyrrhic Victory” (look it up)** if I win, or a rout, if I do not, closure from further dealings of this kind in a way which does not “kick the can down the curb” further.  I have reached out (that’s been part of the delay on this post also) to qualified sources (both legal, and dealing with/aware of elder abuse situations), which requires also ongoing time and focus.


**Phrases.uk.org but “JSTOR Daily” says maybe we’re reading it wrong, and anyhow most of that battle was told from the Roman point of view (to save face).  (How “Pyrrhic Victory became a “Go-To” Metaphor Feb. 7, 2019 by Farah Mohammed, and referring to  how long Brexit is taking, Bloomberg’s use of that metaphor and, at the end of the day, “there’s still a continent of people to govern.”  Apparently Pyhrrus was a despot, and his battles didn’t better the people’s condition.  Certainly could be said of those I’ve been battling (not winning much) over the past decades, that is, if the banners (causes) they were initiated under were ever stated in good faith, i.e., sincere and genuine.))

To comment on this, I’ll bet, common situation: Ever heard of the cycles of domestic violence (escalate, explode, plateau until the next incident) within personal relationships?  They do not go away with separation automatically.  After one leaves abuse, depending on the level of other invested parties wanting to engage, target, continue to control, and/or stalk a separating, domestic-violence-protection-seeking spouse or intimate partner with children in the family courts,  the cycle becomes wider in scope, maybe longer in time, but identifiable “seasons” continue to show up with cumulative impact.

To outsiders and most of the public, the separation is assumed to be complete and violence and coercion with potential to go imminently violent (life- and health-threatening, sudden) at any point to have subsided 100% if it’s less overtly dramatic.** It may not have.  Abusers may obtain sufficient influence to engage in a relay race; they get time-off, or just (as seems to have happened here) drop out of the race, while others carry the “baton” of destruction, but the target does not, turning life into a basic marathon — in order to stay, ALMOST in place. When it does continue and expand, lawyers and their mental health counterparts taking court referrals want their piece of any visible resource, too, regularly, until that source is dry, or about to run dry, at which point they’ll seek to jump/dump to other associates (good to maintain those business networks, trade favors, etc….).  My case in point THIS time…

**In my experience, not so — the coercion and pressure did not subside and has not subsided; it is just less “in your face“! We’re already multi-generational over just my ONE decision years ago to get legal intervention, and insist on as many proper legal boundaries as I could at any point in time, ever since.  I sent this message clearly, and did not make exceptions for my immediate family members who showed (early on) they were not going to even respect the initial DVRO.  Until just a few months ago, everything I did was within close driving distance of at least a few of those individuals.  Putting some geographic space inbetween, while not the complete solution was a major accomplishment, and I had to do it without advance notice to almost anyone, and like a fugitive.

In reviewing my own post-separation timeline, which is getting longer on the back end, and frighteningly shorter looking forward if the practice continues, the cycle seems to be about every two years; whether in family court or now, as it happens, probate. I’d like to see ANYONE sustain a living with 15-20 years of that (it’s pushing 20 years for me  after about 10 years of the more overt, direct, assault-and-battery, garden-variety serious domestic violence  that was the real substance of my own “marriage,” as I know it is and was for many.

As these things tend to go, now again I’m in dealing with both PTSD and “Pissed-Off” modes, neither of which is conducive to best writing, or help-seeking. No matter how righteous my cause for maintaining distance, separation, and privacy, the timing of (very recent development) pending open litigation back in California to maintain it could not be worse, or should I say, could not have been targeted bettter to prevent that distance, separation, and privacy long enough to generate new lines of work greater than even the recently greatly (by about two-thirds) reduced living expenses.  See my sporadic comments on this blog, or Twitter (@LetUsGetHonest) about a recent interstate re-location into better (and less expensive) living circumstances with real hope for a personally sustainable future, away from the Gold-Digging, excuse me, Golden State. //LGH 3/12/2019.

Published:  March 15, 2019.  Below this line, most content written between Dec. 2018, Jan. and Feb. 2019; some in early March.

Again, the question is: “Don’t like long, convoluted post titles? Don’t shoot the messenger: Did I conceive, gestate, give birth to, nurture and L.A.U.N.C.H. these “Great Ideas” ? (Started mid-Dec., 2018; Publ. “WYSIWYGG” March 15, 2019).

No I did not, but if you want a list of who did, look through this blog’s Table of Contents, follow me on Twitter and watch the hashtags used, or survey the landscape yourself. Meanwhile, for now, it’s long, convoluted post titles to tag several elements of each longstanding convoluted situation I’m taking a core sample of for that post…  (How do you think I keep my own posts straight after nine years and almost 800 of them — by total recall and three-word reminders?)

A nearby post (mid-December, I did not know whether I would publish first this one or that one.  On Dec. 25, I published “that one”):

Checking out just one foot-noted claim on the home page of just one of the (entities/web pages) led me down another rabbit hole (with new ones being dug) at SAMHSA and involving Mental Health – State Prevention Grants (“MH-SPG” in budget justifications shorthand), with the point of reference cited as proof of being an “Evidence-Based Practice” having just been moved in 2018, by SAMHSA from “NREPP” to simply EBPR (or similar name) …

on which website I got to hunt and dig for ANY reference to the program being pushed (and having been developed) by the private owner/s of “Family Works, Inc.” at 92 Van Ness Avenue, Ashland, Oregon — with no corresponding “Inc.” showing as currently registered in Oregon to do business under that name at the state department’s database recording such things…. “Go figure…”  {{My post-publication follow-up back in Ohio showed there was one in Ohio** — but the entity’s address is still shown as Oregon. So are we to presume that there is no revenue exchange (commerce) taking place IN Oregon still? And if I, with NO comparable source of ongoing revenue from any public source for my private enjoyment, take time to follow-up with a BLOG post stating this, why hasn’t the other entity’s owner (it turns out to be one person on the record as I recall) taken a few minutes to update company web pages referencing a government entity which no longer exists, the NREPP, and re-directing readers to the updated evidence?}}   (**I’ve now added links and images to the OHIO corporate filings for Family Works, Inc., to my “Assembling the Pieces” post (intro), as I was the one saying I couldn’t find its incorporation…]  

But it was “illuminating” to find out under what rationale such programs are encouraged —  Mental/Behavioral Health — and how rarely they are independently evaluated.  An ever-expanding, increasingly centralized Mental Health Archipelago as a Public Service, i.e., as U.S. Federal Government (Executive Branch-administered) policy has become a Personal Private Bonanza for those who got in on it early.

WHY I MENTIONED “L.A.U.N.C.H.” IN THIS CONTEXT:

(This extended section is in a different background color to distinguish from the rest of the post.  Its complexity comes from tangling with the US Government’s HHS “OpDiv” called “SAMHSA” (which came into being 1992) and its budget justifications, funding streams, and “data repositories” as in “NREPP” (National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices), essentially a website/electronic library, which only came into being 1997).

I used the word “L.A.U.N.C.H.” because it’s an acronym, however you’ll find “Project LAUNCH” (without the extra periods) in SAMHSA’s FY2012 Budget Appropriations Committees Justifications as planned to be continued ($25M) this year, then submerged under MH-SPGs and “launched” this construct nationwide, total grants $90M.  (Click on that link and use the search function for 10 occurrences:  Here’s an image from the page dedicated to it (not including the chart at top with the $$ amounts):

  • | * | * |  [IMAGE TO BE INSERTED HERE.  Maybe (but links already provided)]

Got your Acronyms straight yet? The above link’s main domain name on its url is simply “SAMHSA.gov.”

The url to an article about the suspension of the NREPP domain name alone has four acronyms ( in reverse order, NIH, NLM, NCBI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6013894/), + the final portion of the url, “PMC,” each of which part of (HHS) has a history, as does the article itself, which holds an opinion on the suspension of NREPP (in 2018) and replacement of it by, it seems, an EBPRC…

Good Grief. Talk about a major, over-arching infrastructure in HHS!!

In the next home-made, that is blogger’s table, not one quoted from another website,** the first five rows (LAUNCH, NREPP, EBRC, PMC®) are not parts of HHS by division, but (as best I can understand it as a layperson), its PROJECTS.  Below these first five rows,  I’ve listed rows for NCBI, NLM, NIH and SAMHSA) To better distinguish a project which may have a web page also named (in part) after it from an official subdivision of HHS, see its webpages!   (This page, “Appendix B” is dated 2015.  (i.e., pre-Trump but still up!) Websites change, so I recommend just searching for HHS Organizational Chart, Operational Divisions (OpDivs) or similar term.  Program Offices are underneath “OpDivs” in the nomenclature, last I looked.  SAMHSA is at the same heirarchical level as ACF and NIH; there are eleven (11) OpDivs listed currently.  {{**If such a table were made prominently available throughout HHS pages, or its OpDiv pages, I wouldn’t need to construct one just to keep it straight, and to be able to talk about the programs versus the parts of HHS!}}

LAUNCH, as in SAMHSA’s
“Project LAUNCH”
Linking Actions for Unmet Needs in Children’s Health” (2008ff)
NREPP National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (suspended in 2018, has a certain history since 1997)
EBPRC Evidence-Based Practices Resources Center (replaces NREPP?)
PMC® PubMedCentral® = a digital archive launched in 2000(see nearby images “PMC Overview” & “Disclaimer”; managed by NLM’s NCBI.  (There is also a PMC International)
NCBI National Center on Biotechnology Information
NLM National Libraries of Medicine (under NIH)
NIH National Institutes of Health
SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (under HHS) started in 1992?

(Click image to enlarge) ##1 of 3: HHS 11 Operating Divisions (“OpDivs”) shown on the right column. These OpDivs are listed (as are Program Offices) as optional filters (select) or fields to display (column heads for search results to check that category off or on)  at “TAGGS.HHS.Gov” (Advanced search). ACF (top), NIH and SAMHSA (near the bottom) are all at the same organizational level.

##2 of 3: HHS Agencies & Offices, showing the first OpDiv (they’re listed alphabetically) “ACF” with its logo. ACF administers Social Security Act (“Welfare”) funds, as I understand it; it has smaller “Program Offices” underneath).

##3 of 3: HHS OpDivs NIH and SAMHSA described briefly from HHS website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, ….

This “PMC” article  (same url here as shown immediately above the table of acronyms), Suspension of the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: the importance of adhering to the evidence” also talks about 1997, 2007 and 2015 standards, and expresses disagreement with the suspension  (4-image gallery below contains the citation reference and Abstract).

The author Sharon G. Hennessy (“SGH”) discloses that she is the former collaborator and widow of the person who developed the NREPP:  “SGH is the former collaborator and widow of the late Dr. Kevin Hennessy, the developer of the 2007 version of NREPP.”  Footnotes to this article may be helpful; I noticed one of them refers to “ActiveParenting.com”.  Also, looking for “Dr. Kevin Hennessy, NREPP, 2007” I found him quoted in a full page of a Sept/Oct. 2008 SAMHSA Newsletter (found on a wordpress website).  Just a reminder:  “evidence” means different things to different people” and “

NREPP is a voluntary, self- nominating system, and developers choose to present their programs for review

Therefore I have to assume that the developer/s of “ParentingWisely®” also submitted their program for review, rather than had grassroots (or other NIH employees) knocking on their doors to submit their program.  If unaware of this, the implication otherwise is that SAMHSA sought them out as obviously appropriate for the listing.  Apparently, SAMSHA did not; it’s SELF-NOMINATING process.

This (published online 2011) Brief Review by both Hennessy Ph.D.s reiterates that the proprietary (i.e., trademarked) programs show as lower quality in research, but more prepared for dissemination, and more aimed at younger people (especially) youth.  “A Review of Mental Health Interventions in SAMHSA’s [NREPP]” (published on Psychiatry Online.  I think it’s well-written and informative).

I also looked a little further for more on the late (1964-2015) Dr. Kevin D(oyle) Hennesy and found, in a “Contributors” paragraph in a 2010 Oxford University Press book on “Mental Health Services: A Public Health Perspective” (2010) that he was a Senior Policy Advisor to (then-) the President’s New Freedom Mental Health Commission (i.e., then-President George W. Bush, as this commission dates to about 2003):

Dr. Hennessy is a practicing clinical psychologist who previously served in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and as a Senior Policy Advisor to the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.  {{emphases added}}

See Footnote: New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (for a few reminders and relevance)

nrepp from gov’t (nih,nlm,pmc) source – article on suspension of nrepp (sghennessy) informative re the setup, pmc® archives, revw processes ~~screen shot 2019

nrepp from gov’t (nih,nlm,pmc) source – article on suspension of nrepp (sghennessy) informative re the setup, pmc® archives, revw processes ~~screen shot 2019

nrepp from gov’t (nih,nlm,pmc) source – article on suspension of nrepp (sghennessy) informative re the setup, pmc® archives, revw processes ~~screen shot 2019

nrepp from gov’t (nih,nlm,pmc) source – article on suspension of nrepp (sghennessy) informative re the setup, pmc® archives, revw processes ~~screen shot 2019

The NREPP, interestingly (per this article) only began RIGHT after Welfare Reform, that is, 1997, that is, as “Block Grants to States” became a new norm for social services



More info (read at your own discretion) from the Washington Post under “Health Science”on the Freezing of the NREPP also names its previous contractor (Development Services Group, Inc. of Bethesda, MD (Bloomberg.com description, despite its website saying “woman-owned” shows only two executives, both men)(I looked it up at Maryland’s “SDAT” and found it was status revoked and revived (with gaps of a year or two between) THREE times (1984, 1995, and 1997)(current website at bottom shows © 2015, there’s a barely active Twitter account and, frankly, the website looks cheap (like “stock” photos) and carefully avoids referencing any ownership by name {{directly from any link, but see bottom of this post for “FOOTNOTE Development Services Group, Inc.” and how it only became “woman-owned” in 2016; founder Alan Bekelman was its prior President.  I also note the listed address (also at Maryland SDAT, mailing address) coincides with a full-service law firm, same suite#), admits that the NREPP was not “without problems” and shows the creation of a new position at SAMHSA as well as of the PolicyLab.

See “Trump Administrations Freezes Database of Addiction and Mental Health TreatmentsJan. 10, 2018<~(i.e., now over one year old) by Lena H. Sun Juliet Eilperin (paras. quoted may be in diff’t order than in article):

“NREPP is one of the most important tools we have. Nobody has a financial stake,”** said Catherine Tucker, president of the Association for Child and Adolescent Counseling, a membership organization for counselors who work with young people. She added: “It’s an impartial, nonpartisan, trustworthy source that represents thousands and thousands of hours of work.”

**Every curriculum or treatment provider has a financial stake.  That statement is ridiculous!

That responsibility will now be led by a new entity within the agency, the National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Laboratory, or Policy Lab. The lab was authorized under a sweeping health-care law passed in 2016. Known as the 21st Century Cures Act, {{See nearby image w/ caption}} the law increased funding for research into cancer and other diseases, and also made changes to the mental health system, including the creation of the new assistant secretary for mental health and substance use position at SAMHSA.

Dec. 13, 2016, WashingtonPost article, by Juliet Eilperin & Carolyn Y. Johnston, “Obama, paying tribute to Bipartisanship and Biden, signs the 21st Century Cures Act, Tuesday  (for my new “Don’t Shoot the Messenger” post Jan. 2019)

The 21st Century Cures Act having been signed by President Obama during a “lame-duck” Congress (Dec. 2016), including a section for the cancer “moon-shot,” expediting development of new drugs, and increased access to mental health.

This May 9, 2017, article presents of the act’s purposes (citing more specifics) from health law firm (with West Coast (AK,WA), MidWest (several), East Coast and DC offices) “Hall Render [Killian Heath & Lyman]” Interesting, no California office, but they have Texas…

…In a statement late Thursday {{@ January, 2018}}, SAMHSA’s top official criticized the [[NREPP]] registry, calling it a “poor approach to the determination of” evidence-based practices.

For most of its existence, the database “vetted practices and programs submitted by outside developers — resulting in a skewed presentation of evidence-based interventions, which did not address the spectrum of needs of those living with serious mental illness and ­substance-use disorders,” said Elinore McCance-Katz, the agency’s new assistant secretary for mental health and substance use.  As currently configured, the program “often produces few to no results” when common search terms such as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as schizophrenia are entered, she said.

...The registry itself is not without controversy. In July, a paper in the International Journal of Drug Policy said the database was not “weeding out” ineffective programs. Between September 2015 and January 2017, the paper noted, 113 interventions were added to the registry. Of these, the evidence for 14 percent of them consisted of a single, non-peer-reviewed report, and 45 percent of them relied primarily on a single peer-reviewed article.

(emphases — underline except where for an active link and bold — and “**” and anything inside “{{  }}’s” added)

The major theme is of course, prevention. This all came up as I was looking for any evidence that “Parenting Wisely” was indeed NREPP-certified and what “NREPP” meant.

See that Dec. 25, 2018, “Assembling the Pieces” post for more details and how Parenting Wisely originators might have become aware that positioning the product under “health and prevention” not to mention “mental and behavioral health” might be just a bit more effective than just having fellow AFCC members constantly recommend it and civil servants (who may or may not also be AFCC or commonly working with those who are) in position to mandate consumption.  After all, someone has to pay — and who better than the US taxpayers to sustain the distribution network?


Yes, I’m going to have some fun on this post, and I’ll be sarcastic, but I’m serious about the subject matter.  What I’m seeing demands to be published.

Despite having estranged children for many years now, I’m still saying this and I am still researching and blogging as a woman and a protective mother.  If there was anything I could’ve done about the system affecting the futures they’ll still face (ideally, long after I’m gone), but I just didn’t feel like it because I want my own comfort levels and “life” back (which I do….) — I’d be properly ashamed of my own silence.

Universities and their Ph.D.’d academics aren’t going to talk about this — and if they did, who’d see and discuss or debate it?  The time-strapped, rat-race-running commoners?  The mass of taxpayers (low- or no-income or otherwise) who are being solicited to participate in social science R&D for further write-ups in sponsored research circles?  As constantly being promoted as the global (and national) positive good?  Which brings me back again to, when the phrase is “EVIDENCE-BASED” (as opposed to simply “evidence” as in “proof”), the question comes up — what KIND of evidence; from what field?   …Circumstantial evidence?

Evidence described in what and how many terms — social science or mental health? psychological?  criminal/non-criminal records (when family courts already take diversions from criminal prosecution as part of the system, routinely…)

Having somewhat agreed on the use of words like “evidence-based” referring to (social science, mental health, psychological, etc.) … (sentence continued below the three images) 

remember I already posted on the global (“WHO’s”) “HiAP” Health in All Policies agenda/propaganda…See HiAP_Infographic from WHO (very long image) oct 11 2017 ~732pm (when I was blogging the Tobacco Control interests, I believe, as a centralizing force within governments) and this three-image gallery



… those in power naturally, have decided that next step is running all kinds of pilots, demonstrations, initiatives, studies (and evaluations of the same) to facilitate better speculation and fine-tuning of WHAT factors produce WHICH healthiest, most resilient, equitable, sustainable and just “community” outcomes, all outcomes to be judged primarily (top priority) as to how “healthy” they are**...with the usual demographic, social and personal checklists?   Like, and the first few often seem top of the list of concerns, according to classic Racism, Sexism issues in the nation, historically.

(** and you were perhaps wondering where the concept of “Healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood” came from?

Why wasn’t 1996 Welfare Reform’s (the 1996 PRWORA Act’s) marriage theme not “safe” marriage or “good marriage” or “law-abiding persons,  married or not (i.e., “if one partner/parent/spouse will not refrain from participating in habitual criminal activity, marriage can be voided or dissolved without financial or relationship — with the children — state-ordered penalties to the innocent spouse”)?  Instead “healthy MARRIAGE” became the top priority (with “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” vs. “non-Felony-Fatherhood,” probably a harder sell, and notably omitting the word “mother” in close association with the word “Marriage” or “Family” and, generally policywise, eventually, even with “children” too.  (Individuals, not “marriages” comply with or break laws, so “law-abiding marriages” too obviously would blame two people for possibly just one’s actions…and be  — which this policy in fact is — horribly unfair (unJUST) to the less criminally-behaving partner, spouse, or parent)

  • race | gender and/or gender identity | marital status (see below**) | income class | education level |consistency of work history | religion/s | sexual orientation | political proclivities (which side of the political divide) | geography/ place of residence (urban/rural) | nationality (immigrant, naturalized citizen, natural-born citizens),| age
  • **under “marital status”:
    • VISITATION (supervised or “un” or in-home) ACCESS TO BIOLOGICAL OFFSPRING
    • Enrollment or non-enrollment in behavioral modification classes of how many types (including batterers’ intervention, co-parenting skills acquisition, parenting skills, period; job-seeking motivation; responsible fatherhood)
    • use or non-use of social service assistance, sometimes called “welfare.” (Food Stamps, Cash Aid, other…)

ALL THIS OBSESSIVE CATEGORIZATION OF POPULATION ACCORDING TO ITS DEMOGRAPHICS, SKIN COLOR, DNA (presence or absence of a “Y” chromosome) and reproductive habits, social beliefs, economic status, yada, yada) ENSURES THAT

…Ensures that “operating tax-exempt or not?” and “if tax-exempt, how legitimately?” stay OFF the list seems vital (standard procedure, unmentioned) to whoever’s been compiling lists of all these factors to research while also keeping OFF even the list of desirable, health-based, sustainable (etc.) OUTCOMES “problem-solving collaborators who maintain (individually and together) a visible accounting trail for public consumption, overall, and by projects.”  

Another way to say this: keeping “justice” and “due process” (informed consent of the governed) OFF the list, and substituting for ” for “justice” and all it represents the transformative, vague, and all-encompassing “health” paradigm.

Under this (WHO) model, almost ANY problem can be viewed through the health lens and (predictably) require the centralization of power of agencies or funding streams which had already been established and developed (at public expense) separately.

In the long image above, it lists “air pollution” as “just one example” of a problem to tackle which would require such centralization.  I’m repeating the graphic to emphasize the desired outcome — centralization of departments under a single paradigm outside the scope of “justice.”

No matter what the results are, the general “outcome” is going to be “needs more research” or “promising* practices” (*i.e., good enough if not actual evidence-based) to scale up and take nationwide after these pilots, “see our write-ups?”  Accelerators, Incubators, Translational (translating theory into practice), resource centers and multidisciplinary coordination teams to make it happen (public/private sponsored) faster.

As I noted almost (not quite) three years ago in March, 2016, and as I recall there was also at least one fiscal accountability credibility gap too (includes references to the Gottmans):

 ! ! !


Here are three images I took today (Jan. 18, 2019) from just my March, 2016 “Dumpster-Diving in the Credibility Gap” post; the first one on the “Generalizability of Gottman” as a “Marital Process Model.” SERIOUSLY?…

This March, 2016, post profiled other professionals and institutes and centers (including one on poverty at University of Wisconsin-Madison).  The academic verbiage is truly dissociative…take the plunge and read some of it.  Click images to enlarge as needed. Key words/names:  G. Andrew H. Benjamin, John M. Gottman, Amy Holzworth-Munroe, and the post (vs. just the images from it) also highlights some of the people involved in the Columbia/Princeton/Brookings collaboration (Garfinkel, McLanahan, Mincy) so influential in welfare reform (Then AND Now, publishing 10 and 20-year lookbacks of what it accomplished) circles…

NB, Personal:  By 2016, that is, while writing this, I had personally been forced out of long-term rental into housing triply expensive (and the need for storage rental also) through a family court case which had morphed into a probate (trust) case. It can and does happen even to people whose goals or norms are “work and pay my bills, moderate is fine so long as income is more than out-go,”  so if you may be as an ensnared parent still with minor children, hoping to “hold your breath” and just make it until the children are ALL adults — this may not be an option for all families

.

The systems, including court systems, connect with each other and have overlapping characteristics which may, can, and often do end up in long-term litigation, or the ongoing threat of it (a definite income-depletion tactic) as a form of abuse, if not {technically or legally speaking} basic extortion. Coercive Control, “threat-therapy,” whatever you may call it, there are paid “practitioners”  and those being practiced upon. What I don’t think the public has yet figured out is who, ultimately, ℅ elected officials (representatives, senators, executive branch civil servants at all levels of government) is paying the practitioners — when it’s US… and how,

..NOT good for most neighborhoods or most people, and when you work and pay taxes, know that you’re a partial sponsor regardless of how non-optional work for physical survival is for most of the population, like 99% approximately?  It’s a self-destructive, circular, re-circulation process deeply tied into the tax (vs. tax-exempt) class divide. … Or so I believe at this point.


~ @ ~ @ ~ @ ~ @ ~

UNIVERSITIES and their CENTERS:

MOST UNIVERSITIES AREN’T TALKING ABOUT THE CONVOLUTED, BECAUSE PUBLIC/PRIVATE, TRAIL OF ACCOUNTABILITY: THEY AND MANY FACULTY ARE INVOLVED IN AND MAY EVEN DEPEND ON IT; THEY BENEFIT FINANCIALLY, FOR REPUTATION (UNIVERSITIES) AND CAREERS (PROFESSIONALS/PROFESSORS/RESEARCHES IN THEM) FROM IT.

Overall, yes, universities and academics in many fields (not always in these particular ones!) do many wonderful services and scientific, historic, biological, astronomical and medical research, BUT in certain fields, they are an obvious source and possible perpetuating cause of the problems they are studying, too. However, by being the researchers and publishers, and presenters of sophisticated (generally, or attempting to sound so), academic-style credited, footnoted, bibliographed and consortium-shared discussions they also ensure that a point of view of how this might “contaminating the experiment” by researchers is OFF the table.

When it comes to social science R&D and poverty research, under which “parent education classes” and “mental/substance abuse prevention” curricula such as those pushed successfully by authors Arbuthnot & Gordon (also obviously AFCC-connected and probably members), centers at universities are key players.
University association (public or private) also often brings with it access to high-speed networks and inter-university (cross-country etc.) consortium connections that the average person does not have, although the average working person is supporting those universities (public or private) as well as receiving in general benefits from their existence. This perpetuates some class divide and segregates awareness of what’s going on except as those involved choose to publicize it (i.e., positively).

BUT when it comes to welfare reform, for example, the top and elite universities (many but not all, East Coast/Ivy League) in connection with some of the larger public (state-sponsored) research universities in the MidWest (and West Coast and Texas) are part of the problem.  Special, sponsored interests take hold in “Centers” or Institutes” whose finances can’t be tracked from public documents.  Inside access to the comptroller’s office would be required to really see.

I’ve posted on some of these centers (such as UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools, or Princeton University’s Center for Child Well-Being, another one at Brown University, and others at Columbia, Cornell, George Washington University, Universities of: Maryland, Minnesota, Virginia, Rutgers University; University of Pennsylvania (private), USC (private, not public in case you didn’t know)**, and I say this having looked for their footprints on university or university foundation public financials.  The thing is, universities are so large, and centers tend to feature being “inter-disciplinary,” and reverse look-ups are tedious (if even possible without personal visits on-site or letter-writing campaigns to university departments in charge of the finances).

**University of Southern California in Los Angeles (About/Dropdown Image from Home Page) | About/History page with timeline. Private research university and “the largest private sector employer in Los Angeles” and an anchor institution in the city.  Since 1870.

I became more aware of USC’s websites when reading/writing up a Brown University (RI)  Annenberg CES [<–look for Exact name] with a corporate identity but no known IRS filing tax returns (that I could find).  Major grantee donations to this named center were actually (said the donor organization’s tax returns) TO the EIN# representing Brown University itself, not a separate entity associated or within it). I probably posted on this in late 2016 or 2017.

The Annenberg Foundation’s other projects included Schools of Communication at University of Pennsylvania (which I learned was also private) and here.  USC is of course well known, but I had not occasion before then, at least not often, to be all over its public interface, i.e., website, looking for information on a center. (I am from California, but Northern California, and my undergraduate degrees are from out of state).

vs.  UCLA — The University of California – Los Angeles (public) About/History Page with Defining Moments timeline in two columns (1969 — becomes first node of Arpanet / the Internet is born…2010, exceeds $1 billion competitively awarded research grants in a single year). Public research university (obviously!), since 1919, started as 2-year undergrad teacher training..

One quick way to also distinguish one from another (public from private) is to look up the financial statements.

USC, being private and nonprofit, files at least one main, central Form 990 attached to its (main) EIN#.  Of course there are likely to be “related” entities listed on its “Schedule R,” most universities have these.  UCLA being public, will have CAFRs — and probably (I know Cailfornia functions this way) a related foundation also — but the core ENTITY is government, not private = why it’s called a PUBLIC university.  Looking it up (this time) I see that out of three years’ worth of filings, the Foundation Center’s database cover sheet only named it plain “University of Southern California” once — in 2017.  EIN# is 951642394, and FY2016’s (YE2017) total gross assets, $17B. As separate Trust for the Annenberg School of Communications AT USC (legal domicile PA) holds over $105M.  etc.

UCLA Corporate Financial Services’ “UC Annual financial Reports,” link shows three types of reports: one for all UCLA campuses, one for all UC (the University of California System, itself:  the ten (10!) campuses, five (5!) medical schools and related organizations) and a 3rd for operations (revenues + expenditures (UCLA)). The download for the 2016-2017 AFR (main) I see is 85 pages and 4.7MB.  I’m downloading it to see whether this is indeed a CAFR or not…



For universities, certainly, one would think, there must be a paper trail or a combination of paper trails to individual centers’ funding and activities  (“income” and expenses) somewhere, but it is certainly not made available to the public with the concept of understanding just how much the public already supports the existence of most universities, if not directly, often through federal availability of education loans.

Instead, the public on viewing government agency websites, major executive branches of government, or throughout university systems, or (most) tax-exempt foundations’ websites, is constantly directed and intended to focus on government  or university or tax-exempt foundation’s program activities, not (instead of) the investments so as to assess public “ROI” (RETURN on investments) of their/our/the public’s own previous, forced (through taxation and through revenue-producing & redistribution financial system infrastructure, i.e., itself) ongoing investments in any government entity.  

Instead of constantly selling us on the  benefit and value of the programs, why not START with focusing with the bottom line — a full accounting and balance statement, and ensure that all shareholders (sic) understand that language — giving a better perspective of where the budget (General funds, collectively) stand in relationship to the total controlled assets, income-producing or not?

We/They are, It (the Public) is presented instead with a maze of information unsorted by relevance and for the most part, categories referring to fund-accounting and “paper trails.”

We/They have, It (the Public) has, already invested and continues to by virtue of:

paying, when working (generally) income taxes, and when living here, sales taxes, property taxes (for some), fees for filings/access to the justice systems, fees on long-term debt, toll fees for access to certain bridges which must be crossed to go to and from work every day (for many), etc.  Paying on long-term debt.  Paying (including government employees and private) IF and WHEN there are any retirement plans, contributions to those retirement plans.  And paying (as applicable) child support revenue run through (since 1996ff years) “Statewide Disbursement Units” (SDUs) but administered (?) through LCSEA (LOCAL Child Support Enforcement Agencies,* i.e., more at the county level of government).  And so forth.

*(I may not have the acronym correct, but reference the concept.[fn1])

[fn1] I’ve dealt with some as a separated parent…including some electronically missing money starting not long after our dissolution process, and (after my “ex,” their father and a third non-relative party stole them and cut off communication almost 100% overnight) how the same child support agency reportedly “could not find” my ex (despite being informed where he lived and on what dates, sequentially, he’d be available to serve in court — where I certainly was served once — readily accessible and safe) to file a “seek-work” order on the existing (still substantial though compromised by one-third as a reward for child-stealing, which “increased noncustodial (father) parenting time” — translated into a public good at the federal level) CS arrears.  At this time I had not yet become fully aware of the level of federal involvement based on its interests at the “Social Security Act” (public debt) level in matters under state jurisdiction, i.e., civil courts and the family court systems.

Speaking of public university centers, which the public supports, there is also the public school system (school districts are specialized units of government; the schools are their projects), there’s the K-12 level….

Whether or not our children attend local public schools (K, or PreK-12) they are supported from public funds and, depending on the school and neighborhood ability, local school foundations to preserve essentials (athletics, art, music, libraries, etc.) and — I reported for a season on this — all kinds of tax-exempt organizations (as well as government programs such as “responsible fatherhood,” “abstinence education” “healthy relationships” and much more — also pay selected school districts directly to test or pilot (or administer) their concepts of what will improve them.

All of this consists of public sector, public institution financial activities which should be leaving paper and/or electronic trails for accountability TO the public.  What’s more, we should want to, collectively, ALL of us possible, actually understand and read these.

It makes no sense to be as a citizen or working person in the USA whose wages are garnished for child support, and federal income taxes, and all other kinds of charges (state, municipal, etc.) whether taxes or fees for living here and engaging in normal life functions, to remain oblivious to, uninterested in, and (as a consequence) stunningly ignorant of significant features in the economic landscape — both secondary education (colleges and universities) and primary or elementary, which comes in both private and public (school district) forms.  ALL of these have revenues, expenses, budgets, often endowments, balance sheets, and both valuable assets and liabilities.

Every one of those features (whether revenue, expense, asset or liabilities) comes FROM or goes TO somewhere.  THAT’s what we should be at least aware of. So when experts start discussing the economy with no real reference to their own sector as a factor in it — that discussion is not thorough, and should be adjusted (even if it can’t be published in academic journals and disseminated through them) to take it into account.  Without taking the totality into account, the discussions are, essentially — interesting, but irrelevant.  They lack the greater context.

A significant discussion of the nonprofit sector needs to take place by those working and living OUTSIDE it.  This is hard, because money flows towards avoiding tax-exemption, which money can be used to hire professionals (salaries often well over $100K a year, sometimes over $500K or even a $1M in a year in that sector), pay consultants, and run media campaigns.

I do not know that or when this discussion will take place, but still say it needs to!

How dare those working in the tax-exempt sector, which is a public benefit sponsored by the NON-tax-exempt sector (workers) attempt to commandeer what to do about “inequality” public discussion platforms while profiting from it, thus maintaining a major factor in the
“inequitable” status quo by simply refusing to talk about it?  Let alone about how the databases recording tax-exempt activity are obscure, unreliable, and prone to facilitating money-laundering, concealing common interests (i.e., monopolies) and when combined with government funds, obscuring accountability for where tax receipts went?  This seems common practice in other countries too; it’s a global financial system, after all.  One wonders which country started it…   Empire building is not new, nor taxation.



So, AGAIN, when I look at just ONE entity’s claims (specifically, Family Works, Inc.’s claims about the NREPP-status (NREPP having been recently dissolved) of one of its offerings — while the nonprofit run by the same man (the nonprofit has shared leadership, a listed board, but not of the for-profit, as the Ohio Secretary of State filings make VERY clear, it’s Donald A. Gordon, Ph.D. alone), “Center for Divorce Education” (“CDE”) is now (I see since starting this post) a “gold” (3rd level from the top) sponsor of the upcoming AFCC “56th Annual Conference” in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, “The Future of Family Justice:  International Innovations.”**

**Next four images: (1) AFCC web page showing the top two (mentioned, three shown) sponsors; CDE is third-level sponsor and not mentioned there); (2, 3, 4) from “Brochure” link:  front cover (what looks like a “Planet Earth” logo is actually a big globe — it has a gray base, reminiscent of globes (at least in my recall) from elementary school: the theme is education, not planetary/astronomical), inside half-page showing top sponsors including CDE, and CDE full-page ad towards the end

@@~~@@

“Don’t shoot the messenger,” or complain about the tangled text to [me,] the person untangling the business inter-relationships…

~~~Did I conceive, gestate internally, or administratively (judicially) birth or bring into being Cuyahoga County Ohio’s Domestic Relations Court’s Rule 34, in 1994; ~~~ did I push U.S. Congress to promote marriage/fatherhood propaganda and access+visitation grants as part of Welfare Reform in 1996, somehow inbetween battering incidents and raising children I DID conceive (with said batterer), gestate, labor to birth (breastfeed, nurture, care for, educate and etc.) ?  Was “block grants to states for behavioral modification” (“TANF”) my idea?

~~~ Did I coach the domestic violence prevention and services coalitions and special resource centers to “Shhhh!!!” make sure incoming and desperately seeking help hot-line callers, when battered women with children, were NOT to be told — nor were clearinghouse websites on DV prevention to tell either — that the system had shifted back towards misogyny (and obfuscation of use of public funds), and these DV groups, often led by strong feminist women whose organizations pre-dated welfare reform, exist to save governmental face in that massive shift? And that as part of their strong “feminist” egalitarian stance, it was felt appropriate to invite in more and more male leadership and policymaking since even the 1980s — if indeed it ever existed separate from such involvement…?

While we’re here…

If Marriage and Family are the Foundation of Society, Is Not Marrying or Exiting Marriage really its Undoing?”

(Interjecting a reflective rant here, later in the post draft process…)

How can this be in a country featuring “individual rights under the law” when marriages are the undoing, and sometimes destruction of so many while still married? Doesn’t something about that formula (propaganda, so-called logic) smell a little “off”?  It is in fact SO off it takes major propanda to sell the public — and take a look at who is most profiting from the selling of it and behind it:  firms expert at public relations (Public Strategies, Inc. in Oklahoma), firms with major experience in complex websites (ICF International), and on Twitter I know I also showed (simply responding to another @OFA_HMRF tweet or “Fatherhood.gov” tweet — those are two different Twitter accounts — as I recall) that a recent campaign involving the tradename “Soul Pancake” actually was providing income to a CANADIAN BILLIONAIRE, Jeffrey Skoll….  All I did was follow the ownership of the LLCs; it wasn’t exactly a secret; I didn’t have to have “FBI” qualifications to figure it out…  The Advertising Council (a trade professional and nonprofit) jumped in with PSA’s to help also.

(“…PAY NO ATTENTION TO…. changes in tax law accelerating the pace of write-offs during Reagan area (“ACRS”), those leveraged buyouts (LBOs) changing the financial climate for workers nationwide (and globally), loading companies with debt which was paid off at workers’ expense (and their pensions); the (1980s) S&L fiasco | bailouts, and so forth….)

About to start paying attention?  Whoops, here comes 9/11 and another war and further privacy invasion (“War on Terror”) but BEFORE 911, President George Bush Executive Orders centralizes RELIGION (Faith-based and Family Initiatives, Jan. 29, 2001) further into the federal government and (UDOJ, 2003) helps jumpstart, kickstart, whatever you wish to call it, “family justice centers” to make sure faith-based leaders get a fair share of hearing reports of domestic violence and child abuse centrally.  The FJC model copied the earlier CAC (Public/Private blended) model, all of which greatly “obfuscate” the use of public funds, while centralizing control of entire fields of practice named after the intent to HELP people ,and PROTECT the public, especially battered women (mothers) and young children suffering abuse beyond human comprehension, but still taking place… sexual assaults, violations of their personal physical space, by family members, or witnessing of their (mothers, especially, in this misogynist climate) being assaulted at home, degraded, derided, and then (thanks to a family law system) at times cut out of their lives entirely…

This constant demand for public-funded behavioral modification and propaganda machines (involving in particular the mental and behavioral health field professionals) makes also perfect sense in that among the largest backers of (Not ACF, but NIH) massive expansion in the mid-20th century was an advertising heiress, Mary Lasker.  Searchable on this blog, and possibly even on part of its home page still.

Her thing was cancer research, anti-smoking campaigns and as late as the LATE 1990s, settlements of massive lawsuits against big tobacco (“Master Settlement Agreements”) went to states and were supposed to go especially to “Zero to Five” education efforts; so it goes from propaganda and public media campaigns funded by the federal government back to — propaganda and public media campaigns, funded (bottom line) by the federal government, i.e., the US taxpayers (who fund the federal government continually, although my understanding is we do this despite is ability to self-fund through income-producing assets it already has under its own control and invested…)  Each time, these funds become themselves political platforms, investment platforms, and tempting targets for more power-mongering.  I don’t want to review older posts, but do remember finding time and again, large grants which were simply untraceable — $10 million here, $250,000 there (I have specific ones in mind).  When is this going to stop — and if so, how?  Peaceably, rationally, or violently, and if violently, then “justifying” yet further crackdowns on, my area of concern I admit, United States citizens?

Do we really need to continue being “played” by the key players in such a system?

The (slight) difference between programs run through HHS/ACF/OFA (is it still?) (such as “Marriage|Fatherhood programming, i.e., curricula and services) and those under discussion here, those run through HHS/SAMHSA (such as the “Mental Health — State Prevention Grants” and continuation of “Project LAUNCH”) is in target rationale and belief systems about the science of “mental health and substance abuse” prevention, like the social science theories of poverty sold under 1996 Welfare Reform to a Democrat Administration (Clinton) and a Republican-controlled Congress (both Houses), with extra help from radically divisive Republican Power politics of “the gentleman from Georgia,” a convert to Catholicism, Newt Gingrich, not exactly faithful to his own wife and family, either…

DID YOU KNOW?  ACF dates from only 1991 (and HHS from 1980, before which the term was “HEW”).  SAMSHA I learned dates from only 1992. We learned above (if didn’t already know) that the NREPP database only began in 1997.  The Violence Against Women Act only from 1994, countered promptly by Presidential & Congressional Resolutions about Fatherhood (1995, 1998), and creation at the state level (Ohio, Hawaii, Michigan?  I do not remember, offhand, which other states offhand) of “Fatherhood” commissions (typically around the turn of the century), but who can forget that the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (co-opting “TANF Contingency Fund”) started around 1999?  Gov. Frank Keating [Catholic], Jerry Regier [Conservative Protestant Evangelical], and religious leaders, social science R&D with their hands in the mix (from Denver University, specifically), others…

Pick a party — Presidents and Administrations of both parties have furthered and promoted “marriage/fatherhood” practitioners, networks advocates and as specifically targeting the states’ (plural) family court systems, coordinated to perform in synch, as much as possible without making it TOO obvious, by nonprofits (i.e., the private sector) such as AFCC and its overseas friends (other organizations) and members.  There’s even a magazine which was (I heard) kind of floundering, but high-profile Michael E. Lamb, PhD (from Cambridge, UK) is now its editor; he’s great friends, apparently, with Richard Warshak and others, and has vowed to take the magazine, sponsored by the AMERICAN Psychological Association, “international” in scope.  “Psychology, Public Policy and The Law” (browse the editorial board and note the mailing address of “Editor.”)  Note, “Inaugural Editorial Feb. 2013” (By Michael E. Lamb); it’s just about one-and-a-half pages, fine print.  The opening paragraph is where I understood it had existed before under “Ron Roesch” but had been “faltering.”  Now it is to be made a “flagship” journal preparing for a global world, taking advantage of how widely-spoken English is… (any emphases added are mine, not author’s, in the next quote):

…To date, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law has contributed effectively to debates in the criminal law and policy arenas, with attention to such issues as testimonial competence, the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, developmental differences in witness reli- ability, culpability, and the potential for rehabilitation. However, burgeoning empirical scholarship can and should inform public policy and civil law debates on issues as diverse as appropriate postseparation parenting plans; adoption, fostering, placement, and child welfare intervention; the inclusion of children’s voices in civil law contexts (e.g., parental divorce; placement after maltreat- ment); reproductive rights; educational policy (especially in rela- tion to children with special needs); mental health treatment; and involuntary confinement or treatment. Accordingly, the journal’s new editorial team aims to ensure that Psychology, Public Policy, and Law becomes recognized as the first journal experts consult when they seek informed discussions on such issues. Whereas the journal is currently a forum in which psychologists predominantly spell out the state of knowledge about a (currently quite narrow) range of issues, in sum, we now seek to broaden both the range of issues addressed and the range of voices represented. Increasing numbers of contributions by lawyers and policymakers will not only inform debates directly but also increase the quality and relevance of the applied and basic research conducted by the psychologists they inspire and with whom they engage.

Do not lose sight of the purpose of the sponsor organization — The APA.  Promoting the importance and welfare of its professional members is a core purpose.  This, of course, is for public benefit and for the betterment of society — but it still is a (huge) membership, i.e., trade (sic), organization. (I say “(sic)” because traditionally “Trades” differed from white-collar “professions.”)

Further, and perhaps more controversially, Psychology, Public Policy and Law must adapt to a globalized world, seeking to become a forum not only for the North Americans (mostly psychologists living in and studying the United States) and also for the many psychologists, legal scholars, and public policy analysts around the world who have been peripheralized in the past.** We are fortunate to live in an era during which English has become a universal language and we should seek to capitalize on this by [page break in original] explicitly providing a forum for issues that are of interest to scholars outside as well as within North America.

** Yes, after all, how deeply unfortunate that the AMERICAN Psychological Association, tax-exempt organization in the United States of America (multi-million-dollar) has so deeply “peripheralized” the interests of non-“Americans” and people whose home governments have different constitutions, some, unlike the USA, an official national religion (see “gender issues” “patriarchy” “clergy” “sharia”), some, known monarchies associated also with said religion; others more socialist, and — importantly in this field — some (the EU and the UK, specifically) who have UNLIKE the USA, signed and ratified certain treaties with major ramifications on issues such as “shared parenting” and children’s “rights” {{including the “right” to be abused by one parent while the other must, under terms of extortion, threat, or being jailed, extradited, etc., consent to this abuse under the terms}} {{thereby continuing to generate MAJOR ongoing business for behavioral modification (batterers’ intervention, “Domestic Abuse Perpetrators,” or “parental alienation prevention”) professionals (did I yet mention, “Fatherhood” practitioners, institutes…?)}}.  ((Follow or read me on Twitter too for more recent commentary on specific organizations in the UK, Australia, and Canada @LetUsGetHonest along these lines…))

Success will require retention of the current readership … while expanding representation on the editorial board by scholars from outside the traditional base (more specifically, by drawing on the expertise of lawyers, public policy analysts, and scholars outside North America) and encouraging submissions by authors who are not “the usual suspects.” Experience shows us how quickly new journals can achieve widespread recognition when they occupy a crucial uncontested niche. The time is thus ripe to establish Psychology, Public Policy, and Law as the flagship journal, not only for psychologists working at the interface with law, but also for those at the intersection of all three disciplines.

“Crucial uncontested niche” being the key phrase in the business model.  Not a new concept, see Boston Consulting Group, Bain, or the Bain/Bridgespan (for-profit|not-for-profit consulting model, with help from nearby universities — like Harvard…)..BCG Growth Matrix Quadrant (Cash Cows, Dogs, Stars, and Question Marks). Where the field is highly competitive, specialization is the key.  If you define the niche, you also define the terms within the niche (it seems to me the organization AFCC is expert at this…”interdisciplinary, international and we make up our own jargon for application upon the public sector — internationally.  If one country won’t submit, experts from another will be brought to bear upon the “recalcitrant” country — or (individually, for its “market niche,” recalcitrant parent in a specific case..)…  Next quote is from Wiki on Boston Consulting Group (but not the exact reference I’m looking for)…

Henderson believed that in a competitive landscape in which larger and better-known consulting firms were present, BCG must carve out a distinctive identity by focussing on specialisation.[8] In 1966, BCG became the first Western strategy consulting firm to open an office in Japan.[9] It expanded in Europe in the 1970s, opening offices in London, Paris, Munich, and Milan.[10] In 1975, Henderson arranged an employee stock ownership plan to buy shares from The Boston Company, the parent corporation of The Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company. The buyout of all shares was completed in 1979, making the firm fully owned by its employees.[9] When Henderson stepped down as president and CEO in 1980, BCG had seven offices and 249 consultants.[7] He stayed on as chairman until 1985, when he formally retired from BCG.[6]

See Wiki on Bridgespan (uncritical, but helpful information), also out of Boston, but got a later start.  The concept of a nonprofit organization providing analytical consulting (of the sort Bain would do) but for philanthropies (and governments).  I’ve blogged this, and I discovered it on the tax return, in the role of a consultant (Part VIIB) for some other nonprofit.  Several large nonprofits were quick to realize that this could be a cash cow — not a one of the major ones is ignorant that nonprofits have assets too and maintain positive press and reduced taxation through support of the field, i.e., ‘philanthropy’ and ‘charity’ (tax-exempt organizations united…):

Bridgespan grew from a desire by Bain & Company to expand their support of nonprofits. The idea started by doing occasional pro bono work for nonprofits. Bain consultant Thomas Tierney had been involved with nonprofit work since the 1980s, but after becoming worldwide Managing Director, Tierney began to focus his attention on consulting for charities. Between 1995 and 1999, three studies about the nonprofit market were conducted. Establishing an industry concentration was considered and rejected, instead the decision was made to create an allied, yet still independent, entity called the Bridgespan Group.[2]

In 1996 co-founder Jeff Bradach, a business professor and former Bain consultant, joined the company. In 1998, co-founder Paul Carttar, also a former Bain consultant, joined. Tierney pitched the idea of forming Bridgespan to his partners in 1999. He emphasized his desire for an ongoing partnership with Bain, which would accrue benefits (e.g., recruitment as well as public relations). Bain provided Bridgespan with a one million dollar grant for the first three years, in addition to administrative support and several loaned employees (“externs”).[2][6] The organization was also initially supported by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and the Atlantic Philanthropies.[1]

The group launched its first website, http://www.bridgespan.org, in 2000 and started operations from a Boston-based office. By fall of 2000, the organization had 27 employees and had opened an office in San Francisco. Their services emphasized analytical consulting. Even with substantial subsidies, the assignments were too expensive for charities.[2]


My marriage — living and having children with this particular husband — was, EXCEPT having and living with our children growing into wonderful human beings who wouldn’t (in our case at least ) have existed without it, hell. It was destructive almost immediately and long-term; a waking, sleep-deprivation nightmare and it was almost lethal.  It was a constant fight, and planning around much beyond surviving incidents and replacing lost work or education opportunities for the children as fast as I could engaging in it/them, was counter-productive.  Things just escalated.

Fine-print annotations on this view of NRFC (fatherhood.gov) explains that NFLG (referenced there) as of that date only ONE tax return found so far, it’s been IRS revoked and re-instated, and other important info. Click related link to see full-sized as pdf.

Then I find, after getting out safely with young children still living in my household, and after they were (many years later, after protection was stripped off — apparently first item of business — child support arrears mounting, and family court dissolution ongoing) overnight switched to the other household while half-raised years later, that the country, the USA, where I was born, attended college, worked, and where this happened and still happens (and worse) to many educated, self-supporting before and after the violence women, still asserts that marriage and family is the FOUNDATION of society and should be preserved and promoted at almost any cost.

Guess our lives are just expendable to that (idol, cause, theory, philosophy – – – and) policy, then.  [See “Footnote to ‘Marriage, The Foundation of Society,’ ” at bottom of this post.]


FRPN.org home page, uses the word “practice” and “practitioner” repeatedly, but admits its an HHS Project (grant# cited) led by (a) a Temple Univ sociologist (Jay Fagan)+ (b) a ca. 1980-founded Colorado 501©3 well known in the HMRF, Access/Visitation, AFCC and fathers’rights fields (Center for Policy Research, Inc.). My related images show I was posting on FRPN probably in August, 2016.

Did I push for Welfare Reform based on 1960s Senator Moynihan’s piece calling for a national policy regarding “The Negro Family” and characterizing matriarchy (female-headed houses) in our patriarchal country, a “Pathology.” (NB: His life, along with our recent President Obama’s and many other successful men and women raised “fatherless” must all be exceptions to this universal principle)? Did I make the field so attractive that it’s now got “Practitioners” and researchers, and networks (nonprofit and taking federal grants)?

Link to July 2015 (?) article in “Jacobin Magazine”. Recommended reading, although two years earlier same (?) author omitted the topic of sexism in reviewing responses to the same report.

No, I did not. There was enough to handle on my plate/in my face in the 1990s (and early 2000s and even until now) without coming up with such plans to solve poverty, crime, and its “obvious” primarily cause — fatherlessness, unfair bias pro-woman, anti-man throughout US social services, and too much sex not preceded by, or at least followed up by, marriage. (“The Four Purposes of TANF“)

 



Having become aware of this (eventually), Did I from 1999ff, 2003ff or about 2005ff — two specific organizations and a conference come to mind from those years —  trawl the internet and news headlines for custody disasters to locate followers, engage with, coach, counsel, ask or directly (in my communications) just repeatedly order (tell) battered mothers  (with “custody challenges”) nationwide, with friends & colleagues, instead of:

<>following the money, <>identifying the entities (in the process of following the money) <>looking such things up as I’m posting here, and <>appealing to: the public as taxpayers; “formerly battered mothers”;  and concerned fathers to do and post (blog, publicize, talk about) the same

promoting:

<>Arguing Gardner <>Arguing PAS, <>attributing “junk psychological science” and “flawed practices” (not human nature & “the love of money”) as THE cause for poor judicial decision-making resulting in harm to women, children (and let’s face it, plenty of men), and (a corollary) <>thus implying that most judges and family court authorities are good people, just easily tricked and deceived by cunning sociopath batterers — i.e., that these good civil servants are gullible and just in need of illumination by (yours truly) about how flawed their practices and misguided their beliefs have been?

Last, but hardly least (in this impromptu “don’t shoot the messenger” protests):

 

Have I been suggesting since about 2011/2012 — for the sake of collegial and mutually supportive relations with disbarred attorney/s EMERGE-ing from the batterers’ intervention field and in need of a justification, a righteous cause (and apparently increased book sales)-– that a solution “meaningfully” named after a suburb of Boston is the ideal solution to death, trauma, waste and distress by domestic violence handling in the family court system, which would change everything??  

Which suburb of Boston’s nickname is “City of Presidents” and motto is “Manet,” per Wiki Latin for “It remains“??

Courtesy Wikipedia, 12/13/2018

Quincy, MA, Progressive + Religious School Systems (per Wiki viewed 12/13/2018)


 

THE QUINCY SOLUTION (to the problem of “How can WE do what AFCC already is without actually mentioning it?) i.e., access some more public funds in the name of such a great cause and (our) less flawed / more evidence-based practices to achieve it?

(FOR MUTUAL-REFERRAL MARKETING AS PROCLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND REPORTERS) (aka “Acting…” Acting concerned about the downtrodden and outraged at their injury — while knowingly engaged in coverups — and claiming expert status — but refusing to survey known elephants in the SAME room.

If it ain’t coverups (which, it is), perhaps the most innocent evaluation of (Mr. G & friends) is “Thought-leading while ignorant”?  Sleepwalking?  well-intentioned stupidity?  Somehow I don’t think so.  I think it’s a little closer to predator behavior.  

I’ll show you some of this (not all; it’s on the back-burner, post pipeline to show some more of the organizational drilldowns and switcheroos)…. then — main topic of this post — I’ll show you SIMILAR BEHAVIORS in known AFCC-associated professionals regarding the Parent Education (forced) field as well as the (now that we know this — if not, see my last post, or research it separately — that consumption of “OFW®” has judicial precedent for being (like parent coordination, mediation, and more) FORCED onto (perceived) “high-conflict” parents — both of them — globally.

And you draw your own conclusions if the behaviors are similar, or drastically different.  But again — no answers until you’ve gone through the corporate filings – – not just the rhetoric delivered through items published by those affiliated with the corporations..


Footnote to “Marriage, The Foundation of Society.”

(From this paragraph): Although my marriage was, with the exception of having and watching grow to wonderful human beings who wouldn’t (in our case at least ) have existed without it — hell, destructive immediate and long-term, and a waking nightmare; almost lethal — after getting out safely with young children still living in my household, and after they were overnight switched to the other household while half-raised years later — it turns out that the country I’ve lived in and was born in, worked in, and where this happens, instead believes that marriage is the FOUNDATION of society and should be preserved and promoted at almost any cost.

Thinking about this in retrospect and from the family court prospective, including would I EVER take this risk again, I see that (marriage) licenses, fees, and eventual control of offspring by the “state” can be obtained  by charging a little up front to get in and a lot more, continually over time, for those who subscribed to the institution to get out alive.. and for many, even sacrifice of ALL one has invested in one’s children (having, raising, providing for, looking to the futures of). That is, it reveals that the state also controls who can, and under what conditions anyone can exit the blessed state without becoming an official state “hazard,” especially if female.  I wonder how many people before subscribing (getting a license, going through with the process, filing the record with the local county clerk to make it official) consider how this invites even more state participation in their future life choices.

So, if and when marriages don’t happen or don’t last, but children do, psychologists + lawyers will NEVER be short of clients, even if it means billing the public more for funds made available TO the states FOR the Courts, and ways to mandate consumption of services to economically penalize “no-fault” divorce as though divorce were the real crime.

FOOTNOTES!

FOOTNOTE “Development Services Group, Inc.” (Bethesda, MD contractor terminated when NREPP was frozen in 2018)

 

— I found this by Googling “What woman owns Development Services Group, Inc.?”  It’s on their web page, just not readily navigated to. To answer my question (at least as of 2016, almost three years ago, out of its 35-year existence (not including times it was “revoked”), and majority stock owner), “Marcia Cohen“:

http://www.dsgonline.com/dsg_announces_woman_owned_status

Bethesda, Md. — Development Services Group, Inc. (DSG), a research consulting and professional services firm in Bethesda, Md., recently announced that it became a woman-owned small business.

In April 2016, Marcia Cohen became the President of DSG, the new chairperson of the firm’s corporate board, and its majority stockholder. For 15 years, she served as DSG’s Vice President for Research and Evaluation. Ms. Cohen is a distinguished researcher and evaluation manager, with an exceptional track record in business development and project management.

Among her many accomplishments, Ms. Cohen has spearheaded innovations in the assessment of research that underlies effective government programs and in the development of evidence-based repositories of such assessments, for the U.S. Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services.

In other words, her career curve, apparently has been mostly contracting with the federal government, or working for those who did… three different agencies.  I’d call that an “in” ….

These projects include CrimeSolutions.gov, the Model Programs Guide, the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, and the What Works Clearinghouse for postsecondary education.

These projects have earned for DSG a national and international reputation for leadership, innovation, and rigor in the evidence assessment of justice, education, behavioral health, and human services programs. Ms. Cohen has provided leadership, innovation, and management acumen to projects in all of these areas, and she will continue to do so in her new role with DSG. She also oversees DSG’s training and technical assistance awards for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, including the Youth Violence Prevention Coordinated Training and Technical Assistance Programa White House initiative that works with 39 sites.

Ms. Cohen has demonstrated the leadership required to maintain and build on these successes. “DSG is a dynamic firm that will continue to grow while setting the highest standards for work on key and pressing issues in the fields of juvenile and criminal justice, education, behavioral health, and human services,” she said.

Alan Bekelman, founder and former President of DSG, has assumed the position of DSG’s Executive Vice President and will continue to lead its business development efforts. “Ms. Cohen’s ongoing commitment to social justice is reflected in the work she chooses to do and the analytical and policy-related products she produces,” Mr. Bekelman said. “Her extraordinary leadership in making the ‘what works’ field relevant to practitioners and communities well equips her to provide the leadership so valued by DSG’s federal clients.”
DSG is located at 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 E, in Bethesda, Maryland. The firm has more than 60 staff, more than 400 consultants, and working partnerships with numerous other major national research consulting and professional service firms, both large and small.

Footnote: New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (links, quotes from Wiki):

 

Established April 29, 2002, Executive Order 13263 (shown from the Federal Register; notice it’s in a list of commissions or committees which were later revoked or discontinued because their work was finished…Executive Order 13316, {<~active link) September 17, 2003, under Section 3) “See also” (its sidebar says), Proclamation 7804 of July 26, 2004 (Proclaiming the 14th Anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act), and reminding us that:
My Administration continues its work to achieve these goals. My New Freedom Initiative, announced in February 2001, sets out a comprehensive strategy for the full integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of American life….
My Administration has also begun implementing the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. The Commission was established by Executive Order and its report lays out steps that can be taken to improve mental health services and support for people of all ages with mental illness.

From the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (Wikipedia), which is flagged for “needs additional citations for verification,” the section on Opponents, i.e., referencing TMAPP in use when President George W. Bush was then Governor of Texas, and the ramifications.  I’ve blogged this (herein) before, some years ago:

A coalition of opponents questioned the motives of the commission, based on the results from a similar 1995 Texas mandate while Bush was Governor. During the Texas Medication Algorithm Project mandate, psychotropic medication was wrongfully prescribed to the general public. Specifically, TMAP and drug manufacturers marketed ‘atypical antipsychotic drugs’, such as Seroquel, Zyprexa, and others,[3] for a wide variety of non-psychotic behavior issues. These drugs were later found to cause increased rates of sudden death in patients.

In addition to atypical antipsychotic drugs, earlier versions of psychotropic medications, including Prozac, were found to sharply increase rates of suicide, especially during the first month of drug use.[4] Also during TMAP, psychotropic medication was wrongfully prescribed to people not suffering from mental illness, including troublesome children and difficult elderly people in nursing homes.[5] In 2009, Eli Lilly was found quilty of wrongfully marketing Zyprexa for non-psychotic people.[6]

Opponents also assert the New Freedom initiative campaign is a thinly veiled proxy for the pharmaceutical industry to foster psychotropic medication on mentally healthy individuals in its pursuit of profits. Opponents also contend that the initiative’s wider objectives are to foster chemical behavior control of American citizens, contrary to civil liberties and to basic human rights. {{italics and bold emphases are added.  Underlined words are links, in the usual Wikipedia style}}.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: