Archive for October 2019
Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.)
THIS post’s TITLE:
Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF.” About 7,000 words at Nov. 3).
A four-paragraph summary and one “**” (extended, with images) (mid-way) right before I publish:
1.
I split a post in two. Then I split the first post, publishing its preview section as its own post October 27, then the first post October 30, and now this second, Oct. 31, 2019. Some internal references between these may be shared where it says “see below” or “herein.” While published on three separate days they belong together as a unit.
2.
Both prior posts incorporated some links to my concurrent Twitter threads featuring (my) recent discoveries of more organizations, people, and websites through illustrating HOW “Parent Coordination” as a specialized, trained practice (specifically) moved from Canada to the UK** while maintaining close, acknowledged connections with the Canada and the USA, namely, AFCC as an organization. That’s why “FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals” often quickly reveals the propagation/replication/train-the-trainers overseas expansion process.
In fact (as I recall) I’d started simply with a recent lookup of the AFCC-Ontario charitable registration in Canada, printed out the board of directors, picked one (female) whose name was familiar to me by association with “reunification” programming (and as mentioned in some mainstream media — with NO reference to AFCC in the media at all, generally) about a year ago and earlier. Looking again at that website quickly led me to the c.v. of a younger (male) mentee which cited other websites (and people) intent on promoting parenting coordination in Canada, and at least one situation where it migrated, — apparently around 2015/2016/2017 — to the UK.
Separately, I’d noticed (didn’t blog, may have mentioned in passing on Twitter) how very recent the “Single Family Courts” were installed in the UK as a separate jurisdiction and administrative operations. This seems to have been around 2014. Coincidence(?) that not long after, another push for “parent coordination” is made? after which (Feb. 2018) AFCC has a [by definition, invitation-only, private) consultation with “Relate” at St. Georges (Windsor Castle).
AFCC — but not only AFCC — has long been featured on this blog, with the various public (federal, state, other) and private funding streams this organization teaches and/or coaches, it seems, its members to organize replicating networks of nonprofits to take advantage of in solving the basic problems of population management and control.
Thus each new generation’s workers becomes aware enough and groomed to JUST the level of cognizance of “how government (and, in general, its finances) works” to become obedient workers. We are to have a greater sense of independence, choice, and leadership who cares and listens to us than actually exists.
The populations (in more than one developed country) are also split between managerial class and the managed “hordes.” In this environment, it increasingly seems that one of the safest jobs is to become part of the (social services focused) managerial class; the idea to keep the pot bubbling but not boiling over and ruining the ongoing “food chain” off which the owner classes feed and hire others to work.
Financial, Intellectual or even political independence from the standard allowable deviation of an increasingly planned economy is discouraged. Obviously this paragraph is my jaundiced opinion, but I still post links to the facts on which it’s based….and discuss how I arrived at it. The next “**” just summarizes from recent posts.
**By showing links to a fairly recent example in images and quotes, as indicators. I’m not saying that’s THE only way, but it is one to become aware of.
EXAMPLE: Overlapping nonprofit affiliations: one individual may belong to two or three AND have a government connection, AND (case in point) have been already previously mentored by known AFCC members running, with likewise overlapping and cross-border membership, nonprofits to run the programs which AFCC family court judges (Judges whose membership is known) can order — in the US has been established, in the UK is I see, now desired — parents to participate. Where parents cannot afford, pro bono or legal help is sought to facilitate more facilitators in their lives… 
AFCC Ontario (reg 11-20-2009) 22 Trustees FYE Jun2018, incl Ahsbourne, Bala, ShelyPolak et al (℅ CRA-ARC.GC.CA),T3010 Reg’dCharity Info Return|SectB – Dirs:T’tees+ Like Officials (viewed 2019Oct26Sat)
[Briefly and in part only: Barbara Jo Fidler: AFCC, Families Moving Forward (“FMF” may not be an entity, but has a website and is a known program name] Overcoming Barriers, Inc. (more details below and previously shown on this blog), per his c.v. AT “FMF” mentored at least in part Jared Norton (of FMF and Riverdale Mediation) in Toronto, Ontario Canada. That c.v. mentioned among his credits a name I hadn’t heard, “Family Law In Partnership” (citing “Gillian Bishop and Felicity Shedden) minus any identifying suffix) which turned out to be a UK organization (See Post #2 for dates) which then set up a FLiP Faculty in only January 2017 after having taken the “Parent Coordination Roadshow” on the road to the UK. A few more images available on recent Twitter threads, which other posts linked to. To see the networks from the outside- in is a lot more work and effort than being ON them working with or for family lawyers or in the family courts, expanding connections once the infrastructure, generally, is in place. That’s unfair to basic comprehension of government itself, in any of (this example) the three countries involved in just a few professionals’ lives: Canada, USA, and the UK. That’s among the reasons I say it resembles RICO more than honest provision of necessary services//LGH
UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows | Riverdale Mediation (June 19, 2017) this pdf 2019Oct28<~~Link to pdf brief post on RiverdaleMediation.com from which I learned more about the FLiP connection…
Gillian Bishop, per May 22, 2018 article “Law Firm launches diploma in psychological supervision of family lawyers” (posted by Nick Hilborne in “LegalFutures: Market Intelligence for the Future of Family Law”) showing FLiP connection to Christopher Mills, Family Consultant and Psychotherapist (FLiP offering a diploma in Family Law Supervision, sounds like self-care for lawyers; she wrote a forward to his book after being a “guinea pig” for that “three years ago” (about 2015). Then Parent Coordination Training 2016 in Toronto and the Parent Coordination family law tour (Taking Mr. Norton along) in?/as written up June 2017(?), and in January 2017 (I looked up separately, FLiP Faculty Ltd. was incorporated in the UK with just 100 GP spit between three individuals and FLiP, which is “Family Law in Partnership, Ltd.” [Two-image gallery:]
-
- Gillian Bishop (May 22, 2018 article) Family Law Supervision diploma (Christopher Mills, psychotherapist)
-
- Gillian Bishop (as listed on FLipFaculty.org, entity inc. January 2017) (note mentions mediation, Resolution, Christopher Mills, Parenting Coordination etc.)
Read the fine print in Ms. Bishop’s qualifications as found on that new entity’s website (all “Trainers” listed alphabetically). It appears to have been formed to run just two types of trainings: Primarily Parent Coordination (see image above with 8-part) and Family Law Supervision.
Riverdale Family Mediation Services (Canada) (1 of 2 doorways into the site, the other reads “Trainings”). Here, A President, (Hilary Linton) a Partner (Elizabeth Hyde), and a Retired Ontario Judge (Clifford S. Nelson) are listed. How Found? Jared Norton (MSW 2010, of FMF’s) c.v. had many references to Riverdale Mediation, which also listed the “UK PC Roadshows” (see nearby pdf) //LGH Oct. 31, 2019
Elizabeth Hyde, as shown with all the suffixed initials at RiverdaleMediation.com Notice the emphasis on trainings. One of the entities (Mediate393.com Inc.) seems to have an “in” with the court referrals, but I have not looked up this or the other one listed here (yet).
3.
KNOW THAT: Where you see Parent Coordination you WILL hear “Parent Alienation” which, generally, indicates “AFCC was here…” either training, or inspiring the transnational establishment of more nonprofits to work with government and promote its ideologies, that is, social engineering through linguistic indoctrination and incrementally increasing control of finances. As AFCC is now openly working with Cafcass, differences between the two operations, while organized differently (AFCC in the US is a private non-profit, Cafcass is not) the agenda’s are blended.
4.
Thus, in any developed country the public pays to educate itself/themselves on both sides of the conflict and for personnel to settle the conflicts. Tax-exempt foundations “eat it up” as good for their lines of work also… being the good guys, just helping (each respective) government do its job better while rotating personnel in and out of foundation-sponsored positions to direct employment, or at times both…
THIS post’s TITLE, again:
Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF,” this part likely under 6,500 words).
This post has a stronger tone of voice and more of certain kinds of details (drill-downs) than its counterpart, written earlier. It has I believe more links and a stronger tone of voice, reflecting other things I’m observing having taken place in Canada, the UK (specifically in England, Scotland and Wales) and to a degree in Australia, most of which also tie into what has been going on for decades in the USA too, regarding the two-edged sword (?) of protecting children and women from abuse while sponsoring “family-based” programming and setting in place specialized family courts — versus just family “proceedings” — and seeking to dominate who runs them collectively.
A serious conversation needs to be held around this small but vocal and “ensconced in positions of power — or advising power”) entity (and its chapters) the AFCC as it pertains to the origins and conduct of the family court. Tweaking family court conduct after it’s been set up from the outside in with the likes of AFCC is a losing proposition (see frog attempting to climb out of a well. One foot up, two feet back).
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30).
This post may be further edited (including being condensed) after publishing.
POST TITLE: Trouble Navigating the pro/con “PAS” Conflict? Keep it simple: FIRST, Identify the AFCC Authors/Speakers/Presenters (often also Judges/Lawyers/Psychs, Program Operators, etc.)! THEN interrogate any remaining non-AFCC, Gov’t.-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership.. (started July 30, 2019, Publ. Oct. 30). (shortlink ends “-asn”). Currently a long post…
WHY I said “non-AFCC” — most “government-funded violence prevention leadership” (speaking for in the USA, and I’ve seen some in Canada and the UK also) are working for or leading what by definition are AFCC-enabling violence prevention groups:
Actually, they’d be pretty hard to find. The field is pretty well financially co-opted and controlled already. Why? With AFCC comes certain father-focused grants streams (both federal and private) and known networks, as well as programs (curricula) run through the same; the DV prevention groups draw off those streams too, in the USA; this is a general “fact of life” post-welfare reform (1996 P.R.W.O.R.A and subsequent versions) to this date. Those funding streams have not been stopped, yet, and (like the AFCC) rarely (if ever) make main stream media critique tied into the family court systems.
Any”Gov’t-Funded Violence-Prevention Leadership” complaining about the use of “parental alienation” as unsound science (i.e., psychology) allegedly causing the under-informed judiciary to mistake batterers (male or female) for “nice guys” without referencing AFCC probably are AFCC or colluding with to protect the mutual, respective niches. The silence when addressing the public is likely a professional courtesy to members of the “practitioner/trainer” etc. class than none of the masses, really, belong to… or need to know about….
The “Family Court Reform” regarding domestic violence or “abuse” organizations (and leadership, conferences, etc.) also tend to ignore AFCC; many seem to be a subset of the DV groups and working consistently with them. From the start until this day (I’m thinking specifically of people historically involved with the (USA) “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” held in upstate New York or Washington, D.C. area, but with organizations and individuals based in other states, including California). Basically, anyone who doesn’t align with this ‘ignore/enable AFCC” policy is ignored, sidelined by silenced, and certainly unlikely to gain access to the US HHS or DOJ (whether under VAWA or NIJ) funds to publicize the field and “raise awareness.”
Key claim in this post, which holds some recent and I felt easy-to-grasp current illustrations of one aspect of it (although, generally, the blog handles this topic at length), you’ll see this below:
I’ve got evidence of, what seems to be originally USA-based AFCC-associated professionals ranging across North America (including Canada, the USA (with Hawaii), Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (at a minimum) ensconced for YEARS inside and leveraging their positions and influence, or outright directing: [there follows a list of what they’re directing, in context below]
Which is why you should
“Read a few damn tax returns!”
and see another interpretation of why some people are so intent on establish more and more layers of administrative trainers for the entire population (Pro, or Con PAS, too…). They know more than are telling the public about available resources and while it seems proud of some of this support, still discourage the public from actually looking at or assessing it.
Even living in countries which don’t make them available, you can read tax returns (or see lack of them) from companies based in the US — which AFCC and many of its spinoffs are… You can also, probably, view (where available) records of government grants to some of those larger tax returns, showing the Public/Private symbiotic relationship between corporations and government for social services. It is actually a SHORT CUT to better understanding of the family courts, though it may seem on the surface like a side-trip.
This post had a preview, published Oct. 27, now about 3,100 words.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Sort and Label: Parent(ing) Coordination,#1 | Parental Alienation, #2 | and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, #3. Which is Source, Which Conduit and Which (Leading-Edge) Content? [About 1,500 words, Publ. Oct. 27, 2019].
(Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-bsg“). Added images and a bit of text to go with are at the bottom, expanding upon a link to “Families Moving Forward” (with at least two professionals also being AFCC-Ontario board members) near the top, copyedited for clarity, so now about 3,000 words. Oct. 28).
“Label & Sort” might be a better word order, hard to sort without familiarity with the things being sorted. My concern in these fields is that rote repetition seems to substitute for observation, a focus more on the promotion than the understanding of what’s been promoted (again, pro/or con when it comes to “Parental Alienation.”)
It may seem easier to just quote a catch-phrase than consciously remember what category it belongs in, as encouraged by most websites promoting any cause (including websites arguing against, here PAS) which tend to downplay their own business identities, locations, and with it, age and size. I showed an example recently in the “Annual Report” financial section (just one page with two piecharts and some VERY fine print, showing Revenues and Expenses only, no Assets and Liabilities) of the “London Family Court Clinic” in Ontario Canada. But we ought to distinguish between an advertising campaign, who’s been sponsoring it, and how it’s disseminated. These campaigns are now central to social services, health services, and “family court services..”
But, when and where any group in a field of interest, like this one, is “sketchy” and evasive on exactly who or what it is (not “who they are” and listing a board of directors or “our team” who may be volunteers but have interests in related businesses being promoted) (…even after a website phrase saying, perhaps, “we are a nonprofit” or (USA) a 501©3 nonprofit organization… I still ask myself “where are the financials? even when there, what do they contain?” and then go look for them.
You’d be surprised how some of the largest entities around present their own tax returns or audited financial statements.
Then in the pro/con PAS, there are the amazing, flexible and evolving “university center” non-entities… (not the topic of this post)
There’s a “shell game” being played with our lives, our public resources, in and around our courts. I say “our” because it’s played on an international level with local “applications” but not exactly local representation at the international level where collaborations take place.
In this shell game, one shell (label) is frequently not even on the table The audience is asked to guess, gamble, pick a side and place its bets pro/con #1 and #2 without awareness on #3. I aim to correct that.
Awareness of #3 exposes that there IS a major, broad-based, macroeconomic game being played and who’s been playing it and indicates potentially which one. Awareness of #3 (and follow through) provides a backdrop and leadership character indicator of those involved in this game — not necessarily competence in their respective chosen fields, but character and level of ethics for participating in this game for a living.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated "C.Psych" and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).
Just so you know: This post has many large BIG pictures with pretty springtime–bright colors, even a few cartoons, directors’ head-shots in circle’d cutouts and is possibly even shorter than its title.
I’m as tired of the word-games / name-changes as anyone else, but not too tired to make fun of a few of them such as the ongoing attempts to use graphics, including pie-charts with tiny numbers, and half the facts to coverup conflicts of interest and erect barriers to seeing the financials (even as posted under a link labeled “Financials”) followed by a lot of name-dropping (parts of Canadian government and specific foundations that are behind it).
This one is about 7,500 words, after I did “just a bit more” look-up and added that information to the top of the post (and more updates, reformatting Oct. 20).
LONDON FAMILY COURT CLINIC INCORPORATED
Digging for information:
Basic Website: https://www.lfcc.on.ca Motto: “Professional Services for Families in Court”
Directors: Daniel T. Ashbourne, C. Psych, Kimberly C. Smith, C. Psych, Joyce Radford, C. Psych.
(No JD’s or accountants?)
LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website. Read the legend for the categories. Fees for services and “All other revenue” under which they’d be included (dark green) only 20.8% or about 1/5th. What kind of assets are accumulated? Doesn’t show.
(Bio snapshots of each from web page shown in 21-image series below).
Is it a Court, or a Clinic? Well, Canadian Charities Search Site has it as a charity (private entity), effective date 1977 (not 1974), Fiscal Year ending March 31, and a pie-chart (differing from the one shown by the organization on where its revenues come from by category (Remember: not US$)
LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website
Originators, per its “About Us/History” page,## which holds just three short, “link-less” paragraphs to cover over forty years (##an image provided below also):
Judge Maurice H. Genest, “mustered a small group of local professionals” to start “family court clinic” modeled after one in Toronto — but where to get the money? Oh… the Ministry of Health… .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)
Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”. Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019))
Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark (™). I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post. I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”
I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014. The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC]. BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority. As does, at least now, I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.
I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):** which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***
(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes. ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth. I actually look up footnotes… So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)
London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.
***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….
Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening. No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.
I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections. So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.
What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names
Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity? If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.
Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free? And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare? IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?
“How representative is it, really?”
In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Read (with the goal of understanding!) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019)
This post is:
Read (with the goal of understanding) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019) (short-link ends “-bie”, published at 8,700 words with extra section on the NAS and some intro).
The National Science Foundation (“NSF,” 1950ff, under President Truman) history ties in closely to Vannevar Bush. So does the history of Abt Associates (1965ff) as it intersects with Raytheon. In many ways the history of the NSF illuminates the history of the United States in the 20th Century. You can’t understand much of where we are now, and why, without some acquaintance with it.
BRAINInitiative.NIH.Gov (Google the term; many web domains will come up describing it, and President Obama’s 2013 launch of parts of it!).
The NSF website has a nice version, but this enthusiastic short summary is from Research! America, a nonprofit I also researched because of its involvement with (and dependency on) the buildup of the HHS and NIH especially as promoted Mary Lasker, and because of other certain Brain Institutes (as I recall) funded by, well, rich people….
-
- Research! America (searchable on this blog; see tag I added to this one) waxing eloquent about the National Science Foundation and in the process giving us a nice, short summary. (Basic URL visible in top of images) in 4 images viewed Oct. 2019
-
- (One reason for this image gallery: note the classifications, esp. the one on bottom right: Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences)
Any history of the NSF will mention how it arose after World War II and in the early years, USA was caught off guard by Russia in the “Space Race.” “What’s it to me?” (Keep reading…)
I have a short post on Abt Associates who, possibly because of its data-crunching ability, like many companies formerly involved in U.S. government military contract, found purposes in both consumer electronics AND continued dealings with the might of the U.S. government built up for and during wartime as turned to “health, education, and welfare” purposes (1953-1980) thereafter, at least that “health” part called “Health and Human Services” — the largest grant-making department. Other groups (like MDRC or the Urban Institute) would run the social science R&D on poor people and certain types of consulting agencies would then analyze and write up the projects — like Mathematica Policy Research, MEF Associates, and Abt Associates.
Some companies, also specializing heavily in federal contracts and consulting, seem to have managed to both get grants to run the projects AND be on the evaluation teams (I’m thinking of ICF International which got so wealthy doing this it continued acquiring other companies and now is a multinational for-profit (i.e., global) corporation. Its advice was sought during the 2000 Greenbook Initiative on Overlap of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence, with participation from (then-called) Family Violence Prevention Fund, which has also since gotten fairly fat on contracts and grants — and become a real estate investor in the San Francisco Presidio, too. (Searchable on this blot).
My recent, short, Abt Associates post:
SHARE THIS POST on...
Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, at first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].
Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends. “-abD” only 3,000 words)
[Devex.com is a media platform for this industry; Abt Associates also has (or at one point had) advisory board member on its board].
Devex.Com self-definition of their platform referencing the market niche for the $200B industry (viewed 6-24-2019)
Offices as you can see in Washington, D.C., Barcelona, Spain and in Manila, the Philippines.
In very fine print from the very bottom of (most?) pages.
Devex is the media platform for the global development community.
A social enterprise, we connect and inform 1 million development, health, humanitarian, and sustainability professionals through news, business intelligence, and funding & career opportunities so you can do more good for more people. We invite you to join us.
[[Its “Terms of Use” statement as of today is labeled version Feb. 2, 2012, and gives more understanding of the purposes, esp. under 4) DISCLAIMERS [first five paragraphs], and at the bottom UNDER “10) MISCELLANEOUS, h) “CISG Not Apply. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply.]]
Abt Associates is probably not the largest of its kind, but its niche and types of work it does is typical of those who derive federal, private, and state-sponsored business operations from evaluating social science R&D run upon the poor of, well, to start with, the United States, and eventually (or tested there first) applied internationally too: see the words “international” or “global” and the word “development” in goods & services descriptions. By virtue of using this word, implied contribution of at least SOMEONE’s home government is implied.
In the UK: “DID” the USA: USAID, etc. By definition it is likely to be public/private in nature, even when individual projects may be primarily private: Their sources of revenues often comes from pre-existing government funding understood to be ongoing through the power of taxation.
SHARE THIS POST on...
1. ‘Really Want Systems Change?’, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘Technical Training and Assistance Excuse’ [Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019].
This post names four sidebar widgets and includes additional information on Wellesley Centers for Women and the BMTP (Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project) as it relates to violence-prevention efforts for the past several (more than two) decades. See also added blog right sidebar widget extension (under “More Resources”) for link to the Wellesley Centers for Women. The funding/funders of the WCW reveals another layer of critical, basic information to the field and involved professionals (cf. Batterers’ Intervention-focused male participating leadership) and why (almost from the start) it was international in focus, thus (conveniently?) ignoring the specifically domestic (USA) components as reflected in the mid-1990s, “Welfare Reform” years except as a progressive orientation might filter this information. [[Lead-in text updated during reformat, Nov. 3]]
1. ‘Really Want Systems Change?’, |2. ‘LGH. There’s STILL No Excuse. But…,’ |3. ‘To Support and Visually Upgrade,’ and, |4. ‘Technical Training and Assistance Excuse’ [Started Oct. 3, Publ. Oct. 4, 2019]. (shortlink ends “-bcv”, contains short-versions of sidebar widgets named in title).
At Oct. 3, under 5,000 words. With additional (top and footnoted) information on Wellesley Centers for Women and the Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project (BMTP’s 2002 “Speak Out” report), Oct. 4, about 9,500 words. ALSO NOTE: I’ve added a sidebar widget linking here (under “More Resources” section) also updated to reflect its added narrative & drill-down contents.//LGH Oct. 11, 2019.
Those name four sidebar text widgets….
This post delivers a bit more than promised, which I’ll leave you to deal with until or unless I decide to split it. Right now, I feel like “speaking out” about a number of things. The Wellesley part was an afterthought to the widget off-ramps which, due to timing probably, took on a life of its own today, Friday, October 4, after I thought the post was fine “as-is” October 3 evening.//LGH.
(“SPEAK OUT” | Cover page w/ year, title and “℅” who produced it) Image and link to full ‘BMTP at WC4W’ report’s 2002 pdf shown again below on “Footnote” to this Oct., 2019 LGH|FCM post (shortlink ending “=bcv”).
I completed this post fully Oct. 3 evening, without the verbal “outburst” I just wrote. I had intentionally postponed publishing one day til Oct. 5, then saw quickly on social media how timely the message on its footnote (itself a kind of indignant commentary on feminist “Gender Bias / Human Rights — vs. System Operations” response to domestic violence). I would consider myself feminist, except for the association with such behavior.
Below, I’d mentioned, off the top of my head (having already looked into the (websites, stated missions, financials where shown and 990s where they didn’t show but could be found anyhow) two obviously feminist-oriented US-based 501©s (tax-exempt, “nonprofit” organizations (Legal Momentum and Institute for Women’s Policy; | See Footnote) and another one which work seems central, is still often cited, but which was produced not out of a nonprofit, but out of an (elite: Ivy League I believe) New England college’s “Centers for Women” — the (2002) Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project (read the cover, above right).
This document’s publication date, project committee members (with a whole “1” woman actual survivor — the others are all JDs and a PhD (with which LundyBancroft sneaks in there, non-PhD’d as a co-author), “Contributing Authors” (actual survivor, not included; look closely), and on the bottom of the same page, the composition of its “Advisory Committee” are all helpful in understanding domestic violence advocacy today and why it seems so ineffective as applied to the family courts, IF you have some grasp of the funding and federalization of the movement, and when this began. (Answer: by the 1980s….)(~>Link to a pdf I made last July). BMTP FinalReport (I have been looking closely at this in its timeframe (post-PRWORA) and at involved parties who did NOT examine who or what are the Family Courts (AFCC or etc) | 2019July5
