Post title: Should the USA join the Commonwealth of Nations? And if Not, Why Should We Allow our Elected Federal and State Officials to sponsor Coordination of Child Welfare, Domestic Violence, and Family Court|Custody Practices, as Ordered (Ordained?) by Appointed (not elected) Experts To Promote Their Personal Beliefs, Practices, and Profits? (A Few Reminders of Who’s Who) [Started 2-17-2017, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-5VC”].
This post, I originally called “Offspring #2” from:
“Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)“] Completed Feb 14, 2017 (Valentine’s Day 🙂 ) but being one of perhaps 3 updates to the “Reconceptualize” post, there is a natural sequence in which should be published first, so I may delay another day or so. [With short-link ending “-5SR, ” was posted 2/19/2017]
…(and with two or three of its own 2017 offspring)
Two main themes (one regarding a program, another regarding one person/ality* and his related organizations under similar but not identical names) developed in this post have also been siphoned off to further develop them.
[“Offspring #1” on the programming labeled “QIC-NRF” was just published].
CURRENT INSPIRATION FOR THE POST IS JUST A RECENT SYMPTOM OF REPETITIVE PATTERNS: PROGRESSIVELY, INCREASINGLY STANDARDIZING OF FUNCTIONAL OPERATIONS (EASIER IN THIS TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN, ELECTRONICALLY-STORED, DOWNLOADABLE INFORMATION AGE) RELATING TO POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND BEHAVIORAL CONTROL PROGRAMMING, ACROSS SOCIAL SERVICE, COURT, EDUCATION, (AND OTHER) INSTITUTIONS INTERNATIONALLY.
In the arena of FATHERS and their FAMILIES, and CHILDREN’s ORGANIZATIONS, I cannot but help notice practitioners’ consistent interest sharing the
gospel (excuse me) best, evidence-based practices (often in trademarked form) in Commonwealth countries.
And, as it turns out recently, also with Russian universities and nonprofits, which I posted on recently (if you read the entire posts!).
A note on reading my posts since I started posting all those annotated images, of websites and/or tax returns (or printouts of federal grants). I typically incorporate summary, and sometimes more detailed, elements to the main message on the images. They are supportive illustrations AND an essential part of the message. For a more complete — or often a concise, distilled — summary of any single element shown in an image, read both its underlying (“screen-printed”) content and my annotations. Some viewing devices may not allow full-sized viewing (I noticed my cell-phone does), so I typically after annotating an image print it to pdf, upload both image and pdf to the blog (creating a link for full-sized viewing+ image both), and post the link either in image caption, or (obvious by their descriptive filenames) nearby, or in both places.
In this post, and as to a certain collaborative I’ve taken an interest in, the situation is complicated not through its basic pattern (public/private, pick a curriculum, promote and run the curriculum, and take sponsorship for running it from multiple sources), but through the number or participants and because several of those participants have opted to shift business names, or (at least one case) acquire a trade name (then change the trade name) and do corresponding face-lifts to their respective websites. I’ve been looking at it (at least) a month, and those images are selected from representative findings. I am writing about what I have seen in various findings; to understand, make sure to look (at the many images in this post), not just “listen” (read the main text), and so get a taste of the kinds of information and comprehension available to anyone who will look for it. //LGH
I could probably do more or better with this post (which has already been split — see bottom), but at this point (3/12/2017 Sunday evening) I am simply going to publish it. No question, there is plenty of valuable information, laid out as best I can, with supporting evidence. There will be some repetition, but I doubt any single part of it will be anything but fascinating — unless you already know this material?
And if so, why haven’t I found your blog (or book) on it yet?
The split-off part of the post (which is about where it originally started) has more actual information on the Commonwealth of Nations (generally, historically, and specific points of interest connecting to key issues in U.S. history (like the role of universities, the place of religion and religious leaders, what about the women?); it also points out that focusing on cause (not accounting) has been an intentional, planned inwriting method for breaking down national boundaries (jurisdictions) to make way — piece by piece — for global government. When published, this link will become active and accurate (til then WordPress may do a “best guess” within the blog). Repeated at the bottom of this post, with corresponding image:
This post title is taken from a screenshot below: Explaining my Inspirat’n for asking, on March 8, Internat’l Women’s Day, Should the USA Join the Commonwealth of Nations?… (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6bm”)
This post, dealing with the “nitty-gritty-details” explains why I’m concerned about the lack of boundaries and accountability in this programming area. If you have something (relevant, useful for the public) to say on this material, the comments field still works.
I’m deeply concerned about the proliferation and means of proliferation of this particular example also. The man (and two others in the LLC) in question is working the conference/training circuits (utilizing on-line registration, webinars, of course) in at least three created fields of practice supposedly on behalf of children and domestic violence victims, from a fatherhood perspective, involving (in some of the symposia) at least one known fathers’ rights activist with public connections, and in general, in an unoriginal manner, taking a basic boilerplate developed with NCJFCJ, BWJP, and associated interests (including within the “DV cartel”), called it unique, trademarked it (controlling the “competition”). Like, and with others, he’s been working the child welfare, domestic violence, batterers’ intervention/supervised visitation fields in several states, and abroad.
I’m not only concerned about the subject matter and cause, but about what appears to be several unethical (a.k.a. corrupt) practices involved in setting up the coordinated trainings.
One “personality” which inspired this specific “Offspring #2” post was David Mandel, who has taken his “SAFE and TOGETHER(™)” programming international at some point, leaving a trail of “annual reports not filed” and at least one “IRS status revoked” entity from Connecticut in the path, while riding the waves of the “Ohio IPV Collaborative” which stops just a single noun (“collaborative”) short of admitting to being an actual “partnership” as in, “Public/Private Partnership” that our simultaneously developed, prosperous but at the same time deficit-ridden (go figure THAT one out) USA has become such an expert at promoting. As are its philanthropic friends. Here’s an annotated image to practice on, link both separate and in caption:
DMA LLC © 2014 describing its US (names states) and Overseas (naming countries) + Model Suite of Tools & Interventns (etc) (2017-03-09 at 8.22PM
Below, from a 2014 pdf (not that 2014 was the start of this), if the concept is unfamiliar, still. The website is “nationalservice.gov” which brings one to the Corporation for National & Community Service. I see that even the CNCS itself now (or at least as of May 2014 from this document) has the motto “Finding what works. Making it work for more people.” Its “Social Innovation Fund” and the “evidence-based investment model” is described:
The Social Innovation Fund: Corporation for National & Community ServicePioneering an Evidence-Based Investment Model (May, 2014, from the Office of Research & Evaluation),
Authors: Christopher Spera, Ph.D. Adrienne DiTommaso, M.P.A. Mary Morris Hyde, Ph.D. Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D. (with acknowledgements also to others for their comments, incl. “They would also like to thank JBS International*** for their support of the SIF evaluation work under the direction of CNCS.”)
“…The SIF represents a new way of doing business with the federal government.”
“…Intermediaries selected through a competitive process must match federal grants, dollar for dollar, by raising additional private funds. The intermediaries, in turn, re-grant SIF funding to subgrantees in one of the SIF’s three focus areas: economic opportunity, youth development (from early childhood through transitions to adulthood), and healthy futures. Subgrantees also are required to match the federal investment, one-to-one, creating a powerful multiplier effect.”
“JBS International” sounded familiar, although I see the website has changed dramatically (more graphics, less information provided, plus thumbnail photos of their leadership and experts: MISSION: “Create sustainable change – in health care, social services, and education – that improves people’s lives.”
Founded 1985, in Maryland, a few screenprints….”JB” must refer to the two co-founders (women) and I see that they are really concerned about domestic violence and women’s rights (“Gender”) — in other countries, but in this country their concern for “women” (as a named area in this panorama) must be under “Children, Youth and Families.” (A pdf of their “work” page shows interactive photographic grid by topics: JBS International, Inc. (MD, 1985) Work page by topic | interactive photo grid (the pdf may not display as a grid, but links will be active. Or see from main company site under “work.”).
JBS International home page (MD company was acknowledged in the front of a May 2014 CNCS publication “Pioneering an Evidence-Based Investment Model” Serving vulnerable populations (and contracting with federal governments, state, commercial, and non-profit sectors).
Those CNCS/SIF focus areas have been a REAL economic opportunity for the investors….
(The work areas JBS International is showing parallel existing federal agency programming and named areas, Click on the “sector” or “view clients” to (a) see and (b) see that not much information on when, how, for how much (etc.) is divulged, but it does list the agencies. They also have offices in California and Georgia. I looked up the California Registration, found (which may or may not be all related, but I’ll bet at least two are) and see two out of three were forfeited, and which years registered), Not much interest in the MidWest, I see…
CNCS/Social Innovation Fund: More to the point, all this money is delivered to and through, circulating among tax-exempt entities, and this document explains in a glossary, while the specializations OF the tax-exempts is aimed at three focus areas, the delivery system is organized in sequential “cohorts,” by year, with a “cohort” having an “intermediary/subgrantee” hierarchy for several functional purposes.
By the time one is talking “cohorts,” vocabulary borrowed from the military campaign, strategy, I think the “opposing sides” have already been identified — and on one side, the good guys (public/private-partnering investors), the problem-solvers, and on the other side, non-personified, the “problems” in the communities, which have names (violence, poverty, hunger, ignorance — generic nouns, that is, causes). Notice: Problem-solvers vs. the problems.
Read the rest of this entry »