Archive for the ‘AFCC’ Category
Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket. Judge was AFCC
I looking up Maximus, and what comes up alongside it, Lockheed-Martin, no matter which way you push it, one finds fraud and complaints about fraud. I am starting to wonder about how much practices like this contributed to the economic troubles in Wisconsin which caused legislators to exit the state rather than vote to compromise the union’s rights to bargain, that ushered in 2011.
When fraud is entrenched, routine and too much has been invested int he agency committing the fraud to eliminate it from further government contracts, than our government is too big for its britches, which we paid for. Government Of, By, For, WHICH people?
This article, though 2007, seems to typify the problems with privatizing child support. Of course there are other problems with keeping it in place, and having the access/visitation “Designer Family” incentives, too — and with the capricious nature of enforcement, and the vested interests in keeping the states staffed by child support agencies and workers as an antidote to poverty, which I am starting to think, it just ain’t. I think anymore it’s a contributor. Parents who can separate and were decent to start with, the one will be willing to support HIS children without going to court to force some sort of child support order. They will write it up.
Those who can’t are subject to fleecing whether or not through Title IV-D programs.
I did submit a full-length post (and looked up this judge, some) to the same post; it’s not up there yet but I hope will be.
It’s not about individual judges — it’s about systems. But the forum is helpful if it links to other news articles, or data for those using or viewing it.
MI-Remove Chief Judge Marybeth Kelly (Posted at: Courthouseforum.com)
| The Michigan Citizen – 2669 Bagley – Detroit – MI – 48216 � Phone: 313-963-8282Monday, SEP 17, 2007 MichiganCitizen.com |
|
|
Kelly moves to privatize Friend of the Court
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson (r) with supporters of Judge Deborah Thomas in her fight for jury rights. DIANE BUKOWSKI PHOTOS March for Kelly’s removal
By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan CitizenDETROIT — Wayne County child support workers joined hundreds of youth, legal luminaries, government officials and rank and file Detroiters Sept. 10, marching outside state offices at Cadillac Place, and packing the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center {{“CAYMC}}} auditorium, with standing room only.
They were there to support Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Deborah Thomas in her struggle for racially representative juries, among other concerns, and to demand the removal of Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly.
On Sept. 6, Kelly announced her intent to contract out the jobs of 169 Friend of the Court employees to a private company which will employ a total of 225 workers at lower wages, with no benefits or pensions. Kelly said the move would increase the amount of collections and a cut of them which goes to the county.
BIDDERS HAVE PRIOR LEGAL ISSUES
Among the national companies likely to bid on the $28 million contract are MAXIMUS, Inc., a Lockheed Martin spin-off, and Tier Technologies, which currently operates the state’s centralized child support disbursement system.
The companies would get either a flat fee or a cut of the amount collected. MAXIMUS and Lockheed-Martin recently paid millions in fines to the federal government for defrauding social service programs, and Tier Technologies faces a securities fraud suit by its shareholders.
“We have mostly Black employees here, a lot of them with 18 or more years of seniority,” said a child support worker who asked not to be identified. “We’re already working like dogs on the biggest caseload in the state, but now they want to reduce our wages to $8 or $9 an hour. We won’t be allowed to bump into other county positions.”
The Wayne County Friend of the Court is the largest FOC in the state, with 300,000 active cases. In 2006, according to figures released by Kelly, it collected over 74 percent of the $426.2 million owing in the cases, a figure which surpasses the 2005 state-wide collection rate of 60 percent and ranks among the top state percentages nationally.
Failure to collect outstanding amounts is largely due to the poverty rate of non-custodial parents, according to Marilyn Stephen, Director of the State Office of Child Support.
“More than 75 percent of child support arrears in Michigan are owed by parents making less than $10,000 annually,” Stephen said. Over one-third of payments go primarily to the state to reimburse it for assistance to poor non-custodial parents, who get only a small pass-through of $50 a month.
WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS? TYPICALLY THAT PHRASE GOES, TO REIMBURSE IT FOR ASSISTANCE TO CUSTODIAL PARENTS (WHO ARE TITLE IV-D).
ENGLER OPENED DOOR TO PRIVATIZATION
State Attorney General Mike Cox originally proposed privatization of child support collection in 2003. Former Gov. John Engler and Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan opened the floodgates, supporting a 2002 law allowing privatization of state social services. Kelly is a member of a state child support panel appointed by Corrigan.
Is that this woman, Wikipedia now showing as Head of Michigan DHS?
Description of Michigan DHS (from this site, bottom):
The Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) is the state’s second-largest agency. The DHS oversees almost 10,000 employees and has an annual budget of more than $4 billion to administer federal programs.
The DHS staff handles more than 1.5 million medical assistance cases and 1.2 million cash and food-assistance cases all across Michigan. It oversees Michigan’s child and adult protective services, foster care, adoptions, juvenile justice, domestic violence, and child-support programs. The DHS also licenses adult foster care, child day care and child welfare facilities.[4]
She graduated from Marygrove College in Detroit, Michigan in 1969 and earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from theUniversity of Detroit Law School in 1973. While in law school, she worked as a probation officer at a Detroit court.
Her first job after law school was with the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she served as a law clerk to Judge John Gillis. She next worked as a Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor. In 1979, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney, serving as Chief of Appeals; she later became the first woman to serve as Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 1989, she became a partner at the Detroit law firm of Plunkett & Cooney. In 1992, Governor John Engler appointed her to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She was twice elected to that court and served as its Chief Judge from 1997-1998.
Corrigan is a long-time member of the Federalist Society, Michigan Lawyers Chapter. She was also president of the Incorporated Society of Irish-American Lawyers and of the Federal Bar Association, Detroit Chapter.
A member of the (Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Corrigan has been recognized for her work on foster care and adoption issues, including The Detroit News‘ “Michiganian of the Year” award.
Corrigan is the widow of the late Joseph D. Grano, a professor of constitutional law at Wayne State University. She has two children: Megan Grano, a comedian with Second City in Chicago, and Daniel Grano, an associate attorney with Flood, Lanctot, Connor & Stablein, PLLC, a law firm in Royal Oak, Michigan. She has supported several of George W. Bush‘s nominees to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which includes the state of Michigan.
![]()
Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano also supports Kelly’s move.
“We are particularly grateful with the Court’s requirement that the successful bidder hire all FOC employees whose jobs are the subject of the Request for Proposal,” said Ficano in a statement. “We expect a smooth transition.”
However, Wayne County Commissioners Jewel Ware, Bernard Parker, and Tim Killeen attended the CAYMC rally, supporting Judge Thomas and expressing strong opposition to the privatization proposal.
{{Ever since I learned about the behavior of some County Commissioners in Northern and Southern California, I am generally wary. In S. CA ,they were in bed with the large developers (and others), and in N.CA, voted to allow an Interim D.A. just prior to the other’s planned retirement, enabling (Orloff) in effect to pick his successor (Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley), who then went on to propound another PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES situation, the Family Justice Center. She was recently seen with her team seeking support of a California (not US Congress, but a STATE) bill which would incorporate a certain alliance of counties (already working together) as the central, training grounds (3 of them) for more Justice Centers. I’ve never met anyone who has received help from here, or heard it in the press other than their press releases, and our landscape is strewn with domestic violence and sexual assault outrages, and deaths, plus corruption in law enforcement also — who are entrenched in that Justice Center setup. “Just say “NO” or at least “Whoa!” post, and/or “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys post,” this blog)
Ed McNeil, assistant to the President of Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) reiterated their opposition.
“Michigan ranks fourth in the nation in the collection of child support payments,” said McNeil. “Our folks are doing their job. All the monies collected ought to go to the families, not to some private entity that gets a percentage to make a profit.”
The workers’ contract expires Sept. 30. AFSCME staff representative Danny Craig, threatened that employees “will take it to the streets” if the county insists on the privatization move.
Wayne County’s Third Circuit Court previously had a $5 million contract with MAXIMUS in 2000, to modify the child support distribution system. The state had a five-year contract with a Lockheed Martin spin-off, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., to develop and operate its centralized state disbursement unit. It now contracts with Tier Technologies to run the unit.
In July of this year, MAXIMUS entered a criminal deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, and paid a $30.6 million fine because it submitted claims for servicing all foster care children in the District of Columbia regardless of whether it had.
Also in July, Affiliated Computer Services agreed to pay the federal government $2.6 million because it admittedly submitted inflated charges for services it provided to programs run by the Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments.
Tier Technologies is facing ongoing prosecution in New York in a class action securities fraud case, brought in 2006 by its shareholders.
I’ll be back. There is more . . . .. . .
Let’s Talk Child Support — HHS series “90FD” Grants to states: (Research and Demonstrate)
The size of Child Support Enforcement in some states in phenomenal. Within this phenomenally large infrastructure, there is not just enforcement activity, but a subset of grants to encourage certain activities — research and demonstration to improve one of the many purposes of “OCSE.” I’m reporting on a smaller subsection of this today.
Nationwide $4 BILLION per year payments to states for family support and child support enforcement — how much per state, and for what? The child support itself comes from the parent’s earnings (or assets, income) — the funds to pay the $4 billion per year are of course public funds, also collected from taxes via the IRS, distributed to the various government branches, and then different departments within those branches. Health and Human Services encompasses welfare (“TANF”), Early Childhood/Head Start, a lot of funding of medical research and institutions, all kinds of things. But the ability of the OCSE / Child Support system to make or destroy an individual, to support or tear down (depending on how administered) and if payments are not made, to potentially get a parent in jail — and this does happen, check your local arrest sheets — makes it a huge United STates Institution affecting most families, it would seem.
Privatized Child Support, some principal players:
While revising/expanding this post, I ran across a site, GuidelineEconomics, for what it’s worth, summarizing some players in
The Child Support Industry
- Policy Studies, Inc., Denver, CO.
Founded and headed by Robert Williams in 1984 while still working for National Center for State Courts (NCSC). NCSC was under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement to develop guidelines for states to consider. *** Vends (sells) the Income Shares child support guideline, originally developed by Williams while working for NCSC as part of the contract with the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Acts as a privately contracted child support enforcement/collection agent in various jurisdictions in a number of states.- Also see PSI’s timeline for expansion of their contracted services in early 2004, and their description of their enforcement and collection services.
- Maximus, Inc.
Acts as child support enforcement / collection agent for numerous states. Will also act as a jurisdiction’s child support administration, setting awards.- Systems & Methods, Inc
Acts as child support collection agent for North Carolina and runs the child abuse reporting system for Georgia.- SupportKids, Inc.
- Private child support collection agent.
There is no question that this person appears to be “fathers-rights” oriented, there’s a link to David Levy & Sanford Braver, to Father’s organizations — but he’s an economist. Robert G. Williams of PSI, after Princeton, etc., apparently branched out into his own business while working with a nonprofit on a government contract. (My “to do” list included finding out where this person was coming from, philosophically). … MAXIMUS has a large (and very disturbing) section on my post here. I don’t know “Systems & Methods Inc.” and I’ve run across a networked group of mothers complaining that when SupportKids, Inc. changed hands (?) they simply stopped receiving their checks, with no recourse. That’s as I remember it — don’t quote me…. NCSC:
SupportKids — “ripoff report” — after the mother contacted (private co.) SupportKids, the County gets its act together — and the checks on $20K arrears are finally coming through the Florida County, then they stop. Finding out why, SupportKids had falsified an order, and had the money redirected to them!
Submitted: Monday, May 19, 2008 Last Posting: Tuesday, June 07, 2011Support Kids.com withholding child support paid to me including ex- husbands tax return that was garnished by the State of Florida and no one from Support Kids management will even call me to discuss this Austin Texas
My ex’s tax return is garnished (because he is SO in arears) AND SUPPORT KIDS GOT IT!!!! WHICH IS ILLEGAL!!!! When I call Support Kids to discuss this matter (IF they EVER ANSWER THEIR PHONES!!- well I take that back-THEY do answer their new application line BUT RARELY ANSWER THEIR ESTABLISHED CLIENT LINE) they tell me they do not know when they will send my checks!!!! I left a message for a supervisor (someone named JoAnn), and she does not return her phone calls. I have emailed supportkids many times and all I get is an automatic response!! I went to Hillsborough County Child Support Enforcement for the State of Florida and they are aware of reports and complaints regarding support kids and told me to contact the Florida State Attourneys office (which I plan to do tomorrow). I also checked out the BBB, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST SUPPORT KIDS!!!! Please do not sign up with them!!!!! I do not know how long it will take to get this fixed. (or if it ever will) they are going to sit back collecting my son’s child support AND THEY DID NOT EVEN DO THE WORK (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DID) TO EVEN GET THEIR 10%…AND NOW I GUESS THEY WILL KEEP COLLECTING MY CHECKS. Please, please do not do business with this company, YOU WILL SO REGRET IT. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT- STEALING CHILDREN’S CHILD SUPPORT. THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION OF HOMELESS ARE SINGLE MOTHER’S WITH CHILDREN!!! DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM!! Kj Tampa, Florida U.S.A.This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 5/19/2008 4:08:21 PM
Support Kids.com NOT only are the Custodial parents being scammed so are the NON Custodial parent!!! Ripoff Austin TexasAuthor: Cypress TexasCollection Agencies: Support Kids.com 8/10/2007 5:44 PM (Private company lied, fabricated child support amount due. “A lawsuit by the State of Virginia is challenging the business practices of an Austin-based company that collects money from parents who are behind in child support payments” (2008) Law firm posts news article reviewing criminal lawsuit against SupportKids for violating state law. discussing the 34% cut SupportKids is allowed to take, and how it helped draft legislation in California which had no cap on the % it could take. Austin-based company does business in 47 states and has 40,000 open cases.
And this appears to be the blog I saw earlier. The mother says she started the blog to put SupportKids out of business; that it’s been bought by another (who is similar in its practices):
“Singleparentsunite: District Attorney v. SupportKids” {{meaning, use the DA for enforcement, not this private agency}}
After 16 years of battling the system, it finally worked! I was informed 4 months ago that I was going to get the back child support that was owed to me and my children (who are both grown adults now). My ex husband inherited a house that he put on the market. When it sold, the DA put a lien on the house and guess who got the first cut of the profits? I did. My suggestion to all struggling single parents who are going thru that same fight? File your case with the DA’s office. They keep track of everything and it NEVER goes away. Not only that, collects interest. If you sit back and wait for your ship to roll in without researching your options, you’re going to be waiting a long time. Companies like SupportKids are the wrong way to go. They may collect money for you but they take 34% (or at least that is what is use to be) off the top and send you the rest. The DA’s office doesn’t make a profit off of your case, they fight for you for FREE. When they cut my check it was for the full amount that was owed.
I started my blog to put Supportkids out of business and get out of my contract. Both were accomplished. Supportkids has since been bought by another company and have proceeded to do business as usual. During that time (when the company was bought and in transition with the new owners) was when I put up the biggest fight and won. Supportkids was going out of business and the new company was clueless. I started my blog in 2007. 4 years later, I’m out of my contract with Supportkids and received full payment of my back child support. That may seem like a long time but is it really? Not compared to the years I spent trying to collect the money.
By the time you finish reading the Maximus information, or some of the Canadian person’s commentary on having Canadian health information handled by the US company, with the US under the Patriot Act (which allows governmental snooping), you JUST might agree with me that the OCSE ought to be eliminated, period — and whatever proper functions it might have left to fulfil, to be transferred to another dept. of the US. If this post doesn’t convince, there are more. BELOWTHAT, and with the title to this post, my chart shows some of the various discretionary uses to which child support is put, and for how much, although why — you’ll have to ask the principal investigators of the HHS-funded projects. And finally (with a little more commentary), I post some of the “Section 1115” US law that permits the bending of the law, the creating of various exemptions, and complain some more about ONE person, in the US, (Secretary of HHS) having so much power to approve what might be termed behavioral modification projects up on (the poor, among others) through the child support system, and at public expense. Happy reading. Alas, this all seems to be nonfiction.. .
“MAXIMIZING” CONTRACTS, MINIMIZING ACCOUNTABILITY:
(Circus) Maximus, Inc.
In addition to what the IRS powers to collect and enforce gives to the states, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing, we know that also outside private contractors are also paid by the US Government to do the same thing, such as Maximus,and others:
MAXIMUS helps Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity and support orders, and enforce payments to families. Since 1975, we have partnered with CSE agencies to improve the lives of 940,000 families throughout the United States and Canada. Effective CSE operations demand more than business as usual. Innovative solutions, together with a highly skilled staff, are critical to achieve successful outcomes. We support our comprehensive services with technology solutions that enable us to serve participants more efficiently, effectively, and economically.
MAXIMUS. Because Children and Families Come First.
MAXIMUS improves the lives of children and families through a variety of services:
- Full service child support enforcement
- Establishment of support and medical orders
- Administrative remedies to establish orders {{This sounds like the outside contractor establishing a legally-binding order without proper legal protections to the payee or payor parent.…The remedy to establish any court order, other than ex parte ones, is called a motion and a hearing so the other side can be heard. These guys adjust (reduce) arrears based on a contract with the noncustodial parent only; without notifying the other parent, at least that’s how it went down in our area.}}
- Paternity determination
- Location
- Enforcement
- Financial Services
- Legal Services
- Reduction of undistributed collections {{So, what happens to $$ collected but not actually sent to the kids’ custodial parents? After it sits around earning interest, as it did in Los Angeles County DA’s office previously…}}
- Customer service call centers
- Employer repository verification and maintenance
- New hire compliance
- Medical support enforcement
- Income withholding enforcement
- Early intervention/delinquency prevention programs
- Review and adjustment of orders
- TANF arrears case management and collection
- International full service child support enforcement
- Business process analysis, testing, training, and documentation
All our services are supported through a team of CSE experts, which includes former state and local IV-D directors and others with significant child support legal, policy, and operations experience.
Program Consulting
MAXIMUS also offers a variety of child support program consulting services. “We also remove barriers to non-payment {?}, allowing NCPs to consistently pay on time” “MAXIMUS experience in designing and implementing early intervention/delinquency prevention programs and operations is unequaled. We can assist any IV-D agency, whether state or local, in establishing a successful early intervention/ delinquency prevention program…” It is affiliated with these nonprofit agencies, which it so happens, I blogged on (some) recently:
As a corporate member of several civic associations across the nation, MAXIMUS is dedicated to the business areas and communities in which we operate. These are nonprofit organizations whose membership appears to be CSE professionals.
Child Support
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association National Child Support Enforcement Association Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council
[Corporationwiki of Maximus Federal in Reston, VA -gives a visual]
Check it out @ usaspending.gov (DUNS# 08234747 is Maximus Inc.; ($684 million overall of which $260 million HHS contracts. it administers Medicare & Medicaid….) Also has locations? in 4 countries; DUNS# 36422159 Maximus Federal Services — shows $27 million, 71 contracts or grants.) I googled “Maximus Fraud” (knowing of some high-profile instances) and got this scathing “Rip-off Report,” which goes far beyond fraud. Rip-off reports are personal filings, but listen to this laundry list and compare with “Prospecting among the Poor” and other records. it’s just too (damn) large, for one:
Maximus Inc. employees are stealing Medicare, Medicaid, child support, child welfare monies etc. Maximus Inc employees are blackmailing the poorest of the poor so that they can get their child welfare checks. Maximus Inc. employees are sexually abusing clients so that they can get their child welfare checks/child support checks.
Maximus Inc. hiring persons without background checks for caseworkers. One caseworker was a convicted forger, with an arrest record that included kidnapping, battery, and impersonating a police officer. Maximus Inc hired him while he was on parole. He blackmailed child welfare clients into giving him monies or he would cut off their benefits. Maximus Inc. hired one caseworker that pushed his clients to help him sell drugs, and another who told women they would lose their benefits unless they had sex with him and her children were present at the time. Maximus Inc. hired sexual predators as caseworkers who pressured their clients for sex. Maximus Inc. employees were extorting monies under blackmail from women on child welfare/child support, and these employees were sexually abusing these women. In addition, they wanted these women to prostitute themselves on the streets. They were also getting these women pregnant after they were blackmailed into having sex. Maximus Inc. massive theft of monies from child welfare, child support, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, etc. Wire fraud, bank fraud, theft of States monies etc. Maximus Inc theft of clients monies and diverting the monies to other bank accounts so that clients do not get any monies. How do these women pay their rents, and other bills? Children go without food and other necessary things in life. Blatant fraud. Maximus Inc steals welfare funds, and they overlook the victims of this crime. Maximus Inc. steals monies from impoverished mothers, children and people with disabilities who sought assistance and were illegally turned away, sanctioned, and terminated. Maximus Inc. has so many formal gender or racial discrimination lawsuits filed against it to be unbelievable. Maximus Inc has corporate malpractice, including inadequate and poor provision of services; misappropriation of funds, cronyism, and other financial irregularities; and discriminatory practices at company offices. Maximus Inc. used welfare funds intended for the poor to pay consultants who gave campaign contribution advice and solicited new business for the firm. Maximus Inc. spends child welfare monies lavishly on themselves, and they were illegally denying eligible families cash assistance, child care assistance, and even food stamps. So that they can steal the monies. (Reported By: Dr. anthony — Columbia Maryland USA Submitted: Sunday, September 06, 2009 )
This is not just one disgruntled complainant: Hear this from a Whistleblower Law Firm, on Maximus, Inc.:
Posted on July 23, 2007 by LaBovick LawMaximus, Inc. pays $30.5 Million to settle False Claims Act Case
“Helping the Government serve the People” is the tagline of Virginia basedMaximus, Inc., latest corporate citizen entangled in a Medicaid fraud scam. Unfortunately, this company needs a new tagline. The DOJ announced today that Maximus has agreed to pay $30.5 Million to settle qui tam lawsuit. The company admitted to their part in submitting fraudulent Medicaid claims for children who may not have received foster care services. … http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2007/July/07_civ_535.html The Whistleblower was a Division manager at Maximus; it took guts!
it goes on and on. This is a DIFFERENT $30+million fraud case — same company:
FORMER MAXIMUS EMPLOYEE INDICTED FOR $32 MILLION FRAUD…
August 16, 2007
A federal grand jury has indicted a Alan B. Fabian, a Baltimore corporate executive, over allegedly running a scheme that made $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment.According to prosecutors, Fabian’s alleged scheme defrauded his former employer, the government consulting company Maximus Inc., as well as an equipment leasing company called Solarcom….Fabian has presented himself as a successful entrepreneur, who started an activity-based cost and information technology consulting company which was later sold to Maximus in 2000. While at Maximus as an executive he supposedly made fraudulent sale-leaseback transactions for purchasing computer hardware and software. Prosecutors allege the equipment was either never purchased or much cheaper products were purchased.
Submitted by Robin Mathias on Mon, 12/16/2002 – 5:21pm. Fraud Cases | Medicaid Fraud CasesRayonne Clark pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud for her role in fraudulently obtaining admission into the Medical Family Care Program. She worked for Maximus, a contractor hired by New Jersey to assist eligible residents obtain health insurance and other medical benefits. Seven other Maximus employees were also indicted: Ifeanyi Akemelu, Kattia Bermudez, Victor Cordero, Lenora Grant, Iris Sabree, and Akbar Oliver. Clark admitted that she enrolled herself and family members into the Medicaid Family Care Program by providing false applications and personal information. “The investigation determined that the defendant was hired to assist those in desperate need of health insurance. Instead, she abused her position and enrolled herself into programs she was not eligible for,” said Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Greta Gooden Brown. “The defendant withheld the fact that she was gainfully employed to make herself appear in need of assistance.” The Consequences Rayonne Clark will be sentenced in February 2003. She was found guilty of 3rd degree Medicaid fraud, which is punishable by up to five years in state prison and a criminal fine of up to $15,000. The other Maximus employees who were indicted must serve 50 hours of commity service as part of a Pre-trial Intervention Program.
09/13/2007 | 06:00 amMaximus Inc : New York Awards Medicaid Fraud Contract to MAXIMUS
MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS), a leading provider of government consulting services, announced today that it has been awarded a five-year contract with the State of New York, Office of Medicaid Inspector General to provide Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Recovery and Retention consulting services. MAXIMUS will work as a strategic partner with the newly-formed New York State Office of Medicaid Inspector General to assist the State in combating fraud, waste, and abuse in the State’s $45 billion Medicaid Program. MAXIMUS will assist the State in developing and implementing strategies to supplement its efforts to combat Medicaid fraud and abuse. The efforts are expected to improve the efficiency of New York’s Medicaid program and allow them to better serve their citizens.
Well if anyone ought to know about Medicaid fraud and abuse, it ought to be this company…. and finally,
You’ve Got to be Kidding Me! This blog appears to be dedicated to Maximus’ role in the TN Child Support system, and the post is April 18, 2011. There are plenty of comments, and it’s a good discussion.
State of Tennessee and Maximus Privatization Contract Largest in United States
I came across this article on Business Wire. The article was written in 2009. The title of the article is MAXIMUS AWARDED 49 MILLION CHILD SUPPORT OPERATIONS CONTRACT IN TENNESSEE. This article is sure to get your biscuits burning, since it hails the Tennessee/Maximus Contract as being the “LARGEST CHILD SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION CONTRACT IN THE U.S.” The most sickening statement comes from one Virginia T. Lodge, who is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services. She states in the article that the renewed contract with Maximus in Shelby County is part of their “primary goal” to ensure that all children throughout the State, especially Memphis and Shelby County, “receive the support to which they are entitled”. Maximus CEO Richard Montoni puts his two-cents into the article, but only to brag about the fact that by signing this contract with Tennessee, it allows Maximus to “build upon its portfolio”. His statements almost made me lose my lunch, since he mentioned nothing about the importance of collections, and only talked about the building of their portfolio and gaining a “market-leading position” in child support collections. This article proves my point about Maximus and their contracts. They are only in this business to gain contracts. After all, 49 million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to put back into the “market”. This simply proves that Maximus could care less about the collections of child support, once they have that contract, they already have THEIR MONEY. Why would they give a rats behind whether or not some poor single mom, or dad, in a town in Tennessee gets their child support payments?
And one of the comments on this: I think the blog author is a man; another article talks about paternity fraud:
Well, they (Maximus) do have the contract, but their performance has been absolutely atrocious. A couple of the TV stations in Memphis have produced “expose’s” on just how bad their child support collections have been when compared to the rest of the State, the prior years and the prior vendor (Shelby County Juvenile Court). One has to wonder why maximus still has the Shelby contract. Is it the 4 in state lobbyists on their payroll??? None of their competitors for these contracts have in state lobbyists. Why FOUR lobbyists??? Is someone’s palm being greased???? Just wondering why a company performing on a very sub par basis has not been sanctioneed. Hmmmmm???? Does Tennessee Department of Human Services personnel not have eyes in their heads??? Juvenile Court had 242 employees working on child support collections, maximus has nothing close to that number. Was Juvenile Court overstaffed??? … Perhaps, but they had much better collections that maximus. Something bad wrong with this situation … very bad wrong!
(I have seen large contracts to Maximus in various states, still, despite all this. Makes me wonder sometimes, how much it relates to “birds of a feather fly together.”)
And that was just a sampler of the articles on this corporation… A nuclear physicist claims his life was destroyed, they couldn’t get mistaken orders corrected; I am wondering as an American (USA), what we are doing having an internationally-connected company deal with USgovernment services. Well, here’s a Canadian person wondering about confidentiality issues now that his country has given a health care contract to an American company. A logo, for some visual relief: 
Our Opinions, Thoughts, & Ideas* {{*at least the person qualifies it as opinions. That’s a far cry from the fatherhood theorists. or many custody evaluators…..}}
ARE CANADIAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS HANDING OVER YOUR PERSONAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION TO CORPORATIONS?
From my own reading, research and listening to alternative talk radio, I am, like so many others, fed up of being referred to by family and friends as a conspiracy “theorist”, when the facts to back up the reality, that we are rapidly descending into a global fascist tyranny, are everywhere, for anyone who cares to open their eyes.
(Lets Get Honest just has to interject . . . . .. )
The word “fascist” is at root binding of separate strands to make a stronger whole: the fasces — there are Bronze “Fasces” in US House of Representatives — it represents the binding of the various individual states into a federal government, making it stronger (link contains explanation/photo courtesy Office of the Clerk). what is beginning to happen again — enabled by technology / internet — is that this “fasces” is literally becoming the strong, bound branches of US governmt (designed to be separate, originally) into an impenetrable (almost) unified whole such that individuals in the various states cannot stand up to it alone. The symbol was in conscious reference to Republican Rome. Well, Rome later became a dictatorship, an empire, also. This URL summarizes the years 28 – 23 (BC):
8 The Senate, its numbers already somewhat reduced by Octavian, grants him the title of Princeps Senatus. Census held by Octavian and Agrippa. Mausoleum of Augustus begun. 27 January 13, Octavian makes the gesture of returning command of the state to the Senate and the people of Rome, receiving in return vast provinces and most of the army as his own. Three days later the Senate confers on him great powers, numerous honors, and the title of Augustus 27-25 Augustus directs the final subjugation of Spain and the administrative reorganization of Spain and Gaul 23 The Senate grants Augustus the titles and powers of Imperium proconsulare maius and tribunicia potestas for life, thereby turning over to him complete control of the State and ending the Roman Republic
Probably happened already here, or just about…. Back to our Canadian friend, astonished that his/her private health information might end up in the hands of a US corporation and thus subject to the US Patriot act, allowing snooping without warrants into company’s records ,and forbids the company from revealing that its records have indeed been snooped upon. This writer goes on to note that many of Maximus’ leaders came from the Pentagon, or military backgrounds:
(After naming several entities. . . . . ):
On and on it goes in ties between Maximus and the US military industrial complex. Very little of their military background seems especially suited to the task of managing storage and dissemination of health and pharmaceutical records of BC residents. They are instead more suited to services like surveillance, monitoring, and tracking of individuals-exactly the sort of thing the government says is its priority to avoid.“
“It is the Patriot Act that turns all information management companies working in the US into de facto arms of the sprawling US intelligence gathering monolith.”
Hmmm…..
As a senior, I was appalled to learn recently of the BC Government’s decision to award a ten year contract to outsource the administration of the BC Medical Plan and Pharmacare to a private, for profit, American corporation, and the implications of such to sovereign Canadians.
Wanting to understand fully the implications of this outsourcing, I began in late December by calling my local BC member of the legislature’s office. I asked the assistant who answered my call, was it true that my private medical information was to be handled by a private American corporation, to which she answered “yes.” . . . .
This information is compiled from searches of 3,000 of 21,200 links listed on Google, and 2,000 of 13,100 links on Yahoo for the term “Maximus Inc“.
! That’s one motivated (or retired / unemployed / alarmed) person! to do 5,000 searches on one company.
I urge you to do further research on this company, and perhaps all of the companies mentioned herein. Here goes.
ARE CANADIAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS HANDING OVER YOUR PERSONAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION TO PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, CORPORATIONS OF THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?
Beginning at the B.C. Medical Plan Services web site: http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/msp/ which states:
“The Province is moving to modernize and improve the administration of MSP and PharmaCare, and to enhance the timeliness and quality of service to the public and health professionals. After a year-long procurement process, MAXIMUS BC has been selected to provide program management and information technology services to government. This will help to improve B.C.’s health benefits operations services, which include responding to public inquiries, registering clients, and processing medical and pharmaceutical claims from health professionals. Direct health care services to patients are not involved. Under the 10-year, $324 million contract, the operations will remain in Victoria.
“Operations will remain in Victoria” seems to refer to the fact that this giant swallowed up a Canadian company:
MAXIMUS Canada was incorporated in 2002 when it bought THEMIS Program Management & Consulting Limited, the Victoria-based company that has delivered the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General since 1988.”
MAXIMUS just bought ’em out. .. .
We are on the edge of a new and frightening era in which surveillance of citizens by governments and their private-sector partners could become the dominant reality of our society in other words, an era in which Orwell’s “Big Brother” vision could actually be realized. Whether or not we go over that edge and create what has been called a “surveillance society” will depend on how willing citizens are to draw a line and say “no further” to government attempts to probe into and record the facts of our private lives, said Darrell Evans, Executive Director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.”
SERIES “90FD” GRANTS TO THE STATES FOR
RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, HEALTHY MARRIAGE, YOU NAME IT….
An exhibit of the many uses to which child support funds can be put, with a little creativity. Just calling attention to a grant series that caught my eye in one state’s stupendous OCSE enforcement bill.
INTRO — the continued growth of child support* and emotional involvement of fathers, @ Texas Attorney General’s Office.
*aka “Don’t Fence Me In” (=AUDIO link) to actually collecting child support with a view to distributing it to children…
Required reading for this post — the whole post, here, and if you’re into it, I also added some comments. The post mentions the “Section 1115” grants we’ll see below.
Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support
(source: Randi James blog)I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand ofpsychologypseudoscience and court litigation.Well, who is Michael Hayes?I’m glad you asked.
. . . after a brief chart (Here’s the 2008 section of OCSE grants to the Texas Office of Attorney General — which is who handles Child Support in Texas):
2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008 OCSE $ 157,717,616 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008 SAVP $ 687,405 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER $ 703,000 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) $ 60,000 2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
| $ 25,000 |
(Obviously this little “$ 25,000” escaped its box and belongs in the bottom right of the chart above. I don’t feel like fighting wordpress over this tonight.). Notice the variety of grants? The OCSE — $157,717,616 was just to collect or enforce child support. SAVP is access visitation funding (mentioned below, and I mention it MOST posts), then there is a 1115 Waiver, whatever that is, and then a “section 1115 (PA-3)” and last, just in case we missed something, $25,000 for “Special Improvement” as opposed to regular enforcement, increasing access of noncustodial parents to their kids by farming the out to parenting education, counseling and supervised visitation (and thereby encouraging or enabling noncustodial parents to get their act together and actually pay support) etc. It took me a while, but I finally figured out (as it occurse below and above) that “PA-3” stands for “Priority Area 3″ probably indicating the OCSE is getting ready to pilot some other project and then go nationwide with it based on the fact that their own reviews of the pilot were positive. this is how we became a ‘research and demonstration nation.” more from Randi James’ post, here, quoting Mr. Hayes:
The current national child support enforcement strategic plan (for 2005 – 2009) clearly describes this emphasis on both emotional and financial support and the involvement of both parents. …
I also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP {Special Improvement Program} grants have had for the evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.
Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.
OK, NOW THIS CHART — This section here is a small sector – SELECTED: I had noticed a certain grant series with the letters 90FD in them, on TAGGS.HHS.GOV “Search Awards” — I did not select year, state, or almost anything except two program categories: 94563 (Child Support Enforcement) and 93562 (Child Support Research). This produced a printout below: (it’d be better to view, Selecting & choosing the columns below (and/or others) under “Awards Search” –because of the clickable links, but this is a sample). These are 406 records, alpha by state as you can see. Use the scroll bar, notice how some are Healthy Marriage, some are Fatherhood, some are “Noncustodail” (mis-spelled). The Action issue date keeps the chrono, and while the amounts are small — what is being demonstrated? What’s the benefit? Also, I notice in various states, different agencies are getting these grants (enforcing Child Support?) — anyone want to tell me why in OHIO, that’s 3 different entities? Would this, perhaps have anything to do with the Commission on Fatherhood, legislatively created in about 2001?
|
Grantee Name |
Award Number |
Award Title |
Budget Year |
AcT’n Issue Date |
CFDA Number |
Award Activity Type |
Award AcT’n Type |
Principal Investigator |
Sum of AcT’ns |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/29/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
GLENDA STRAUBE |
$63,063 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$63,063 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
02/23/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$63,063 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
05/16/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0001 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
05/12/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
-$6,054 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
1 |
09/17/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
BARBARA MIKLOS |
$30,491 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$30,491 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
2 |
02/04/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BYRON WALTHER |
$30,491 |
|
AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION |
90FD0002 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA |
3 |
05/18/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
BYRON WALTHER |
$0 |
|
AZ ST DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY |
90FD0065 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN L CLAYTON |
$99,596 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORC |
1 |
09/19/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PEGGY JENSEN |
$72,500 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PEGGY JENSEN |
$72,500 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST |
3 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PEGGY JENSEN |
$72,500 |
|
CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0003 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PEGGY JENSEN |
-$73,983 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0047 |
OCSE – 1115 DEMOS – URBAN HISPANIC OUTREACH PROJECT |
1 |
09/13/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RICHARD A WILLIAMS |
$50,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0083 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
09/15/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LEORA GERSHENZON |
$60,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
08/24/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DANIEL LOUIS |
$150,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
2 |
09/19/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DANIEL LOUIS |
$75,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
2 |
08/29/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
LESLIE CARMONA |
$0 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
3 |
09/09/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LESLIE CARMONA |
$75,000 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0114 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
3 |
10/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
KATHY HREPICH |
$0 |
|
CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES |
90FD0158 |
SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORAT’n |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MR BILL OTTERBECK |
$29,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
1 |
09/16/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$72,500 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$72,092 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
2 |
02/11/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAULINE BURTON |
$0 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0004 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$72,500 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0028 |
NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$75,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0028 |
NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAULINE BURTON |
-$75,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0069 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$100,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0080 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/10/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$55,023 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0080 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/17/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$80,108 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0080 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/01/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAULINE BURTON |
$64,869 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0096 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/14/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$125,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
1 |
07/12/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$114,741 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DAN WELCH |
$174,845 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
3 |
07/31/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DAN WELCH |
$125,579 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0111 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 |
3 |
04/30/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
DAN WELCH |
$0 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$99,815 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
2 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$74,998 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
3 |
07/20/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$49,923 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0126 |
AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) |
3 |
04/27/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JOHN BERNHART |
$0 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0132 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$30,000 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0166 |
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS |
1 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$52,443 |
|
CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0168 |
TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$84,783 |
|
CO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0033 |
COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAULINE BURTON |
$80,000 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0005 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN FORD |
$66,862 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0005 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DIANE M FRAY |
$66,862 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0005 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL |
3 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DIANE M FRAY |
$66,862 |
|
CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT |
90FD0037 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration, SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/01/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DIANE M FRAY |
$50,000 |
|
DC DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
1 |
09/01/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CORY CHANDLER |
$135,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0072 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOE PERRY |
$52,525 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0072 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
02/16/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JOE PERRY |
-$31,189 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0072 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/21/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JOE PERRY |
$0 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0100 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/20/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LYNNE FENDER |
$86,574 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
1 |
08/28/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CORY CHANDLER |
-$135,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
1 |
10/12/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CORY CHANDLER |
$135,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0119 |
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC |
2 |
09/27/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CORY CHANDLER |
$65,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CORY CHANDLER |
$60,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
07/14/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TANYA JONES BOSIER |
$50,000 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TANYA JONES BOSIER |
$37,500 |
|
DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL |
90FD0120 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
06/07/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TANYA JONES BOSIER |
$0 |
|
DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0091 |
STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
1 |
09/22/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ART E CALDWELL |
$50,000 |
|
DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0091 |
STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
2 |
09/15/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ART E CALDWELL |
$50,000 |
|
DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0091 |
STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES |
2 |
09/29/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ART E CALDWELL |
$0 |
|
DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY |
90FD0040 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/31/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ANNMARIE MENA |
$50,000 |
|
DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY |
90FD0112 |
DEVELOP & IMPLEMENT A WEB BASED ARREARS CALCULA TOOL THAT WOULD ALLOW COURTS, .. |
1 |
06/28/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LEONA HODGES |
$120,000 |
|
DEPT of Children and Families |
90FD0159 |
ENHANCING THE CHILD SUPPORT POLICY KNOWLEDGE OF TANF-ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AND TANF CASEWORKERS: A COLLABORATIVE STRATEGY FO |
1 |
09/20/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RON HUNT |
$99,985 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0098 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
09/14/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NANCY LUJA |
$99,853 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0099 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
09/20/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
VELVA MOSHER-KNAPP |
$124,144 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HEATHER J SAUN |
$14,619 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
2 |
09/19/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$12,202 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
2 |
02/25/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
3 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$12,202 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0128 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 |
3 |
02/08/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
HEATHER SANDERS |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
11/23/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
08/26/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$0 |
|
FL ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
2 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$13,237 |
|
Florida DEPT of Revenue |
90FD0143 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
09/19/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
PATRICIA CLARK |
$16,713 |
|
Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen |
90FD0165 |
NON-CONVENT’nAL SEARCH & IDENTIFICAT’n OF DELINQUENT PARENTS |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
SHARON KERI |
$97,872 |
|
Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen |
90FD0173 |
CHILD SUPPORT AND ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE COLLABORAT’n |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MARILYN MILES |
$60,363 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0090 |
GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
1 |
08/27/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$125,000 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0101 |
STATE OF GEORGIA |
1 |
09/16/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RONNIE BATES |
$43,000 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0156 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$99,000 |
|
GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0156 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
01/28/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
-$55,500 |
|
HI ST DEPT of VOCAT’nAL EDUCAT’n |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
06/30/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JAN IKEI |
$108,400 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
07/27/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JAN IKEI |
$108,400 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
05/07/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE |
$0 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE |
$108,400 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0110 |
PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
03/27/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SHERI WANG |
$0 |
|
HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT |
90FD0133 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 |
1 |
11/13/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
MS SHERI WANG |
$0 |
|
HI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM |
90FD0133 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MS SHERI WANG |
$30,000 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0086 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
1 |
08/27/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JEANNE NESBIT |
$58,000 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0086 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
1 |
05/04/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JEANNE NESBIT |
-$2,205 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0093 |
IOWA DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/02/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL EATON |
$29,000 |
|
IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0130 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LORI WETLAUFER |
$30,000 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LOIS RAKOV |
$63,318 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
08/28/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LOIS RAKOV |
$64,000 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
03/09/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LOIS RAKOV |
$0 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LOIS RAKOV |
$64,000 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0006 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
3 |
05/05/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LOIS RAKOV |
$0 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0007 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/29/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBERT LYONS |
$56,145 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0007 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
10/06/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ROBERT LYONS |
-$56,145 |
|
IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0057 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOSEPH MASON |
$193,268 |
|
IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0075 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN J BOYCE |
$100,000 |
|
IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0076 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
THELZEDA MOORE |
$100,000 |
|
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services |
90FD0144 |
LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
HAROLD B COLEMAN |
$50,000 |
|
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services |
90FD0144 |
LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/06/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
HAROLD B COLEMAN |
$50,000 |
|
KS ST REHABILITAT’n SERVICES |
90FD0068 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JAMES A ROBERTSON |
$59,558 |
|
KY ST HUMAN RESOURCES CABINET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY |
90FD0149 |
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT RESEARCH |
1 |
09/23/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVEN P VENO |
$45,295 |
|
Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services |
90FD0145 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KELLY POTTER |
$15,272 |
|
Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services |
90FD0145 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MONICA REMILLARD |
$14,946 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
09/01/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$49,981 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$0 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
2 |
03/19/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$0 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
09/21/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$37,445 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
3 |
05/05/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$0 |
|
LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE |
90FD0160 |
PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$99,570 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMIH |
$72,500 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$72,500 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
3 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$72,500 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0012 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
3 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$3,706 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOME |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMIH |
$34,078 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$64,355 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
2 |
02/04/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$80,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0013 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$2,045 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0030 |
ENHANCING INTER-AGENCY COLLABORAT’n & CLIENT COOPERAT’n IN MASS. |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$80,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0030 |
ENHANCING INTER-AGENCY COLLABORAT’n & CLIENT COOPERAT’n IN MASS. |
1 |
04/13/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$16 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0049 |
OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
02/16/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$3,019 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0049 |
OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
09/21/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0067 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 4 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$100,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0067 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 4 |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MARILYN R SMITH |
-$6,479 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0094 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS – PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
09/18/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PUAL CRONIN |
$100,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0141 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
01/24/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$0 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0157 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN RAY SMITH |
$100,000 |
|
MA ST DEPT of REVENUE |
90FD0162 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KAREN MELKONIA |
$38,060 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF E |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DENESE F MAKER |
$78,677 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DENESE F MAKER |
$79,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
DENESE F MAKER |
$78,677 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
3 |
11/10/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
DENESE F MAKER |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0010 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
DENESE F MAKER |
-$2,045 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0011 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR |
1 |
09/09/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN |
$22,030 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0011 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN |
$20,200 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0011 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR |
3 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN |
$20,200 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0034 |
CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TERESA L KAISER |
$127,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0034 |
CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
TERESA L KAISER |
-$50,677 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0066 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT- P.A. 4 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TERESA L KAISER |
$100,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
3 |
07/27/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$102,414 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
3 |
01/11/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0116 |
PROJECT FRESH START |
1 |
08/24/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOSEPH A JACKINS |
$135,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0116 |
PROJECT FRESH START |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$64,998 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0116 |
PROJECT FRESH START |
2 |
05/08/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SARAH BRICE |
$150,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
07/18/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$100,000 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
03/05/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
05/11/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
08/31/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SARAH BRICE |
$74,706 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0121 |
ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
05/20/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH BRICE |
$0 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0154 |
PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHNNY RICE |
$99,962 |
|
MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0164 |
EXCELLENCE THROUGH EVALUAT’n: ASSESSING ADDRESSING AND ACHIEVING – AN ENHANCED PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN MARYLAND???S |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SARAH BRICE |
$267,063 |
|
MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0041 |
CHILD SUPPORT WORKER CERTIFICAT’n IMPLEMENTAT’n PROGRAM |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TERESA KAISER |
$49,979 |
|
MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
BRIAN D SHEA |
$105,562 |
|
MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0109 |
BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE |
2 |
07/27/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BRIAN D SHEA |
$102,421 |
|
ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS |
90FD0009 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$67,294 |
|
ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS |
90FD0009 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$67,000 |
|
ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS |
90FD0009 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
3 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$67,002 |
|
MI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, BUREAU OF MGNT & BUDGET |
90FD0170 |
REACH-REFERRAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSET DEVELOPMENT, COOPERAT’n, AND HOPE |
1 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$85,000 |
|
MN DEPT of HEALTH |
90FD0048 |
SECT’n 1115 OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$50,000 |
|
MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0042 |
SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$50,000 |
|
MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0045 |
SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
1 |
09/09/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$59,606 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$96,570 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
2 |
01/20/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LAURA KADWELL |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0014 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$96,570 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0015 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/22/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$29,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/22/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LAURA KADWELL |
$46,110 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
08/28/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$46,110 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LAURA KADWELL |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
LAURA KADWELL |
$46,110 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0016 |
ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
LAURA KADWELL |
-$38 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0059 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT (PRIORITY AREA II) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DENNIS ALBRECHT |
$65,250 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0071 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
DENNIS ALBRECHT |
$43,500 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0089 |
STATE OF MINNESOTA |
1 |
09/23/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
WAYLAND CAMPBELL |
$43,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
1 |
09/11/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$100,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
09/07/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$75,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
05/05/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
04/08/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
3 |
09/26/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0127 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
3 |
04/27/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
PATRICK W KRAUTH |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0140 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
PATRICK M KRAUTH |
$78,735 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0140 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JILL C ROBERTS |
$75,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0140 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS |
2 |
06/02/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JILL C ROBERTS |
$0 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0147 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
SOCIAL SERVICES |
NEW |
MOLLY CRAWFORD |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0147 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
SOCIAL SERVICES |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MOLLY CRAWFORD |
$50,000 |
|
MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0147 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE |
2 |
04/06/2011 |
93564 |
SOCIAL SERVICES |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MOLLY CRAWFORD |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARL BLANCHETTE |
$38,896 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$39,539 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY BURKS |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$24,190 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0017 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY |
3 |
08/18/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CINDY BURKS |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0018 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARL BLANCHETTE |
$29,015 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0018 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKE |
$29,015 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0018 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
DORIS HALLFORD |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARL BLANCHETTE |
$43,738 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$51,282 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY BURKS |
$0 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0019 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY BURKS |
$27,817 |
|
MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0062 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
GARY BAILEY |
$192,607 |
|
MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV |
90FD0036 |
A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ANN STEFFENS |
$50,000 |
|
MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV |
90FD0036 |
A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ANN STEFFENS |
-$925 |
|
Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services |
90FD0043 |
SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVE HUSSEY |
$50,000 |
|
Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services |
90FD0044 |
PHASE II: MAINE’S NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OUTREACH & INVESTIGAT’n PROJECT |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
|
$84,640 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$60,000 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
2 |
05/22/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$0 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
2 |
01/22/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$0 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
3 |
09/02/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$60,000 |
|
ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
3 |
01/25/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$0 |
|
ND ST Office of the Governor |
90FD0118 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n |
1 |
08/28/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MIKE SCHWINDT |
$75,000 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0097 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
09/14/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARGARET J EWING |
$72,466 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
1 |
08/24/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NANCY MONTANEZ |
$51,005 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR SCOT ADAMS |
$48,487 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
2 |
04/08/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MARGARET EWING |
$0 |
|
NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0117 |
SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT |
3 |
08/31/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARGARET EWING |
$50,269 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0020 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/22/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARY WEATHERILL |
$24,928 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0020 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
08/28/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
NEAL BOUTIN |
$24,928 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0020 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
NEAL BOUTIN |
$24,931 |
|
NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0070 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
THOMAS PRYOR |
$44,868 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0038 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES DEMONNSTRAT’n, SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/31/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$50,000 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0060 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$127,600 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0122 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
2 |
08/26/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$78,852 |
|
NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0122 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
3 |
09/19/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$71,797 |
|
NJ ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0122 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
08/24/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ALISHA GRIFFIN |
$150,000 |
|
NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0055 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HELEN NELSON |
$217,667 |
|
NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0055 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
HELEN NELSON |
-$217,667 |
|
NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0136 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CYNTHIA D FISHER |
$99,320 |
|
NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0136 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration |
2 |
09/27/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CYNTHIA D FISHER |
$74,671 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
1 |
09/16/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBERT DOAR |
$187,640 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ROBERT DOAR |
$188,000 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
12/29/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ROBERT DOAR |
$0 |
|
NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE |
90FD0021 |
STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration |
2 |
09/24/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ROBERT DOAR |
-$375,640 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0142 |
OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
12/10/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
ATHENA RILEY |
$0 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0142 |
OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ATHENA RILEY |
$50,000 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0152 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
12/10/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
CARRI BROWN |
$0 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0155 |
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE SUDDEN AND PROLONGED EFFECT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON IV CASELOA |
1 |
09/23/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARRI BROWN |
$60,000 |
|
OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0174 |
OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT’n WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU |
1 |
09/24/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
ATHENA RILEY |
$85,000 |
|
OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0142 |
OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CARRI BROWN |
$50,000 |
|
OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR |
90FD0152 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARRI BROWN |
$104,663 |
|
OH STATE SEC. OF STATE |
90FD0095 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS |
1 |
09/18/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CARRI L BROWN |
$50,000 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
1 |
02/27/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
-$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0022 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE |
2 |
02/27/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAUL BOWERMAN |
-$38,382 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0084 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 |
1 |
09/01/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HARRY BENSON |
$79,750 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0084 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 |
1 |
02/16/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ANTHONY L JACKSON |
-$79,750 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0146 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
08/28/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KATHERINE MCRAE |
$31,708 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0146 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
KATHERINE MCRAE |
$30,300 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0146 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
04/07/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TERY DESHONG |
$0 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0151 |
PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE SUDDEN AND PROLONGED EFFECT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON IV CASELOA |
1 |
09/23/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MS KATHERINE MCRAE |
$36,681 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0163 |
1115 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT MEDICAL REFORM STRATEGY PROGRAM |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
KATHERINE MCRAE |
$37,728 |
|
OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0167 |
GET PAID! COLLABORATE TO COLLECT |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
ANTHONY JACKSON |
$100,000 |
|
OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE |
90FD0135 |
EMPLOYER PORTAL |
1 |
08/30/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
BECKY L HAMMER |
$87,483 |
|
OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE |
90FD0135 |
EMPLOYER PORTAL |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
BECKY L HAMMER |
$61,347 |
|
OR ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES, ADULT & FAMILY SVCS DIV |
90FD0023 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SHIRLEY IVERSON |
$72,500 |
|
OR ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES, ADULT & FAMILY SVCS DIV |
90FD0023 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN |
1 |
04/05/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
SHIRLEY IVERSON |
-$72,500 |
|
PR ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT |
90FD0046 |
SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/30/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MIGUEL A VERDIALES |
$145,000 |
|
RI ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0153 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SHARON A SANTILLI,ESQUIRE |
$105,000 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0024 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
BOB BRADFORD |
$17,998 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0024 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE |
2 |
09/02/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL THIGPEN |
$14,835 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0024 |
PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE |
3 |
08/09/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL THIGPEN |
$15,050 |
|
SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0056 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
R. ROSS JOLLY |
$106,801 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
1 |
09/08/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARK JASONOWICZ |
$145,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
2 |
09/18/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$145,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
2 |
01/19/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
3 |
09/15/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$145,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
3 |
02/07/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0081 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT |
3 |
11/22/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0150 |
CHILD SUPPORT PROJECTS TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$103,221 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0161 |
MICHIGAN MEDICAL CHILD SUPPORT STRATEGIES |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
PAMELA G MCKEE |
$50,000 |
|
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0170 |
REACH-REFERRAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSET DEVELOPMENT, COOPERAT’n, AND HOPE |
1 |
01/07/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n |
ELLEN DURNAN |
$0 |
|
STATE OF TENNESSEE |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$82,853 |
|
State of Louisiana, DEPT of Social Services |
90FD0125 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBBIE ENDRIS |
$59,983 |
|
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
07/20/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$108,112 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0077 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 |
1 |
08/26/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$60,000 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0102 |
TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/16/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
LINDA CHAPPELL |
$62,300 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$101,427 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
07/27/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$100,688 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
03/06/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0108 |
TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
02/24/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/20/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$54,612 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
08/09/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$52,034 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
07/12/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
05/13/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$50,000 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0129 |
SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
05/18/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0139 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$100,000 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0139 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$71,240 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0139 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
03/14/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0148 |
TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$49,300 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0148 |
TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
09/01/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$49,300 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0148 |
TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE |
2 |
03/14/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MR CHARLES BRYSON |
$0 |
|
TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0171 |
BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CHARLES BRYSON |
$85,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0052 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
WILLIAM H ROGERS |
$105,254 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0052 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
WILLIAM H ROGERS |
-$8,058 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0064 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CYNTHIA BRYANT |
$71,630 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0073 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$100,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0073 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
MICHAEL HAYES |
-$6,976 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0078 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5 |
1 |
08/26/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$80,040 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0085 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 |
1 |
08/26/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$60,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
08/29/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
WILL ROGERS |
$196,555 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/27/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PATRICIA CAFFERATA |
$196,555 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
01/08/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
KAREN HENSON |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0088 |
SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
08/16/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
KAREN HENSON |
$196,555 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0092 |
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
1 |
09/09/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL D HAYES |
$125,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
07/27/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$108,400 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
03/19/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
06/26/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
07/31/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$108,400 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0113 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
06/27/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
GILBERT A CHAVEZ |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
1 |
08/29/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
HAILEY KEMP |
$60,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
2 |
08/11/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TED WHITE |
$60,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
3 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TED WHITE |
$50,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0124 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) |
3 |
03/30/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TED WHITE |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0134 |
OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER |
1 |
09/29/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$703,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0137 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE |
1 |
08/16/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
KAMMI SIEMENS |
$100,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0137 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE |
2 |
09/07/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$75,000 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0137 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE |
2 |
01/13/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$0 |
|
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
90FD0169 |
URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT |
1 |
09/25/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MICHAEL HAYES |
$85,000 |
|
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS |
90FD0049 |
OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
08/31/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$167,748 |
|
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS |
90FD0141 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
1 |
09/01/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$99,348 |
|
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS |
90FD0141 |
FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD |
2 |
09/19/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MARILYN R SMITH |
$75,000 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
1 |
09/01/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JOHN BERNHART |
$150,000 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
2 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$75,000 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
2 |
08/10/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JOHN BERNHART |
$0 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
2 |
06/15/2011 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
JOHN BERNHART |
$0 |
|
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
90FD0115 |
COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 |
3 |
08/31/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOHN BERNHART |
$75,000 |
|
UT ST DIV OF AGING |
90FD0104 |
UTAH DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
MARK BRASHER |
$120,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0029 |
NEW APPROACH TO COLLECTING ARREARS |
1 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$96,396 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0032 |
INCREASING THE COLLECT’n RATE FOR COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$80,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0050 |
SHARED PARTNERSHIP: INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS LOCATING NCP’S & ASSETS WITH ON-LIN |
1 |
09/06/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$70,265 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0051 |
SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/30/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG |
$50,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0063 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG, JR. |
$100,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0074 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL YOUNG |
$150,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0074 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
NATHANIEL YOUNG |
-$6,421 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
1 |
08/29/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. |
$200,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/17/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD W ARESON |
$200,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
2 |
09/22/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TODD W ARESON |
$0 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/15/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD W ARESON |
$200,000 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0082 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 |
3 |
09/22/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TODD W ARESON |
$0 |
|
VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES |
90FD0087 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 5 |
1 |
08/27/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. |
$81,000 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
1 |
09/11/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JEFF COHEN |
$72,500 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JEFFERY COHEN |
$72,500 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
2 |
01/27/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
JEFFERY COHEN |
$0 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0025 |
PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
3 |
08/25/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JEFFERY COHEN |
$72,500 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
JEFF COHEN |
$199,941 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
$199,941 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/08/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
$0 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
-$42,007 |
|
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0053 |
OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/12/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CINDY GRIFFITH |
$199,941 |
|
VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES |
90FD0106 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 4 |
1 |
06/29/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ROBERT B BUTTS |
$118,607 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0027 |
DETERMININGTHE C0MPOSIT’n AND COLLECTIBILITY OF ARREARAGES |
1 |
09/07/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$75,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0031 |
EXEMPLARY COLLECT’n PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY |
1 |
09/14/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ELLEN NOLAN |
$80,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0031 |
EXEMPLARY COLLECT’n PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY |
1 |
03/12/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
ELLEN NOLAN |
-$47,987 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0035 |
A STUDY OF WASHINGTON CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS |
1 |
09/07/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$50,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0079 |
DEMON. AND EVAL. OF CENTRALIZED MEDICAL SUPPORT ENFORCEMT |
1 |
09/10/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
STEVE STRAUSS |
$80,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
1 |
08/23/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$60,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
2 |
08/13/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$60,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
09/20/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$50,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0123 |
OCSE SECT’n 1115 |
3 |
01/21/2010 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0131 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY AREA 2 |
1 |
09/24/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$30,000 |
|
WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0172 |
BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES |
1 |
09/26/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
MICHAEL HORN |
$85,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$200,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
08/31/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$200,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/12/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$200,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0058 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
03/22/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$91,381 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
2 |
11/06/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
3 |
07/31/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
CAROL WELCH |
$91,390 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
3 |
05/26/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
CAROL WELCH |
$0 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0138 |
FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE |
1 |
09/24/2009 |
93564 |
OTHER |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$100,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0138 |
FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE |
2 |
09/02/2010 |
93564 |
OTHER |
Non-Competing Continuation |
MICHAEL HORN |
$75,000 |
|
WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE |
90FD0138 |
FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE |
2 |
02/08/2011 |
93564 |
OTHER |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SARAH KOLLIN |
$0 |
|
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES |
90FD0107 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT |
1 |
06/23/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
CAROL WELCH |
$108,400 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
1 |
09/08/1997 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
RONI HARPER |
$72,500 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
2 |
09/18/1998 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SUSAN MATHISON |
$72,500 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
3 |
08/31/1999 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
SUSAN MATHISON |
$72,500 |
|
WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n |
90FD0026 |
PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN |
3 |
06/30/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
SUSAN MATHISON |
$0 |
|
WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
TODD KUMMER |
$166,619 |
|
WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAUL SAEMAN |
$175,871 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
02/04/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
PAUL SAEMAN |
$0 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0054 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/23/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
PAUL SAEMAN |
$172,724 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
1 |
07/11/2005 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SUE KINAS |
$108,400 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
TODD KUMMER |
$0 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
2 |
07/31/2006 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD KUMMER |
$108,400 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
3 |
09/26/2007 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
TODD KUMMER |
$108,400 |
|
WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT |
90FD0105 |
PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS |
3 |
07/07/2008 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
TODD KUMMER |
$0 |
|
WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0039 |
“PARENTHOOD AND YOU” (PAY) |
1 |
09/05/2000 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
SUSAN HARRAH |
$50,000 |
|
WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES |
90FD0103 |
WV DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
1 |
09/22/2004 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
ELIZABETH JORDAN |
$43,000 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/15/2001 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
NEW |
NANCY Q ROBERTS |
$124,993 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
1 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
HOLLY CLARK |
-$4,377 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/15/2002 |
93563 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOANNE MADRID |
$102,511 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
10/01/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS |
HOLLY CLARK |
$0 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
2 |
09/22/2009 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
OTHER REVISION |
HOLLY CLARK |
-$11,272 |
|
WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES |
90FD0061 |
SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) |
3 |
09/23/2003 |
93564 |
Demonstration |
Non-Competing Continuation |
JOANNE VERMEULEN $ 71,967 |
|
~ ~ ~ (TOTAL — per my export to Excel and using the “sum” function — is over $22 million — a spit in the bucket to the larger system, is over $22,000,000. For a contrast, the Florida (only) Dept. of Revenue HHS grants for child support (all categories, not sorted by year) shows as: $ 2,213,325,477: two billion, two hundred thirteen million, etc. This is what caught my eye. Did you notice Maryland, “Baltimore Healthy Marriages” — if only marriage were healthier, maybe there’d be fewer poor people on welfare…. (?) Indiana I didn’t see anything catch my eye, but I already know their Child Services Dept. not Child Support, but Child Services — got to serve the whole child, right? — on the page referring to child SUPPORT links straight out to Fathers and Families and recommends it apply for a grant. One can hardly distinguish the two. And Indiana is ALREADY fatherhood land, through Evan Bayh (jr.) and many more entitities. I would bet that most of these projects are labeled “Discretionary.” At any rate, one can see the variety of Institutions getting them, and perhaps the investigators backgrounds may or may not be interesting (Mr. Hayes sure was, I found him conferencing up in MN with a Fatherhood Summit, fascinating — as with the increasing success of the “parental alienation” theory in custody-switching, more and more MOTHERS are going to be the noncustodial parents and subject to a child support order, wage garnishment, etc. I know one Mom like that, presently, who was made homeless while working FT, and a DV survivor too. Fancy that. So how will it work for the mothers when the entire structure, mammoth in scale — has been geared to fathers on the basis that the courts are biased towards Moms and theres a fatherlessness crisis in the land which child support system could fix?
“Section 1115″ of the Social Security Act: Means, “Let’s Demonstrate!”
(a)
Sec. 1115. [42 U.S.C. 1315](a) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I, X, XIV, XVI, or XIX, or part A or D of title IV, in a State or States—
Hence the term flying around in our custody, divorce, child support circles, “TITLE IV-D” — which kicks in a different set of standards (and removes some protections) for example, if a person leaving domestic violence has to resort to welfare in any form. This becomes a “Title IV-D” case up front and is flagged, from what I understand, for potentially different treatment — IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY IN THE CUSTODY PROCESS. WHY — because other funds can be freed up. For example, funds in this particular divorce or separation to promote healthy marriage… Note: one person — the Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (I think, as I read this) — has the discretion to justify projects that do not have to ACTUALLY assist Title IV-D purposes, but in this ONE PERSON’S judgment, be LIKELY to. No wonder the place is full of demonstration experiments.
(1) the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 2, 402, 454, 1002,1402, 1602, or 1902, as the case may be, to the extent and for the period he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry out such project, and
The current Secretary of Health and Human Services is a woman…. with power by this Section to waive the lawfor demonstration projects. Kind of sounds like kingly (queenly) powers, doesn’t it? Is the public notified how often, how much, and why these laws are waived? (The grants lookups gives a clue as do other publications).
(2)(A) costs of such project which would not otherwise be included as expenditures under section 3,455, 1003, 1403, 1603, or 1903, as the case may be, and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110, shall, to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as expenditures under the State plan or plans approved under such title, or for administration of such State plan or plans, as may be appropriate, and
Permission granted to Secretary to knight certain expenditures as crusade-worthy and bill the public. Just trust us, it’s a good idea, or likely to be a good idea.
(B) costs of such project which would not otherwise be a permissable use of funds under part A of title IV and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110, shall to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as a permissable use of funds under such part.
Permission granted to the Secretary to alter perceptions of project costs.
In addition, not to exceed $4,000,000 of the aggregate amount appropriated for payments to States under such titles for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1967, shall be available, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may establish, for payments to States to cover so much of the cost of such projects as is not covered by payments under such titles and is not included as part of the cost of projects for purposes of section 1110.
Permission granted to the Secretary to add up to $4 million aggregate (per project? Per year?) just in case previous mind-bending, law-bending 1115 exceptsion weren’t quite enough. I imagine “payments” means, up-front? because in most projects, for the rest of us contractors, costs come later, or are billed at the end of the project after a certain amount down.
(b)
(b) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project undertaken under subsection (a) to assist in promoting the objectives of part D of title IV, the project— (1) must be designed to improve the financial well-being of children or otherwise improve the operation of the child support program; (2) may not permit modifications in the child support program which would have the effect of disadvantaging children in need of support; and (3) must not result in increased cost to the Federal Government under part A of such title.
WELL, who is going to see that (b) (1-3) is adhered to, as most people are too stressed to even know that these projects are taking place, and what impact it has had on the target, pilot, demonstrated upon population? It’s a lucky person who happens to notice they are in place, outside of the professions involved in demonstrating (etc.).There’s anecdotal evidence in the form of newspaper headlines and other protest movements that some of this fatherhood agenda is getting kids killed and keeping them in the custody of batterers (convicted) and molesters (convicted), they are experiencing abduction, and in some cases child support and contact with the other (originally caretaking) parent is totally eliminated. However section (b) doesn’t say it actually HAS to improve the financial well-being of the children, just that it must “be designed” (in the opinion of one person — the Secretary of the HHS, when you look at who approves it) to do so. Perhaps there is some leeway here for upstanding and alert citizens to protest some of the more egregious SECTION 1115 PROJECTS above… Although they are small compared to the total enforcement costs — what are they being used for?
(c)(1)(A) The Secretary shall enter into agreements with up to 8 States submitting applications under this subsection for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects in such States to test and evaluate the use, with respect to individuals who received aid under part A of title IV in the preceding month (on the basis of the unemployment of the parent who is the principal earner), of a number greater than 100 for the number of hours per month that such individuals may work and still be considered to be unemployed for purposes of section 407.If any State submits an application under this subsection for the purpose of conducting a demonstration project to test and evaluate the total elimination of the 100-hour rule, the Secretary shall approve at least one such application.
The entire welfare system is based on a concept of the 40-hour week as a means to financial well-being, even though the wealthiest people in the country, while they may work 40 hrs a week or more, if they love their work (or have chosen to run businesses, or a business, that requires this) do not HAVE to. This is why they have time to run around and make sure the rest of society is occupied with the 40 hour week standard. School is based on this general concept too — quantity versus quality and efficiency. Crowd control. Perhaps this is why we have such masses of peasants, etc. that need to be managed — because they are viewed and treated as unable to manage their own lives, direct their futures, LEARN significant things, and achieve beyond middle management level in life. So, the goal is to see if the 100 hour rule can be totally eliminated? This section is a little unclear, the reasoning that was behind it. Perhaps I haven’t spent enough months or years on welfare to understand this fully. I DO understand the concept of hours spent waiting in lines at government offices of all sorts. The 2nd “shall” seems to mean that if not even 1 state came up with a decent plan (unlikely, but if this were so), the Secretary had to approve at least one, anyhow.
(B) If any State with an agreement under this subsection so requests, the demonstration project conducted pursuant to such agreement may test and evaluate the complete elimination of the 100-hour rule and of any other durational standard that might be applied in defining unemployment for purposes of determining eligibility under section 407.
Sounds like when unemployment figures are circulated in the newspapers, these may not be included — people being demonstrated upon and participating in special projects proposed by states, and baptized by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources (IF I’ve named the right Secretary – if not, it would be some other single person over a huge dept.) — so the figures are actually higher than reported if so. New Deal, much? All of us must pay for the projects of some of us. This is called Taxation, but not exactly representation. It’s not so much the amounts (relative to the CSE enforcement budget) but the principle, and the fact that it’s acceptable to demonstrate simply because people got a Title IV-D status at any point in their lives, or were born into such a household. In the case of Child Support system, it has already been declared by the past three (male) presidents that FATHERHOOD is the thing, and worthy of investment. So of the approximately half the population (females are 50+% of the US) existing here, and paying taxes here (of the working population, I imagine that’s safe to say. How many stay at home 100% of the time Moms are around any more?) — of that %, we are paying for projects aimed at teh other gender, and which may benefit us -and our female and male children — if they do at all — only INdirectly. Is that really good for the men, either? Does it make them better men to know that they can either pay child support or enroll in a program or go to jail? (which is often the case — see Kentucky Court system, for example). Or that they can beat the system through these programs and get “even” with their ex, to the detriment of the public? Is a Section 1115 activity good just because the Secretary of the HHS (you gotta admit,a busy person) says it is? How much discretion are we going to allow? Take your head off the next Presidential candidates every now and then, and look at some of these things. Future posts I hope to just put up a few figures (charts) for people to get a mental image of the scope of this OCSE. When I said, it ought to be eliminated, I meant it. There are so many practices which undermine the legal system – — unbelievable. And, I repeat, people are being killed over these things. When there are hotly contested divorces and separation, one of the things we hear the most griping about is child support system — whether from the Mom’s side or the Dads. Remember Silva v. Garcetti. Remember Maximus…~ ~ ~
Happy Fatherhood Day — and where would “Fatherhood” be without the HHS?
DISCLAIMER:
The tone of this post is going to be flippant and sometimes sarcastic. This is NOT aimed at individual fathers, men, and all-round great people who have mentored, helped, befriended, or encouraged young men (and women) to be their best, or simply stood with them through tough times in life. I am in this blog targeting the professional trainers, the professional know-it-alls, and their habit of demanding more and more public money to build more and more “resource centers” and run “institutes” with less and less proof of any results. Although the word “evidence-based practice” is throughout the literature justifying why we should sponsor this habit as a public benefit.
Where’s the benefit? At what point can we demand something besides anecdotal evidence traded in policy institutes run without public input far away from the “delivery of services” locations. Have homicide, drug, femicide, rape etc. levels gone down AND can this be directly tied to any single, or any set of, training organizations? The answer to that I’ll bet is simply N.O.
But it is necessary to “out” and mock, ridicule (and reduce) the baloney, the fallacies that simply are opening the door to more federal trainers eager to get access to (in particular) young boys, or adolescents — and again, I’m talking at the institutional levels. Last post? I showed that one of the Fathers of the Fatherhood movement was a Seventh Day Adventist (Dr. Charles Ballard), who writes on a page called “Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family”
God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side . . . .
Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.
Any time such a “servant/priest” (i.e. any man in a relationship with a woman, and especially with children) is served with a protection or restraining order, or is convicted of assault and battery upon an “intimate partner” someone indeed has come between him and his Eve. Thank God! In this mindset, that’s bad.
TAGGS — apparently a few different “Ballards” are very much into this:
The fifth column in (before CFDA number beginning in “93 _ _ _” is the year of the project.
| ACF | HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS UNIV OF OKLAHOMA | NORMAN | OK | DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN POST ADOPTION SERVICES AND MARRIAGE EDUCATION | 1 | 93652 | SOCIAL SERVICES | BALLARD FARILYN | $ 250,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (IDA) | 1 | 93602 | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES BALLARD | $ 1,000,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 1 | 93647 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | CHARLES A BALLARD | $ 180,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) | 1 | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A BALLARD | $ 99,350 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 01 | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 170,000 |
| ACF | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | UNSOLICITED/CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROGRAM ENCHANCEMENT OF PHILADELPHIA MODEL | 1 | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES H BALLARD | $ 500,000 |
| ACF | OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | OK | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 8 | 1 | 93086 | DEMONSTRATION | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 549,791 |
| ACF | OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | OK | PROJECT TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGES | 1 | 93608 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 200,000 |
| ACF | Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative | DALLAS | TX | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 1 | 93009 | DEMONSTRATION | VALERIE BALLARD | $ 50,000 |
So far, Texas, Oklahoma & DC.
This report didn’t show years, so here’s one that does, I’ve picked a few samples from a simple search, last name “Ballard”; out of 156 returns (Many were medical) these appear to relate to marriage/fatherhood components.
| HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS UNIV OF OKLAHOMA | NORMAN | 90CO1029 | DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN POST ADOPTION SERVICES AND MARRIAGE EDUCATION | 09/12/2006 | 93652 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | SOCIAL SERVICES | BALLARD FARILYN | $ 250,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90EI0127 | ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (IDA) | 09/10/2001 | 93602 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES BALLARD | $ 1,000,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90PR0003 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 09/30/1995 | 93647 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 85,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90PR0004 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 09/30/1995 | 93647 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 85,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90XP0014 | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/15/1999 | 93647 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | CHARLES A BALLARD | $ 180,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90XP0024 | UNSOLICITED/CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROGRAM ENCHANCEMENT OF PHILADELPHIA MODEL | 07/27/2001 | 93647 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | FRANCES H BALLARD | $ 500,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | 90XP0043 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) | 06/30/2003 | 93647 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A BALLARD |
| OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | 90CW1115 | PROJECT TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGES | 09/29/2003 | 93608 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 200,000 |
| OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OKLAHOMA CITY | 90FE0030 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/24/2006 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | FARILYN BALLARD | $ 549,791 |
| TEEN FATHER PROGRAM: A FAMILY SERVICE | CLEVELAND | D67MP01550 | THE AMERICAN MALE LEADERSHIP & EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM | 02/15/1995 | 93910 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 0 |
| TEEN FATHER PROGRAM: A FAMILY SERVICE | CLEVELAND | D67MP01550 | THE AMERICAN MALE LEADERSHIP & EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM | 07/31/1995 | 93910 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | CHARLES A. BALLARD | $ 0 |
| Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative | DALLAS | 90IJ0623 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 09/24/2006 | 93009 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | VALERIE BALLARD | $ 50,000 |
Frances Ballard (Mrs. Charles A. Ballard) is known to me from this organization, a recent one also on the HHS funds path:
WOMEN IN FATHERHOOD, INC. (“WIFI” for short):
Frances Ballard
Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC. She has over 20 years experience working with fathers, families and healthcare.
(Notice — women & mothers — if they exist — are lumped in with children and do not exist as individuals. The fathers, however, do. Even “healthcare” has an identity. This is totally in accord with the religious statements above — Eve was to be at all times by Adam’s side, even though I doubt this Executive Director has been to her husband. However, I doubt that she’d veer from the primary policy — promoting fatherhood and ignoring mothers / women as individuals.. At least when describing the programs…)
er previous positions include 12 years serving as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization; Consultant to The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connections Program; ** Director of Corporate Development and Clinical Manager-Ambulatory Care, Grace Hospital; and Nurse Consultant/Program Developer, The Institute For Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development. She holds a Masters of Science Degree in Nursing Administration, a B.A. in Social Work, an A.S. in Nursing, and numerous executive management certifications. She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood Movement and the mother of their three children, Jonathan, Lydia and Christopher.
**Annie E. Casey Foundation funds many fatherhood programs, and they are indeed a large foundation.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
FARILYN BALLARD I’ll deduce is not a relative, but on the same theme, and highly placed to run fatherhood programs, possibly similar on the inside:
A devout Christian who sings in her church’s choir, Ballard prays and reads the Bible daily and volunteers. She’s a wife and mother who loves her husband, Dan Ballard, her two grown daughters and crossword puz- zles. Whimsical items like Garden Divas adorn her office, and she’ll readily tell you about her two dogs, Molly and Bosco. . . .
Where Faith And Commitment Make A Difference
By Kevan Goff-Parker Inside OKDHS Editor (OCT 2004 article):
The Many Sides of Farilyn Ballard
As chief operating officer, Fari- lyn Ballard’s well-known serious side is often seen at OKDHS as she dili- gently works long hours tackling the agency’s many challenges. It’s a serious job, but Ballard enjoys the responsibility. She leads the daily operations of the state’s largest agency and 4,000 employees from Field Operations, Children and Family Services Division and Family Support Services Division.“
Oklahoma had one of the largest (initially) Marriage Demonstration projects, I heard… it is called “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (“OMI”)
Ms. Ballard was there.

Marriage Research – OMI
She has developed a middle range theory of the experience of expectant and newfatherhood, … in Research Advisory Group meetings include: Farilyn Ballard, …
http://www.okmarriage.org/Research/MarriageResearch.asp – Cached – Similar
This OMI is also a project of the Public Strategies, Inc. I mentioned with, I THINK (might be wrong…), ties to Center for Policy Research (I believe) -out of Denver. The common personnel between the Denver-based Center for Policy Research and the (now international) “AFCC” is one of the co-founders, Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (as I understand matters), and the slant is definitely pro-Richard Gardner, Pro-Parental Alienation theory (“PAS”) throughout. As opposed to, say, feminist — at all….. For an idea of what “OMI” is (referring to structure, funding, purpose, and reach, etc.) read this:
Mary Myrick, APR – Public Strategies
Ms. Myrick is the President of Public Strategies, an Oklahoma-based firm, and Project Manager for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). The OMI is widely recognized as the country’s first statewide, comprehensive program model for changing a state’s divorce culture and creating/providing services to reflect a broad-based commitment to family formation and marriage. Under Myrick’s leadership the OMI has recruited a highly-distinguished Research Advisory Board consisting of state and national experts on marriage, divorce, and low-income families; has developed and implemented the first comprehensive statewide survey to assess marriage/divorce values and demographics**; is implementing a multi-sector strategy, collaborating with multiple state agencies, service providers, educators, religious institutions, businesses and the media; and has launched a statewide skills-based Marriage and Relationship Education Service Delivery System, utilizing the research-based PREP as its core curriculum. Myrick speaks nationally about the successful OMI model and has provided hours of technical assistance to several states and communities committed to implementing their own marriage initiatives.
**interesting. Drawing on ALL marriage/divorce data? Census? That colloborating with “everyone” so reminds me of AFCC (although their range is not quite “everyone”) Pulling in MULTIPLE state agencies (for probably program funding and access to population) Service providers (access to population, and training the in the right way to provide service) Educators (naturally) Religious Institutions (OK, here we go . . . . ) Businesses (funding, sponsorship, promotion, right?) and the media — sound like a monopoly yet? Are there any anti-trust even CONCEPTS at work here?
This can be done in part because in 1995, President Clinton issued an Executive Order about Fatherhood. You should read it sometime (again). This was like an ignition that blasted free all kinds of information and technology, and monetary flow — a virtual riverhood of father-promotion and education. ….
ABOUT US:
about us Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members…PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C.
The Denver office is walking distance to “Center for Policy Research” in Denver, their name is found on many HHS reports, and their personnel extremely influential, as I have blogged. @
Denver, CO 80203-5402
(303) 830-0400
As a visionary leader in public-private partnerships, Ms. Myrick developed Public Strategies (PSI) from a public relations and event planning firm into a leader in business development, strategic planning, and project management. She manages and continues to add to the firm’s diverse partnerships and directs PSI’s portfolio of national, state and community youth and family programs.
Ms. Myrick also leads efforts to provide technical assistance to other agencies and organizations including the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) grantees, the Texas Healthy and Human Services Commission, and several policy research organizations. (incl. CPR?)
As we can see below (in the list) the bulk of the work is DIRECT US Government-related:
That’s funny, Dr. Richard Warshak’s reunification program was trade-marked “Building Bridges,” which is “treatment” for the extremely alienated child &/or family.
Among the team is a “Director of Fatherhood Services”
Calvin Williams
Director of Fatherhood Services. He is the “thought leader” in PSI’s fatherhood programs:
As the thought leader for the development of promising practices in the areas of fatherhood for each of the programs that PSI manages, Calvin fills a critical role on the Public Strategies team.His expertise in the fatherhood is now being utilized in the PREP curriculum which he co-authored, “On My Shoulders.” In his new role, Calvin develops programs and interventions targeted to non-custodial parents that encourage cooperative parenting, and provide insight and guidance, as well as resources and tools that assist in providing high quality services to low income men and their families.Before joining PSI, Calvin worked as Program Director, Operations Director, and Acting Executive Director for Services United for Mothers and Adolescents (SUMA) Fatherhood Project in Cincinnati, Ohio
He develops programs targeted to the court system, and probably child support as well, wouldn’t you say?
2003 “Ohio Practitioners’ Network for Fathers and Family”
“In May of 2003 (it reads) the Center for Families and Children in Ohio hosted the first “Fathers Matter” conference in the State of Ohio…a diverse group of stakeholders and practitioners was brought together to discuss the importance of fatherhood and the barriers faced by practitioners. … most participants agreed that there was a need for a Fatherhood Practitioner network in Ohio.”
(to clarify, a “fatherhood practitioner” need not be male — or even a father. A “Fatherhood Practitioner” is closer to a public relationship or program development function, from what I can tell. I know that in order to play football, sooner or later one must actually practice football. Generally speaking, there are coaches, right? These are the self-declared fatherhood coaches, and what they are speaking of is obtaining a platform to enact their policies (and funding, of course). Whatever these policies be, the “label” is “FATHERHOOD.” I suggest that all reasonably minded fathers (and mothers) who are unaware of the extent and network of this system consider the impact of it on their bottom line, i.e., their wallets. Because I assure us, the field is everexpanding, alongside “domestic Violence Advocates” (what — do they ADVOCATE for domestic violence? Or just research it). Between the two of them, and the courts — what’s left of any public benefit $$ is going to go the other direction. Because once in the house, these birds (and I DO mean also the “battered women’s” side of the policy as well) will ONLY continue to expand.
One advantage is that the US Congress, and I’d still bet most state Congresses, are primarily male, in fact white male. SO the chances that programs of this theme are not going to speak to their gut level sense of masculinity and what’s “right” with the world is slim.
For example, in or about 2000, the good citizens of Ohio — or at least their elected representatives — voted in a ‘FATHERHOOD COMMISSION.” to find it, simply type in “http://Ohio.fatherhood.gov” I linked to the “funding” page which summarizes. Don’t neglect to click on “More” under the first link, where you will see a column of cool graphics & logos, such as:






And shows an entire range in which “fatherhood” can be inculcated, from Early Head Start (basically before they stop nursing) through college, including county government (cf. “Board of County Commissioners”) recover groups, community action groups, et. THere is NO area of life and human practice which couldn’t use more fatherhood training and promotion. Being a long-term noncustodial mother, in large part because of my ignorance of the impact of these grant programs at the on the courts, locally — I think that every one in the US should fund more of these (yeah, right).
Ohio Commission on Fatherhood Funded ProgramsFunded Fatherhood Programs
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood awards grants to exemplary fatherhood programs throughout the state of Ohio each biennium. The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood recently completed another round of fatherhood grants for 2010-2011. The Commission awarded grants to nine fatherhood programs located through out the state of Ohio in the amount of $1.5 million. More>>
Fatherhood Regions
Fatherhood regions mirrors Ohio Department of Development regions. This map will reflect fatherhood programs, activities, fatherhood initiatives and resources within each region. More>>
Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative
On January 18th, the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood launched the Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative. Eleven counties have been selected to participate in this pilot project. The Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative is a six-month process during which county leaders identify specific needs in their county and develop a fatherhood action plan. If your county would like to participate in a future training, submit the on-line form to be added to the waiting list. More>>
Back to Public Strategies, Inc. (and its government-sponsored programs, such as how to collaborate with DV groups and make sure they aren’t too radical, such as actually advocating for complete separation where there has been ongoing criminal activity by one parent upon another, or the children — like ”
These “Bridges” have indeed been built between fatherhood and DV programs so that their practices (and in great part, philosophies) are indistinguishable any more. BOTH support more and more supervised visitation, trainings, and continue to conference on “best practices.” BOTH (also a Duluth Model concept) assert that “Coordinated Community Response” = best response. I don’t agree. At all. All this does is build bridges between agencies and a wall of difference between service providers and those served — two different classes and two different outlook. Client v. service provider, not Human-to-human.
This list of “PSI” clients are well known (at least by name) to anyone looking into the grants and funding of the HHS-sponsored Healthy Marriage Movement; that is basically what the clients are. Without these clients, PSI would not have a business, or would be one PR firm among many.
http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2
Government Agencies
• Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Family Expectations, a program managed by Public Strategies was recently profiledby the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Family Assistance as one of the most successful Healthy Marriage programs in the country.• Oklahoma Department of Human Services ( OK DHS)
• Oklahoma Association of Youth Services
• Oklahoma Department of Health
• Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
• Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF)
• Louisiana Department of Social Services
• Texas Health and Human Services Commission (TX HHSC)Research Organizations
• Texas Tech University (TTU) – College of Human Sciences
• MDRC (SEARCH MY BLOG)
• Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR)
• National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV)
• Oklahoma State University (OSU) – Research and Graduate StudiesNonprofit Organizations
• Annie E. Casey Foundation (AEC)
• Johnson Foundation
• The Dibble Institute
• It’s My Community Initiative (IMCI)
• Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP)
• Harding School of Fine ArtsCorporate Clients
• Lewin
• ICF
• Pal Tech
• Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)
• Hill & Knowlton (I read this client just bought PSI, one can check)
The “big guns” behind this firm, then, turn out to be either (a) federal funds or (b) foundations, primarily. MDRC (I posted again recently on this one, under “will the real MPDI please stand up?”) — it’s huge…
So were these scholars, experts, and I suppose “practitioners” although the fastest way to practice “fatherhood” might just be to join the AFCC, and several I recognize.
OMI Research Advisory Group Members:
Paul Amato, PhD – Pennsylvania State University
Ronald B. Cox, Jr., PhD, CFLE – Oklahoma State University
Robin Dion, MS – Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (an organization that fulfils HHS, gov’t contracts and does research)
Kathryn Edin, PhD – Harvard University
David Fournier, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Norval Glenn, PhD – University of Texas
Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD – Bowling Green State [Ohio] University
Ron Haskins, PhD – Brookings Institution {originator of the TItle IV-D / Access Visitation law which enables the research and demonstration element, and facilitates (increased, is the general idea) “noncustodial parent contact” through federal grants to the states. 1996ff. These ARE “fatherhood” grants — they do not help mothers with visitation difficulties increase access, although the wording reads “parents.” i.e., he is a central person in this mix…
Alan J. Hawkins, PhD- Pennsylvania State University
Pamela Jordan, PhD, RN, – University of Washington
Christine Johnson, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Howard Markman, PhD – University of Denver
Steve Nock, PhD – University of Virginia (Our colleague and friend passed away early in 2008)
Theodora Ooms, MSW – Center for Law and Social Policy
Galena K. Rhoades, PhD – University of Denver
Scott Stanley, PhD- University of Denver
OF THIS LIST, I’ll bet there is some AFCC, starting with Paul Amato

Dr. Amato is a Professor of Sociology, Demography, and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include marital quality, the causes and consequences the causes and consequences of divorce, and subjective well-being over the life course. ((If one is measuring subjective well-being, the research possibilities are endless, particularly if the target range is so narrowly defined as married and divorced people over a lifetime…)) He received the Reuben Hill Award from the National Council on Family Relations for the best published article on the family in 1993, 1999, and 2001. He received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from the American Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 2002, the Distinction in the Social Sciences Award from Pennsylvania State University in 2003, and the Distinguished Career Award from the Family Section of the American Sociological Association in 2006.
Ms. DION, of Mathematica, Inc. — a group I remember well because their label shows up on so many fatherhood studies:


Ms. Dion (first of the 3 photos here) is a Research Psychologist at Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which has offices in Washington D.C. and Princeton, NJ. This widely respected research firm has conducted studies in health care, welfare, education, employment and nutrition. Robin is currently the Principal Investigator for a federally funded research project, Strengthening Families with a Child Born Out-of-Wedlock. The project grows out of the Fragile Families research project directed by Sara McLanahan (Princeton University, photo above) and Irwin Garfinkle (Columbia University). [[who also, I believe, publish frequently with Ron Haskins, Ron Mincy, and others]] “Sara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, studies the relationship between family structure, income, and child outcomes.”
Note Dr. McLanahan’s study emphasis, in part: “he is the author of many articles and books including Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement (1998); Social Policies for Children (1996); Growing Up with a Single Parent (1994); Child Support and Child Wellbeing (1994); Child Support Assurance: Design Issues, Expected Impacts, and Political Barriers, as Seen from Wisconsin (1992); and Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (1986). Her degree in Sociology is from Univ of Texas at Austin…. She also has published, and will continue to, with Ron Haskins. Get the general idea? (research, sociology, behavioral sciences, economic policy, etc.) She’s a researcher.
Dr. McLanahan currently directs the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a nationally-representative longitudinal birth cohort study of approximately 5,000 families, including 3,700 unmarried parents and their children. The study is designed to shed light on the health and development of low-income children, the impact of family relationships and dynamics on child wellbeing, and the impact of social policies on family relationships and child wellbeing.
Dr. McLanahan is also editor-in-chief of The Future of Children, a policy journal on children’s issues produced by Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The journal’s latest issue, “Fragile Families,” (Vol. 20, No. 2) is co-edited by Sara McLanahan, Irv Garfinkel, and Ronald Mincy. Upcoming issues include: “Immigrant Children (Vol. 21, No. 1) co-edited by Ron Haskins and Marta Tienda. (available in spring 2011), “Work and Family Balance,
Dr. Garfinkle (I recognize the name, but dont see it as much, somehow):
Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems and co-director of the Columbia Population Research Center. A social worker and an economist by training, he has authored or co-authored over 150 scientific articles and eleven books **on poverty, income transfers, program evaluation, single parent families and child support, and the welfare state. His research on child support influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the US Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. He is currently the co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Well being Study and is completing a book entitled The American Welfare State: Laggard or Leader?. . . . . .
**this is, of course, what social worker/economist Ph.D.s can do. They write. A LOT. Their writing sometimes becomes policy…
Columbia has both the Population Research (Center) and the “Fathers, Children, and Family” (Center for Research on…), run by colleague Dr. Ronald D. Mincy.
Here they are in Wisconsin (2009) running a conference at the “IRP” or “Institute for Research on Poverty.” Poverty is a pressing issue, therefore RESEARCHING IT (which can be quite profitable and professionally advantageous) is of course important work. The idea being of course, to stop it. Notice that in the word “Population” (Garfinkle’s center) or the title of the “CRFCFW” — no noun representing any group of females even exists, not even the word “mother.” Mothers are IN these groups (Population, Families, and alas even some girls definitely not legal adults, i.e., they are CHILDREN) — but not mentioned. Father acknowledges the male gender. No word in there acknowledges the female gender — yet females are at least half the population in the U.S. and a bit more, and worldwide, unless something unnatural (genocide, war, or infanticide of female babies in certain cultures) has come in. How close is this to “Adam must always have Eve at his side” or disaster will result to the world? . . . . . .
Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy
September 2009, University of Wisconsin–Madison
This conference brought together scholars and policymakers to examine strategies for reducing barriers to marriage and father involvement, designing child support and other public policies to encourage the involvement of fathers, and coping with fathers who have multiple child support responsibilities.** Representatives of the Obama Administration were in Madison to respond to the ideas put forth at the conference.
**It’s a little hard to keep promoting the theory that children MUST wake up with a biological father in the home, when these children live in different homes. This ignores the fact that women, as well as men, actually do remarry, or have new partners. Or that sometimes they do not, and their children still succeed. One example I can think of is — in Wisconsin — a state Rep! Congresswoman Gwen Moore.
IRP hosted this working conference in coordination with the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being and the Columbia Population Research Center, at Columbia University. Tim Smeeding, Ron Mincy, and Irv Garfinkelorganized the conference and co-edited a conference volume. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is also providing financial support for this conference.
COnferences are definitely not free, and if we are to properly study Poverty by studying Fathers, the United States HHS might as well get involved and contribute. The institutes that organized this have their own funders, of course (Foundational, and most likely government) but extra help was needed for this conference, obviously.
Conference papers are available in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 635 (May 2011): “Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy.” Special Editors Timothy M. Smeeding, Irwin Garfinkel, and Ronald E. Mincy.
Co-sponsoring contributors:
I BELIEVE THAT:
People who don’t appreciate the welfare state shouldn’t be living off it by promoting the practice of using welfare populations FOR that research, and conducting “demonstration” projects on them through institutions their poverty forces them to interact with, and which may have contributed to it. One of the primary institutions that appears to have contributed to the wealth of some and the poverty of others is slavery. While it was officially outlawed, it is obviously still practiced, a situation the US hasn’t come to terms with. THe practice of slavery enabled many of the “founding fathers” to take time to write and research. Others built their houses, cooked their food (bare their children) and tilled their fields. Moreover, a middle range of management kept the field hands in place.
Probably this set of professionals can be viewed in these terms — they research and write upon the population and make sure that policy isn’t too radically different to enable more independence and more competition for commodities (food, work, materials, and sales, etc.). . . . Some people mine the earth, or study the stars. Others mine DATA — and it takes time, money, and workers to collect, analyze and report on all that data. MOreover it takes computers and an infrastructure where information can flow to and fro. Hence, “Technical Assistance Grants” are so common. In practice, except for the greater speed (and scope) perhaps it’s in many ways like farming. …. First one gets access to the fields and somehow tills them (or SOME space where food can be grown). Only problem — most of our population now (am I right?) is concentrated, and URBAN. Hence the richest fields to mine are the urban poor, the urban violent, the urban oppressed (by . . . by what?). . and the urban don’t have access to clean water and food, or good schools. It’s GREAT material to mine, and positioned right, one might end up at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, or some Institute or Center of “higher” learning.
. . . continuing with Dr. Garfinkle’s research, and its impact:
His research on child support influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the US Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. He is currently the co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Well being Study and is completing a book entitled The American Welfare State: Laggard or Leader?
Dr. Charles Ballard, Ms. — or Mrs.? — Frances Ballard, nonrelative Farilyn Ballard of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, and here is another Ballard, “Valerie” — and this is the Northeast Texas Fatherhood Initiative (see Corporation Wiki link, there). It shows only three people: Valerie Ballard, Sheilah Tucker ,and Preston Mallone.
LinkedIn, Ms. Ballard (looks young!)
Valerie Ballard’s Experience

Executive Director North Texas Fatherhood Initiative
Nonprofit Organization Management industry
July 2009 – Present (2 years)
Executive Director for the Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative (TexasHMRI) and North Texas Fatherhood Initiative (NTFI). Responsible for the strategic direction, leadership and capacity building; program development for TexasHMRI and NTFI. My role includes grant development and management, training and technical assistance and fiscal oversight to 50+ collaborative partners in the organization’s coalition.
Both of these are government-funded programs, through Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (at a minimum):
TexasHMRI is a subcontractor for the Twogether in Texas Healthy Marriage Program under The Texas Health and Human Service Commission.
North Texas Fatherhood Initiative is funded by IMANI -The David Project a 2009 Compassion Capital Fund Grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families. (HHS/ACF — what else?)
| Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative | DALLAS | United States of America | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 09/24/2006 | 93009 | NEW | VALERIE BALLARD | $ 50,000 | Abstract Not Available |
(I found 80 in Texas under CFDA 93009 — most were small many were aimed at marriage, family & youth, such as:
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | United States of America | COMPASSION CAPTIAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI | 09/17/2005 | 93009 | NEW | CAROL BOWMAN | $ 49,853 | Abstract Not Available |
| Alta Vista Faith-Based Initiative Corporation | Double Oak | United States of America | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 09/23/2006 | 93009 | NEW | ROBERT CHAVEZ | $ 50,000 | Abstract Not |
Once these take root (cf. “Alliance for North Texas…”) they tend to get watered; this went straight to almost $1 million ($900K) the second year….
| Grantee Name | City | County | Award Title | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions | Award Abstract |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages** | DALLAS | DALLAS | COMPASSION CAPTIAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRIAGE | 09/17/2005 | 93009 | NEW | CAROL BOWMAN | $ 49,853 | Abstract Not Available |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/24/2006 | 93086 | NEW | COSETTE BOWLES | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/20/2007 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERIN KINCAID | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/22/2008 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERIN KINCAID | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/18/2009 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERIN KINCAID | $ 903,425 | |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | DALLAS | DALLAS | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 09/24/2010 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | COSSETTE BOWLES | $ 903,425 |
In case you wondered about the name, the acronym is ‘ANTHEM’ but apparently the actual nonprofit? name is “Strong Families”
Strong Families Dallas
Alliance for North Texas Healthy Effective Marriages (ANTHEM)
1201 Elm street
Dallas, TX 75270
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to deliver marriage education services to 8,360 married and engaged couples and persons interested in marriage, 5,910 non-married expectant parents and 3,445 high school students over the project period. ANTHEM will also launch a public awareness campaign to reach all Dallas-area residents.
(I tend to look up addresses; here it is all in one):
-
Anthem Strong Families | Anthem Dallas
Dallas Black Marriage Day. image. Anthem Strong Families. 12800 Hillcrest Road, Suite#A124 Dallas, TX 75230. Office: 214-426-0900. Fax: 214-426-0906 …
http://www.anthemnorthtexas.org/index.php?option=com…id=1… – Cached -
Providers in your area – Twogether in Texas (another grants recipient)
Alliance for North Texas Healthy Effective Marriages 12800 Hillcrest Road, Ste A124 Dallas,TX 75230 214-426-0900 twogether@anthemnorthtexas.org …
http://www.twogetherintexas.com/UI/RIAddresses.aspx – Cached – Similar -
Dallas TX computer system consultants | Find computer system …
computer system consultants for Dallas TX, TX. … 2.9 mi; View Phone (214) 426- 0900;12800 Hillcrest Rd Ste 124, Dallas, TX 75230 map · more info | Enhance …
directory.dallasnews.com/dallas–tx+tx/computer+system+consultants.zq.html – Cached -
AllPages.com – Mental Health Specialists, Dallas, Yellow Pages …
Business Types: Mental Health Specialists. Bowles Cosette Psychothrpst 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 124. Dallas, TX 75230-1560. Phone: (972) 490-1556 …
tx.allpages.com/dallas/health-medical/…/mental-health-specialists/ – Cached -
YiPpIe! – Dallas Marriage & Family Counselors – Dallas, TX
Gadol Irwin PhD 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 224. Dallas, TX 75230 ….. S MD,8330 Meadow Road Suite 124,Dallas,TX,75231,(214)369-9236 Prestonwood Counseling …
1499.yippie.biz/tx/dallas/ – Cached
It has no links programs targeted to mothers (I guess welfare is supposed tohandle that). Why SHOULD it? after all 93.086 is Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood — not motherhood. Responsible Fathers will know how to keep the Moms in line, right? And here is the “Strong Fathers” rhetoric, which definitely targets (negatively) single mothers — if all these are laid at our feet for not keeping a man in the home:
Growing up in a fatherless home has a big price. Children from a fatherless home are:
- 5 times more likely to commit suicide
- 32 times more likely to run away
- 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
- 14 times more likely to commit rape
- 9 times more likely to drop out of school
- 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
- 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
- 20 times more likely to end up in prison

BUT THEN AGAIN, they also might end up in the White House, USA< where they can start more Fatherhood.gov programs (and a video linking to one is on the site). Or at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, or elsewhere, running research on the importance of fathers, and being very well recognized for it…
THIS is funded by the US Goverment, “OFA” OpDiv:
Strong Families Dallas
Strong Families Dallas (SFD) is the 5 year project awarded to Anthem Strong Families by the Federal Office of Family Assistance and funded through the Administration for Children and Families. The purpose of SFD is to offer free 8-12 hour fun, interactive relationship skill workshops to the people of Dallas.
Here is a 2011 “webinar transcript” (obviously partial) talking about this “HEALTHY MARRIAGE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH THE COURTS”
A bit more on this “ANTHEM” — which I was able to find (same grant, I gather) in USAspending.gov. This find confirms the grant was taken from welfare funds:
- Total Dollars:$2,885,849
- Transactions:1 – 5 of 5 (of the two recipients, both were taking TANF funding to promote marriage).
Transaction Number # 1
|
|||||||||||||
Its DUNS # is 360770486 (DUNS = “Dun & Bradstreet” trading#, used for groups contracting or getting grants from the US Gov’t as well; knowing this # can help search a single organization which goes under more than one name, a.k.a. FVPF, etc.) It has no “State application ID” (SAI) # for what that’s worth.
The term “FE” on a grant — i.e., 90FE0072 seems to be code for “FATHERHOOD EDUCATION” (trust me, I’ve seen enough). So whether or not it SAYS “marriage/family” on the front, the purpose is Fatherhood promotion.
this street address (googlemaps) is ? labeled opposite some “Institute of Metabolic Disease”
The Initiative above is likely a grants program (HHS, I’d guess), and I’ll bet that one or both are receiving access visitation grants from the Attorney General’s Office.. This is Dallas Fort-Worth area…. The NTFI resides at a college “Business Incubation Center” according to a news bulletin, it operates out of a college.
BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTER BUSINESS PROFILES March 2011
Bill J. Priest Campus of El Centro College Dallas County Community College District
1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, TX 75215, (214) 860-5851
The Dallas County Community College District officially opened the Business Incubation Center June 4, 1990. An integral part of the Bill J. Priest Campus, 1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, Texas, the Business Incubation Center has just over 30,000 square feet of space available for businesses located on site. Designed as a corporate headquarters facility, the Incubation Center offers cost-shared equipment and services for up to 50 small business owners.
The following is a profile of the businesses that are associated with Business Incubation Center as of March 2011. (And on the list):
NORTH TEXAS FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE, Valerie Ballard, SUITE 123, (214) 884-7020: A regional partnership of community and faith-based agencies promoting responsible fatherhood by providing for male children, teens and adults educational workshops, mentoring, job skills assessments and training, counseling, household products and clothing. They also provide career counseling & job training for ex-offenders, assists families become [i.e., “in becoming”]…homeowners, and computer technology training for jailed offenders.
“…When you donate $125 on behalf of a family member, friend or yourself, we will create a memorial fund in honor of the recipient. Anyone may contribute to the memorial fund, at any time…All donations are tax deductible under our 501(C)3 non-profit organization. ” and “The Why Knot? program is designed to help men develop a positive view of marriage. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) developed Why Knot? to help men understand the benefits of marriage…” etc.
Well, let’s see….. where is this North Texas Fatherhood Initiative nonprofit registered?
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/search.php

(So far — going to 4th search site — haven’t found anything “North Texas Fatherhood Initiative.”)

Apparently in Texas (and DNK where else) one may form an “Unincorporated Nonprofit Organization,” meaning, no registered agent:
Nonprofit Corporations: Not all non-profit organizations are filed with the Secretary of State. Many, but not all, non-profit organizations chose to incorporate. A nonprofit corporation is created by filing a certificate of formation with the secretary of state in accordance with the Texas Business Organizations Code (“BOC”). “Nonprofit corporation” means a corporation no part of the income of which is distributable to members, directors, or officers [BOC, Section 22.001(5)]. A nonprofit corporation may be created for any lawful purpose, or purposes permitted by the BOC. Not all nonprofit corporations are entitled to exemption from state or federal taxes.
Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations: Section 252.001 of the BOC defines an unincorporated nonprofit association as an unincorporated organization consisting of three or more members joined by mutual consent for a common, nonprofit purpose. All unincorporated nonprofit associations, whether or not the entities are tax exempt, are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, Chapter 252 of the BOC. The Act addresses a limited number of major issues relating to nonprofit associations; namely, the authority of the nonprofit association to acquire, hold and transfer property in its own name; the authority to sue and be sued as a separate legal entity; and the contract and tort liability of an association’s officers and its members. If you need further information regarding these provisions or how they might affect your association, you should contact your own legal counsel.
An unincorporated nonprofit association may, but is not required to, file with the secretary of state a statement appointing an agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of the nonprofit association. The filing of the statement does not represent the creation of the nonprofit association; it simply provides a method for a nonprofit association to receive notice of any lawsuit brought against it.
(one can also look at the 990s through these sites).
| EIN: | 113774629 | ||
| Name: | Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative — Google | ||
| Location: |
PO Box 764274 Dallas, TX 75376 |
||
| County: | Dallas County | ||
| Ruling Date: | 2006 (Approximate year when founded) | ||
| IRS Type: | 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations… | ||
| Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): | 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public | ||
| NTEE: |
P50 – Personal Social Services | ||
| Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) | 12/2009 | ||
| Total Revenue | $67,520 | ||
| Total Assets: | $9,811 | ||
For an idea just how popular the idea is of forming a corporation (profit or nonprofit) in the “healthy marriage” field, see this search:
(Corporation Wiki: “Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative“) (it pulls up similar titles in many other states. Click on any and get a simple diagram of the Board of Directors — whether current or not is not my issue… Probably taken from searching Secretary of State or IRS information)….This one has 5 people, including Ms. Ballard, above….
Apparently (per “TAGGS.hhs.gov”) this group got only a single $50K grant in 2006, and were up and running? If they received any more federal funding after that, I haven’t found it yet (however, my database skills aren’t professionally trained….)…
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 90IJ0623 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-24-2006 | 949423417 | $ 50,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2006 Total: | $ 50,000 | |||||||
To search USASPENDING.gov, one needs (or it’d help) a DUNS# which here, is 949423417
They are top-down (HHS) funded under healthy marriage. Meanwhile, in TEXAS there is also a “Council on Family Violence” supposedly keeping some watch on the Healthy Marriage promotion so it doesn’t promote staying together for a healthy family and ending up in a homicide or other violence. I imagine this ALSO is public funding, and it’s informative about the healthy marriage funding, too: I notice, it reads:
Please note that Healthy Marriage programs do not provide intervention for couples undergoing serious marital or family problems and stresses, nor do these programs provide counseling. It could be potentially dangerous for an individual in an abusive relationship to participate in a healthy marriage program. The key is to do whatever is needed to ensure your safety and / or the safety of your children. There are services and resources available to assist with this issue. For help and information, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
The Board of Directors of THIS nonprofit (presumably) has a “Chief Executive Officer Emeritus” Sheryl Cates, who can be seen on the “Telling Amy’s Story” video referenced on the “Family Justice Center Alliance web pages, right underneath an interview with Casey Gwinn & Ellen Pence. This video was produced from Penn State. It’s a small world, I guess)
NOW THAT WE SEE AT LEAST IN TEXAS, COLORADO, OKLAHOMA AND WASHINGTON, A LOT OF “FATHERHOOD” IS “FEDERAL” THE QUESTION COMES UP — WHEN THE PROMOTION OF MARRIAGE & FATHERHOOD IS VOLUNTARY, HOW CAN PEOPLE BE PERSUADED TO CONSUME THE CLASSES, THEREBY CONTINUING TO JUSTIFY THE PROGRAMMING (WEBSITES, BOOTCAMPS, SEMINARS, BOOK SALES, ETC.)??
(I mean, after all, most healthy marriage program recipients are not judges, and so can’t just order it, like AFCC judges can. And the research professionals are out researching and gathering the fatherhood data and running institutes and conferences (Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brookings,Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, etc.) so they are busy…)
Well, in March 2011, here is a nice webinar to explain some of the basics:
NATIONAL HEALTH MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER
Opportunities to Partner with the Courts Webinar….
The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC) will host a webinar entitled, Healthy Marriage Programs: Opportunities to Partner with Courts on Thursday, March 31, 2011 from 1:00 – 2:30pm (E.S.T.).
Courts deal with a range of people who could benefit from relationship education—couples filing for divorce, parents involved in the child support system, and youth who are processed for misdemeanors as well as felonies are among them. Some Healthy Marriage programs have developed fruitful partnerships with court administrators and/or judges to facilitate referrals. Speakers at this webinar will discuss the potential benefits of such partnerships, how they can be established, and how court-referred participants are profiting from Healthy Marriage program participation.
Webinar Speakers
Alicia Davis, J.D., Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts, will discuss the types of cases that courts could refer to Healthy Marriage programs, how program managers can establish partnerships with the courts, and how approaches for forming these partnerships will vary by state.
Lynda Williams, Drug Court Coordinator, Dallas County, TX. will discuss the types of cases she refers to the ANTHEM Healthy Marriage program and why; how the referral process works; and the extent to which the Dallas County drug court finds this partnership beneficial.
Ann Bruce, Program Manager, Building Healthy Marriages, Weld County, CO., will discuss how her program’s partnership with the courts was formed, whether it is a significant referral source of participants, and the extent to which clients referred from the courts are a good match for the type of services that her program delivers.
Rich Batten, Program Manager, National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC), will moderate this session.
I’m figuring this is probably the same Alicia Davis, J.D. a member of the Court Improvement Project Program here:
Ms. Alicia Davis, J.D. Family Unit Supervisor, SCAO Colorado State Court Administrator’s Office 1300 Pennsylvania Street Denver, CO 80203
and others, such as various judges, and
Ms. Susan L. Blumberg, Ph.D. Child and Family Program Specialist Administration for Children and Families, Region 8 1961 Stout St. 9th floor Denver, CO 80294 {{relates to welfare & foster care, this link. }}
Alicia Davis
Alicia Davis, Principal Court Management Consultant, has expertise in court-community collaboration, program development, data-sharing, child, family and probate law, and alternative dispute resolution. {ADR or “mediation,” essentially — is an AFCC hallmark)Her education includes a J.D. from the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, and a B.A. from the University of California at Santa Barbara in Spanish and English Literature.
Colorado State Courts (evidently) have an “OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION” (or “ODR”) — as follows:
The Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) exists to establish and make available dispute resolution programs and services within the Colorado Judicial Branch. Through its sixty-plus contract mediators and neutrals, ODR offers mediation and other services across the state. ODR also provides information about dispute resolution in Colorado and nationally, and coordinates training for judicial officers and court staff .
“Mediators and other ADR professionals are independent contractors for the Office of Dispute Resolution and not judicial employees.
All available positions will be advertised on the Colorado Judicial Department’s main website under Careers.” (Click, for an overview).
If these are “contract” mediators — their “contracts” as either professional fees (or if they are operating as a nonprofit, etc.) would show up under VENDOR payments to either city or county. Their services are aimed at indigent /poor people, who are encouraged to settle out of court — and the fees, paid by one presumes probably by the local county. OH — and of course, at times (depending on the situation) they might be receiving help from a subgrantee of the A/V fatherhood funds to states.
Simply — as with Parenting Coordination, one simply needs to connect the dots — and teach Marriage Program Recipients how to match up their programs with the courts and prisons.
Another funds recipient from Arizona (Dr. Leo Godzich) has an organization that was at one point connected with a kill-the-gays movement in Uganda — while taking federal marrriage (a.k.a. fatherhood) monies. And belongs to a mega-church. And wrote this book:
Men and women are different. That probably doesn’t come as a surprise to you, but most couples are eventually surprised by it. To improve your relationship, you not only have to learn how to understand the differences between men and women, but how to enjoy discovering those differences on a daily basis for the rest of your lives.
((Let us teach you. Buy the book!))
This is not a one-sided look at men or at women; it is a call to restore dignity in marriage by inspiring increased cooperation, a renewal in humility and personal responsibility while increasing joy and intimacy. Learn how to develop a vision for your marriage together, a mutual understanding of how magnificent it can be—and follow the practical steps you can take to make your marriage magnificent. Loaded with deep and engaging insights, these exciting explanations will help you realize how to turn resentment to rejoicing, tension to togetherness, confusion to commitment, and loneliness to loveliness.
This book is a sometimes stunning, always inspiring, and frequently funny examination of how men and women differ—and how to celebrate those differences to make a marriage that fulfills its purposes, and models a healthy marriage relationship to other
| Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/22/2008 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/17/2009 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | 90FE0040 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | 09/24/2010 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | DR LEO GODZICH | $ 250,000 |
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | PHOENIX | AZ | 85022 | MARICOPA | 362992336 | $ 1,250,000 |
Yes, this was money taken from TANF, or welfare, as another database shows:
| Recipient: | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT 13422 NORTH CAVE CREEK RD , PHOENIX, ARIZONA |
| Reason for Modification: | |
| Program Source: | 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families |
This funding began in 2006. FOr a comparison, in 2006, the same group contributed to opposing same-sex marriage in Arizona, under “NAME” — meaning it was taking from TANF for political activity:
PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA C-02-2006 (ANTI-GAY)
The National Association of Marriage Enhancement
13422 N Cave Creek Rd, Ste 3
Phoenix, AZ 85022
05/16/06 – $5,000.00 – Cash – Filed: 06/30/06
10/17/07 – $2,000.00 – Cash – Filed: 06/16/08
And in 2008, they helped organize a marriage conference in Uganda:
Sunday, 14th September, 2008
E-mail article Print article By Joyce Namutebi DR. Martin Ssempa, a pastor at Makerere Community Church, has received an award for his fight against homosexuality.
Ssempa and his wife Tracey received the plague from Apostle Alex Mitala, the overseer of the National Fellowship of Born Again Churches in Uganda.
This was during the “Great Marriage Celebration” organised by the National Association of Marriage Enhancement in conjunction with the National Fellowship of Born Again Pentecostal Churches in Uganda at Nakivubo Stadium over the weekend.
Mitala led hundreds of couples who converged at the stadium from various parts of the country into a prayer for Ssempa to continue being the torch-bearer in the fight against the vice in Uganda.
Just for the record, this organization was likely registered at all to received HHS Healthy Marriage Funds…. This is Ssempa supporting the infamous “kill-the-gays” legislation.
(ARTICLE IS FEB 2010; as far as I know, this bill is still “live” in Uganda….) Since October of last year, Uganda has been the focus of international attention due to a proposal in their Parliament which would ban homosexual behavior of any kind via the death penalty for HIV people who engage in homosexual behavior and life in prison for others who attempt such behavior. One of the chief supporters of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been Martin Ssempa, a pastor in Uganda’s capital city of Kampala and well-known among Western evangelicals. Rev. Ssempa this week has called for a “million man march” which he hopes will bring large crowds out to support the harsh legislation. In addition, Ssempa has organized several news conferences in order to rally support among Ugandans for the bill.
The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 (click here for full text) would make any homosexual contact subject to life in prison, or even death if the participants are HIV positive. Those who know of homosexuals but do not report this information to the police could face fines and jail time. No exceptions are made for clergy or health care professionals.
So glad to know that HHS has discretion in WHO gets the marriage funding….NAME did. In case you are wondering what they might be doing in Uganda, it seems that world wide travel on behalf of helping reduce the welfare caseload in the USA and help poor fatherless children HERE, this appears to be a conference schedule, UNDER this nonprofit organization, and for marriage education. Wouldn’t you like to see the tax return? Although it says “NATIONAL” clearly “INTERnational is meant…”

I clicked under “MEETINGS” and found quite the list of locales:
heck out some of the upcoming speaking engagements of Dr. Leo and Molly Godzich. If there is one in your area, we hope to see you there! If you would like to schedule a Together Forever Weekend or Pastor Leo for a sunday, please call our office 602-404-2600.
June 19
Bologna, Italy
La Parola Della Grazia
June 26
Torino, Italy
Chiesa Evangelica Internazionale
July 2-3
Alicante, Spain
Iglesia Rio de Vida
July 10
Paris, France
Charisma Eglise Chretienne
July 15-17
Irvine, Scotland
Bridge Church
August 19-20
Cincinnati, OH
Towne Worship Center
September 2-3
Harrison, OH
Church on Fire
September 6-10
Lima, Peru
Conferencia Salvemos a la Familia
September 22-24
Phoenix, AZ
International Marriage Conference
and back to Tennessee for September 28-October 1
Nashville, TN
AACC World Conference (that’s American Association of Christian Counselors).
THIS LINK (with youtube) ADVERTISES how there should be a NAME Center in your church — or community (i.e., advertising)
and apparently many churches said “Yes!” to Goodzich and joined the ‘war on divorce’ — such as at THIS link:
And they also rescue pastors:

(granted, this seems to be before the marriage funding began from HHS): “In 2003, Pastor Leo and Molly Godzich started the Pastoral Rescue Center. It was founded on the idea: “how can pastors lead people when they cannot lead their own home.” Pastors’ marriages often go through struggling seasons like anyone else, but the predicament is they do not know who they can talk to. Where do they go for help? What will happen if members of the congregation find out that their home life is falling apart?
{{Not to worry. Most congregations are still pre-occuppied with not noticing and not reporting or, in fact, doing anything to stop domestic violence and child abuse among the “saints.” Keep the smiles on, keep the music playing, the tithes will keep coming}}
NAME responded to this thought by expanding its ministry (=expanded the scope of its business) to target pastors and church leaders. The pastoral rescue center has been able to restore so many marriages from divorce in complete confidentiality. The NAME headquarters is located in Phoenix, AZ so many pastors come and stay in a hotel while having secret counseling appointments, or they have call in appointements to the headquarter office
But the concept does rather bring one to the relationship between Pastor Leo and the disgraced (?) John Hagee. It’s a bit hard to find information on this not laced with theology, but one blog notes (of Hagee) — in context, this is about Marriage Enhancement —
John Hagee had an adulterous affair with a woman and admitted to immorality in front of his church.
Pastor John Hagee then divorced the mother of his two children and married a younger woman (Diana Castro, now Diana Hagee) from that same congregation. Pastor John Hagee willfully abused his position of trust and power to take advantage of a younger gullible woman and cheat on his wife.
(not exactly something new under the son, however…..)
So what happened after John Hagee admitted to cheating and abusing his power? Did he repent and pursue becoming a better person and living a life based on Biblical principles? Did people stop following his ministry? The answers are very obvious. John Hagee married the woman he cheated on his wife with and immediately became the pastor of another congregation- the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas.
Pastor John Hagee went on to push his evangelical, speaking in tongues Cornerstone Church into becoming a megachurch that televises his weekly sermons. Nor did he do so for free.
If you visit the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas or watch Pastor John Hagee on his television show, you will see him perched on top of an enormous white and blue throne watching his massive choir or jazz band. When they finish, John Hagee will approach the pulpit for his favorite time of the week- tithe time! Pastor John Hagee has his congregation members raise their money towards the sky and repeat after him “Give and it shall be given.” He then instructs his audience that “When you give, it ualifies you to receive God’s abundance. If God gives to you before you give to him, God himself will becom a liar… If you’re not prospering it’s because you’re not GIVING!” Contained in those few sentences is everything that is unscriptural and wrong with the New-Age “Prosperity Message” pushed on gullible congregations by megachurch pastors nationwide.
Pastor John Hagee has grown into an enormously wealthy man. In the year 2001, his organization filed revenues of $18.3 million dollars with the IRS. What was John Hagee’s personal compensation package worth? More than $1.25 million dollars. His nonprofit organization, GETV, has a mission statement reading “Spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Somehow I think his nearly 8,000 acre Texas ranch does not help that mission. Not only does Pastor John and his wife Diana Hagee own that sprawling ranch, but they also have a 5,275 foot, 6 bedroom mansion in one of San Antonio’s most exclusive gated communities (The Dominion). The house is appraised at $700,000.
So who is monitoring Pastor John Hagee and his largesse? Who ensures that the millions of dollars that gullible grandmothers give him is spent to further spread the gospel of Jesus Christ? 3 of the 4 Directors who monitor the board of his nonprofit GETV foundation are his direct family members- his wife, Diana; his son, Matthew; and himself.
Pastor John Hagee – Cornerstone Church Ministry, Heresy, Divorce & Dirty Deeds
“All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” – John Hagee
Of course that predates the male prostitute scandal. “Haggard, 52, resigned as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and was fired from New Life Church amid allegations that he paid a male prostitute for sex and used methamphetamine. ….As part of a severance package with his former church, Haggard agreed to leave Colorado Springs for a period and not speak publicly about the scandal, church officials said at the time. But he never really disappeared, making news when he relocated his family to Arizona and solicited financial support in an e-mail.
One restoration team member, H.B. London, said a return to vocational ministry in less than four or five years would be dangerous for Haggard, his family, former church and Colorado Springs.
“To sit on the sidelines for a person with that kind of personality {ego/greed/drive/lust, etc.) and gifting is probably like being paralyzed,” said London, who counsels pastors through a division of Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian group. “If Mr. Haggard and others like him feel like they have a call from God, they rationalize that their behavior does not change that call.”
Haggard, who declined to be interviewed, is not the first fallen evangelical figure to agree to oversight and then balk. In the late 1980s, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart confessed to liaisons with a prostitute, begged forgiveness and submitted to the Assemblies of God, his denomination. Swaggart was ordered not to preach for a year, but resumed broadcasts after a few weeks and was defrocked.
* * * * Haggard’s support system includes Leo Godzich, who runs a Phoenix-based marriage ministry and said he met with Haggard at least once a week for more than a year. Godzich said Haggard remains committed to restoration, has paid a high price and still has much to offer. * * * *
“If all men are honest, all men are liars and deceivers,” Godzich said. “Once someone is gifted and called, that is something they generally cannot escape. They will be used in that regard again.”
Yes, this is definitely a type of religion that believes in USING people — God uses people, and so do they. SO what’s wrong with that, eh???
And NAME ave opened many marriage centers, particularly in churches. THIS list (see site) is huge, and a bit disturbing only partial listing here:
| United States | ||
| Alabama Huntsville |
The Rock Family Worship Center 2300 Memorial Pkwy SW |
256-533-9292 http://www.the rockfwc.org |
| Alaska Wasilla |
Wasilla Assembly of God PO Box 872010 |
907-376-5732 http://www.wasillaag.org |
| Arizona Avondale |
Cornerstone Christian Center 11301 W Indian School Rd |
623-877-3220 http://www.cornerstoneaz.org |
| Arizona Chino Valley |
Word of Life Assembly 590 W. Road 1 North |
928-636-4224 http://www.cvwola.com |
| Arizona Flagstaff |
Lamb of God Bible Church 2615 E 7th Ave |
928-714-1170 http://www.logbc.org |
| Arizona Gilbert |
Mission Community Church 4450 E. Elliot Rd |
(480) 892-5505 |
| Arizona Kingman |
Kingman First Assembly of God 1850 Gates |
928-753-3529 http://www.kfaonline.org |
NOt the best post, but did I make my point about WHO is paying for Fatherhood Funds — and who knows what is being done with them?
Just remember that, and check the US Congress “House Ways and Means Committee” to track the next installments.
Happy Fatherhood Day; Be well and prosper ….
Evaluate, Coordinate, Prepare to Call “Alienator!” — Pt. 2: CFCC and AFCC people Nunn, Depner, Ricci, Stahl, Pruett(s), and others DV groups fail to talk about
And how this dovetails with purpose of Access Visitation Grants grants…
The last post (or so) discussed practices in Pennsylvania and Indiana, with side-trips to Kentucky and California, where they originated from anyhow.
(If you read it, I meanwhile confirmed that KidsFirstOrange County Gerald L. Klein & Sara Doudna-Klein, yes,are married. I forgot to include how much they charge for services ($300 per parent, $120 per kid) in teaching about parental alienation and conflict….. I wonder who was the first Mrs. Gerald L. Klein… and whether these two have children together or not.
In context, Kids Turn, or Kids’ First, or steering cases to certain mediators, certain GALs, etc. — is the habit. And then, to top it off, extorting parents into participation through the child support system (Kentucky), or changing the civil code of procedure AND even the Custody Complaint form to name ONE provider of ONE parenting education course (Libassi Mediation Services) which is already being marketed elsewhere — outrageous.
This was tried in California, to standardize judge& attorney-originated nonprofits through the California Judicial Council, but our then-governor vetoed it (though both houses of the legislature passed it).
Now pending — Probably still — is another one that is legitimizing a practice already established, the Family Justice Center Alliance out of San Diego, like Kids’ Turn and financial fraud at the City Attorney’s office level, and so forth. Why stop while you’re ahead?
This has currently flown through House & Senate and as of June 9th was referred to Location: Assembly Committee Public Safety Committee and I think, Judiciary. Here’s some analysis from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Christine Kehoe (who sponsored the bill) just so happens to be chair of the appropriations committee and from one of the cities involved in expanding the Justice Center concept (actually the city that started it: San Diego).
(link gives the bill’s history; the following is accessible through it)
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
Hearing Date: 05/26/2011
BILL SUMMARY: SB 557 would authorize the cities of San Diego and Anaheim, and the counties of Alameda and Sonoma, until January 1, 2014, to establish family justice centers (FJCs) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and other victims of abuse and crime. This bill would require each FJC to maintain an informed consent policy in compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the information of victims seeking services. This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (thereafter, the FJCs are to be locally funded)
_____________________________________________________________________Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Establishment of FJCs Unknown; potentially major local costs for operation and services
Major Provisions Report to Legislature $17 to OPP (Office of Privacy Protection) in advisory role General_________
…This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
…Should the specified cities and counties opt to establish a FJC, there will be unknown, but major local costs for operation and the provision of services to FJC clients. Costs would be dependent on the number of clients, FJC procedures, staffing, and the availability and cost of local treatment and service providers.
…The OPP has indicated a cost of $62,000 as the lead agency to develop best practice privacy recommendations and coordination of the report to the Legislature.
To reduce the costs of the bill, staff recommends an amendment to have the four pilot centers reduce the OPP to an advisory role over the development of best practices. The OPP has indicated reducing their involvement to oversight and review of the report would result in costs of approximately $17,000. (WELL, the OPP is slated for elimination anyhow, this report notes).
I’m posting the SB 557 updates for California residents. Information from:

RECENT POSTS:
Recently, I posted on:
- Kids Turn (Parent education curriculum, nonprofit started & staffed by family court personnel, with wealthy patrons AND gov’t sponsorship through federal Access/Visitation Funding)
- Family Justice Centers (origin in San Diego; Casey Gwinn, Gael Strack) and their background. INcluding a boost by Bush’s OFCBI initiative in 2003 — adding the faith factor to violence prevention. Sure, yeah..
- Family Justice Center #2, Alameda County — see “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.
- Also, remember the Justicewomen.org article on the importance of District Attorneys in safety (or lack of it) towards women. A D.A. decides whether to, or NOT, to prosecute individual cases. It’s a huge responsibility.
- What’s Duluth (MN) got to do with it?
- What’s Domestic Violence Prevention got to do with this California-based racket? I questioned what a Duluth-based group spokesperson (Ellen Pence) is doing hobnobbing with a Family Justice Center founder (Casey Gwinn).
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- The elusive EIN of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” which gets millions of grants (around $29 million, I found) but from what I can tell doesn’t even have an EIN registered in MN, although its address is 202 E. Superior Street, Duluth, MN, and it definitely has a staff.
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- Toronto Integrated Domestic Violence Courts
- This was intended to be a “break” on SB 557 and Family Justice Centers, but thanks to the internet and international judges’ associations, and downloadable curricula, this is simply (it seems) another AFCC-style project. (Kids Turn knockoffs, talk of high-conflict & parental alienation, and modeled after several US states). The intended “global” reach (UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.) is happening, and makes it hard to “take a break” from California basic corrupt practices by looking at another country’s handling of the same issues. The world is flattening — Internet, I guess.
- Last post, I addressed some partner-type organizations: AFCC/CRC, or CPR/PSI (in Denver), and personnel they have in common.
REMINDER — in CALIFORNIA — Three accepted purposes of the A/V funds system remain:
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)
Federal and State Program Goals
The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.”3 Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to
support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement** (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:5
- Supervised visitation and exchange services;
- Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
- Group counseling services for parents and children.
(This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature under Family Code section 3204(d).Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved.)
Report 12 Executive Summary (Sept 2000)
Preparing Court-Based Child Custody Mediation Services for the Future
DIANE NUNN
- LEADERSHIP AND NEW ROLES FOR THE JUDICIARY a 2002 conference at Univ. of Pacific McGeorge School of Law,
“The Many Faces of California’s Courts”
Diane Nunn, Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
California Administrative Office of the Courts, “She supervises projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Ongoing projects include training, education, research and statistical analysis.” (Note, presenting alongside Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, whose wife Nadia ran (til recently) the Alameda County Family Justice Center).
AFCC wishes to thank Symposium sponsors and exhibitors for their support:
Children’s Rights Council, Hawaii (that’s CRC)
Christine Coates, JD, Dispute Resolution Training Complete Equity Markets, Inc.
Dr. Philip M. Stahl, ParentingAfterDivorce.com (alienation promoter)
Family Law Software, Inc. J.M.Craig Press, Inc. LifeBridge
Eileen Pruett and the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Dispute Resolution Special Committee on Parent Education for the material on parent education, which is replicated in Appendix D.
In Ohio, “To achieve this goal, the Task Force recommend(ed, in 1999): 1) All parties in proceedings that involve the allocation of parental functions and responsibilities should attend parenting education seminars……Sixty-seven Ohio counties currently mandate parent education seminars for all divorcing parents;
More than two dozen experts from around the state and across the country presented testimony to the Task Force over a six-month period. Representatives from a variety of parents’ organizations, as well as a panel of teens who had experienced their parents’ divorces, brought their unique concerns to the Task Force. Staff members obtained research articles and statutes from around the nation and the globe to find the latest policies and practices. Members of the Task Force traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to meet with staff at the Maricopa County Court system, a nationally recognized leader in court services and pro se programs, and to conferences sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an internationally acclaimed organization which provides research and programs for professionals dealing with families in conflict.
Given who was on the task force, and what it did, this kind of conclusion is a little predictable:
The following report and recommendations are the result of this extensive research effort and debate and have been unanimously approved, without any abstentions or dissents, by official action of the 17 members of the Task Force present at the final meeting on June 1, 2001.
The OTHER Pruetts (I’m still on that 2004 AFCC flyer which mentions Diane Nunn as AFCC “Advisory Task Force”) include Dr. Kyle (child psychiatrist from Yale) and his wife Marsha Kline (also a Ph.D.). They have three daughters and one son and have naturally dedicated themselves to promoting fatherhood, as a search on “Marsha Kline Pruett, Kyle Pruett Fatherhood” will readily show, at a glance. Dr. Marsha Kline even got an award for “Fatherhood Initiative Community Recognition Award, State of Connecticut (2002), and Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, Awarded by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She is definitely (with I gather her husband, Dr. Kyle) on the Grants stream for investigation: “University of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/09-6/30/12: Total (T) $176,924 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-InvestigatorUniversity of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/04-6/30/09: Total (T) $353,849 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-Investigator
CHARLENE DEPNER, Ph.D., AFCC, etc.
Now (just for the heck of it), more on “Charlene Depner, Ph.D.” First of all, Ph.D. in what? the answer — per LinkedIn, is Social Psychology at U Michigan
Assistant Division Director, Cntr for Families, Children & Courts, CA Administrative Office of the Courts Govt. Admin. Industry 1988 – Present (23 years)/ Education: U Michigan, PhD, Social Psychology 1972 – 1978
So it appears, about 10 years, if any, in private practice or employment of some sort?
A. Does the history of violence in the relationship predict whether the visits are supervised or unsupervised?
We found no statistically significant relationships between the history of physical and psychological abuse or injuries and court orders to a supervised visitation center, family supervised visits or unsupervised visitation. More than three quarters of the participants had experienced severe forms of physical and psychological abuse from the father of their children. One can surmise that these pervasive experiences provided no useful information to the court to determine which fathers might pose a current and ongoing danger.
The one exception was severe injuries, which had been experienced by less than half the participants (46%). Nevertheless, fathers who had severely injured their former partners were no more likely to be ordered to supervised visitation than unsupervised visitation.
A 1996 report (issued by this CA Judicial Council AOC) on “Future Directions for Mandatory Child-Custody Mediation Services:….”
” notes:
Court-based child custody mediations affect the fate of nearly 100,000 California children each year. Many of them are already at risk when parents come to court. Currently, one- third of all mediations address concerns about a child’s emotional well-being. Child Protective Services has investigated a report about children in 33 percent of all families seen in mediation. Children in half of all mediating families have witnessed domestic violence. Today’s Family Court faces the serious challenge of protecting the best interests of the next generation.
Well, pushing mediation does not appear to be the solution!
Joan Meier, of DV Leap writes on this, and most any battered women’s advocate without AFCC collaboration in the bloodstream, might say the same thing — it’s counter-indicated! Whatsamatta here? Joan Meier, of “George Washington University Law School” (and ‘DVLEAP.org”) as posted in a noncustodial mother’s blog. NOTE: She quotes both Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC leadership) and Depner, who both acknowledge that MOST of the the high-conflict cases entail child abuse or domestic violence. This has been known since the 1990s….
Most Cases Going To Court As High Conflict Contested Custody Cases Have History Of Domestic Violence
By JOAN S. MEIER, George Washington University Law School
Janet Johnston’s publications
Janet Johnston is best known as a researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. {{NOTE how AFCC often pairs those terms– that’s an AFCC language habit}}. Not a particular friend of domestic violence advocates or perspectives, she has been one of the first to note that domestic violence issues should be seen as the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation.
Johnston has noted that approximately 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process. Studies have found that only approximately 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to court. Only approximately 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process.
– Janet R. Johnston et al, “Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families,” Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2005, 284-294, p. 284;
– Janet R. Johnston, “High-Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182, p. 167 both citing large study by Maccoby and Mnookin, DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press (1992).Johnston cites another study done in California by Depner and colleagues, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, “[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated… [for an average of 30-42 months]”. Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon.”
Mediation is an easy way to increase noncustodial parenting time without the protections that facts & evidence, without the disclosure of conflicts of interests a judge has to abide by, without the attorney-client work product relationship, and much more — in short, without the PROTECTIONS — that a regular trial might afford, and finish. Mandated mediation is bad enough. Some counties (in Calif) also have what’s called “recommending” status to the court-appointed mediators, meaning, their reports are taken more seriously by judges. I have seen how this works year after year (from being in the courtroom) — the mediator’s report is often delivered IN the courtroom, and NOT prior to the hearing, if then. It is typically a shocker, and this really violates due process, but it’s accepted practice. Mediation is the poor-person’s “supervised visitation / custody evaluation.” If no private family member can be made to pay for the latter two, or then the quick & dirty custody hearing is going to involve mediation.
Guess which organization is heavily composed of mediators, and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution services) and emphasizes this to unclog the courts? You betcha — AFCC.
· Attempts to leave a violent partner with children, is one of the most significant factors associated with severe domestic violence and death.
– Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston, MA: University Press.· A majority of separating parents are able to develop a post-separation parenting plan for their children with minimal intervention of the family court system. However, in 20% of the cases greater intervention was required by lawyers, court-related personnel (such as mediators and evaluators) and judges. In the majority of these cases, which are commonly referred to as “high-conflict,” domestic violence is a significant issue.
– Johnston, J.R. (1994). “High-conflict divorce.” Future of Children, 4, 165-182.
What “DVLEAP” does in its own words:
A STRONGER VOICE FOR JUSTICE
Despite the reforms of recent decades, battered women and children continue to face unfair treatment and troubling results in court. Appeals can overturn unjust trial court outcomes – but they require special expertise and are often prohibitively expensive.
We empower victims and their advocates by providing expert representation for appeals; educating pro bono counsel through in-depth consultation and mentoring; training lawyers, judges, and others on cutting-edge issues; and spearheading the DV community’s advocacy in Supreme Court cases
(photo also from this site):
They even have a “Custody and Abuse” program, and have taken on the “PAS” theme. These are specific cases that have been taken to the Appeals or even Supreme Court (state) level. Here (found on-line) is an Arkansas Case where they took on “PAS” alongside: Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice for Children and The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (on which I believe Ms. Meier is a board or advisory member), the NCADV, and National Association of Women Lawyers. It is an Amicus Brief and will likely go to discredit PAS.
The Leadership Council’s:
Mission Statement
The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.
Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society’s commitment to protect its most vulnerable members.
Goals
- To develop a coalition among professionals within the scientific community, the legal system, the political system and the media to provide professionals and laypersons with accurate information about mental health practice and research which helps insure access to the highest quality of care. (and several others are listed. . . . . .. )
In the bottom line, the Leadership Council is still talking psychology, acknowledging trauma, and opposing “PAS” — but, who they are and what they do is clear — “Apply Psychological Science Ethically.” So, if you put this psychological group together with some domestic violence lawyers, or lawyers who recognize that batterers (etc.) are getting custody — you just the opposite of the AFCC “J.D. & Ph.D.” combo of attorney & mental health practitioners
The problem is — the AFCC, being around longer, and having strategized better — have the judges, too.
As I look at The Leadership Council’s page on “Child Custody & PAS” and associated “resources” below, I notice that they have said NOTHING about the things I blog on, and some others, individuals, who have simply observed. There is a striking omission of the organizations promoting “alienation” theory — no mention of AFCC, CRC, or the influence of the Child Support System & Grants Stream on how cases are decided. While NAFCJ (and a similar Illinois group) are listed — for a change — they are one in a dozen-plus links that a mother in a crisis system could not sort through or wade through in time to help her case — if indeed that information even would.
I appreciate the work these organizations do to “out” that violence does indeed happen in the home. Of course most people experiencing it know this already….
But how much better might it have been to give TIMELY information on the operational structure of the courts, and who is paying whom. How in the world can one enter a contest being ignorant of the habits and devices of the opposite side? What’s up with that?
So, I talk about these things. And so do a FEW others.
Domestic Violence Nonprofit DVLEAP gets a “Sunshine Peace” award:
“This award is so meaningful to me,” said Professor Meier, “because I have so much respect for others who have received it in the past. I am also grateful to the Sunshine Lady Foundation for the financial contribution to DV LEAP associated with the award which will make a significant difference to our small organization that manages to accomplish so much with so few resources.”
According to the Sunshine Lady Foundation (which was founded by Doris Buffett), the Sunshine Peace Award program “recognizes extraordinary individuals who make a difference; those who help to build communities that are intolerant of domestic violence and through whose work peoples’ lives are changed for the better.”
Since Professor Meier founded DV LEAP in 2003, the organization has worked on cutting-edge issues in the domestic violence field, submitting 6 friend of court briefs in the Supreme Court. In the past year, in addition to lecturing and consulting with survivors, DV LEAP staff have worked on 10 appeals, a remarkable output for an organization of its size
Well,this is all very nice — and certainly I”m sure professional work. But is it the most important task? I say: NO! Neither DVLEAP nor the State Coaliations (why, I hope to show soon enough), nor the related Leadership Council mention the operational systems of the courts — which is their related professional associations and nonprofits — as well as the grants stream and the child support system. How hard is that to comprehend? There are different systems working within to promote more and more work for the marriage counseling and therapy industry, PERIOD.
For example:
They did not mention that in 1999, in Ohio, an AFCC-laced Task Force lifted some AFCC_designed policies for custody, then flew to Arizona to attend an AFCC conference as part of their transformations of the courts. These groups do not mention, typically, fatherhood funding, or the history of Family Law as an offshoot of a brainstorm between “Roger & Meyer” (Judge Pfaff and Counselor Meyer Elkin) long ago, or anything at all about the Marv Byer discoveries in the late 1990s. They don’t mention that around the US, “fatherhood commissions” building of the National Fatherhood Initiative have been formed to legalize some of the policies these very groups say they oppose. Nor, FYI, do they (for example) broadcast to women that the NCADV and associated alliances are actually collaborating with the father’s groups at the national and financing level, and talking policy with them.
They certainly don’t mention when a local legislator slips in some bill to legalize steering court business to court professionals, as Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego area) did when an Assemblyperson in 2002 (proposing a bill naming Kids’ Turn in its first draft; see my “kicking salesmanship up a notch” post), or as She (sponsoring?) did again in SB 557 (with her chief of staff then and now Assemblyperson, Atkins) in legalizing the “Family Justice Center Model with an alliance run out of the San Diego City’s original brainchild.
Nor do they mention how the money keeps flowing in after conferences, for example, as in this 2008 AFCC conference:
Not only does the material itself show (coach) professionals how to be prejudiced against mothers — but it also probably more than breaks even (though aren’t judges paid enough in our states?) by selling the stuff!
READ THIS! Read every sentence and simply think about it. This is the pre-game and post-game plan for a custody hearing. And it’s only one of how many?
These are existing people who decided WHERE kids live (or don’t), whether they see their own parents’ income go to professionals and evaluators, or to the children’s future college funds, or simply survival funds. This is AFCC conference material:
Your Price: $25.00
Item Number: AFCC-08-011-M
Quantity:
Email this page to a friendThis panel will demonstrate how the judge, evaluator, psychologist performing psychological testing and the childrens therapist work together to complete the evaluation process. The panel will present an actual case in which a family comes to the court with allegations that mother is alienating the children and is clinically depressed. Father is asking for full custody. Mother is making counter allegations that father and his live-in girlfriend are verbally and emotionally abusing the three children. The parents have a history of high conflict and the police have been called many times to keep the peace. The family is referred for a child custody evaluation. The panel will demonstrate how the evaluator relies on the childrens therapist and the psychologist performing psychological testing on the parents, fathers girlfriend, and the child experiencing emotional distress, for information and case consultation in order to give the judge the most complete history and assessment possible. The panel will describe how and why the recommendations were made for this family.
The police were probably called because someone (not both) was being assaulted. However, a single evaluation of a police call might obtain the cause of the call. To “keep the peace” is an evasion. 911, or non-emergency police calls have causes. We all know this. If the police were called many times to “keep the peace” was no referral made? Was no restraining order solicited? Why not get to the bottom FIRST of whether or not a crime was committed. THEN, if the answer is conclusively, NO, it might go to the next level.
Why do that, however, when a custody evaluation can be instead ordered.
I might just get this product and find out how they frame the situation.





Carl J. Debevec is an attorney practicing general civil law in northern California. His practice includes business, trusts and estate planning, real property, elder law issues and mediation. He is a graduate of the Ohio State University college of law, a former Air Force judge advocate, and holds a post-graduate certificate in conflict resolution from California State University at Sonoma.As an active mediator and trainer, 




Beyene is the former Ethiopian Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Ireland. He is also a







Ms. Ellis’ book, above is Copyright 2000 by the APA, and has of course a chapter on “Parental Alienation Syndrome: A New Challenge for Family Courts (p. 205)” and by the end, p. 267, she gets around to “Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases.” (Note: PAS is real — see chapter title; but Sexual Abuse apparently is not, because it only surfaces next to the word “Allegations” emphasizing doubt (like Sexual abuse just doesn’t happen in families, or in divorcing families?) — and in the context of how to EVALUATE . . . . ALLEGATIONS. Typical AFCC priorities…..”Lead” with PAS, and then — if forced to — say “sexual abuse” but never as if it were truly an issue.) It is a MAJOR issue….. (




AGAIN, here is the child support funding for “Regular” (not “research and special demonstration”) child support. In each State, County — your county — what does this translate to, and who is watching? Who is profiting — are the children subject to the child support order profiting, and is this consistently effective in reducing TANF expenditures?


Ms. Myrick is the President of Public Strategies, an Oklahoma-based firm, and Project Manager for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). The OMI is widely recognized as the country’s first statewide, comprehensive program model for changing a state’s divorce culture and creating/providing services to reflect a broad-based commitment to family formation and marriage. Under Myrick’s leadership the OMI has recruited a highly-distinguished Research Advisory Board consisting of state and national experts on marriage, divorce, and low-income families; has developed and implemented the first 










The amazing Suspended, Dissolved, Terminated, Forfeited, Delinquent, perchance Active-Status (re)Incarnations Family Court Stakeholders (Phew!)
with one comment
Well, I’m breathless keeping up with them. Someone very, very tech-savvy should design a 3D chart.
The X-axis could be years, the Y axis perhaps States of incorporation. A 3rd dimension could be either $$, or Board of Directors Personnel in common Profit/Nonprofit or perhaps %/# of public law & court-related employees among incorporating personnel.
Actually no matter how I look at it, the human mind can’t keep up with such level of detail, and I don’t see any databases that are, although there are plenty of databases that track almost every other level of detail, including books signed out from local public libraries by users.
My cursor / fingers are so trained they can get on auto-pilot, or otherwise just about effortlessly over to the state (usually my state’s) “Business Corporations” search page, and then the “Registry of Charitable Trusts” search page – in approximately 5 seconds or less, without bookmarks. The computer is trained to go there also.
To spice it up a bit, I took a little detour to the link underneath “Business Search” — and to “Disclosures.” (California Secretary of State link)
No, this isn’t the judges’ statements about their financial holdings (Form 700s in my state — what about in yours?) — but Public Traded Stock corporations doing business in (my state). This is another angle of the child support enforcement (and other) businesses we tend to overlook.
There are shareholders – not just employees — invested, literally, in the success (profit) of for-profit organizations whose business is to put liens on your assets and garnish your wages if you’re a delinquent in support payments person. Or, sometimes, when you aren’t. Or sometimes, as it comes to certain groups, when you don’t even have a minor child by the name they are putting into the system. Or paid already (and so forth).
So, before posting Maximus’s disclosures (speaking of which) my Secretary of State site very helpfully posts the relevant business codes for anyone – meaning any foreign (out of state) corporation doing business “intra” (within) the state. These are for the protection of the stockholders, and us.
For example:
This is going to become VERY interesting when it comes to nonprofits with the word “COURT” anywhere in their name. The ethereal re-incarnations and multi-state addresses are really hard to keep up with.
But, thankfully, MAXIMUS was forthcoming and disclosed, twice, in California (remind me to check EVERY state):
Sorry to give it that ugly format, but the more picturesque versions (which drag an image) tend to not show in different browers. So you get the warhorse version, with live links (I hope).
I then went right back to the “Business Search” (as in yesterday’s post) and typed in “C1618100” (easier than the whole name), remembering to check “Entity#” and got this:
Well perhaps THAT’s why we can’t keep up with all these stakeholders in the mediation (etc) and businesses of law — they have a faster than light incorporating service. . . . . .
Also at that address:
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, 8040 EXCELSIOR DR, MADISON, Wisconsin …
About that 1988 incorporation date in California:
From wikipedia (just a reminder), Maximus started in 1975, in a garage in McLean Virginia:
So, it incorporated in California probably in order to do this:
Public obviously meaning it trades its stock, “MMS,” openly, and not just restricted to shareholders. Right now, that’s worth about . . . .
(. . No, I don’t know stocks either, just looking)
However, in 2007, it apparently was doing better, until it had to pay that $30 million in settling a whistleblower lawsuit from one of its own employees. This is a whistleblower law blog:
I’m just putting that in for reference, before posting this Disclosure from my state. I was talking about what it takes (financially, salaries) to run the SF Superior court a post or so ago. Well, here are some of the profits — including in both salary and “options” (that’s stock options, which have higher leverage and potential profits than plain stocks) for the executive directors.
California Secretary of State site shows:
The first filing showed one set of Executive Directors:
I may have posted this before, but a brief bio of Mr. Montani is here from people.forbes.com
Faster than thought: AFCC, in Illinois, Los Angeles, and Colorado (simultaneously):
Dr. Margaret Little
Family Law and Probate Administrator Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
SO WHEN MARV BRYER RAVED ABOUT AFCC’S ROAMING INCORPORATION HISTORY . . .
. . . He’s not nuts. I just showed you.
Denver, CO 80218
Phone: 303-837-1555
Fax: 303-837-1557
80218-1450, US
One Broadway, Suite B210
Denver, CO 80203
Policy Studies Inc (Psi)
Denver, CO 80202-1092 map
COLORADO CHILD HEALTH PLAN PLUS-ANTHEM
1899 Wynkoop #300
Denver, CO 80202
(800) 234-5147
Company Website: www.chpplusproviders.com
Colorado
Noncustodial Parent Programs
For a REAL eye-opener, go to the SOS Colorado business search page, click on “Advanced Search” and then type in “Fatherhood”!
HAVE A SWEET DAY….
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM
Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, CPR Center for Policy Research, History of Family Court, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), PSI Policy Studies Inc, Who's Who (bio snapshots)
Tagged with AFCC, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..