Archive for the ‘Business Enterprise’ Category
“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…[First Published Oct. 20, 2011]
….
“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense… First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words
BLOGGER’s UPDATE MESSAGE Aug. 15, 2018: First published Oct. 20, 2011, not updated since except to add post title w/short-link label (a more recent admin. habit) and change the background color to white (necessitated when blog upgrade retroactively changed the default background color to “yuck pale green”), add a post border line and my now standard font: fairly routine changes.
Otherwise I’m not attempting to improve its curb appeal, not even for quotes (now I often add boxes around them), missing or expired images to logos (now I often take screenshots to avoid that happening), and especially not trying to correct TAGGS.HHS.Gov margins; TAGGs itself has had a major restructure since them). My purpose is for quoting on Twitter. I think the message is still relevant, still “missed” by too many, and worth repeating.
Some terms, individual and nonprofit or program names now much more mainstream as specific public policy models, I was questioning this far back; just over two years after the entire apparatus was cracked open on comprehending the basic concepts behind “Federal incentives to States” under Welfare Reform (two specific funding streams) + where groups like Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ cult-like, court-connected, nonprofit-spawning group behaviors style=”(it being a membership association primarily of judges, family lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, and such — people MOST likely to make a FINE living from family court referrals, if not already public civil servants in that capacity!) fit in.
Not including this message and above label, the post is still About 21,000 words (note: that includes all words within all TAGGS tables too)..
“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…
First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words, by LGH (“LetUsGetHonest”)
(Today [Oct. 2011], I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in Colorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.
The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members. This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.
I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.
I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous). Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced. O Mi God . . . ..
I am publishing without apologies: Read at your own risk!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Oct. 21, 2011 update:
Concern #1:
March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate. Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic: drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – –
The letter is signed by: Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist. Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters. The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.
[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid. Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate. Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].
(If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)
Concern #2:
A Wikipedia article (flagged by Wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT. What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor….. And its habit of acquiring company after company…. Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We are still on this topic: Who are the groups that got these grants?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
(202) 401-9215ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood
HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.
As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.” Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts. Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them. It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.
It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.
“A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”
The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and four Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.
THE PRESS RELEASE LIST OF GRANTEES:
After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.
My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database. Til just now.
I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.
I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post). Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate: ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.
Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:
NATIONAL
RESOURCE CENTER
for
STRATEGIES
to
PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE
= NRCSPHM, “obviously”
How grandiose.
Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Intiative, plus those working in the child support and welfare fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?
Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..
Just for the record, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family. And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t account for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.
We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductible, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws. If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions. That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.
There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:
OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.
I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.
Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”?? Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:
| ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) | Fairfax |
VA
|
$1,500,000
|
| Award Title | Sum of Actions | |||
| 2011 | ACF | I C F, INC | NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE | $ 1,500,000 |
Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name. OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I C F, INC | FAIRFAX | VA | 22031-6050 | FAIRFAX | 072648579 | $ 2,477,256 |
The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below). But
under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:
ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract02/1/2011Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.
ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract12/25/2010ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.
ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract09/30/2010ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. [“ARRA”]
Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:
| Recipient: | I C F, INC |
| Address: | 9300 LEE HIGHWAY FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050 |
| Country Name: | United States of America |
| County Name: | FAIRFAX |
| HHS Region: | 3 |
| Type: | Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment ) |
| Class: | City Government |
AWARD ACTIONS
Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FH0002 | NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE | 1 | 00 | ACF | 09-28-2011 | 072648579 | $ 1,500,000 |
| 2011 | 90PD0271 | SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | 072648579 | $ 977,256 |
| Fiscal Year 2011 Total: | $ 2,477,256 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 90PD0270 | SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE | 2 | 0 | ACF | 09-17-2010 | 072648579 | $ 500,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2010 Total: | $ 500,000 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | @@##Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 90LH0001 | NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE | 1 | 2 | ACF | 06-15-2009 | 072648579 | $- 702,966 |
| 2009 | 90PD0270 | SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-18-2009 | 072648579 | $ 500,000 |
| {{LGH: See FOOTNOTES}} Fiscal Year 2009 Total: | $-202,966 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 90LH0001 | NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-21-2007 | 072648579 | $ 882,080 |
| Fiscal Year 2007 Total: | $ 882,080 | |||||||
| Total of all award actions: | $ 3,656,370 |
{{{FOOTNOTES: These comments appeared in FY2009 Total “Amount” column. Unclear whether they’re HHS’ or mine. Probably mine, from 2011 post..quoting from ICF International website at that time}}
Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]
In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.[6]
In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC
This is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology. (read up from its site). It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share and is danged impressive!
This is the “SHORT” description. AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth. Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006
ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS in Fairfax, VA
Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview). They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…
ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.
Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.
ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.
We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including: (See site for the list):
… CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
- Office of Family Assistance (OFA)
The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from. I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization. (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)
PLEASE NOTE: the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.” That is the program link.
http://www.icfi.com/markets/families-and-communities/responsible-fatherhood#tab-2-projects
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Faith-Based Community Organization (FBCO) Collaboration
With our strong research capacity and experienced practitioner-consultants, ICF is improving state and local TANF services by connecting local programs with high-performing FBCOs already serving similar populations.
Welfare Peer Technical Assistance (WPTA)
ICF administers technical assistance to WPTA, which facilitates the sharing of information between and among States, Territories, Tribes, and localities and helps establish linkages between organizations serving the needs of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) participants.
National Healthy Families Technical Assistance Project
ICF supports OFA and its technical assistance teams in providing seamless, comprehensive technical assistance (TA) to support the needs of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Education grantees.
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC)
ICF leads content management and direction for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, which serves as a national repository and distribution center for information and research relating to responsible fatherhood programs, initiatives and activities.
Office of Family Assistance (OFA) Targeted Technical Assistance
ICF provides technical assistance planning and delivery, research, writing, training, and wraparound product development to OFA Targeted Technical Assistance, an innovative technical assistance and project support contract.
{{Sev’l expired-link logos from 2011 were removed during 2018 quick-edit update//LGH}}
Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.
ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.
Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.
(notice its name shows different here, too).
USASPENDING.GOV:
- Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935
For example, this grant:
Transaction Number # 5
|
Date Signed: September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount: $9,481,719 |
|||||||||||||
(NOTICE the other database {{USASPENDING.gov}} doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)
From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.
Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.
- Total Dollars:$32,702,456
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 84
NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);
I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million: The last reward does not show yet. (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently. I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field: Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )
- Total Dollars:$2,156,370
- Transactions:1 – 5 of 5
COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):
OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says
OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.
- By Matthew Weigelt
- Mar 15, 2010
The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.
USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.
Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.
Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:
House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data
Kaitlin Lee
March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.
On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.
Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars
in misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.
Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu
You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted
SUNDAY, JANUARY 13. 2008 AT 01:32 PM | BY COBY LOGEN IN BREAKIN’ THE LAW
I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.
and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:
WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information. {link has moved since….}
GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT for this NRCSPHM:
| National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207 |
Summary
| Funding Opportunity Title: | National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage |
| Funding Opportunity Number (FON): | HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207 |
| Program Office: | Office of Family Assistance |
| Funding Type: | Discretionary |
| Funding Category: | Cooperative Agreement (WITH WHOM??) |
| Announcement Type: | Initial |
| CFDA#: | 93.086 |
| Post Date: | 06/28/2011 |
| Application Due Date: | 07/28/2011 |
Description
| The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities. The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services. |
WHAT”S NEW? Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE: Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:
This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation! Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures. It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so. Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.
Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.
| Apr 28, 1999 | AT-99-007 | Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting |
The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children & Families
Office of Child Support EnforcementAT-99-07
ISSUED: April 28, 1999
TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting
BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: 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.
ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.
REGULATORY REFERENCE: 45 CFR Parts 303.109
DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999
INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators
__________________________
David Gray Ross
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement. . .
SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of 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 pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.” This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .
To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror. Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children. I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption Incentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa). Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.
All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings. I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST. The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically. I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!
Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:
AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999
History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation
The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.
Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process. You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone. What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order? I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose. Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong. We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics. Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).
The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.
In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).
Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.
As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??)) So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decide ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.
Personal/Anecdotal re: Mediation:
This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases. Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order. Bad idea! But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay.
Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues. Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:
Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.
In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children. However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial: Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange. Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home: Hans & Nina Reiser case. DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does): see (February 2011 post)
175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USA) An update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.
Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.
No they don’t. Not really. I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues. If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:
Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.
CAN? It already had been; the wording should have been “has led.” And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.
But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.
It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.
“Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..
In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.
Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.
Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.
Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.
EVALUATION OF CHILD ACCESS PROJECTS
This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read. Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children. This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable. Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:
Purpose
As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.
Background
Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.
Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.
Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant. Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order. Same for visitation.
There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.
In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there. No mention of this seems real odd.
Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.
Of course there are! The Children’s Rights Council (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo. Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs” — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.
A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here). This report was done by
Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.
In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide. (etc. . . . You can read it. . .. )
CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION: PROMISING PROCEDURES
This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit: Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).
Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies. I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.” I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.” Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one. THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:
The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”
SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES
“To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”
“serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal. Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct. There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:
INTRODUCTION
Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.
It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.
Translation: This is a “Catch-22.” If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . . NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up. The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”
I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:
ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”
SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES
INTRODUCTION
More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):
- Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
- Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access
- Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
- Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
- Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
- ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
- ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.
(**aka, do not rape, etc.)
A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence? (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)
the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times. The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.
I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012. I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down . . .
David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:
Multiple Initiatives Grant
- A Profile of Former-TANF and NON-TANF Clients in the IVD Caseload
Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., 01/24/2000.- A Study Of Interest Usage On Child Support Arrears State Of Colorado Final Report
Jane Venohr, Ph.D., David Price, Ph.D., Esther Griswold, M.A., 06/01/2000.- County Policies and Attitudes Towards Incarcerated NCPs
Esther Ann Griswold, M.A., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 04/24/2000.- Longer Term Evaluation of Colorado’s Driver’s License Suspension
Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 02/24/2000.- Survey of State Child Support Policies, Procedures, and Programs for Incarcerated Parents
Esther Griswold, M.A., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Christine Allison, M.A., 09/24/2000.- The Effects of Repeated Driver’s License Suspensions Among Parents Who Owe Child Support
Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 09/24/2000.- Updated Colorado Staffing Standards for Child Support Enforcement
Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D., David A. Price, Ph.D., 07/28/2000.
Notice the authors. (Thoennes is also CPR). In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:
Jane Venohr, Ph.D.
David Price, Ph.D.
Policy Studies Inc.
999 18th Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 863-0900
(on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)
Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555
However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start? Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”
Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate
jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org
Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.
So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had. This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know. Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s. ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:
Found 2 matching record(s). Viewing page 1 of 1. # Name Address Type Count 1 PRICE, DAVID A. 930 ACOMA ST., #415, DENVER, CO
80204, USRegistered Agent 1 2 PRICE, DAVID A. 200 GRAND AVE STE 315, GRAND
JUNCTION, CO 81501, USRegistered Agent 1
The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.
|
|||||||||||||
I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and the last two:
| # | ID Number![]() |
Document Number | Name | Status | Form | Effective Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 20021223054 | 20021223054 | BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) | Effective | DPC | 08/13/2002 12:00 AM | |
| 12 | 20021223055 | 20021223055 | EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) | Effective | DPC | 08/13/2002 12:00 AM |
The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).
The El Paso County Child Support Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:
This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks. However the URL is clearly a *.com:
http://www.elpasocountycss.com/services.html
By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm) Notice, central to the site:


| The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families. These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills. Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities. The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community. | |
| Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated. The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan. |
The ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:
“The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.” (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National). “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).” Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page? We do exist, even as the silent minority!)
SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet? LInks to, for example:
WEBSITES
www.coloradodads.org
www.familiesfirstcolorado.org
. . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:
Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.
“Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”
Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . . It’s how the cookie crumbles:
About Circle of Parents: Fatherhood
FATHERHOOD.GOV
Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
August 2011; Time: 1:19:29In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **
CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period. The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000. Here it is, all = award 90FR0098. (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results). This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.
Circle of Parents® EIN 800106957
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIRCLE OF PARENTS | CHICAGO | IL | 60611-3777 | COOK | 623444994 | $ 4,800,000 |
The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved. (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).
Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K. Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.
Revenue (that year):
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2010 | $65,404 | 990 | 31 | 80-0106957 |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2009 | $68,336 | 990 | 25 | 80-0106957 |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2008 | $52,969 | 990 | 28 | 80-0106957 |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2007 | $26,843 | 990 | 25 | 80-0106957 |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2006 | $83,638 | 990 | 24 | 80-0106957 |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2005 | $16,914 | 990 | 18 | 80-0106957 |
| Circle of Parents | IL | 2004 | $3,803 | 990 | 25 | 80-0106957 |
Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):
http://issuu.com/dadsofdouglascounty/docs/dadsgroupflyers
it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”
NOTE: KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently: Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack. I kid you not:
Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds. Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.
This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute. The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers. It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!
[Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.
After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):
PARTNERS FOR KIDS: GETTING FATHER-READY
Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:
In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA. She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.” HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”
Provided the opportunity? Translation: We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers….. LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization. (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.
NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.
One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.
is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too. It’s disgusting! The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.” The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering. This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.
Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.
Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.
Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS. (Wade Horn, to my recall).
The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group. Membership dues one year, $13,000. That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it. $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations. Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . . $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program. Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..
Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well. Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.
990 reads: “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return). “
Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”
AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . . Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ). 990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.
Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.
The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

“What is Smart Start?
Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”
Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..
CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr)
USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:
- Total Dollars:$3,900,000
- Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
Its listed as a partner on this group: “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC: (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise). I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.
FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.
FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.
How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?
FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.
What is CBCAP?
CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.
What legislation supports CBCAP?
The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).
Why were CBCAP programs created?
CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.
** For “expert” read “heat shield.” I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.” The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.” A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.
A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach: It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system. As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.
Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)
Note: North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it? For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?
WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well). The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare. And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either. SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!
I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years). Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants. (OCSE comes under HHS). OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed — or at least “promoted” — through: Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations. I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case). Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting). She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice. Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them. It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.
FYI — we can speak. Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak. most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation. They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost. Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level. They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).
(NORTH CAROLINA: Years, All CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series). Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . … ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .
| Program Office | Grantee Name | Grantee Type | Award Number | Award Title | Action Issue Date | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| ACF | CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC | Community Action Organization | 90FR0001 | FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK | 09/21/2007 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | SALLIE P SURFACE | $ 245,296 |
| ACF | CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC | Community Action Organization | 90FR0001 | FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK | 09/14/2008 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | SALLIE P SURFACE | $ 245,296 |
| ACF | CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. | Welfare Department | 90FE0059 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/17/2007 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | CYNTHIA J HARRIS | $ 550,000 |
| ACF | CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. | Welfare Department | 90FE0059 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/14/2008 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | CYNTHIA J HARRIS | $ 550,000 |
| ACF | EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0017 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/20/2007 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL | $ 405,528 |
| ACF | EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0017 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/26/2008 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL | $ 525,161 |
| ACF | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0094 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | 09/20/2007 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ANNE JONES | $ 490,465 |
| ACF | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0094 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | 06/06/2008 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ANNE JONES | $ 0 |
| ACF | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0094 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | 09/22/2008 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ANNE JONES | $ 530,482 |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0001NCSAVP | SAVP 2000 | 08/22/2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 207,273 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0101NCSAVP | SAVP 2001 | 08/23/2001 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 207,273 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0201NCSAVP | 2002 SAVP | 08/06/2002 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 248,098 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0201NCSAVP | 2002 SAVP | 09/14/2009 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $- 23,880 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0301NCSAVP | 2003 SAVP | 09/11/2003 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 248,098 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0301NCSAVP | 2003 SAVP | 09/14/2009 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $- 30,070 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0401NCSAVP | 2004 SAVP | 09/15/2004 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 272,566 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0501NCSAVP | 2005 SAVP | 09/14/2005 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 272,566 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0601NCSAVP | 2006 SAVP | 09/19/2006 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 268,587 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0701NCSAVP | 2007 SAVP | 07/20/2007 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 278,157 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0801NCSAVP | 2008 SAVP | 01/30/2008 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 271,792 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 0901NCSAVP | FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | 12/23/2008 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 272,258 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 1001NCSAVP | FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | 11/25/2009 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 279,933 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 1101NCSAVP | FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | 10/08/2010 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 286,100 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9701NCSAVP | SAVP 1997 | 05/31/1998 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 233,772 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9701NCSAVP | SAVP 1997 | 12/02/1999 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $- 216,494 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9701NCSAVP | SAVP 1997 | 01/04/2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 205 | |
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9801NCSAVP | 09/01/1998 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 233,772 | ||
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9801NCSAVP | 02/24/2003 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $- 233,772 | ||
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9901NCSAVP | 08/16/1999 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 207,273 | ||
| OCSE | NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES | Welfare Department | 9901NCSAVP | 02/25/2003 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | $- 132,019 | ||
| OFA | CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC | Community Action Organization | 90FR0001 | FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK | 09/22/2006 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | SALLIE P SURFACE | $ 245,296 |
| OFA | CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC | Community Action Organization | 90FR0001 | FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK | 08/24/2009 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | SALLIE P SURFACE | $ 245,296 |
| OFA | CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC | Community Action Organization | 90FR0001 | FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK | 09/24/2010 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | SALLIE SURFACE | $ 245,296 |
| OFA | CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. | Welfare Department | 90FE0059 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/25/2006 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | CYNTHIA J HARRIS | $ 550,000 |
| OFA | CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. | Welfare Department | 90FE0059 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/18/2009 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | CYNTHIA J HARRIS | $ 550,000 |
| OFA | CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. | Welfare Department | 90FE0059 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/24/2010 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | CYNTHIA HARRIS | $ 550,000 |
| OFA | EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0017 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/22/2006 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | DR LINDA ROBINSON | $ 514,308 |
| OFA | EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0017 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/18/2009 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL | $ 519,625 |
| OFA | EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0017 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 09/24/2010 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ELIZABETH CARROLL | $ 548,181 |
| OFA | Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. | Other Social Services Organization | 90FM0009 | COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. | 09/27/2011 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY | $ 725,000 |
| OFA | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0094 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | 09/22/2006 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ANNE JONES | $ 375,685 |
| OFA | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0094 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | 09/16/2009 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ANNE JONES | $ 538,524 |
| OFA | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | Junior College, College & University | 90FE0094 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | 09/24/2010 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | ANNE JONES | $ 550,000 |
|
Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.
|
(THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state).
“PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one: There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . . Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme. When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them! An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.” Builders are not the house, they are outside the house! The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan. However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections. The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural). Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).
This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr). Contact your local affiliate to buy it:
“
“Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”
with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)
(It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):
| Parent Trust for Washington Children | 9/10/2010 | $15,000.00 | ![]() |
support general operating expenses. |
EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least): recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE | SEATTLE | WA | 98101 | KING | $ 50,000 |
(“Mutual Support” programs? How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 90CA1648 | DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-14-1998 | $ 50,000 |
There are thousands of “90CA” awards. To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards. Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name: Here we go, from TAGGS:
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 1998 | CB | CAL ST LA UNIV AUXILIARY SERVICES, INC | CA | 90CA1589 | PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – FIELD INITIATED RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | MITCHELL EISEN, PH.D. | $ 9,750 |
| 1998 | CB | CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION & FAMILY SUPPORT | DC | 90CA1614 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOYCE N THOMAS | $ 100,000 |
| 1998 | CB | D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND | DC | 90CA1645 | DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | CAROLYN S ABDULLAH | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | CB | EDGEWOOD THE SF PROTESTANT ORPHANAGE | CA | 90CA1599 | PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFARE SYSTEM | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LILLIAN JOHNSON | $ 199,464 |
| 1998 | CB | FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC | CA | 90CA1608 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ASCENCION HERNANDEZ | $ 100,000 |
| 1998 | CB | FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY AREA | CA | 90CA1587 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PATRICIA CHAMBERS, PH.D | $ 150,000 |
| 1998 | CB | KITSAP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS | WA | 90CA1609 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH S BOSCH | $ 100,000 |
| 1998 | CB | LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPT OF CHILDREN’S SRVS | CA | 90CA1594 | PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFAR | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SHARYN L LOGAN | $ 200,000 |
| 1998 | CB | MARY’S CENTER OF MATERNAL & CHILD CARE | DC | 90CA1586 | PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – HEALTHY FAMILIES DC | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOAN YENGO | $ 150,000 |
| 1998 | CB | PARENTS ANONYMOUS | CA | 90CA1592 | PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – NATIONAL NETWORK OF MUTUAL SUPPORT/SELF HELP PROGRAMS | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TERESA RAFAEL | $ 350,000 |
| 1998 | CB | PARENTS ANONYMOUS | CA | 90CA1646 | DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | LISA PION-BERLIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | CB | PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE | WA | 90CA1648 | DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | SYLVIA MEYER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | CB | SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA | CA | 90CA1630 | PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | TANYA PHAM | $ 100,000 |
| 1998 | CB | SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA | CA | 90CA1630 | PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA PHAM | $ 100,000 |
| 1998 | CB | SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, FOUNDATION | CA | 90CA1566 | PRIORITY AREA 1.02R – CONSOR- TIUM FOR LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PROJECTS | 4 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ALAN LITROWNIK | $ 250,000 |
| 1998 | CB | STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION | CA | 90CA1601 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | HAROLD R DEARMOND | $ 54,725 |
| 1998 | CB | WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE | WA | 90CA1590 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 1 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NEW | SHERRY C BRUMMEL | $ 197,471 |
| 1998 | CB | WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE | WA | 90CA1590 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS | 2 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SHERRY C BRUMMEL | $ 195,092 |
I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations? Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much? Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2) | CLAREMONT | CA | 91711 | LOS ANGELES | 090749326 | $ 2,828,196 |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS (THIS GRANT IS 2010….) | PHOENIX | AZ | 85014 | MARICOPA | 119833135 | $ 792,550 |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS (THIS GRANT, 1999) | PHOENIX | AZ | 85014 | MARICOPA | $ 50,000 | |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF BUFFALO & ERIE COUNTY | BUFFALO | NY | 14206 | ERIE | $ 750,000 | |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF NEW JERSEY, INC. | PRINCETON | NJ | 08540 | MERCER | $ 50,000 | |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF PENNSYLVANIA | HARRISBURG | PA | 17102 | DAUPHIN | $ 50,000 | |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC. | CHARLESTON | SC | 29416 | CHARLESTON | $ 50,000 | |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS ORG. OF MASS., INC. | BOSTON | MA | 02116 | SUFFOLK | $ 50,000 | |
| PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE | SEATTLE | WA | 98101 | KING | $ 50,000 |
Showing: 1 – 9 of 9
TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:
- Total Dollars:$697,225
- Transactions:1 – 2 of 2
One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group leader???) – 2010and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIAReason for Modification: Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities Description: NATIONAL PARENT HELPLINEDate Signed:
August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount:
$500,000andTransaction Number # 2
Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONTReason for Modification: Program Source: Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFDA Program : 93.136 : Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs Description: ENHANCING CHILD MALTREATMENT PREV INITIATIVES THROUGH PARENTS ANONYMOUSA INC.Date Signed:
July 02 , 2007
Obligation Amount:
$197,225
“parents anonymousa inc.”?? This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:
| Obligation / Action Date | 07/02/2007 |
|---|---|
| Starting Date | 09/30/2006 |
| Ending Date | 09/29/2008 |
| R |
BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:
- Total Dollars:$18,936,970
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 25
This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess). There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:
Transaction Number # 1
|
Date Signed: August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount: $3,000,000 |
|||||||||||||
Transaction Number # 2
|
Date Signed: September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount: $2,993,400 |
|||||||||||||
They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).
In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program: they got $2.7 million
cfda 16;541 comes under ”
| CFDA Program Title | JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION_SPECIAL EMPHASIS AND T/A |
|---|
(OK, I finally looked up the project title). The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs! This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!
Here they are seeking donations: Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000). They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . .. Contact “Meryl Levine.” I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing). The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)
DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?
Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:
Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.
CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).
Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.
Committee Chair
Charlene Reid, Director
Division of Social Services
Tehama County Department of Social ServicesStaff
Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC
Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development
Parents Anonymous Inc.Viola W. Lindsey
Department of Social Work and Social Ecology
Loma Linda UniversityKristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
F&EÂ Steering Committee
California Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of CaliforniaMark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
Department of Social Work
California State University, Northridge
SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE ASSOCIATING WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO GET CHOSEN FOR MAJOR GRANTS . . . .

http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California
Report No. GR-90-04-013
August 2004
Office of the Inspector General
Executive Summary
The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.
(WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):
Sort by date/ Sort by relevance DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
… At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
Incorporated, Audit Report GR–90–04–013, August 2004. …
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- CachedAudit Report
… Claremont, California. Report No. GR–90–04–013 August 2004 Office of
the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office …
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached
Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.
AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material. There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization: . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST. (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.
Note: California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent. Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program. It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.
In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.” The top Ten Recipients included: #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”
Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002
Do their state registrations show?
AZ as charity,- yes:
| ID | NAME | DBA |
|---|---|---|
| 12810 | *PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ARIZONA, INC |
(at the same street address, as a “dba” also)
| ID | NAME | DBA |
|---|---|---|
| 24105 | CPLC SOUTHWEST, INC. | PARENTING ARIZONA |
in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name: “PARENTING ARIZONA: SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).
Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.
CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF: Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1239568 | 02/22/1984 | DISSOLVED | PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY | CARRIE PUGH |
| C0896252 | 08/30/1978 | SUSPENDED | PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY | |
| C1023786 | 04/13/1981 | SUSPENDED | PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. | PETER A BUCK |
| C1259155 | 10/18/1984 | SUSPENDED | PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. | BARBARA RAYNARD |
| C0606551 | 09/03/1970 | ACTIVE | PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. | LISA PION BERLIN |
| C0816640 | 05/27/1977 | DISSOLVED | PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST | SHELLY TAYLOR |
Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area: Every other term is trademarkeed…
http://www.parentsanonymous.org/pahtml/pressExpert.html
Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).
Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing
The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.
With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.(in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)
(Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse. In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..) The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved. This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:
Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders
Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.
In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.
Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.
OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant. TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding… The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address: ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center
I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver


Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother. IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.
Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily
Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.
I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.
(OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website. I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).
“The Shared Leadership” plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good. But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way. Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.
As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow. They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help. The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side. Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.
Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups. Only the main one survives, as we can see:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad: EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2009:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity). Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half. (2009: $
667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.” (which their tax form will explain). The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc. (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).
- “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”
Got this business model yet? . .. by our accredited network organizations. What do they do?
- Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families. Expenses $1,302,041
This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.
Other earnings (revenue) 660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees. No royalties show up ….
And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):
- Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
- VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
- Sec Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
- Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
- Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
- Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
- Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
- Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
- Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
- Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201
In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)
If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.
Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.
THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.
Some of the incorporators: Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately:
Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor
Obituaries | PASSINGS
April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire ReportsJudge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.
Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division. Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.
{{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc. “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}
She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness. She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.
THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of: “
- The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
- To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
- • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.
By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”
(Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.)
Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.
Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.
www.thefamilytree.org
www.proudtoparent.org
www.uptoparents.org
|
|||
However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO
In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.
(the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)
POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.
To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.
Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.
(An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county. An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:
El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…
Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.
Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.
That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.
“We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.
ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants. In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department. Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project”
The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”
They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:
Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)
Submitted to: Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*
Submitted by: Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org
(the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)
September 2007
[Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.
CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.
Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).
Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.
Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):
This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).
| Program Office | Grantee Name | Grantee Address | Grantee Type | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| OCSE | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 1575 SHERMAN STREET | Welfare Department | 90FD0096 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 125,000 |
I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….
Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for. Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits): Interesting! At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was: “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program” If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently! Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….
(I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored. I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).
Executive Summary
The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:
␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;
␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and
␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.
I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide. Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50). I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010. There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?
| Grantee Name | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | Action Issue Date | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions | Award Abstract |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0004 | PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN | 1 | 09/16/1997 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 72,500 | Abstract Not Available |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0028 | NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES | 1 | 09/14/1999 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 75,000 | |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0069 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 | 1 | 09/15/2002 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 100,000 | Abstract Not Available |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0080 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 | 1 | 09/10/2003 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 55,023 | Abstract Not Available |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0096 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 1 | 09/14/2004 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 125,000 | Abstract Not Available |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0111 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PA 2 | 1 | 07/12/2005 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 114,741 | |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0126 | AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) | 1 | 09/20/2008 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN BERNHART | $ 99,815 | |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0132 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 | 1 | 09/20/2008 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN BERNHART | $ 30,000 | |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0166 | PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS | 1 | 09/27/2010 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | OTHER | NEW | JOHN BERNHART | $ 52,443 | |
| CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0168 | TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS | 1 | 09/25/2010 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | OTHER | NEW | JOHN BERNHART | $ 84,783 | |
| CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | 90FD0033 | COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS | 1 | 09/14/1999 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULINE BURTON | $ 80,000 | Abstract Not Available |
|
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.
|
Abstracts include:
Grant 90FD0111: “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)
In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities. Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.
JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.
I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe: They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:
History
The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.
The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.
Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.
In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.
In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:
Thank You, Vendors
Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.
![]() LabCorp |
![]() Orchid Cellmark |
![]() PSI |
![]() Systems & Methods Inc |
![]() WICSEC |
– |
(upper right). (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).
IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Colorado Family Support Council | CO | 2010 | $44,401 | 990EZ | 8 | 84-1180995 |
This post could go on indefinitely. I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:
My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):
Organizations/COrporations:
- ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC. — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others). The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.
- Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
- Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me? Who are they, really?
- where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
- This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
- PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County. Again, $18 million is a lot of business. Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
- CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System. This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
- (though I knew this already) REMEMBER TO CHECK — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at. Example: PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR. Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .
- ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND EXAMINE A TAX RETURN OR TWO, SEARCH THE STREET ADDRESS, AND WHERE LIKELY TO BE PRODUCTIVE, SEARCH THE CEOs or other Board of Directors’ associates and affiliates.
- LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate. I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.
70 New Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood Grantees for 2011, series “90FM” (And Why Let’s Get Honest is NOT amused….)
After an exhausting, bloodhound-trail-following attempt to get the “REAL” California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (complete with whoever is running it) to Please Stand Up (on-line, in the form of a historically coherent, traceable set of incorporations, nonprofit registrations, and if I”m lucky, even 990s filed on-line), I determined to post the entire list, and talk about some of them. Which is below. I am also starting a new Page here to start profiling these BUSINESSES, AGENCIES or DEPARTMENTS (see grantee types) one by one. I disclaim all responsibility for any actions readers may take on what’s below before fact-checking themselves; I think the dizzying re-incarnations of a certain two (basic) California groups may have resulted in cross-referencing one with the other at times,
For my birthday, I would also like to see the articles of incorporation of EVERY SINGLE one of the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood Grantees, so the public can know which of them used to be (or still are) working for:
(1) The Department of HHS/ACF (who it seems would be approving the grants), &/or :
(2) Local Court system or other County Public Employment, with potential influence on who steers the contracts that these nonprofits are going to take advantage other, in the booming business of “parent education” “marriage education” ‘Fatherhood promotion” and what’s apparently another one, “RELATIONSHIP SKILLS DEVELOPMENT.”
I also would like a chart (it’d need to be 3D at this point) cross-referencing Board of Directors in common. As most normal people are not this anal-retentive, or “could care less,” I’ll likely produce that birthday gift myself.
Any of those terms can be used to suck money out of the Title IV-A (welfare) and Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement) funds, plus some others, like child welfare, which is synonymous with a child going to sleep with a biological father in the home, apparently (judging by some of the programs being promoted around the term “child welfare.”
Moreover, when scrutinized, the financial — business – profit is actually going to any company that has developed a marketable curriculum. This is not only in the form of money, but also in the form of reputation, and anything that would help them keep their place in line for more federally-sponsored business promotion. Meanwhile, one or both of the parties being forced or induced to consume their material — or divorce in front of judges who believe they should, and have some stake in some of those nonprofits or for-profits — are most likely losing finances and reputation.
In that regard, these guys put AFCC to shame. AFCC markets quit a bit of its own material, including the usual Conference CDS, DVDs) including BOOKS — and does this through mandated participation via family law system. But I think they have to work a little harder at keeping it going — in other words, it takes a court order to force someone in front of a parent educator, parent coordinator (unless they can be induced to do so voluntarily under duress) and into a parent education classes aimed at a 5th grade mentality and taking up one’s dwindling resource of TIME.
But it does NOT take a court order for the manufacturers of a marriage curriculum to get their local pastors, priests, and the occasional rabbi or imam,* to (1) form a corporation with profits anticipated and grants to set it up and (2) set up a website soliciting business, after they understand of course that step one is to join a coalition and then buy into being trained to market membership in the same corporation. Brilliant. Of course, AFCC’s preparatory work in wearing down couples and pushing for legislation, and forming associations to endorse each other’s policies while pretending independence, is going to be helpful overall publicity….
(no relation, but interesting reference: I.M.A.M. organization, incl points 1& 2 out of 5:)
- To be a central resource for the Shia Muslims in North America and their religious and spiritual leadership (Marja’iyyah) in all that pertains to matters of their religion and beliefs away from any political or party influence.
- To organize matters of the Shia Muslims in North America in relevant areas such as worship, marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, or other religious legal matters.
No, if we want to eradicate poverty in this country we should teach someone to set up a corporation selling healthy marriage curriculum, and trying to persuade teenagers not to have sex. We are not likely to run out of sexually active teens (or for that matter, mature adults) and I don’t think divorce is going anywhere — so there is definitely a market niche. Too bad some us didn’t get in on it in the 1980s, but judging by the 1990s and 2000s, there’s hope for newcomers if they buy in, imitate the business model, and don’t rock the boat.
Ideally, this curriculum should be completely self-promoting and self-executing by internet download. That way, more is left over from the grants gotten to promote it — not including whatever is lost in the black hole of “No accountability,” several of which are showing up, the closer one looks.
The names of this curriculum tend to run in cutesy-sounding acronyms, one summary of which shows up here:
MML, LoveU2(tr), PREP, PREPARE/ENRICH, “PAIRS” (and so forth), plus a whole variety of BootCamps
MML — “Mastering the Mysteries of Love”; PAIRS – “Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, PREP – “Prevention and Relation Education Program”
(link shows that PREP is hoping to adapt a version for Muslim Couples, working with a group in Qatar).
Some of these hearken back to University Institutes and research/demonstration grants previously funded by the US Government. One of these days, if they get enough TANF participants (and others) forced through these classes, they may come up with the right formula to create the perfect human relationship. Alternately, they can continue working on producing the perfect human being through Early Headstart, the K-12 public education system, and whatever other sources are around.
|
Award Number = 90FM
Showing: 1 – 50 of 70 Award Actions
Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 36849
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0006 | ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 2,489,548 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 2,489,548 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 77092
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0041 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,999 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,999 | |||||
Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0018 | ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 1,514,359 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,514,359 | |||||
Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0030 | BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-28-2011 | $ 634,536 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 634,536 | |||||
Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0029 | BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,999 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,999 | |||||
Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0011 | BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,996 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,996 | |||||
Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0034 | MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 570,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 570,000 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0042 | PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 1,445,587 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,445,587 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0016 | EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 555,300 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 555,300 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0003 | HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 354,714 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 354,714 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0044 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 787,665 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 787,665 | |||||
Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
Recipient ZIP Code: 85004
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0021 | TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 359,796 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 359,796 | |||||
Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0019 | CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 2,500,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 2,500,000 | |||||
LGH notes on this group: (Needs to be a separate post, but here’s a teaser):
SEARCHED THIS GROUP BY ITS EIN# (Simple “Recipient” search on TAGGS”) — there are two series, note DUNS#s….
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | CA | 92024-2215 | SAN DIEGO | 003664535 | $ 7,883,475 |
| California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | CA | 92024-2215 | SAN DIEGO | 361795151 | $ 7,142,080 |
The heading (when you click on the title, above) shows the street address. Note: LEUCADIA, and in SAN DIEGO area.
| Recipient: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Address: | 1045 PASSIFLORA AVE LEUCADIA, CA 92024-2215 |
| Country Name: | United States of America |
| County Name: | SAN DIEGO |
| HHS Region: | 9 |
| Type: | Other Social Services Organization |
| Class: | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations |
However, from the official HHS/ACF Grantee award announcement, HERE, there is no entry for “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.” How could there be, in 2011, as the outfit no longer exists. Instead, it’s called (latest corporate name incarnation I could find, may not be the most current):
(From the ACF site, not TAGGS: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html. As TAGGS information is supplied by the agency in question (see description on the site) the information should match, and public should be able to sort by an identification number. That’s basic common sense — IF the intent was transparency).
| Healthy Relationships California | Leucadia |
CA
|
$2,500,000
|
What on TAGGS (and on the public website) is “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” is now called, “Healthy Relationships California.”
This is why the TAGGS database, which possesses EIN# and DUNS#, could easily have put that field in any report generated, but chose to omit EIN (would probably show up a lot of grantees who never bothered to get one) so we could follow the career & grants-allocations track of a nonprofit that keeps changing its corporate name, something that only checking at the State (not federal) level would otherwise show. And Healthy Marriage Grantees are notoriously (when examined) shape-shifters.
So I check out this nonprofit name on the Charitable Trusts registration, California STate Office of Attorney General:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE: The $48,225.00 was probably a “Compassion Capacity-Building Grant” to start with. Google “990 finder” and search by EIN to get the Federal Fillings:
Here, the amount $48,225 shows under “CHMC.”
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| California Healthy Marriages Coal | CA | 2005 | $48,225 | 990EZ | 10 | 68-0606790 |
| California Healthy Marriages Coalition | CA | 2008 | $328,871 | 990 | 24 | 68-0606790 |
| California Healthy Marriages Coalition | CA | 2007 | $340,894 | 990 | 19 | 68-0606790 |
| California Healthy Marriages Coalition | CA | 2006 | $148,062 | 990 | 21 | 68-0606790 |
| California Healty Marriages Coaltion | CA | 2009 | $334,155 | 990 | 22 | 68-0606790 |
Looking at the 2005 EIN, one reads purpose: “CHMC has begun (in 2005) a 17-month federally-funded project
to offer training and technical assistance
to marriage-support organizations (including coalitions) throughout California.” EXPENSES: $41,709.
Two Directors (only) are listed: Dennis Stoica (at a PO Box in Cerritos, CA), and Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D., at a street address in Sacramento. Remember the names;
they will show up in several other related organizations / associations, including with another name-changing organization (getting millions) in Colorado.
Modest salaries are only $10K (Stoica) and $7K (Curtis). Curtis seems to have better luck staying incorporated than STOICA:
(Secretary of State)
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2629035 | 11/08/2004 | SUSPENDED | CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ((Oakland addresss) | CHRIS GRIER |
| C2896098 | 06/01/2006 | ACTIVE | FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION | ROBYN L ESRAELIAN |
| C2271911 | 03/07/2001 | DISSOLVED | HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION | ELIZABETH LEHRER |
| C2884897 | 06/23/2006 | SUSPENDED | NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | DENNIS J STOICA |
| C2884898 | 06/23/2006 | SUSPENDED | ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION | DENNIS J STOICA |
| C2955473 | 10/04/2006 | SUSPENDED | RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. | LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. |
| C2650745 | 05/12/2004 | ACTIVE | SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | CAROLYN RICH CURTIS |
| C3210304 | 05/29/2009 | ACTIVE | SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | REGINA GLASPIE |
| C2860238 | 03/02/2006 | ACTIVE | STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION | JAMES CARLETON STEWARD |
| C3013354 | 08/13/2007 | ACTIVE | YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | WILLIAM F JENS |
“ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION” (Stoica, see above) never bothered to register with the Attorney General as a Nonprofit:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
which may have something to do with why it got suspended. Alas, because that makes the EIN# harder to get at. Mr. Stoica flew off (at least via internet) to Florida
and has started (as of 2010) an association of Marriage Educators, nevertheless, called “NARME.” Moreover, for how many people refer to the Orange County Marriage group, one would think it’s still legitimate. But I’m focusing on the other ones, today.
2011 News Release, announcement by Calif. Congressman Doris Matsui features Dr. Curtis and the “Relationship Skills Center,” from Matsui.house.gov:
Congresswoman Matsui Announces Nearly $800,000 for Local Family Development Services
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-5) announced that the Relationship Skills Center, a Sacramento-based relationship education non-profit, has been awarded $798,825 through the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide relationship and family stability educational services.
Awarded through the Administration for Children and Families-Healthy Marriage Initiative, this funding will be used by the Relationship Skills Center to provide evidence based relationship education classes and case management services to help families improve their marriage and relationship skills, achieve career and economic stability, and connect families with a variety of community resources.
“We are thrilled to receive this grant. In the last five years we have helped 735 couples form healthy, stable, safe families,” said Carolyn CurtisHISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT
The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. She discovered that communities across the nation were organizing and reducing their divorce rate by up to 50%. After a successful career as a therapist helping one couple at a time, Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region. HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund
Ph.D., Executive Director of the Relationship Skills Center.
The “Relationship Skills Center” (per Curtis’ LinkedIn profile) was “Formerly Healthy Marriage Project” and Dr. Curtis has worked there since 2004, “7 years 8 months” OK…. Looking at the list of ACF grantees, this organization name does not appear. However it has the same street address as “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project,” including the suite#.
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PAGE “CONTACT US,” URL: “http://www.skills4us.org/Contact%20Us“
Address
9719 Lincoln Village Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95827
CHARITABLE TRUSTS: “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT.”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moreover, if one looks at the details, it’s clear that “EIN# 134280316” has been a going concern (both assets and income) from Day 1 (2005-06 year), but has not provided the annual required RRF forms, or iRS reports, regularly, as required by law. Finally in 2010, they got a slap on the wrist from the Attorney General: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in the chart here, below the words “Fee Notice” are several entries indicating professional fundraising for the organization by “EXPRESSIONS.” Professional Fundraisers also are required to register, and hand over evidence that their profits were received by an officer of the nonprofit they are raising funds for…. I’ll quote from the Fee Notice, which is a red flag for the public of something out of order for a nonprofit).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The FEE NOTICE, dated Sept. 20, 2011, “NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT, reads,
1. Explanation/Information not provided for “YES” answer to Part B , Question No. 6.
Part B of an RRF is “PART B – STATEMENTS REGARDING ORGANIZATION DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS REPORT” and question 6 is:
During this reporting period, did the organization receive any governmental funding? If so, provide an attachment listing the name of the agency, mailing address, contact person, and telephone number. Incidentally, question 2 is: During this reporting period, was there any theft, embezzlement, diversion or misuse of the organization’s charitable property or funds? Question 5, for which (on the 2009 RRF, available to see on-line), “During this reporting period, were the services of a commercial fundraiser or fundraising counsel for charitable purposes used? If “yes,” provide an attachment listing the name, address, and telephone number of the service provider.
was checked “No,” and (right around Father’s Day 2009) they were using a commercial fundraiser, a sole proprietorship called “EXPRESSIONS.”
And (on 9/20/2011) the group was also reminded:
2. The $75 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
I look forward to finding out by October 20th whether this nonprofit which exists primarily as a recipient of a Federal Grants program directing funds from welfare and child support enforcement (as I understand it) into marriage education classes, will get its act together. I’d also really like to read the articles of incorporation, which it would make sense to post, and some groups actually do, on-line.
On this ‘RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER” (boasted about recently by Congressman Doris Matsui), we clearly have a SACRAMENTO emphasis, and address — yet, given that Carolyn Curtis shows as one of two incorporators of not the SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE but “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGE” (corporate registration showing a SAN DIEGO area, not SACRAMENT) (now called “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” on the charitable site . . ) it appears that Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Relationships — which IS “California Healthy Marriages” but shares a street address & jurisdiction with the Sacramento Healthy Marriage….) sees itself as the original organization, per its “About Us/ History Page”:
HISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT
The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. … Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region.
…HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund, …
In 2006, HMP applied for and was awarded $2.5 million from the Administration for Children and Families to provide relationship skills classes to low income pregnant unwed couples or couples with an infant. The resulting Flourishing Families Program, now in its fourth year, has served over 500 families, and its success has been nationally recognized. In 2009 HMP was chosen as one of three from a total of 120 healthy marriage demonstration grantees to provide peer to peer training. HMP was selected to lead four workshops at the National Healthy Marriage – Responsible Fatherhood Grantee Conference.
OK, here are the 2 relevant ACF Grantees again, for 2011, per the Oct 3 news release. interesting that October is also “Domestic Violence Awareness Month”:
.Healthy Marriage Grantees (top of two charts; the bottom, of almost equal amount (total) is “Fatherhood.”
| Legal Name Organization | City |
State
|
Award Amount
|
| Healthy Relationships California | Leucadia |
CA
|
$2,500,000
|
Secretary of State shows Incorporator Patty Howell (and if one clicks, the Leucadia Address) SOS site does not allow EXACT search, so we got others, too (it really is an inferior search site, and very unwieldy)
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3073670 | 01/16/2008 | SUSPENDED | CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. | LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. |
| C2746528 | 05/13/2005 | ACTIVE | HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA | PATTY HOWELL |
| C2790720 | 06/09/2006 | ACTIVE | OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS | DARRYL HARRISON |
| C2494811 | 01/06/2003 | DISSOLVED | THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. | TAMARA ILICH |
| Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | Sacramento |
CA
|
$798,825
|
Secretary of State Registration shows it’s still active:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2650745 | 05/12/2004 | ACTIVE | SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | CAROLYN RICH CURTIS |
The EIN# 680606790 (federal level — posted above) belongs to “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION” (per IRS 990s) which “IS” “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as to (state-level) Charitable Registrations. Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D. (along with Stoica) was indeed apparently a founder — at least an incorporator. Somehwere, CHMC became “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” — however (inexplicably) that corporation was also formed in 2005 by another person, Patty Howell. Adding to the confusion,
The EIN# 134280316 belongs to “CHMC” — which is Leucadia (=San Diego Area). KEY that EIN# into the OAG site and you’ll get a listing called
“Sacramento Healthy Marriages Project “
- Bill Coffin
- Working with NARME and CA Healthy Marriages Coalition on a part-time basis.
Was Exec Dir of IDEALS (Jan-Aug 2011) [[Has links to these groups, too, based in PA & Kentucky]] - From 2002-10 I was the Special Assistant for Marriage Education at ACF/HHS
14. Marriage Skills Education and the Courts
Saving marriages was once a goal of family courts, but was de- emphasized amid all the other problems courts address. Recent developments in relationship skills education offer new hope for improving marriages. Meanwhile, there are increasing demands to do something to reduce the damage to parents and children in fam- ily separation. Can courts not just mitigate the effects of family breakdown, but also help reduce it? First, they must study what works, and carefully adapt programs to the people they serve and to other real-world constraints.
Bill Coffin M.Ed., Special Assistant for Marriage Education, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, D.C.
John Crouch, J.D., Arlington, VA Fred J. DeJong, Ph.D., Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI
Dennis Stoica teaching a webinar on ACF grant announcements June 17 for NARME members
On Friday June 17 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm (ET), NARME Board Member Dennis Stoica (President of California Healthy Marriages Coalition) will conduct a 90-minute webinar – for NARME Members only – comparing and contrasting the six different grant announcements which are scheduled to be released earlier that week.
Hundreds of organizations participated in a similar teleconference that Dennis conducted back in 2006 when the original Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants were released; and many of those participants attributed their subsequent success in being awarded grants to a combination of that teleconference and the subsequent grant-writing tele-trainings that Dennis conducted during that year’s grant-writing period. Since this webinar will only be offered to NARME members, if you have not yet joined NARME you should do that right away by going tohttp://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=881238.

Carolyn Curtis
Director


Ralph Jones
Master Trainer of…

Dennis Stoica
Co-Founder

K Krafsky
Community Mobiliz…

Bento Leal
Implementation Sp…

Kerri Norbut
Special Projects …

Alison Doucette
Special Projects …

GOOD GRIEF!
The “Church OF Our Savior” at this address, is Episcopal, and is a historic landmark (it was not founded by Stoica!), around since the 1800s.
Church of Our Saviour, “Serving God for over 150 years“
2979 Coloma St. // PO Box 447
Placerville, CA 95667-0447
office@oursaviourpv.org

However, among the many ministries it operates IS, indeed, a MARRIAGE EDUCATION ministry:
| Marriage Education | Fr. Craig Kuehn | Our Saviour offers several, research based, courses designed to enhance relationships, generically called marriage education. Every couple can benefit by attending at least one marriage education program per year. For more inforamtion, see www.edhealthymarriages.org. |
Coalition history
We began under the intiation of the California Healthy Marriages Coalition and we received our initial funding from them (www.camarriage.com). Fr. Craig Kuehn of the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour, Placerville and Meredith Koch of Marshall Hospital, Placerville attended a workshop about grant opportunities promoting healthy marriages. Ever since then, the project snowballed into a coalition of faith-based and community-based organizations interested in and offering marriage and related programs to the people of El Dorado County, California.
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service.
YES THEY ARE — and one of the few who seems to have kept it up, better than their leaders. As such they are helping market classes and products put out by
some truly conservative groups, who are doing QUITE well and remain close to the government faucet. how nice to know that religious organizations can profit from this also. They can collect their tithes AND their grants, from people who pay taxes towards the grants also, no doubt. SEE THE LINKS LIST: including one I definitely recognize as being marketed through the welfare system, too: PREPARE/ENRICH (a research project out of Minnesota, FOR-profit formed in 1980); “SMARTMARRIAGES.COM” (a FOR-profit) organized by Diane Sollee, with this logo:

(ALSO quite well-informed about the marriage grants system, while shamelessly marketing classes, DVDs, train-the trainers, certifications, and holding conferences to keep this up),
and “Institute for American Values,” PResident, David Blankenhorn (also of National Fatherhood Initiative)
WIKIPEDIA on Blankenhorn confirms this and highlights his “expert-witness” testimony against Prop 8 (anti-Gay, California) as heard in the Supreme Court:
Blankenhorn founded the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank whose stated mission is to “study and strengthen key American values”, in 1987.[1][3] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.[4][2][5]Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.[1][2][6] As of 2007, Blankenhorn has written “scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two.”[1] Blankenhorn identifies as a liberal Democrat.[7][1] “In his decision filed on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Blankenhorn was not qualified as an expert witness, and that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”[10]
BLANKENHORN is a Harvard Grad, (BA Social Studies 1977), and a masters in Comparative Social Science from a British University. He was raised Presbyterian in Mississippi.
ANYHOW, as we can see, Fr. (or “Rev.”) KUEHN, above, Incorporated in time to get the grants, and has stayed incorporated:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2856112 | 03/03/2006 | ACTIVE | EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION | CRAIG KUEHN |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECIPIENT SEARCH RESULTS
Recipient EIN = 204384330 No matching awards found.
| Entity Name: | EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION |
| Entity Number: | C2856112 |
| Date Filed: | 03/03/2006 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | PO BOX 447 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | PLACERVILLE CA 95667 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | CRAIG KUEHN |
| Agent Address: | 2979 COLOMA ST |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | PLACERVILLE CA 95667 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| El Dorado Healthy Marriages Coal | CA | 2006 | $2,476 | 990EZ | 10 | 20-4384330 |
(This form has no signature on Tax Preparers’ line). Line 1 -Revenue — Gifts, contributions, grants — shows $20,500. Salaries, other comp & employee benefits come to $7,428: $3,384 for Pres: Rev. Kuehn + $2,006 for VP: Meredith Koch = $5,390.
By my basic math, $7,428-$5,390 = $1,038 in some form of “comp” (no benefits listed) which I don’t see on the form.
However, we do see $11,144 in “Conference fees & travel, supplies, & organization fees.” There’s likely a membership going to CHMC, they buy material to vend? and they get tax-deductive travel & conference times. Think AmWay…. The tax-exempt purpose is: “PROMOTE AND TEACH MARRIAGE PROGRAMS.”
Somehow, $20,655 (of $20,500 received) was spent to:
Start-up and organizational expenses, capacity building to include six faith-based and community-based organizations teaching marriaged (sic) education. This included training as (“at”) the Smart Marriages Conference and from California Healthy Marriages Coalition, 64 couples received marriage education. (that’s a pretty high overhead…. How much did the marriage education for those couples cost?)
Meredith Koch (retired nurse in the area) is found also teaching “PAIRS” classes. PAIRS Foundation ends up being Federally Funded, too, in South Florida:
Large, Multi-Year, Federally-Funded Study
Finds Enduring Impact of Marriage EducationFindings from a large, federally funded, multi-year study of South Florida couples participating in nine hours of marriage and relationship education found statistically significant improvements in consensus, satisfaction, affection, and cohesion for both distressed and non-distressed participants…
Another way of seeing this — PAIRS is another nonprofit out of Florida helping the US Government run a multi-level marketing setup. It could’ve been cars, toys, or
any other service which would come under Consumer Protection laws; but it just instead happens to be relationship education. One can Be a “Leader,” a “CPAIRS” (Christian — Perhaps later, Jews Muslims, Buddhists, Ba’hai, Hindi, etc. might make it on the radar — but so for those populations haven’t really caught the “marriage education is free money” bug yet, to the extent these religious Christian (churches) have.) One can also be a PTP, MT, or TRAINER. Buy into the system. Might as well – -your taxes have already paid for it, and others like it. See “UNDERSTANDING PAIRS LEVELS” at the site, telling title, “consumer.PAIRS.COM”
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards PAIRS FOUNDATION Weston FL 33331-3642 BROWARD 839942422 $ 4,950,000
(that’s roughly $1 million/year from 2006-2010)
(SIGH. As usual, a combo of for-profit, and not-for-profits under similar names show up. Seth D. Eisenberg of Florida — or is it Virginia? — has got it together now,
and the PAIRS FOUNDATION (Inc.), which merged with PAIRS, Ltd. (his corp from VA) are now in business under EIN# 650629670. With these cohorts, which are visualized (and listed) in CORPORATIONWIKI.Com. This time, the FOR-PROFIT LLC is “Partnership Skills, LLC”
As of March, 2011, a list of (mostly churches) with “COURSE PROVIDER” column mostly blank, included Seth & PAIRS International, LLC,” right after “Okeechobee Missionary Baptist Church” and listed these potential under “COUNSELOR” column: ” I notice the URL shows the Clerk of Records for the local Circuit court for Okeechobee County.
EISENBERG, SETH KOSS, PHYLLIS FARBER, AURORA MINZER- BRYANT,SHARON FARBER, RHETT PARKER, DANA GARFIELD, ANNIE SALYERS, JANET GORDON, LORI SPINOSA, WILLIAM HERRINGTON, PEGGY VALDEZ, SCOTT.
The merger was in May, 2006, and possibly helped getting this, which I am sure also helped: (fromTAGGS).
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 90FE0029 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-24-2006 | 839942422 | $ 990,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2006 Total: | $ 990,000 | |||||||
If I go to USASPENDING.gov and type in the DUNS# and check “GRANTS” only (not “Contracts, Loans,” etc.), and check the tab “TIMELINE” it’s very clear that the above 2006 grant was NOT reported to usaspending.gov, although 2007, 08, 09 & 10 were. In other words, usaspending.gov ain’t reliable.
Also clear (looking at details) from this is that the CFDA is 93086 (marriage/fatherhood ) AND that the source is “75-
Also, (I took the DUNS# and went to “USASPENDING.gov” Prime Award, checked every category except grants, and got 15 transactions:
- Total Dollars:$227,754
- Transactions:1 – 15 of 15
Recommended to do (est. time — 4 minutes max) — well over $100K of this is contracts from 2011 only. The map above (interactive) shows that half its business (contracts) are from California & Indiana (strong fatherhood state) combined, but also Georgia, Virginia, NOrth Carolina and Florida. Not bad, eh?
And (same search, showing “Timeline” of increase in contracts (by graph/bars) shows about a 5-fold increase from 2009. If you’re IN, you’re IN, in this field.
Nonprofit + related For-PRofit means wider coverage and probably more profits. Simply design a product to match the HHS Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood grants stream! THere’s also a “4-1-1 Kids, Inc.” with his name on it. Seth appears to be 2nd Generation “MARRIAGE EDUCATION” — as it says on “FATHERHOODCHANNEL.com“:
Seth Eisenberg, the youngest son of PAIRS Founder Lori Heyman Gordon, grew up with a front row seat to the birth of marriage and relationship education. He joined PAIRS Foundation in 1995 to help improve business and organizational systems, began teaching classes in 1999, training instructors in 2000, and was elected President/CEO in 2008. Over the past 12 years, Seth spearheaded development of PAIRS’ evidence-based, brief, multi-lingual courses and technologies to make marriage and relationship education widely accessibile to diverse communities worldwide. He has taught classes to thousands of young people, adults and trained more than 1,000 PAIRS instructors who deliver services to tens of thousands. In 2006, Seth’s “PAIRS Relationship Skills for Strong South Florida Families,” proposal was awarded a multi-year, multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The grant program has allowed thousands of people throughout South Florida to participate in free classes, including many low-income, formerly homeless, recovering addicts, special needs populations, immigrants, and veterans who could not have otherwise benefited, while also conducting extensive, rigorous research activities to better understand and validate the impact of marriage and relationship education.
It is “free” to low-income because most likely it was taken from more direct social services to these populations, such as food, housing help, cash aid, or child support enforcement where applicable. Reminder: The Florida “PAIRS” first started (out of several incorporations) as for-profit, and it started in 1994.
I look it up at http://www.sunbiz.org, which is where FL corporations go to register. California needs a site like this.
|
From the (top) filing I get an EIN# 521327867
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| PAIRS Foundation | FL | 2009 | $313,681 | 990 | 25 | 52-1327867 |
| PAIRS Foundation | FL | 2008 | $353,339 | 990 | 26 | 52-1327867 |
| PAIRS Foundation | FL | 2007 | $0 | 990R | 2 | 52-1327867 |
| PAIRS Foundation | FL | 2007 | $414,952 | 990 | 17 | 52-1327867 |
| Pairs Foundation Ltd | FL | 2006 | $252,096 | 990 | 22 | 52-1327867 |
| Pairs Foundation Ltd | VA | 2005 | $306,643 | 990 | 16 | 52-1327867 |
| Pairs Foundation Ltd | FL | 2004 | $300,853 | 990 | 14 | 52-1327867 |
| Pairs Foundation Ltd | VA | 2003 | $242,249 | 990 | 15 | 52-1327867 |
| Pairs Foundation Ltd | VA | 2002 | $63,906 | 990 | 14 | 52-1327867 |
EIN Watchdog.net describes it as having begun in 1984 c/o “Lori H. Gordon” (which matches his description, above) and last filed in 2007, and with a street address of 2771 Executive Park, #1 Weston, FL. This worries me, because that’s one of the operating addresses of this organization (per USAspending.gov) and was also found in a SEC complaint on REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FRAUD (but no overlap of persons involved that I can see, just the street address). To be clerar, this is a criminal complaint, date-stamped Nov. 15, 2007, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Southern District vs. (various redevelopment agencies)
(COMPLAINT):
SUMMARY
1. Since at least 2002, Webb, individually and through certain entities he owns and controls, -has defrauded numerous investors through a real estate-based investment scheme. During the relevant period, the Defendants have raised at least $8.4 million from more than 80 investors by offering and selling securities in the form of investment contracts to investors in several states, including Florida, California and North Carolina.
(PAIRS had contracts in those states, plus Georgia, Virginia? & Indiana).
The PAIRS Foundation, Ltd. (per watchdog.net) address figures in paragraphs 15 & 30
15. CitiRise NC is a North Carolina limited liability company with its original principal office at 901 Barmouth Ct., Raleigh, North Carolina 27614. At least by November 2005, Citifise NC was reporting on its North Carolina State filings’that its principal office address was at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-3643, the same address used by CitiRise FL
30. Webb and the Webb Companies solicited investment offers in various ways, including through word-of-mouth generated by other investors and through Webb’s personal contact with local church groups, including meeting with local.pastors of such churches. In addition, Webb supervised the preparation of promotional materials advertising alliances with faith-based groups, such as a “partnership” between CitiRise and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Webb and the Webb Companies also, on occasion, used independent sales associates who solicited investors through their personal or professional contacts in exchange for commissions. Webb and the Webb Companies also manufactured publicity in other ways, including favorable newspaper profiles in The Triangle Tribune and Triangle
Business Journal in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina and an appearance by Webb on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes program in December 2005. In addition, one of Webb’s entities, CitiRise, maintained a website (at http://www.citirise.com) fiom at least 2005 to approximately October 2007 that described Webb’s professional biography, the CitiRise business “model,” and reflected theCitiRise “Corporate Headquarters” address at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-an address CitiRise no longer occupied from around the Summer of 2006
PAIRS FOUNDATION, Inc. changed FROM that address (per FL filings) on 1/20/2009, to 1675 Market Street #207, Weston, FL, but didn’t report this until 9/20/2010. In other words, 5 days after filing the 2009 report, it moved. 09/20/2010 — ADDRESS CHANGE
USAspending.gov contracts (15 records from 2009 forward) reflect for some reason both addresses.
- a June 1, 2000 letter from Florida Secretary of State showed Ph.D. Lori Gordon how to incorporate;
- She didn’t provide original signatures, or addresses (although did mail a check).
- The term “Ltd.” is not acceptable.
- They apparently then fixed this and changed it to “inc.”
I thought it was common knowledge that “Ltd.” was not a USA corporate suffix; Corporation or “Inc.” (etc.) are. I guess not. The purpose of the nonprofit
“Research, development and training of relationship skills for youth and families and communities. Development of materials and programs to reduce anger, conflict and violence.”
Here is Lori Gordon giving a rave review to (Helping sell) a book by D. Stosney, called “Love without Hurt” in which he explains how abused women can help their men stop abusing them. Rave reviewers also included Dianne Sollee of “Smartmarriages.com”
This is an important book for everyone in every stage of a relationship, to heal and make whole the love we begin with. Give it as a wedding gift, birthday present, parenting gift. This is knowledge and understanding we all need to be able to heal ourselves and preserve our most cherished relationships. — Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D. founder of PAIRS.
(Here’s the book, described): Reviews of Love without Hurt: Turn Your Resentful, Angry, or Emotionally Abusive Relationship into a Compassionate, Loving One
Library Journal
Stosny has put into words the techniques used in his successful Compassion-Power and Boot Camp programs, which help women who have been subjected to criticism, put-downs, or cold shoulders from their husbands or boyfriends. Complete with checklists, case studies, and well-researched information, his program not only shows the damage that verbally and emotionally abusive relationships do to spouses and children but also demonstrates how to change them, with guidance for both parties. For their part, women are directed to practice self-healing skills. Clear, timely, and on the mark; recommended for all libraries. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
(Usually verbally and emotionally abusive are on their way to physically abusive which, unchecked, goes all the way to “lethal” unless stopped, although not all go the full range. Somehow this is being missed. … And it absolutely the church theme, for the most part, that women are to stop the abuse, somehow, by changing themselves. That’s another reason I protest these programs….)
Looking up “Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D.” I found (yet another) Christian Marriage Association, as they advertised PAIRS training.
Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills(PAIRS)
2771 Executive Park Drive Suite #1
Weston, FL 33331
USAWebsite: http://www.pairs.com/ Contact(s) Seth Eisenberg Phone: 877-PAIRS-4U Fax: 954-337-2981 Purpose Sustain healthy relationships Description The PAIRS programs, developed by Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D., provide a comprehensive system to enhance self-knowledge and to develop the ability to sustain pleasurable intimate relationships. PAIRS is located in Reston, Virginia but is a nationally known program

“The Association of Marriage & Family Ministries” ( photo to right appears to be its founders, out of Scottsdale, AZ) reveals that marriage education is a great tool for church growth. So I suppose there’s no harm in having non-believers fund church growth because, what’s good for the Kingdom is surely good for the rest of America?
The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (AMFM) and its members are committed to you, the local Church, the pastor and all those called to this vital area of ministry. There has never been a greater time in history to show the love of Christ than today in serving those marriages and families that God has given us.
Today, there is no greater growth tool for the church than to have strong marriages and healthy families walking out of the church on Sunday (when ever you worship) and walking into the culture on Monday. What a great opportunity to impact our culture for the Kingdom.
…
Blessings,
Eric and Jennifer Garcia
Co-Founders

(Sunday worship post-dated Jesus Christ by a few centuries, last I heard. See Emperor Constantine 🙂 )
LIKe NCADV,NARME, and AFCC, there is a sliding scale of membership. THe more you can afford, the more you will pay.
“Resource Vendors” pay the highest:
Student Membership – $35
Individual Membership – $75
Church Organization Membership – $125 – $450
Resource Membership (Vendors) – $225 – $550
(I.E. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR SPECIAL PAYMENTS )
FORGIVE ME FOR NOT RESISTING THE TEMPTATION TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND RECOMMENDS THE OPPOSITE:
BY CONTRAST, THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HAVING “RESPECT OF PERSONS” AND DECLARE THAT GOD DOESN’T.
JAMES 2:
|
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
|
NOT TO MENTION (WHILE I”M IN “JAMES”) A SCATHING COMMENTARY ON RICH MEN, AND FAWNING OVER THEM IN THE CHURCHES:
”
|
|
||
INSTEAD, THESE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY FROM THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOWS, BY TAKING TANF FUNDS TO PROMOTE MARRIAGE EDUCATION TO HELP EXPAND THEIR CHURCHES! . . . IF THEY WERE PREACHING RIGHT TO START WITH, WOULDN’T THEIR MARRIAGES BE IN BETTER SHAPE? SEEMS TO ME THERE’S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE BIBLE ON LOVING ONE ANOTHER, AND A GOOD BIT ON MARRIAGE ALSO (I COR 13, EPHESIANS – – IT’S THROUGHOUT).
SOMEBODY HAD TO DO THIS — why not me? — I looked up their corporate status in Scottsdale. For one, someone from Scottsdale is following my site:
| ID | Type | Name |
|---|---|---|
| 12163487 | CORPORATION | THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC. |
©Copyright 2000 by Arizona Secretary of State – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Here we go: (date — today, 10/11/11)
| Corporate Status Inquiry | |
|---|---|
| File Number: -1216348-7 | |
| Corp. Name: THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC. | |
| This Corporation is NOT in Good Standing for the following reasons: | |
|---|---|
| DELINQUENT ANNUAL REPORT 09/13/2011 | |
| 2011 ANNUAL REPORT WAS DUE ON 05/19/2011 | |
| Next Annual Report Due: 05/19/2011 |
Surprise, surprise, lots of Delinquent Reports, and two Dissolved/Reinstated. I can’t paste too much from the AZ corporations site; it positions funny.
Somehow, being delinquent, or even suspended status rarely seems to slow down these groups. I recently ran across another one (with California links) called “ABOVE THE LINE” — they run retreats, and marriage enrichment seminars, and (as I recall) the Tonkins were proud of their association with Dr. Phil.
There is “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.” at the same (residential) address the Garcia’s (of AMFM), which ALSO appears to be not filing, but not yet IRS_suspended. Here are the 990 reports:
EIN# 460496745
| ID | Type | Name |
|---|---|---|
| 10418500 | CORPORATION | ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC. |
It got warnings about dissolution in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. It WAS dissolved the year after it formed — 2003, and reinstated. What a mess — and these people are teaching us how NOT to get divorced?
On 9/27/2005, they provided (finally! Forms are available in a single click on-line, too!) the “Annual Report” for years 2003, 2004 & 2005, and were reinstated.
By 12/11/2006, their status was pending again, but they managed to file a report by the following April, for the year 2006. Three months later, they are again “status pending” and apparently didn’t respond. Another 12 months, another notice, and still they didn’t respond. So in 9/2008 they were dissolved – but got reinstated two months later (11/17/2008) probably by forking over the annual reports for 2007 and 2008.
Is that the type of behavior (even for tiny grants) we want of an organization getting $103,000 of help/grants from the Government?
| Administrative Dissolution Date | Administrative Dissolution Reason | Reinstatement Date |
|---|---|---|
| AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R | ||
| AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R | 11/17/2008 | |
| AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R | 09/27/2005 |
(But as of 7/2005, the same couple had already formed AMFM, above).
Your query: ( Organization Name: None Chosen , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: 460496745 , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed)
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Above The Line Association Inc. | AZ | 2007 | $5,464 | 990EZ | 15 | 46-0496745 |
| Above The Line Association Inc. | AZ | 2006 | $2,498 | 990EZ | 12 | 46-0496745 |
| Above The Line Association Inc. | AZ | 2005 | $800 | 990 | 17 | 46-0496745 |
| Above The Line Association Inc. | AZ | 2002 | $0 | 990 | 12 | 46-0496745 |
And their 2005 filing explains WHY it pays to look at the IRS 990 filings!
Government Grant (doesn’t show under this EIN via TAGGS) — $103,500
Program Expenses: (neat, eh?) $102,845.
Eric and Jennifer Garcia (husband/wife) are the unpaid directors of “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION INC.”
“Part II line 43” expenses are explained, among other things as (statement 3):
STATEMENT 3 SCHEDULE A, PART II,LINE 2 TRANSACTIONS WITH TRUSTEES ,DIRECTORS, ETC.
THE ORGANIZATION PAID $100,000 TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GARCIA-TOOKER LLC, WHICH IS OWNED BY ERIC AND JENNIFER GARCIA. THE PAYMENT WAS FOR THE SPONSORSHIP OF TWO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONFERENCES DURING THE YEAR 2005.
I find the multiple corporate names in a few short years, and the shoddy incorporation history to be a little suspicious. Where did the initial $103K come from and why is it not listed in TAGGS that I can see (I tried the EIN#)?
Roughly translated, they paid themselves $100K (which is “Expenses”) to sponsor two marriage conferences (not named). Because this is not a major amount, who is about to look it up, or go request the information? But multiply this by how many such organizations are lining up to do exactly the same thing, and there goes our social services funding, nationwide, poured down the gullet of religious tax evaders and delinquent filers.
Garcia-Tooker LLC DID exist, possibly in order to shift money to or from Above the Line . . . and/or AMFM (the 2005forward version). While I think Rev. Craig Kuehn of El Dorado Healthy Marriage (duration, one tax filing in 2006) simply wasn’t up to the corporate filings (he’s a Rev!) — this looks like more deliberate planning to move names and money around — and less honest.
I looked this up. From what I can tell, “GARCIA-TOOKER LLC” (these two) INCORPORATED in JAN. 2004. One month later they changed their name to “ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & MARRIAGE MINISTRIES, LLC.” (may load microfilm image)…. In other words, by the time they’d published their incorporation, it was under a different name. 8 months later an agent resigned:
THIS LINKS TO THE GRAPHICS OF “ABOVE THE LINE” — what they are selling: “http://marriagehelpcenters.com” (see “Dr. Phil” connection).
Their lnks are familiar by now — and some we know federally funded: (photo is “Ron & Tina Konkin”)

Throughout the years that we’ve been providing our seminar and bootcamp services, we’ve aligned ourselves with many organizations and partners who share our commitment to helping people just like you. The following are just some of our affiliations, partnerships, and camaraderie.
- Dr. Phil McGraw
- Marriage Boot Camp
- Smart Marriages (Diane Sollee, goes way back)
- Because Of Me
- California Healthy Marriages Coalition (good luck tracking this one, but one of the staff members IS a Moonie// link not active)
- First Things First (out of TN, and a definite HHS/ACF grantee collaborating with other such grantees to get those TANF funds….)
- Beyond Affairs Network
- Dimensional Journey
- Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (the Garcia’s from Arizona I’m trying to trace, click to get “Page not found.”)
Among other things being sold is an “Exclusive Couples Retreat” (only $4,995) where one can learn to play games designed by Dr. Phil….Intensive Relationship Boot Camp is only $1,225. . (not including hotel, ca $109 group rate). . . . Don’t miss two upcoming in California . . . . .
GUIDESTAR regarding “Above the Line, Inc.,” a red-font alert to left of the listing, writes: “This organization does not appear in the IRS’s most recent list of tax-exempt organizations. IRS records do not, however, indicate that the organization’s tax-exempt status has been revoked. Contact the organization for more information.”
THERE”S MORE TO THIS MAZE:
Apparently, Patty Howell (of “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS as incorporated in 2005) noticed that the “California Healthy Marriage” name was vacant, and registered as the owner of what is now a Fictitious Business name. Or, they were working together, and notified each other, I don’t know. I would never have found this without having gotten irritated enough to continue looking at the county level, where this is registered:
|
San Diego “Fictitious Business” registration shows 3 trademarks of this group:
But they want to sell me further details (forget it!)
Notice that the “Coalition” is the “OWNER NAME.” However, I happen to know that in the OAG site, it has a different name. SEarching that, I found (notice dates),
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Carolyn Curtis
Executive Director and Founder, Healthy Marriage Project
- Sacramento, California Area
- Nonprofit Organization Management
- Current
-
- Executive Director at Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Marriage Project)
- Past
-
- Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice
- Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice in Psychotherapy (Self-employed)
- Education
-
- Alliant University
- California State University-Sacramento
- University of California, Davis
- Connections
-
437 connections
- Websites
In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages. Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California (from http://www.camarriage.com/about/index.ashx?nv=3)
Today Was A Very Special Day In California
Bento Leal
November 30, 2001Today was a very special day in California:
Tonight (Thursday, Nov. 29) 800 people heard True Mother speak at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Oakland, CA.
Program: Delicious dinner, songs by the Redeemed Convicts for Christ, then Rev. Jenkins greeted everyone, later he introduced Arhbishop Stallings who gave an uplifting introduction of True Mother, who read her speech with warmth and grace. Afterwards flowers and plaques were given to Mother. Mother then presented 3 of the gold watches to leading ministers and she also presented 8 framed Ambassador for Peace certificates to selected leaders. The program went very well and the audience was very appreciative of the entire event. Afterward, there was a lively victory celebration with hookup to True Father at East Garden for singing and testimony.
Earlier in the day was an afternoon ILC that featured 70 people (40 guests and 30 UC members). Several Ambassadors for Peace attended the ILC. Northern California has awarded 90 Ambassadors for Peace representing clergy, educators, community organization leaders, journalists, and others. Dr. Frank Kaufman presented the IIFWP material very eloquently and professionally and was followed by Imam Qasmi of the Muslim community of Sacramento who strongly praised TPs for their work to promote strong marriages and families, and bring unity among the faiths. Though he is fasting for Ramadan, he drove the 2 hours from Sacramento just to present his 15 minute talk to our group. He immediately drove back to officiate services in his mosque.
We then had a presentation by our local WFWP chairwoman. After the break, a sister read the HDH material on Marriage for our AFC session, which was followed by Rev. Lawrence Van Hook speaking strongly about the importance of a God-centered marriage.
One special feature of the day was a visit by Archbishop Stallings and a few of us with Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland. We presented him with a nicely framed Ambassador for Peace certificate in his office. He was impressed with our work and has fond memories of working with us over the years. He asked us to help him with tutors for struggling students in a military academy for 7th graders that he set up in Oakland. We said that we would help him.
Archbishop Stallings was also able to bring Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland. Rev. Smith is a foremost leader among the clergy in Oakland. This was the first time he had attended a speech with TPs, {{TRUE PARENTS, get it?}} so this was a HUGE breakthrough. Mother presented him with a watch for all of the wonderful work he is doing for the city of Oakland. The door is now open for us to work more closely with him.
CHMC site describes Bento Leal’s background including working with a different set of federal grants in SF: HERE IT IS:
Bento Leal
Implementation Specialist
Bento@CaMarriage.com
510.333.3478Bento has worked in the field of marriage- and family-strengthening for the past 20 years. Before joining CHMC staff, he worked with Federal grants in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area to provide life skills mentoring to ex-offenders and to help build family-strengthening capacity of small or emerging faith-based and community organizations. Bento is a trainer in several Marriage Education curricula, including Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML). Bento’s primary assignments with CHMC are to teach MML leadership workshops and provide technical assistance to newly-trained MML facilitators so they are successful in organizing and conducting MML classes. Bento and his wife, Kimiko, have been married for 25 years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Related Documents |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Prerequisite Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IRS Return Data | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION
1045 PASSIFLORA AVE. ENCINITAS CA 92024
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
April 5, 2010
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2629035 | 11/08/2004 | SUSPENDED | CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE | CHRIS GRIER |
| C2896098 | 06/01/2006 | ACTIVE | FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION | ROBYN L ESRAELIAN |
| C2271911 | 03/07/2001 | DISSOLVED | HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION | ELIZABETH LEHRER |
| C2884897 | 06/23/2006 | SUSPENDED | NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | DENNIS J STOICA |
| C2884898 | 06/23/2006 | SUSPENDED | ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION | DENNIS J STOICA |
| C2955473 | 10/04/2006 | SUSPENDED | RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. | LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. |
| C2650745 | 05/12/2004 | ACTIVE | SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | CAROLYN RICH CURTIS |
| C3210304 | 05/29/2009 | ACTIVE | SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | REGINA GLASPIE |
| C2860238 | 03/02/2006 | ACTIVE | STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION | JAMES CARLETON STEWARD |
| C3013354 | 08/13/2007 | ACTIVE | YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | WILLIAM F JENS |
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3073670 | 01/16/2008 | SUSPENDED | CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. | LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. |
| C2746528 | 05/13/2005 | ACTIVE | HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA | PATTY HOWELL |
| C2790720 | 06/09/2006 | ACTIVE | OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS | DARRYL HARRISON |
| C2494811 | 01/06/2003 | DISSOLVED | THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. | TAMARA ILICH |
| Entity Name: | HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Number: | C2746528 |
| Date Filed: | 05/13/2005 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | (SAME AS ABOVE) |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | LEUCADIA CA 92024 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | PATTY HOWELL |
| Agent Address: | 1045 PASSIFLORA AVE |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | LEUCADIA CA 92024 |
Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 53211
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0043 | CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 1,779,393 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,779,393 | |||||
Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0005 | SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 799,999 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,999 | |||||
Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
Recipient ZIP Code: 79930
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0045 | HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,945 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,945 | |||||
Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45405
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0046 | MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 2,500,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 2,500,000 | |||||
{{NOTE: I look at this one below, simply because $2.5 million is a definite vote of confidence from HHS. For the record, the total HHS grants recorded for this group show as: $17 million. It’s pulling in Abstinence Funding, and is the lead agency in the multi-county “Marriage Works!” above. Something tells me our HHS doesn’t want too much fertility among the TANF recipients; it will starve them out I guess by diverting funds into
get-rich-quick grants on anyone producing abstinence is best curricula.}}
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER | DAYTON | OH | 45405 | MONTGOMERY | 101653447 | $ 17,272,584 |
Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0048 | CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 1,070,834 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,070,834 | |||||
Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0047 | TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 1,163,684 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,163,684 | |||||
Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0009 | COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 725,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 725,000 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
Recipient ZIP Code: 77006
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0017 | HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 698,102 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 698,102 | |||||
Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0027 | STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 1,780,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,780,000 | |||||
Recipient: Future Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0013 | REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 685,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 685,000 | |||||
Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 22182
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0024 | FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,599 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,599 | |||||
Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0020 | JUST THE FACTS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 681,956 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 681,956 | |||||
Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0049 | STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 535,082 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 535,082 | |||||
Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 97220
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0015 | REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 492,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 492,000 | |||||
Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0061 | PROJECT JUNTOS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,000 | |||||
Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 72761
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0023 | HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 724,428 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 724,428 | |||||
Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0060 | HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 799,993 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,993 | |||||
Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 96819
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0012 | KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 798,752 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 798,752 | |||||
Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0050 | KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 799,999 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,999 | |||||
Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0004 | THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 798,380 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 798,380 | |||||
Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 40066
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0036 | MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 344,904 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 344,904 | |||||
Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 60187-4579
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0051 | MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 2,500,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 2,500,000 | |||||
Recipient: Mission West Virginia, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 25526
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0052 | N/A | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-28-2011 | $ 683,935 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 683,935 | |||||
Recipient: More Than Conquerors Inc
Recipient ZIP Code: 300835318
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0053 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 798,798 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 798,798 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS
Recipient ZIP Code: 90746
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0055 | NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 685,308 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 685,308 | |||||
Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 88003
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0037 | NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-28-2011 | $ 799,999 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,999 | |||||
Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 97213-2933
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0002 | GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 1,395,000 |
| 2011 | 90FM0002 | GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-28-2011 | $ 0 |
| Award Actions Count: 2 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 1,395,000 | |||||
Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 73125
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0032 | THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 776,304 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 776,304 | |||||
Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE
Recipient ZIP Code: 44087-1654
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0056 | MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 798,054 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 798,054 | |||||
Recipient: PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 10023
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0025 | PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 618,768 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 618,768 | |||||
Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 32216-6241
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0033 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 672,703 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 672,703 | |||||
Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 73116-7909
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0026 | FAMILY EXPECTATIONS | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 2,500,000 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 2,500,000 | |||||
Recipient: Parenting Center (The)
Recipient ZIP Code: 76107
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0031 | EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 797,093 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 797,093 | |||||
Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 33157-5372
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0028 | RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-27-2011 | $ 799,230 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 799,230 | |||||
Recipient: STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recipient ZIP Code: 39759-2803
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0035 | BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 699,874 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 699,874 | |||||
Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project
Recipient ZIP Code: 95821
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | CFDA Number | Agency | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90FM0059 | FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM | 1 | 93.086 | ACF | 09-26-2011 | $ 798,825 |
| Award Actions Count: 1 | Award Actions Subtotal: | $ 798,825 | |||||
| Page Award Actions Count: 50 | Award Actions Amount for this Page: | $ 48,511,440 | |||||
| Total of 70 Award Actions for 60 Awards | Total Amount for all Award Actions: | $ 60,296,527 | |||||
(NEXT PAGE of the SAME SERIES):
Unfortunately, the next page will not display on this simple search allowing me to find the remaining 10 grantees. I managed to get 68 awards to show
under “Advanced Search,” keying in nothing but the same “90FM” under awards — and got basically the rest, but without the HTML links. Here are those 68, and I’ll highlight where the above listing. I”m glad I did — because notice that the Principal INvestigator field has a strange showing, i.e., someone possibly didn’t type in the {Principal Investigator’s) last name — but the first name twice, meaning if you searched the database by that field, you’d miss the Public Strategies, Inc. $2.5 million (new) grant, and several others. There is a LOT of this type of inexplicable typo or other screwup activity (like failing to enter a DUNS# where there is one) in TAGGS, sometimes I wonder why:
Note that “DIBBLE FUND” here shows up alpha under “The” (such a database, eh?) towards the end. I am going to publish this post, and take a personal Time Out” to cool off, after having learned more than the public was intended to know about, for example, the California Healthy Marriages Act” and how it’s apparently gone through a few incorporations and name changes. Or how there is one person on three of the grantees’ boards below, and the website (she) is listed as “founding” is under about a fourth business name ,not shown below and whose corporation status, trademark registration, or listing of “we changed the company name” I haven’t caught up with. One address (including suite#) seems to match two of the organizations below. Notice also that the Colorado-based “WAIT Training” (near bottom of the list) — which appears to be its legitimate corporate name, although its website claims to have said the “new” name is Center for Relationship Education (but no namechange was filed) shows up under the ACF/HHS listing of “2011 grantees” not under “WAIT training” but instead under “Center for Relationship Education.”
All in all, it seems that many obstacles are in place to non-federal grantee recipients, like a person actually just wanting to know!, in tracking single organizations.
I have already mocked the grandiose schemes and language of both this California Healthy Marriage Coalition (and warned us about it) before, along with the Dibble Fund, whose goal is to educate EVERYONE over the age of 14 who has, may have, or is in some other way potentially fertile male or female — existed in the State of California, and educate them (at public expense) on marriage. Search “Leucadia” on my blog to find it.
They are connected at the hip with WAIT Training (or at least Joneen MacKenzie) which is basically a religious — VERY religious — abstinence education group out of Colorado. And a brand-new association (that they’re advertising) called “NARME” which I looked up, it’s in Tallahassee, Florida, and on the board are some of the groups below. I’m getting tired of all this nonsense, as well as alarmed at what appears to be overt tolerance of federal grantees that form shell front groups, take the money, and either pull a chameleon or simply disappear (and I have one of those to show, also — not on this list, because they disappeared back in 2006).
///
ADVANCED SEARCH RESULTS
|
Results 1 to 68 of 68 matches.
|
![]() |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
1 |
| Grantee Name | State | County | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| AUBURN UNIVERSITY | AL | LEE | 90FM0006 | ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) | 1 | NEW | FRANCESCA M FRANCESCA | $ 2,489,548 |
| AVANCE, INC | TX | HARRIS | 90FM0041 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS | 1 | NEW | MARTHA MARTHA | $ 799,999 |
| Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages | TX | DALLAS | 90FM0018 | ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. | 1 | NEW | COSETTE COSETTE | $ 1,514,359 |
| Arizona Youth Partnership | AZ | PIMA | 90FM0030 | BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. | 1 | NEW | DANIEL DANIEL | $ 634,536 |
| BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER | OH | HAMILTON | 90FM0029 | BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS | 1 | NEW | NATHANIEL NATHANIEL | $ 799,999 |
| BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES | MI | KENT | 90FM0011 | BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) | 1 | NEW | NONYEM A NONYEM | $ 799,996 |
| CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | CA | LOS ANGELES | 90FM0034 | MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT | 1 | NEW | KIMTHAI KIMTHAI | $ 570,000 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES | KS | SEDGWICK | 90FM0042 | PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY | 1 | NEW | MARTHA L MARTHA | $ 1,445,587 |
| CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON | NJ | MERCER | 90FM0016 | EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE | 1 | NEW | RONALD RONALD | $ 555,300 |
| CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY | PA | CLEARFIELD | 90FM0003 | HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) | 1 | NEW | BONNIE BONNIE | $ 354,714 |
| COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY | PA | BERKS | 90FM0044 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | NEW | CHERYL CHERYL | $ 787,665 |
| CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER | AZ | MARICOPA | 90FM0021 | TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ | 1 | NEW | GUILLE GUILLE | $ 359,796 |
| California Healthy Marriages Coalition | CA | SAN DIEGO | 90FM0019 | CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | NEW | PATTY PATTY{{probably Patty Howell”}} | $ 2,500,000 |
| Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc. | WI | MILWAUKEE | 90FM0043 | CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED | 1 | NEW | JEANETTE JEANETTE | $ 1,779,393 |
| Community Marriage Builders, Inc. | IN | VANDERBURGH | 90FM0005 | SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. | 1 | NEW | JOHN JOHN | $ 799,999 |
| EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN | TX | EL PASO | 90FM0045 | HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT | 1 | NEW | LEONARD LEONARD | $ 799,945 |
| ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER{{Abortion Alternatives}}** | OH | MONTGOMERY | 90FM0046 | MARRIAGE WORKS!OHIO COLLABORATIVE{{known fatherhood collaboration: see below | 1 | NEW | GREG GREG | $ 2,500,000 |
| FIRST THINGS FIRST | TN | HAMILTON | 90FM0048 | CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY | 1 | NEW | DEBORAH DEBORAH | $ 1,070,834 |
| Family Guidance, Inc.{{evangelistic– see 10/9/2011 post}} | PA | ALLEGHENY | 90FM0047 | TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH**PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION(**LLP formed in 2009 to do this) | 1 | NEW | ROBERT L ROBERT | $ 1,163,684 |
| Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. | NC | WAKE | 90FM0009 | COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. | 1 | NEW | KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY | $ 725,000 |
| Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County | TX | HARRIS | 90FM0017 | HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT | 1 | NEW | TIM TIM | $ 698,102 |
| Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center | IN | MARION | 90FM0027 | STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS | 1 | NEW | ROBERT ROBERT | $ 1,780,000 |
| Future Foundation | GA | FULTON | 90FM0013 | REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS | 1 | NEW | QAADIRAH QAADIRAH | $ 685,000 |
| GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES | VA | FAIRFAX | 90FM0024 | FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS | 1 | NEW | LAURA A LAURA | $ 799,599 |
| Healthy You, Inc. | AL | HOUSTON | 90FM0020 | JUST THE FACTS | 1 | NEW | MARY A MARY | $ 681,956 |
| High Country Consulting LLC | WY | LARAMIE | 90FM0049 | STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY | 1 | NEW | KATHLEEN KATHLEEN | $ 535,082 |
| IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION | OR | MULTNOMAH | 90FM0015 | REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT | 1 | NEW | LEE P LEE | $ 492,000 |
| Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | CA | IMPERIAL | 90FM0061 | PROJECT JUNTOS | 1 | NEW | MARY MARY | $ 799,000 |
| JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY | AR | BENTON | 90FM0023 | HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE | 1 | NEW | APRIL APRIL | $ 724,428 |
| Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, | FL | SARASOTA | 90FM0060 | HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN | 1 | NEW | ROSE ROSE | $ 799,993 |
| KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC. | HI | HONOLULU | 90FM0012 | KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES | 1 | NEW | MOMI MOMI | $ 798,752 |
| Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. | KY | MADISON | 90FM0050 | KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | NEW | VICKI VICKI | $ 799,999 |
| MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY | OH | CLARK | 90FM0004 | THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. | 1 | NEW | RONDA M RONDA | $ 798,380 |
| MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC | KY | SHELBY | 90FM0036 | MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM | 1 | NEW | PAT PAT | $ 344,904 |
| Meier Clinics Foundation | IL | DU PAGE | 90FM0051 | MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE | 1 | NEW | NANCY NANCY | $ 2,500,000 |
| Mission West Virginia, Inc. | WV | PUTNAM | 90FM0052 | N/A | 1 | NEW | TORRI TORRI | $ 683,935 |
| More Than Conquerors Inc | GA | DE KALB | 90FM0053 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS | 1 | NEW | PHILLIPIA PHILLIPIA | $ 798,798 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MN | ANOKA | 90FM0001 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | NEW | MICHAEL L BENJAMIN | $ 899,694 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MN | ANOKA | 90FM0001 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | 2 | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | MICHAEL L BENJAMIN | $ 200,000 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MN | ANOKA | 90FM0001 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | 2 | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MICHAEL L BENJAMIN | $- 962,992 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MN | ANOKA | 90FM0001 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | 2 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MICHAEL L BENJAMIN | $ 699,755 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MN | ANOKA | 90FM0001 | SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH | 2 | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | MICHAEL L BENJAMIN | $ 450,000 |
| NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS | CA | LOS ANGELES | 90FM0055 | NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | NEW | JUNE JUNE | $ 685,308 |
| NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY | NM | DONA ANA | 90FM0037 | NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT | 1 | NEW | ESTHER ESTHER | $ 799,999 |
| NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES | OR | MULTNOMAH | 90FM0002 | GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. | 1 | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ROSE ROSE | $ 0 |
| NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES | OR | MULTNOMAH | 90FM0002 | GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. | 1 | NEW | ROSE ROSE | $ 1,395,000 |
| OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | OK | OKLAHOMA | 90FM0032 | THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS | 1 | NEW | MARY JO MARY JO | $ 776,304 |
| OPERATION KEEPSAKE | OH | SUMMIT | 90FM0056 | MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS | 1 | NEW | PEGGY S PEGGY | $ 798,054 |
| PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC | NY | NEW YORK | 90FM0025 | PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS | 1 | NEW | NAOMI NAOMI | $ 618,768 |
| PROJECT S.O.S., INC. | FL | DUVAL | 90FM0033 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS | 1 | NEW | PAM PAM | $ 672,703 |
| PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC | OK | OKLAHOMA | 90FM0026 | FAMILY EXPECTATIONS | 1 | NEW | SAMMYE SAMMYE | $ 2,500,000 |
| Parenting Center (The) | TX | TARRANT | 90FM0031 | EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT | 1 | NEW | JENNIFER JENNIFER | $ 797,093 |
| RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC. | FL | 90FM0028 | RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. | 1 | NEW | JACQUELINE JACQUELINE | $ 799,230 | |
| STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT | MS | OKTIBBEHA | 90FM0035 | BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES | 1 | NEW | JOAN JOAN | $ 699,874 |
| Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | CA | SACRAMENTO | 90FM0059 | FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM | 1 | NEW | CAROLYN CAROLYN | $ 798,825 |
| Scholarship and Guidance Association | IL | COOK | 90FM0038 | FAMILY LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM | 1 | NEW | MARTHA MARTHA | $ 794,180 |
| Shalom Task Force | NY | NEW YORK | 90FM0008 | COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN NYC AREA | 1 | NEW | DANIEL DANIEL | $ 541,633 |
| TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS | TX | HAYS | 90FM0007 | STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS/STRENGTHENING FAMILIES (SR/SF) | 1 | NEW | W. SCOTT W. SCOTT | $ 617,280 |
| TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY | TX | LUBBOCK | 90FM0002 | NATIONAL HEALTHLY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | NEW | JAMES D MITCHELL | $ 512,993 |
| THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | CA | ALAMEDA | 90FM0010 | BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES | 1 | NEW | CATHERINE M CATHERINE | $ 794,846 |
| TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES | OH | LUCAS | 90FM0040 | KEEPING IT TOGETHER | 1 | NEW | DONNA DONNA | $ 799,999 |
| UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES | NY | BRONX | 90FM0057 | UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES MARRIAGE & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAM | 1 | NEW | SCOTT SCOTT | $ 799,999 |
| UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA | FL | ORANGE | 90FM0039 | PROJECT TOGETHER | 1 | NEW | ANDREW ANDREW | $ 2,184,508 |
| UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE | TN | KNOX | 90FM0022 | RELATIONSHIP RX: INTEGRATING A COUPLES INTERVENTION PROGRAM INTO A PRIMARY CARE SETTING | 1 | NEW | DEBBIE DEBBIE | $ 723,508 |
| UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY | UT | CACHE | 90FM0001 | SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH | 1 | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | BRAIN J BRAIN | $ 0 |
| UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY | UT | CACHE | 90FM0001 | SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH | 1 | NEW | BRAIN J BRAIN | $ 785,612 |
| WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | 90FM0054 | THE COLORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT | 1 | NEW | JONEEN JONEEN | $ 1,605,705 |
| YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC | OK | CANADIAN | 90FM0058 | SAFE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH | 1 | NEW | TRACY TRACY | $ 338,367 |
**”Elizabeth’s New Life Center has a logo: the Elizabeth in question was the mother of John the Baptist, (per Bible), the cousin of Jesus and prophet heralding his coming. Another overtly Christian group, million$$ grant. This one looks pretty Roman Catholic….

In 1989, Steve and Vivian Koob, along with their church, founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center (ENLC) as a compassionate response and option to the abortion clinic operating in their neighborhood. ENLC opened its first office in the Five Oaks neighborhood of the city of Dayton to serve pregnant women facing unexpected pregnancies.
I am glad that Steve and Vivian Koob founded an organization to follow their vision (I suppose). However, according to the State of Ohio, it was founded as a nonprofit, at least, in 1992, not 1989. The evidence is here: (because of “paste” function, business name doesn’t display. LINK to search is here; remember to include the “S” in “ELIZABETHS”) [Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State Business Name Search]
ELIZABETH’s NEW LIFE CENTER BUSINESS FILING — see dates. |
In 1994, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased a vacant building beside the abortion clinic and renovated it into a women’s center with medical capabilities. The following year ENLC opened its first Mother and Baby Boutique to provide needy clients with material assistance to establish family life, and in 1999 began providing abstinence education services to schools in an effort to expand efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.
Not mentioned: Abstinence education not proven to reduce teen pregnancies, in fact it’s been an abysmal failure from what I hear.
About that same time, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased and renovated a medical building on Forest Avenue in front of Grandview Hospital’s emergency room. That facility currently houses administrative offices, Women’s Center-Dayton, Holy Family Prenatal Care, classrooms, a nutrition center, and a chapel accessible to both clients and staff.
ENLC continued its growth as the youth development department was awarded highly competitive federal grants to provide abstinence education to area schools in 2002, 2005, and 2008. In 2006, Elizabeth’s New Life Center also was awarded one of the largest federal healthy marriage demonstration grants in the country to establish Marriage Works! Ohio and offer marriage education across Southwestern Ohio.
COngress shall make no law establishing a religion. They don’t have to any more. All that’s needed is to fund corporations that did. No Thank You, George Bush!)
“Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”
The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued two executive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.”[1]
Government by Executive Order, it’s definitely problemmatic. We’re in it.
I should get this ebook, published 2008, in anticipation of Presidential Election: The Court and the Cross, by Frederick Lane
Today Elizabeth’s New Life Center operates from six women’s centers, three in Dayton and ones in Warren, Hamilton, and Shelby counties. The Dayton boutique (??) continues to operate from the Five Oaks building, and Marriage Works! Ohio operates from a facility on Main Street in Dayton.
TO CLARIFY MY POSITION: My viewpoint on abortion changed considerably after (1) I became a mother, and (2) I had to deal with a jealous relative who’d opted for abortion, then went after my kids. Before then I was far more liberal and neutral. However I STILL do not think we should allow religious groups to take government funding for abstinence education. Then again I don’t think the Federal Government should be in so deep into education either– first of all, because their model is antiquated and based on authoritarianism and designed to slow down children from learning, and to keep the lower castes in place. YES, I believe that. A lot more arts (etc.) education would go further to dealing with literacy and math (not to mention probably violence) issues in the schools, but as fate? would have it, the opposite approach is taken. I see the schools as a caste-sorter, by economics and race, and so do statistics. Be that as it may, this organization has prospered because of then-President George Bush, and his decision to break down church/state.
This organization has several trade names, had a merger or so, and the original incorporator (registered agent) was from a law firm out of “10 Courthouse Plaza” in Dayton. I can’t upload the articles of incorporation (at this point). And I don’t see they are filing in my 990-finder, an E perhaps TAGGS will give me a nice DUNS#, but usually duns# only show on TAGGS if you can search by EIN, which I (haven’t found yet). THey are most definitely soliciting donations on the web. The board of 12 has 3 women on it (only) one of who is the Warren County (OH) Prosecutor Another board member is the County Auditor.
Vivian Koob (one of the two founders) has a bio also showing a connection with State Government (and pro-life activism):
Vivian Koob
Executive DirectorVivian Koob founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center with her husband Steve in 1989. Vivian holds a Master of Education degree as well as a Master in Rehabilitative Counseling. Before founding Elizabeth’s New Life Center she taught high school and spent 12 years working for the State of Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. She also spent years as a stay-at-home mom for her large family of natural, adopted and foster children. The Koobs’ blended family includes 12 living children and 16 grandchildren.
One of their programs listed, “Marriage Works!” (a trade name of this group, its Ohio SOS records say) includes “FE grants,” i.e. clear Fatherhood emphasis:
|
Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FE0035. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Participation in all Marriage Works! Ohio programs is voluntary.
View Our Privacy Notice |
While MARRIAGE WORKS! is a collaboration, This ELIZABETH NEW LIFE center is the “Lead Agency,” according to the website, which is soliciting donations. WHO HOLDS THE EIN#?

Marriage Works! Ohio is a collaborative effort of diverse organizations united to help build healthy families and healthy communities throughout the Miami Valley of Ohio by providing marriage and relationship education for couples.
SIX Counties are involved in “Marriage Works!” Among the other agencies is a “Family Violence Prevention Center.”
I experienced the religious-based marriage counseling as a response to domestic violence in the home (long ago). I assure the general public (speaking for at least my Northern California urban area), the religious groups are not one iota better addressed to handle DV (or interested in doing so if it’s going to reduce warm bodies in the pews, or tithes by evicting a batterer) than they were last decade. Nor do the religious leaders seem any more inclined to treat it as a reportable crime which it is (and child abuse absolutely is for pastors). So here is what to the outsider looks like a “Family Violence Prevention Center.” and when a person comes in, she will be receiving services provided by a lead agency pro-life Catholic group, whose web and public presence has been funded by fatherhood education. I notice that this FVPC also leads to a “DIVERT” Violence program.

The focus will be on family preservation through treatment, and stopping battering through training the batterer. People get killed that way, but this is how the field of DV has been altered (a sea-change) to accommodate the Marriage/Fatherhood agenda. And as I will be showing NEXT post, the groups doing this are many times chronically dishonest, and sometimes crooks, when characterizing WHO THEY ARE as an organization.
- DIVERT: Xenia and County DIVERT crisis response in collaborative partnerships with law enforcement jurisdictions throughout Greene County to offer home and community based services to families experiencing domestic disputes or domestic violence
Jackie Weckesser, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 26
Jennifer Henderson, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 27- Domestic Violence Intervention Program: (DVIP) , therapeutic and educational group counseling for batterers working to prevent future cycles of violence. Fee for service
Cherie Dixon, DV Intervention Counselor, 937-376-8526 ext. 31
At the bottom of this “DIVERT” page are the links showing possibly origins or technical support in setting up the web. I notice NCADV is one. Upcoming post on them, too:
Privacy Policy | Donate | Contact | Apply for a Job | Apply to Volunteer
NCADV.org | NRCDV.org | NDVH.org | ODVN.org
This brochure shows how one organization, when it added considerable funding, became more and more entrenched in the County Government, got a spanking new building in 2000, named after the donor (what takes place in it, who knows) and probably have not YET told any women coming for help, or totally traumatized that in the same approximate year, the Ohio Legislature created a “Fatherhood Commission” and required that it targeted counties with a lot of single-mother households (probably to get access to the TANF funds that go with them).
It began as a shelter, before VAWA and probably many laws against domestic violence had even been passed.
The Greene County Domestic Violence Project began as a two-bedroom apartment in Yellow Springs in 1979 as a project of the Greene County Welfare Department. In 1980, the agency incorporated as a private, not for profit corporation and the shelter moved to its first house in Xenia, which had one staff and several students. The project relocated twice more until 1984 when it settled into its long-term site in a large Victorian House in the Water Street District of Xenia where it remained until 2001.
It morphed into a mental health agency and a new facility:
And, in 1995 the Xenia Police Division and GCDVP collaborated to form a nationally recognized program entitled DIVERT that partners law enforcement with domestic violence crisis workers for home based follow-up. Today, DIVERT services are being made available throughout Greene County and the agency has been able to operate satellite educational programs in Fairborn.
Violence Free Futures….
In 1997 the agency began to set a goal to secure a new facility and requested the help of the community. Seventeen community leaders formed the Shelter Facility Task Force and began to search for a site for the new facility. The Board decided to mortgage the aging property and invest the loan to begin a capital campaign which would require that the agency hire a Development Officer. The Shelter Facility Task force located a potential site, the Xenia Grace Chapel which was up for sale
(“Violence-Free Futures” is echoes of the wording from one of the major resource centers, formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund, now “Futures without Violence.” As such, it focuses on prevention through education [[which has NOT been shown to work]] — which of course it will help provide.)
(reading this brochure, and recognizing what it represents, I am feeling a little sick….)
Or that there was an Ohio Task Force on “Changing the Culture of Custody” which was basically AFCC-central, and even flew membership out to Arizona to take input from such membership, including prominent “Parental Alienation” promoter (and published author marketing books through the courts also), Philip Stahl Ph.D.
It was named after one of the County Commissioners, in fact the President of the County Commissioners:
The Greene County Commissioners The Hon. Kathryn K. Hagler, Pres. 61 Greene Street Xenia, Ohio 45385 (name at bottom of link having been served of a certain notice on a civic project):
Hon. Hagler has been involved with the Governor’s Child Support Task Force. As Child Support — at this point — has been re-tooled and adjusted to accommodate “Fatherhood” (see Clinton 1995 Executive Memo, etc.) — and child support offices throughout the nation, it seems (Indiana comes esp. to mind) to solicit participation in fatherhood programs (see above grantees) under — extortion, at times — in exchange for participating in prolonged custody battles they may not even want — etc. – – – – – This would seem to me a mild conflict of interest, at a minimum.
Here’s the blurb on the woman the building is named after:

Kathryn K. Hagler began her 19th year (third year of a fifth term) as a Greene County Commissioner with the start of the year 2001. Prior to her service to Greene County, Mrs. Hagler was a school teacher for 35 years. In 1982, she began a new phase in her life when she became Greene County’s first female County Commissioner. During her time as a Commissioner, Mrs. Hagler helped initiate a program in which retired teachers volunteer their time to assist Greene County jail inmates work toward their general (high school) equivalency diplomas. Awards and recognitions Mrs. Hagler has received include: the Paula J. Macilwaine Award (for her GED program), the Ervin J. Nutter Award (for her service to the community), the Senior Citizen of the Year Award from the Golden Age Senior Citizens Center, and recognition from the Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and the Women’s Hall of Fame. Over the years she has been involved with Greene County United Way, American Business Women’s Association, the Governor’s Child Support Task Force, the Altrusa Club, and Greene County Domestic Violence. Mrs. Hagler is very committed to families and children of domestic violence. Because of that commitment, Mrs. Hagler and her family were the largest donors to the capital campaign for victims of domestic violence. On June 1, 2000, the Greene County Domestic Violence Project named their new facility after Mrs. Hagler for her commitment. The Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Prevention Center is scheduled to officially open on June 12, 2001.
Fathers and Families is very active in Ohio, it says here, and rejoices about advances it has won in the Child Support arena. The article following this one rejoices at a nonpaying mother being thrown in jail for nonpayment, as it encourages the opposite for fathers:
F & F’s Hubin Praises Ohio Child Support Changes in Columbus Dispatch
Monday, September 26th, 2011 by FAF Staff
Donald Hubin, Ph.D., Chairman of Fathers and Families of Ohio’s Executive Committee, was quoted in Child- support changes arrive: New provisions give struggling parents leniency(9/25/11) in the Columbus Dispatch, a 200,000 circulation newspaper in Ohio’s capital.
Under the new Ohio policies, for which Fathers and Families has advocated and supports, child support enforcement agencies will not be able to seize the driver’s licenses or professional licenses of any obligors who are paying at least half of their child support obligations. Given the terrible economy, and the fact that many obligors’ obligations are not being modified downward to accommodate for their lower wages and/or job losses, this is an important measure.
Kimberly C. Newsom, executive director of the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agencies Directors’ Association, (OCDA) said the laws have been flexible and enforcement efforts have changed as the sinking economy made it harder for many parents to pay support.
“As Ohio started going into an economic recession, counties weren’t suspending licenses as much. They were working with parents and trying to assist them with employment or getting them into work programs to try and get them employed,” Newsom said.
In Franklin County, parents are often referred to job training or co-parenting classes, said Susan Brown, director of the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency.
I’ll bet they ARE being referred to co-parenting classes which will definitely help feed hungry children and increase the income in whoever is raising them. (sure, yeah). I’m sure a single mother whose Dad is behind in child support would rather have a co-parenting class (mothers are solicited to attend too, you know!) than the child support. Particularly if there was domestic violence in the marriage or partnership previously. .
My Prior Post with some research on Franklin County, OPNFF, OHIO fatherhood initiative, and more of these matters (Scroll down).
Link at “Columbus Urban League” — A.A.M.I. (African-American Males Initiative) shows some of the partners and funders — and referrers to classes. This is Franklin County:
Father 2 Father
Columbus Urban League
African-American Male Initiatives
Mission
To assist men in becoming the instinctive, responsible, & nurturing fathers they desire to be. While also, educating the general public on the unique, important, & essential role that Fathers play in the development of their children.Scope of Services
Provide a classroom curriculum that develops the attitudes and skills needed for responsible fatherhood and helping men discover and cultivate their nurturing potential. Assistance with issues regarding child support, visitation, and family law matters, ultimately advocating for policy change/implementation that make these very areas more father friendly.Partners
Columbus Urban League’s (CUL) – African-American Male Initiatives (A.A.M.I.)
Columbus Urban League’s Head Start
Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OFC)
Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCSEA)
Ohio Practitioners Network of Fathers & Families (OPNFF)
Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Family & Volunteer Services)Target Audience
Class Curriculum – ‘Nurturing Father’
African-American fathers between the ages of 16-35 referred by CUL Head Start, Franklin County Child Enforcement Agency & Juvenile Court System. There will be a dual class format (One AM – One PM) on 3 month cycles. Each class will consist of 12-15 fathers giving us the ability to serve 100 fathers per calendar year.
Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Center, or No Family Violence Center — GREENE COUNTY is highly involved (and vice versa) with the “National Fatherhood Initiative” (NFI started in 1994 with a cronyism-based grant from Wade Horn before he quit HHS, like JUST before), with the Greene County Child SUpport system, and with Green County Commissioners.
Here’s a recent link to their 2011 goings-on, which was apparently prepared in part with another PR firm who has made it big by going with the Fatherhood Flow: “PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.” (see my post on PSI in Denver vs. PSI in Denver), which runs (I think) the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, in large part.
A Rapid Ethnographic Assessment of Programs & Services (REAPS)
for Fathers in Greene County, Ohio
Prepared By:
With Contributions From:
Public Strategies, Inc. Ohio State University Extension—Greene County
An Initiative of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood
April 2011
In part, it reads:
Introduction
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OCF) has partnered with National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) in 2011 to assist 12 Ohio counties mobilize around responsible fatherhood. Greene County was one of the 12 counties selected to participate in this Community Mobilization Initiative.
Of course, this is going to start out with the usual blather blaming society’s ills (by omission, by deduction) on single mother households. Not being honest enough to call it this — they call it “father absence” Women exist, as nouns, in this dialogue, implicitly, primarily as the brood mares.
Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.1
As of April 2011, and based on my reading of what these grants are doing (and how they have changed the courts) that poverty could be attributable about as much to the war on single mothers which this rhetoric has waged, as much as not having a Daddy in the home, per se. Some Daddys need to get OUT of the home, because they are violent; others refuse to work while they are living WITH their kids, preferring instead to let mothers do it. There are varieties of families and varieties of Daddy-in-the-home scenarios, as well as a huge variety of Daddy NOT in the home scenarios.
None of this centralization and collaboration (taxation WITHOUT appropriate representation, or informed public consent) accounts for OR allows the true diversity of ways there are to earn a living, raise (and educate) a child, or escape poverty WITHOUT being forced into high-stakes, high-conflict custody litigation, and paying heavily into the system that — by its own words, and I can see plainly by state on-line databases — doesn’t even account for money it takes from children, while diverting child support enforcement monies (that pesky $4 billion) away from actually distributing child support they have collected. I truly do believe that our country would be better off — ENTIRELY — without this whole agency, based on its track record.
If I as an employer had a track record that lousy, I’d definitely be fired. Instead, I was taken repeatedly out of paying jobs where my work was needed and appreciated (as a single mother) to answer frivolous lawsuits in a process where no cause of action was ever proved, let alone most of the time even alleged.
Children who grow up without their fathers are at greatest risk for child abuse. In fact, the presence of a child’s father in the home lowers the likelihood that a child will be abused. Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.9 There were 1,436 new allegations of child abuse/neglect in Greene County in 2009.1
Any allegation is OK when it comest o justifying more county-absed or state-based “interventions” in private lives. The fact is, Dads do abuse children — where in this statement is such an acknowledgment? And where, in the group of “single-parent home” where child abuse was alleged — is the separation of ten these into cases where the child abuse was by the custodial mother (or her boyfriend) — versus the child abuse and/or MURDER (after which child abuse ceases because the child is dead, sometimes along with the father/abuser) — and those where the child abuse happened on a court-ordered weekend enabled by the access/visitation (or other father-involvement) program. Although these children were “living” in single-parent homes, the abuse happened from ONE parent, and the other one complying with court orders — again, at times.
I have been talking here about a Marriage/Fatherhood County grantee — they got $2.5 million in 2011 alone — based in Warren County OHIO, who turns out to e a pro-life, Catholic-based group (adamantly so) that has targeted abortion clinics and hospitals to get their message out. IT turns out that two on the board of this organization work for Warren County, and then the Executive Director has worked for the state. I think that any group getting $2.5 million (or over $1 million) in this economic climate should not only be watched but scrutinized — because that amount indicates the Secretary of HHS and public policy has another “brainstorm” of some idea, and is throwing money behind it.
While this one appears to have stayed legitimate and above-board, many (on the list above here, the TAGGS chart) absolutely have not. We have GOT to stop this ongoing trotting out of fatherhood rhetoric to enable more grants — which are not tracked. EVERY SINGLE EIN# should be posted and public be enabled to find out whether their websites are telling the truth about an organization. FAILURE TO FILE is a red flag I can’t talk about this group yet, until I see an IRS form (even if they have been a church to start with, as an organization taking federal grants, they should have an EIN — and they really should also have a DUNS#, enabling us to look for contracts, too, and outside the HHS).
This one also appears to be heavily networked with a group that believes domestic violence can be stopped through marriage and relationship education (that’s the model). This education is often going to happen through the web, therefore once set up, it will be having a low overhead, and turn profits for someone. We deserve to know WHO, as they go about solving the problems of poor people!
For the record, then, and in light of “Elizabeth’s New Life Center” (Inc. 1992, not 1989, and having several registered trade names also) being the lead agency of “Marriage Works!” a multi-county collaborative, and every single one of their websites (almost) soliciting donations, here is who in Greene County Ohio (where a Commissioner got a building named after her, by donating so much to it), was ALSO collaborating to RAPIDLY MOBILIZE more fatherhood STUFF:
Greene County Leader Focus Group Results
The Greene County focus group on fatherhood was attended by nineteen individuals representing a diverse cross section of the community and included representatives from the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.
The following community sectors/organizations/individuals participated in the discussion (Note: some organizations had more than one representative and some people represented several sectors).
Adult Probation Anderson Williamson Insurance Child Support Children’s Service Board County Commissioner Drug & Alcohol Initiative Family and Children First Council Fairborn City Schools Greene County Career Center Greene County Combined Health District Greene County Community Foundation Greene County Fatherhood Initiative Grant Greene County Public Transit System Greene Leaf Therapeutic Community Program Juvenile Court Parent Education and Support Xenia Association of Churches & Ministries
No one representing the mothers, or custodial parents’ interests when there has been violence — was probably even aware of this meeting, much less present.
The ideas they came up with were predictable, and please note that FATHERHOOD PROGRAMMING was to be incorporated into the FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER (named after a County Commissioner). Also marriage promotion….
When asked what assets or resources existed in Greene County that could be mobilized, expanded or used to promote responsible fatherhood the following were mentioned:
24/7 Dad Breakfast for Dads Churches – particularly if they opened their gyms and facilities for activities Daddy and Me Carnival (Early Childhood Collaborative Coalition) Family Violence Prevention Center programming Graduation Reality and Dual Role Skills – Family & Consumer Science program for pregnant and parenting teens Green County College Success Program The Marriage Resource Center Money Management Classes Urban Light Ministries – InsideOut Dad and other programs, Visitation Center.
The link is here, notice that “fatherhood” is a *.gov proposition:
http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxKCPn6VuPA%3d&tabid=93
This action plan — and the meeting involving it — was straight out of the mouth of the National Fatherhood Initiative; It is a marketing plan. If you do not understand THIS GROUP (and its origins) — you do not understand why $119 million is needed for programming and how that is just to set up an infrastructure to transfer a lot MORE money from child support to programs that reduce, compromise or eliminate child support for our kids — and direct monies instead to those who support and design programs.
MARRIAGE PROMOTION = FATHERHOOD PROMOTION = USUALLY PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
EXAMPLE: PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC. (a PR Firm in Oklahoma).
I have JUST now showed you that Public Strategies is working directly with National Fatherhood Initiative to “Rapidly MObilize” more fatherhood (stuff & programs). See the “REAPS” link, the “Fatherhod.ohio.gov” link — right above here. Now, I probably know Public Strategies a little better than you do, unless you study this topic, live in Oklahoma, or work for them. You can also see them, bolded in maroon font, in the chart above, of grantees of the new “90FM” grant series to promote — what else, marriage and fatherhood.
In fact, they just got another $2.5 million, alongside Elizabeth’s New Life Center, alongside also California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which I am going to flat-out SAY I believe is a fraud (a front group), so I will now have to prove this in subsequent post).
But here is the “OKMARRIAGE.COM” link telling the origins of this Oklahoma Marriage Project (from top-down, Governor, and Department of HHS), choosing the PR Firm Public Strategies Inc. (WHY might be a very good question) and explaining an intention to bypass Commissions to Study, and passing Legislation, but through a “multi-sector” approach to (Ramrod it through). which, as you can see, they are also recommending in Ohio. When the word “mobilize” is used, the idea is obviously that an emergency exists. It is a MILITARY term, that’s what it calls to mind. The intention is to bypass the slower (but more due-process, and more public-input-wanted!) processes designed into state and federal constitutions and instead, get the thing going FAST.
Here’s what they say about their origins and how they GRABBED $10 Million of TANF funding (intended for welfare: Food stamps, cash aid, helping poor families) to set up the infrastructure to funnel more grants to anyone who was of the same belief system (as to the causes of poverty and child abuse), and away from those who didn’t, including families on welfare that probably needed the help. Moreover, the double-whammy is, money is ALSO diverted from Child Support Enforcement at times for similar purposes. Here we go:

OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE “ABOUT US“
OMI History
In 1998, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University economists produced a joint study on what Oklahoma needed to do to become a more prosperous state.
And someone probably funded that joint project. Coincidentally, in 1998, the US Congress was passing Fatherhood Resolutions (as in 1999), Welfare Reform had just happened, and nationwide a condition of receiving welfare funding to states mandated that every state create a centralized state distribution unit (SDU), or forfeit their TANF funding. TANF was the welfare reform that changed program funding to block grants to states….It figures in here. Maybe that was coincidental, but I doubt it.
National Fatherhood Initative DOES have congressional and senate contacts / “Task Forces” and has from shortly after its (1994) founding. As it says, here:
(NFI’s) TASK FORCES ON RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
Shortly after its founding, NFI formed Task Forces in the U.S. House and Senate to identify elected leaders who were supportive of the goals of the responsible fatherhood movement. 15 years later, the Task Forces continue to serve as a vehicle to mobilize support for NFI events on Capitol Hill and to generate support for legislation that impacts responsible fatherhood.
- Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood – Click to see that OK had one, “Inhofe”)
- Congressional Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood
(Back to the OMI About us Page)
Their conclusions included the usual economic analysis relating to tax issues and regulatory reform issues, as well as some surprising results. The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”
As evidence of his serious commitment to this [DIvorce leads to poverty and child abuse] issue, [Governor] Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts {{GEE — I wonder which ones! }} advised various aspects of the Initiative. This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. Instead, they decided on a multi-sector approach with both a secular track and a faith-based track. The OMI was to be a public/private partnership, guided by high-level leadership and strong operational, day-to-day management. Its major focus at this initial stage was delivering education services to the public, conducting research, and working with the faith sector to develop marriage-strengthening services.
I would have to characterize this as a State Governor (who is head of the State EXECUTIVE branch) intentionally overstepping his bounds, deliberately avoiding the legislative branch, to push through his own plan, using federal funds that WERE supplied to the state of Oklahoma through legislation. Intentionally NOT having a commission study the issues is suspect. Now read the next part carefully
Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.
FORMERLY, AFDC (pre-1996) would have made sure this was to low-income families. But the sea-change to TANF BLOCK_GRANTS TO STATES intentionally freed up the possibility of states doing more creative things with these funds. This was great if you’re into promoting marriage and fatherhood, and probably no accident. Look at who was pushing the 1996 reform, and you have a lot of answers….
Right there you can see it was not restricted to low-income population, but efforts should be made to let poor people know their option to take marriage education (etc.) classes, for their own good, of course.
I just saw on-line an advertisement for a psychologist at Public Strategies firm (Glassdoor.com) The pay was $72K.
Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today. The OMI has made sound decisions-by both policy and political standards-to build on the best [paid-for] research available, to invest in research to learn about marriage and divorce in Oklahoma, and to assess, to the extent possible, the effects of its activities and programs.
From “http://www.okmarriage.org/ProgramHighlights/MarriageProblems.asp” = the “OMI – ABOUT US page”
“PUBLIC STRATEGIES” started in 1990 (site says):
Clients are primarily HHS/ACF and other corporations. Listed under “Corporate” clients is “PREP” which is itself a company that feeds off marriage education policy. Two professors from Denver (also on the advisory board to Public Strategies) co-founded a Colorado Business to produce/sell this product, itself clearly focusing off Marriage Education grants See “PREPinc.com.” Nonprofit clients include The Dibble FUnd (itself also a corporation feeding off Healthy Marriage education policy.
about us Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members with a client base that included the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team. In a matter of years, PSI became the only firm in the United States to develop and maintain a state-run healthy marriage initiative, which has since become the longest-running and most in-depth endeavor of its kind in the country.PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C. We have a solid success record of client-centered project management and strategic planning services for a variety of clients in the public and private sectors.
Public Strategies is committed to helping organizations and individuals reach their full potential while maximizing their impact on the public good. Our clients represent the impact that PSI has had on an array of fields including education, business, faith, criminal justice, child welfare and human services.
http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2
WELL, enough for one day, eh?
////
///
Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017]
Post title with short-link (and to explain the 2011/2017 references in the title):
This long (18.7K words) post featuring among others examples in HOW TO and features from various places to check in the process of doing the lookups, the two nonprofits Kids’ Turn San Diego and Kids’ Turn (in San Francisco), both of which after being hit repeatedly in 2011 with simply talking about it, posting boards of directors (plenty of whom were judges), at some point one of them later submerged itself under another nonprofit running training classes to prevent child abuse, in a networked, proprietary-program sort of way across the country. As I recall, and referring (as I recall at the close of 2017 — which is many years ago!) but will double-check, the surviving entity it merged into — thereby “disappearing” its California OAG charitable details record, some of which I posted herein, is SFCAPC (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center or “Council”). For more details look this up at (now it’s called) BusinessSearch.SOS.Ca.Gov or “Verification” page at California OAG/RCT. ( Go to those sites for more details). California OAG search results have added an EIN# field, but are not otherwise changed in a major way; however the California Secretary of State Business Search website (formerly “kepler.sos.ca.gov”) has been radically revised in both initial level search results, and possibly in reporting requirements.
I do not claim personal — I’ll call it — “credit” for having driven one of two California-based “Kids’ Turn” 501©3s underground, but at least one of them did go underground. It may be just coincidence, BUT the possibility that maybe I did (in addition to the general public-interest purpose of calling attention to how family-court-connected, and business-referrals-taking nonprofits organize and reproduce themselves over time) provides some minor compensation in terms of a sense of making an impact in the behavior of the court cultures nationwide,but in no way compensates for the damages the process inflicted upon my family line, and the legacy for my own children which this process re-directed away from them, and towards the professionals who make their livelihoods speaking on behalf of abused women (who apparently can’t speak), noncustodial fathers (for whom “fatherhood.gov” is still not enough help to “even out” the unfair advantage women supposedly have as mothers in divorce, or the public at large in (allegedly) reducing public debt through Post-PRWORA (1996) Welfare Reform policies scapegoating single motherhood itself and pretending to take into account that one cause of “single motherhood” is abusive fathers. No, encouraging and promoting RESPONSIBLE fatherhood will handle the danger situation, with appropriate and ever-more interventions and court-order therapies/treatments for the abused and the non-abused. etc.
One of the commissioners I stood in front of post-child-stealing event, in order to negotiate how to retroactively reduce my ex-batterers child support arrears (which I’d just been told in person in the child support offices right before, could not happen), I years later learned had been on a Kids’ Turn Board of Directors. As with AFCC, it seems that the nonprofit gave everyone a shot at being listed on the board, which helps those who choose to do so, cite proudly to that community service. That ruling was no favor to our children, who pre-abduction at least had one stable, and consistently working parent (with whom they lived, namely me) although that work life was increasingly under attack once the restraining order had been stripped off and an apparently underemployed (and later admitted in court, wasn’t actively looking for work because he was “depressed” about not having a wife and supportive partner — an excuse I hardly was making at any point).
I worked on a re-formatted version of this post (under separate “cover” — title) earlier this season and am thinking it might be my charitable contribution (of a sort) for 2017. This post is entertaining, and gets into layered foundations and venture capitalists directing their grants to groups like these which don’t even bother to stay current at their state level filings.
I see in hindsight from the part of the post dealing with San Diego Foundation (Gross assets in August 2011 shown as $666M) which in 2007 formed the Carlsbad Community Foundation (which then donated several thousand dollars to Kids’ Turn San Diego), and with the various dbas under which various Kids’ Turn (either SD or SF in this case) donors operated (referring to Taproot Foundation, a dba of “TapFound, Inc.”), with its (Taproot, Inc.s) third-generation venture capitalist startup funding, that the topics covered are still relevant even though many links no longer are intact. Any more commentary from this perspective will be found on the updated, reformatted post.//LGH 12/29/2017…

Image from my 8/31/2011 post, complete with some typos and more sarcasm.
And moreover, what about all these grantor/grantee relationships with corporations that don’t seem (note disclaimer) to be even operating legally in California? While the promise is that 25 SF courthouses must be shut because of budget cuts….
And I don’t just mean Kids’ Turn / San Diego, which at least were incorporated here legally, but is now (per the databases) on suspended status, charity registrations delinquent.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1657442 | 12/29/1989 | SUSPENDED | KID’S TURN | CLAIRE BARNES |
| C1970774 | 06/05/1996 | ACTIVE | KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO | JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS |
Incorporation status suspended for the SF branch (top row), but not the San Diego (which was a spinoff nonprofit).
| Organization Name | Registration Number | Record Type | Registration Status | City | State | Registration Type | Record Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KID’S TURN | 075606 | Charity | Current | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | Charity Registration | Charity |
| KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO | 102902 | Charity | Delinquent | SAN DIEGO | CA | Charity Registration | Charity |
| 1 | |||||||
Minor note: The organization’s name is KIDS -apostrophe, so one must move the apostrophe (making it Kid, singular, apostrophe, S) to find on either database.
Also, California, unlike some other states doesn’t tell the on-line viewer WHEN the license was suspended, i.e., before or after outreach such as this:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 20, 2011:
Dateline: San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.
Yes I do believe swallowing some of this would indeed call for release from “Attachment to the facts” such as that this organization has some really strange financial liaisons.
Or, I wonder if Linda Brandes was able to claim her $10,000 donation to Kids’ Turn San Diego, as their charitable status is delinquent, still, also in 2011:
Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes gives Kids’ Turn San Diego a $10,000 grant
(Posted May 25, 2011 in the Rancho Santa Fe Review)
Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.
Linda Brandes
Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.
Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.
“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.
For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.
March 2, 2011 letter from the California Department of Justice (in file, on-line):
[From:] State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO CA 94203-4470
Telephone: (916)445-2021×5 Facsimile: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail: RRF1@doj.ca.gov
[TO:] KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 16935 W BERNARDO DR NO. 234 SAN DIEGO CA 92127
March 9, 2011
CT FILE NUMBER: 102902
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $50 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts
for: KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General
Now that they have another donation, they can afford the $50 check. I see no “our check is in the mail” response, perhaps one was sent. And another letter:
Another letter a week later, same file# (CT 102902) reminds Kids’ Turn San Diego, California needs KT to fill out (not just send partial details) their list of donors, i.e., a “Schedule B,” just like you have to file with the IRS (“oops!”). Too busy with international expansions of the programs, or is list of donors too hot to touch?
RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors
We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.
While you and I don’t get this private information (barring anything on the web), it’s nice to know someone is keeping track.
The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of
Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.
I learned this from “Don Kramer’s Nonprofit Issues” (i.e., I looked up the IRS form # footnoted on the KT San Diego letter) and learned:
Is a nonprofit required to report anonymous donors to the IRS? Several colleagues have said that it is illegal for a nonprofit to not disclose an anonymous donor to the IRS. Schedule B of the Form 990 provides a listing of major contributors but I have seen 990s that list the amounts without disclosing names.
You are both right. Nonprofits of all types, not just 501(c)(3) charities, that file a Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ tax information return are required to identify substantial donors (generally donors of $5000 or more) to the IRS on Schedule B, and must include the names and addresses of the donors. But organizations other than private foundations and Section 527 political organizations may eliminate the names and addresses of donors when they make the Schedule available for public inspection. Therefore, you are undoubtedly correct that you have seen Schedule Bs without names of donors, and your colleagues are correct that the names must have been disclosed to the IRS.
this suggests (but of course doesn’t prove) that the charity in question here (helping kids and parents deal with divorce, right) may have failed to disclose donors of over $5,000 — possibly the figures didn’t add up to the grants received, I don’t know.
The fact that 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501 (c)(6) trade associations are not obligated to publicly disclose the names of their donors has made them a very attractive vehicle for people who want to engage in political campaign advertising anonymously. In theCitizens Unitedcase, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporations could engage in campaign advertising. Since (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s are permitted to support or oppose candidates in election campaigns—unlike 501(c)(3) charities that can lose their exemption for electioneering—many have opted to use anonymous donations for this new activity.
6/14/2011
Someone should maybe also contact the “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” who awarded KTSan Diego $20,000 to do at least four workshops for about 100-120 families in Carlsbad “experiencing” divorce and child-custody “disputes.”
CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29.
Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.
Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.
CCF Grants Chairman Tom Applegate noted that collective resources of Carlsbad’s 40-plus faith communities will be more effectively utilized to help persons in need. . . .
with all those faith communities and enough finances to go around, one might think that there’d be fewer divorces and out-of-wedlock births to start with. (:
CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Finocchiaro said that grants were made possible through the contributions of the members of The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation. “We’re extremely honored to support Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services commitment to our community,” she said. “The intent of these donations is to support activities and programs that unify and inspire Carlsbad residents to make a positive difference in the future of our city.”
Kids’ Turn SD has great reasons to be committed to Carlsbad’s Community — see median household income.
Carlsbad’s median income (per its site, whatever date), $92, 249, and there are 2.55 people per household. I can see how that would be stressful, custody of that extra burdensome 0.55 child, occasioning many divorce “disputes.” The Top 10 employers of this 65,000 population city & average employee salary of $49K, with 40 faith communities, 1% African-American residents, and almost every other adult having a bachelor’s degree, plus 12% master’s or higher, being:
Top 10 employers (2007)
| 1,429 | Callaway Golf |
| 1,172 | Life Technologies Corporation (Invitrogen Corporation) |
| 1,169 | Carlsbad Unified School District |
| 1,014 | La Costa Resort and Spa |
| 874 | Park Hyatt Aviara Resort |
| 862 | LEGOLAND California |
| 854 | ViaSat, Inc. |
| 797 | Gemological Institute of America |
| 714 | City of Carlsbad |
| 694 | TaylorMade (Adidas Golf) |
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation is an affiliate of the San Diego Foundation, apparently (nothing is listed directly under that name, as my searches below show):
703 Palomar Airport Rd , Carlsbad , CA 92011 | 760-269-3882
www.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation’s mission is to “advance philanthropy in Carlsbad in order to build community excellence, stimulate innovation and enhance the capacity of nonprofits.” Every year the foundation splits the total amount of donations in half. One half goes to grants for the year; the other goes specifically to the Carlsbad endowment, which is for the advancement of the community. CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation.
Or, in their own words:
Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation in 2007. This community-specific effort helps meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.
1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (CCF) in 2007. This community-specific effort would help meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.
4. What is The San Diego Foundation?Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.
6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.7. What is an endowment?
(on the SAN DIEGO SITE):
For Nonprofits
. . .
Donor Advised Funds
Donor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.Designated Funds (note the photo chosen — things “kids” are great fundraiser causes).
The San Diego Foundation holds raffles, and registered for one in 2009 which raised “$42,564.66.”
It’s filings (under the OAG site) show this for 2002 (earliest year shown):
| Annual Renewal Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Organization Details | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| EIN: | 952942582 | ||
| Name: | The San Diego Foundation — Google | ||
| Location: |
2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92106 |
||
| County: | San Diego County | ||
| Ruling Date: | 1975 (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: |
T31 – Community Foundations | ||
| Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) | 06/2010 | ||
| Total Revenue | $63,742,314 | ||
| Total Assets: | $466,087,961 | ||
|
Organization Mission Statement and Purpose
|
|||
| The San Diego Foundation improves the quality of life within the San Diego community by promoting and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy. | |||
In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:
2. Article VIII is added to the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation and shall read as follows:
The Corporation is specifically authorized to obtain licensure as a grants and annuities society pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 11520 through 11524 and to conduct a grants and annuities business once licensed.
I. of The San Diego Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit
3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors.
The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has
4. The Corporation has no members.
Grants and Annuities means one can receive transfers of property, provided the business agrees to pay out to the Transferror — or the Tranferror’s Nominee — an Annuity. Not just anyone can do it, an organization has to have been in operation for 10 years or more and qualifies according to this code:
INSURANCE CODE
SECTION 11520-1152411520. The following organizations and persons may receive transfers of property, conditioned upon their agreement to pay an annuity to the transferor or the transferor's nominee, after obtaining from the commissioner a certificate of authority so to do: (a) Any charitable, religious, benevolent or educational organization, pecuniary profit not being its object or purpose, after being in active operation for at least 10 years; provided, nevertheless, that 10 years of active operation shall not be required in case of: (1) A nonprofit corporation organized and controlled by a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a general acute care hospital pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; and (2) An incorporated educational institution offering courses of instruction beyond high school, organized pursuant to Section 94757 of the Education Code, and which is, and for at least one year has been, qualified pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 94700) of Part 59 of the Education Code to issue diplomas or degrees as defined in Sections 94724 and 94726 of that code; (b) Every organization or person maintaining homes for the aged for pecuniary profit. . . .
This can be problematic, I imagine, if when elders are receiving public guardianship or being placed under a conservator’s care against their will or improperly, for the sake of access to their property.
What is an Annuity? Investopedia explains:
What Does Annuity Mean?
A financial product sold by financial institutions that is designed to accept and grow funds from an individual and then, upon annuitization, pay out a stream of payments to the individual at a later point in time. Annuities are primarily used as a means of securing a steady cash flow for an individual during their retirement years.
The root word represents “yearly,” as in “ANNUAL.”
Women’e Enews puts in a few words about Annuities, their types and their purpose:
Annuity Funding Explained
When it comes to annuity funding and annuities in general many people are confused. The problem is often because there are so many different kinds. There’s single or flexible-payment, fixed or variable, and deferred or immediate.
Regardless the type of annuity funding you’re ultimately interested in, all annuities are financial contracts which have been created to provide you with a good source of income in your retirement years & …..
You can choose from a number of annuity options which include a lifetime income, a guaranteed period income where your beneficiaries would receive any remaining payments, a joint and survivor option for couples as well as many other options that a financial advisor or insurance representative can tell you about
In many cases, options can be mixed and matched to provide you with the best kind of annuity funding possible.
The money contributed to any annuity funding may be in post-tax dollars. The advantage to this is that you can contribute as much money as you would like. However before you put any after-tax savings into any kind of annuity funding, it’s often advisable for you to put the maximum pre-tax amount into a retirement plan.
When an annuity is used to fund a retirement plan, contribution limits usually apply. Federal tax laws also generally require that you begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which you reach age 70.
Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.
A few more comments on annuities, endowments, and related financial/investment terminology;
I’m a novice in this and I’ll BET that Title IV-A people and others impoverished through violence (or the court battles) or just life, are not educated about these things. That we aren’t is a factor of our school systems and family systems, most likely.
How interesting, because what the child support / fatherhood systems emphasize is getting everyone into a low-income job, garnishing the wages for child support (or don’t) and then, as I like to point out, lose track of it at the state or county level, while splitting the difference with the Feds 66%/34% for a well-behaved State SDU (Statewide Distribution Unit), or failing to report interest income — which can be considerable — if they are not.
How the HHS/OIG/OAS responds to the un-accounted for collected child support is a concerted attempt to get their 66% but a hands-washing response to, they’re only overseeing, not controlling operations, when the situation is pretty much in epidemic proportions country-wide. Where the child support programs WORK is when groups like Maximus, Inc. & MDRC, CPR and PSI etc. get their contracts in, their CEO’s get paid (a LOT) and stock values for shareholders manages to stay above water, even if it loses some value. Meanwhile, what the children are getting, if they’re lucky is a child support allotment that makes it through, is not too substantially compromised, and may represent wages at (judging from what they program materials say they are aiming to help with) perhaps $8.00 to $12.00/hour, not including taxes withheld.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
While there are all kinds of plans for certain types or classes of people (including financially savvy and/or endowed, or sucessful businesspeople or investors) to figure out how to have monthly income — enough to live on, plus some — til they breathe their last breath, even at 80 or 90 years old — and typically its WOMEN living much longer — the philosophy for the vast masses being coached and think-tanked/policy-driven by people that live like this, is that the real cause of widespread poverty includes only one income earner in a household, i.e., fatherlessness and single-motherhood.
I do believe that even my children in elementary school (at least MY kids at that age) could figure out that if one wishes to end up with the number “5” one might add 2+ 3 or 4 +1. Or one might even go, if x=4, 3x-7 and come up with 5, meaning what one needs to live on. The factors can be adjusted.
But somehow we are not to calculate the possibility of variety in income when it comes to marital dissolution and fatherhood movements, or child support program evolution, and the need of judges and attorneys to run nonprofits teaching parents anger management, and (once we learn the background of this) giving them plenty of opportunity to practice, although not regarding the other partner so much as who is forcing this on couples already under financial stressor called divorce? and dealing with the family court’s elimination of the concept that a crime is a crime, even if it was committed by someone you previously had a sexual relationship with.
No mention of where that income comes from; the presumption is always jobs only, or possibly jobs and child support. Not, for example, ANY form of passive income such as may come from a trust, a foundation, investments, annuities, assignment of rents, royalties on books, or virtually anything that would NOT involve being easier to find and control (and/or threaten) by the IRS. Not on any form of initiative taking by the single parent(s), or for that matter low-income married parents.
In other words, “wealth” knows how to consolidate, aggregate, distribute according to wealth’s understanding of how not to pay taxes, after which it can tell significant others (like employees in some of their corporations) how to work jobs in which taxes ARE paid. Last I heard, such things are NOT taught in the public schools K-12; they are still working on reading, period, and basic math, plus how to stand in line without bullying someone else.
So, in 2003, The San Diego Foundation (still solvent, on the books) gets into the grants and annuities business around 2003. They have every right to. I’m just pointing it out they did….
The New York Times Reports:
Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life
By Paul Sullivan
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
- BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.
Still, the current wave of retirees, the first of the baby boomers, is as fearful as any group leaving the work force has ever been, many still shell-shocked from the bursting of the technology bubble five years ago, which wiped out huge paper gains.
This group is now looking at a future without gainful employment and only their often diminished portfolios to fall back on.
They do not like what they see.
“People are more fearful and realistic,” said John Diehl, head of the retirement solutions group for the Hartford, an insurance company. “There was no fear in the late 1990s. Being respectful of the markets is a good thing. People have started to think the market doesn’t always return 20 percent.”
Enter the annuities salesmen. The once-stodgy insurance product is having a resurgence. New York Life, one of the largest providers of annuities, has had an annual growth rate of 75 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to Mike Gallo, senior vice president in the guaranteed lifetime income department.
The growth in annuities has tapped into this fear. In the old days, people were wary of annuities because they locked up assets and distributed a payment only as long as the policyholder lived. But the industry has become more sophisticated. New products have guarantees for life, adjust for inflation and, at their most sophisticated, allow people access to some or, in extreme cases, all of the principle.
[Meaning “principal,” I think, right?]
ALL YOU NEED FOR $5,000/month in retirement is to put down $100,000, sure!
(not including what a $$ will buy at that time…..)
The difference, he said, is that the most popular annuities now offer a living benefit drawn from an income stream, which can rise with any increase in the value of the underlying principle, while carrying a guarantee that the payout will never fall below the initial amount.
The guarantee is financed by building derivative-style collars into the structure of the underlying portfolio to cap potential losses.
Yeah, like we all know what is a derivative-style collar. Some people in alternative lifestyle, about dog collars, from dog-walking & pet-sitting….
With such a variable annuity plan, “people aren’t as worried about inflation as they are with a traditional payout annuity,” he said. While the payout may remain constant in percentage terms, the cash amount will rise if inflation – or skillful investment – swells the amount of the underlying fund.
And this is what today’s retirees – without the pension plans their parents had, and uncertain of the continued existence of Social Security – want.
“The top concern of the baby boomers nearing retirement is, ‘Do I have enough money to last for the rest of my life,’ ” said Doug Wolff, vice president for business development at Security Benefit, a provider of annuities in Topeka, Kansas. “We’ve seen a major shift from ‘Who can develop the best death benefits?’ to ‘Who can develop the best product to guarantee some minimum investment amount?’ “
Quite different from some people, with more than 0.55 child per household, whose concern is staying alive & housed/fed til next week.
Providers of annuities today encourage people to buy enough coverage for basic expenses, from food to taxes, plus a little bit more. The average portion of a portfolio placed in annuity is 25 percent to 33 percent and most insurers limit a 65-year-old to 75 percent, to ensure the retention of sufficient liquid assets. Coverage of basic expenses can be achieved with either a traditional immediate annuity – the buyer puts $100,000 in and receives a fixed percentage of the initial value, typically 5 percent, every month – or with a variable annuity that guarantees a minimum withdrawal benefit.
. . . Can get a little complicated . . . . .
Something similar can be accomplished with a joint-survivor annuity – essentially paying out for two lives. A further refinement can be added in the form of a cash-refund feature that pays to the heirs whatever principle is left at death.
The next wave of innovation is expected to produce annuities that look to address the large health care bills that many retirees will face as they age, Wolff said.
Pricing all of these permutations of annuities can be complicated. There is one constant, however: The more guaranteed features that are attached – from joint-survivor to inflation adjustment – the higher the cost and the lower the percentage payout.
Jack Lemery, a former chief investment officer for Paul Revere Life Insurance, which sold annuities, maintained that this should dissuade people from putting any money at all into an annuity. Lemery is now a portfolio manager at Emerson Investment Management in Boston, where he has sworn off annuities.
Well, in 2006 “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was founded (same EIN# as San Diego) and began raising some money, part of which they obviously gave to Kids’ Turn to run classes in THEIR neighborhoods, too. Sounds from the description at around around $200 per four-week session per family ($20,000 for four-weeks for 100 – 120 couples).
http://www.sdfoundation.org/CommunityFoundations/RecentNews.aspx
|
|||
|
|||
BEFORE I FOUND OUT tHAT THE “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation, I went looking for it, unsuccessfully, in the usual places and found a few more interesting groups.
I cannot locate any business, or charity, called “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” on either site where they are to be registered. There are 20 results to “Carlsbad Foundation” search.
Apparently this contribution was made, or at least announced, “13 months ago.” In the interim, Carlsbad Foundation’s charitable status seems to have held:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually, that’s fairly strange as there is only ONE annual RRF (charitable registration) form on file, and for the first 6 years, no IRS filings, then after that approximately just about zero (or close to, relatively speaking) assets OR gross (not net) revenue. For example, Apr 2009-March 2010, they reported a whopping $220.00 (so how did the $20,000.00 get to Kids’ Turn? I am such a novice in this field, I don’t see it..) From April 2010 to March 2011, they had zero revenue.
Carlsbad Foundation’s President (at least in 2010), Jim Comstock, (and the foundation’s address is his office, Comstock & Associates,) is a tax, financial and estate planning professional, so I assume he knows better than I how to pull that off legally:

There are also least 75 Marriage and Family Therapists (probably some overlap with the 40 Faith Communities) in Carlsbad, including two in the suite right next to Mr. Comstock and, including them, 15 on the same street, perhaps within two blocks (judging by street #s only). There are fully 20 foundations incorporated in Carlsbad (Search “Carlsbad Foundation) only 4 (and not this one) with “suspended” status:
| Entity Name: | CARLSBAD FOUNDATION |
| Entity Number: | C2530851 |
| Date Filed: | 04/24/2003 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | CARLSBAD CA 92008 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | JIM COMSTOCK |
| Agent Address: | 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102 |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | CARLSBAD CA 92008 |
Though it incorporated 2003, the ruling date shows (NCCSDataweb) as only 2007. In 2004, however, they filed with the IRS — only tax return showing here:
There are a lot of blanks and “x”s up, including (NOT checked)< “Check here if your receipts are normally under $25,000.” There are 3 officers, Jim & Linda Comstock, plus Glen Blavet, who appears on Corporation Wiki (for what that’s worth) associated with 2 other corporations.
I looked under “CCF,” but don’t feel like laboring through the entire list. However, under “Carlsbad Foundation” again, this entry is interesting:
| Entity Name: | CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION |
| Entity Number: | C2980846 |
| Date Filed: | 02/13/2007 |
| Status: | SUSPENDED |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | CARLSBAD CA 92008 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | ** RESIGNED ON 12/02/2010 |
| Agent Address: | * |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | * |
(see address).
| Organization Name | Registration Number | Record Type | Registration Status | City | State | Registration Type | Record Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | Charity | Not Registered | CARLSBAD | CA | Charity Registration | Charity | |
| 1 | |||||||
There are, like, 3 people involved in this one, apparently. I’m not going to track them down, now that I know the Kids’ Turn grantor was under some other umbrella.
It does make me wonder whether a Donor couldn’t just set up funding and then somehow direct it towards certain charities and not get very well monitored, so long as they keep the amount low enough not to call attention to itself (read on):
SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION:
The San Diego Foundation, having been started original (it says) with 11 people, is still active corporate status: (There are 269 results for “The San Diego Foundation”), which shows you what good management can do.
| Entity Name: | THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION |
| Entity Number: | C0735981 |
| Date Filed: | 05/09/1975 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | SAN DIEGO CA 92106 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | MICHAEL PATTISON |
| Agent Address: | 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200 |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | SAN DIEGO CA 92106 |
And, yes, their 2010 IRS 990 does indeed acknowledge a grant of $22,500 to Kids’ Turn San Diego for “Human Services” (the form is 99 pages long, search the name!) the grantees (for under $100,000) are asked, in return, to inform the foundation of their “Successes and Challenges” in meeting the conditions for the grant. As KT is all about communication to start with, and the nonprofit clearly is very good with PR, I’m figuring they did this (although it doesn’t seem the registered as a california charity correctly). FOr Donor Advisedgrants over $100,000, IF the Donor advisee requests, the foundation can do some more monitoring. I don’t see that the IRS shows which funds were donor advised or not. There are several to churches & religious schools, $8,500 to Focus on the Family and (interesting)
$10,000 to the “Los Angeles Family Law Help Center” 205 S. Broadway Suite 500, EIN# 26-1252578, filed under “Civil Society.” and
$7,750 to the “National Conflict Resolution Center,” 625 Broadway, Suite 1221, San Diego, EIN# 33-0433314
($15,000 to Oral Roberts University in Tulsa) and many more groups, obviously. The directors (mostly, but not all, unpaid) would not fit on one page, but those who were paid, salaries (not including retirement or benefits plans) was over $1,000,000; understandable for administering so much.
2006 (formation of Carlsbad Charitable…) was not a good year in San Diego,
at least in government circles:
Report calls San Diego’s finances reckless, ‘Enron by the Sea
[08-09-2006, found under USAToday]SAN DIEGO (AP) — The city recklessly and deliberately mismanaged its finances for years, exhibiting disregard for the law and becoming “Enron-by-the-Sea,” according to consultants who investigated how it created a $1.4 billion pension fund shortfall.San Diego “fell prey to the same type of corruption” that ruined companies including Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and prompted Orange County to file for bankruptcy protection in 1994, said a report by the risk management company Kroll Inc.
“The evidence demonstrates not mere negligence but deliberate disregard for the law, disregard for fiduciary responsibility and disregard for the financial welfare of the city’s residents,” the report concludes.
Good thing there are foundations to pick up the slack….
The $20 million report, presented at a City Council meeting Tuesday, offers one of the most detailed accounts of how San Diego created its $1.4 billion pension shortfall that has crippled its ability to borrow money.
The shortfall — the gap between the value of its pension assets and its obligation to retirees — soared after the City Council in 1996 and again in 2002 skipped payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhanced retirement benefits.
The fiscal meltdown that resulted sparked investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC in early 2004. Five former city and pension fund officials were charged with federal fraud and conspiracy in January.
The report outlines a series of recommendations, including creation of an independent audit committee and more authority for the city’s chief financial officer.
“You got a second chance here, folks,” said one of the authors, former chief SEC accountant Lynn Turner. “I think it’s a marvelous city, but you need to change it from being Enron-by-the-Sea to Emerald-by-the Sea.”
The report found that several former city officials likely violated federal securities law and others were negligent.
It says former Mayor Dick Murphy and members of the City Council failed to disclose the extent of the city’s problems to bond investors and for “knowingly and improperly” causing the city to violate state and federal law in its collection of sewage fees.
Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was involved in Kroll’s investigation and said the city overcharged homeowners for sewage to subsidize large businesses.
Wow. Reminds me of the Los Angeles issues with the Department of Water and Power, but that’s another subject.
ANYHOW, Kids’ Turn SAN FRANCISCO, states on its 2010 Annual report (December? 2010) that half its attendees are court-ordered, that it applied for a grant from the FY 2011 AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) and is pushing a new curriculum, as well as teaching charities in the UK how to operate like itself, presumably:
The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:
• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered
That’s efficacy, or that’s a court-connection? ! ! Who’s on the Board of Kids’ Turn, generally speaking?
However, the first thing readers are told on this report is:
Program 1. Kids’ Turn sustained its very specialized services in five Bay Area Counties serving 700 participants over twelve months. Kids’ Turn enrollment is down slightly, likely attributable to the economy. It is our impression families are struggling to pay our fees and we are making every effort to negotiate reasonable tuition costs based on the particular needs of each situation. We still do not charge children to attend Kids’ Turn, and parents pay on a sliding fee basis depending on their income. Workshop records verify 60% of the families attending Kids’ Turn are in the low- to moderate-income range.1
(the footnote explains that this is because more wealthy people have less tendency to divorce, because there’s more money to support their families…In fact, let me quote it here: “As per the Huffington Post’s new DIVORCE page (www.huffingtonpost.com), families with higher incomes have a lower divorce rate, likely attributable to the supporting resources available to them to sustain their marriages (therapists, counselors, mediators).**”
Which just goes to show that **It takes a a Village — of AFCC operatives — for couples to stay married….. Or so, those operatives believe! Those who can’t afford it, might end up needing subsidy to attend Kids’ Turn classes by out-of-compliance nonprofits during their breakup. I would just love to take classes on a sliding fee with people who attribute marital breakup among the not-so-wealthy to inability to pay for a therapist, quoting the Huffington Post…
Seriously now, how does the world manage to keep turning without the advice of these professions?
Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):
Development
Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.
1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.
Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….
2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Tapfound Inc. Dba Taproot Foundation | CA | 2003 | $436,604 | 990A | 13 | 91-2162645 |
| Tapfound Industry Dba Taproot Foundation | CA | 2004 | $350,319 | 990 | 15 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation | CA | 2003 | $187,547 | 990 | 13 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation | CA | 2002 | $56,366 | 990EZ | 7 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation | CA | 2002 | $56,366 | 990ER | 6 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation, Inc. | CA | 2009 | $2,156,525 | 990 | 24 | 91-2162645 |
(Wow. The earliest 2002 is missing page 1; the other, parts are handwritten (on forms), parts typewritten (on blank sheets, for example, the listing of Board Members).
The last board member listed is Jenny Shilling, who works for The Draper Richards Foundation, which apparently started Tapfound, Inc. (The Taproot foundation) with $50,000. The group started with $79,000 assets, not including -$32,000 of “undeposited assets,” for a net assets of $48K. Its “Liabilities & Equity” just about cancelled each other out, and program service accomplishments for this year were “Service Grant Program awarded 18 nonprofits (not shown) with volunteer teams” — $23K.
An “updated July 6, 2003” board of directors is attached.
The 2003 filing (at least the one above I clicked on) shows the act is rather more together, and service program accomplishments reads:
Service Grants were awarded to 63 nonprofit organizations with a total estimated value of $2.5 million (I’ll tell the IRS my return was “close enough for jazz also….”) 582 volunteers were recruited to deliver these services. (at a cost of $148,872 Program Service Expense).
STATUS WITH CALIFORNIA (AS OF TODAY)?
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity 1
and (I searched the EIN)
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity 1
I guess the OAG’s office maybe is behind in their database entry, because for a “current” charity, including tax returns showing revenue over $4 million in 2007, the only year the group’s RRF shows up is for 2008; they only reminded of an unpaid registration fee of $150 in 2010. There is revenue of over $100K on IRS forms from 2003 through 2009, though. OAG’s (then Edmund G Brown’s) office respectfully requests they send in their $150 fee in September 2010:
September 8, 2010
TAPFOUND, INC. CT FILE NUMBER: 120759 466 GEARY ST STE 200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
We’re coming up on a year from the date of this letter, so presumably they did, or they didn’t and OAG hasn’t noticed yet, or doesn’t care. Secretary of State has corporate status active, too:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2374009 | 01/18/2002 | ACTIVE | TAPFOUND, INC. | AARON HURST |
| Entity Name: | TAPFOUND, INC. |
| Entity Number: | C2374009 |
| Date Filed: | 01/18/2002 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 466 GEARY ST STE 200 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | AARON HURST |
| Agent Address: | 466 GEARY ST STE 200 |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
An independent audit states that for 2010:
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tapfound, Inc. dba: Taproot Foundation as of September 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
The Taproot concept, from which Kids’ Turn benefitted, sounds great:
MAKE IT MATTER
Most organizations tackling social problems don’t have access to the marketing, design, technology, management or strategic planning resources they need to succeed. Without this talent, few are able to have their intended impact on critical issues like the environment, health and education.
Taproot is a nonprofit organization that makes business talent available to organizations working to improve society.
(is it also registering anually as a charity within California, or not?)
We engage the nation’s millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through our award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. One day, we envision all organizations with promising solutions will be equipped to successfully take on urgent social challenges.
DOWNLOAD OUR 2011-13 STRATEGIC PLAN
OUR MISSION
Our mission is to lead, mobilize and engage professionals in pro bono service that drives social change.
LEAD NATIONALLY BY ACTING LOCALLY
While working to expand the impact of pro bono services nationally by leading the pro bono movement, we concentrate our efforts for social impact within five metro areas where we have offices: Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.
Today, we offer three core programs to increase nonprofits’ access to pro bono services. Through these programs we provide millions of dollars in services annually aimed at best enabling organizations to address local social issues.
Service Grant Program
Our signature Service Grant program operates in five cities and, since its inception in 2001, has engaged professionals in over 780,000 hours of pro bono service on over 1,300 projects.
GET A SERVICE GRANT
DONATE YOUR SKILLSAdvisory Services
With our Advisory Services and leadership resources, we support companies and organizations in designing and developing their own customized, high-impact pro bono programs. We apply expertise garnered through our Service Grant Program to design pro bono programs best meeting our corporate clients business needs while ensuring their employees’ service makes a meaningful impact in their communities.
LEARN MOREAdvocacy
We partner with leading foundations, universities, companies, coalitions and associations to host convenings and run campaigns where we collaborate to design innovative solutions bringing pro bono service to bear for progress on issues facing our cities and society

(July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)
There are certain core values that I have made a point of formally celebrating at Taproot. We close the office on Election Day to stress the importance of civic engagement and democracy. We honor civil rights, and in addition to MLK Jr. Day we close the office for Matt O’Grady Day, commemorating the marriage of long-term Root Matt O’Grady to his partner in 2008. The anniversary of every Root is also marked by giving them the day off showing our appreciation for their involvement in our shared success.
We also value the diversity of backgrounds and interests of our Roots and give the team three days a year to create their own holidays. For some people, they use these days for traditional holidays like President’s Day and others use them for their birthday or culturally meaningful days like Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah or Cinco de Mayo.
Draper Richards — which provided the first $50,000 for TapRoot (Tapfound, Inc.) is a venture capitalist company, also interesting — in high tech.
Draper Richards L.P. is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage technology companies. We fund entrepreneurs with the energy, vision, experience, and desire to build great companies.
I’m not so sure about making themselves the TapRoot being a great idea, although it’s great market positioning for nonprofits. Are they as focused on screening who taps into them as they are on making the connections? And I’ll just point out, this does spread tax benefits around nicely between foundation and nonprofits.
WHY TAPROOT?
A “taproot” is the core root of a plant. It gathers nutrients from lateral roots and delivers them to a plant to enable it to flourish.
We see ourselves as a taproot for the nonprofit sector, drawing nutrients from the community and delivering them to nonprofits to enable them to thrive.
A bit more on the background of Draper Richards, that helped start Taproot, that helped revamp the logo of 1989 court-connected, court-official run (basically), CCSF nonprofit vendor and access/visitation grants beneficiary “Kids’ Turn” (“Kid’s Turn” on the state search sites…) update its logo. NOtice all the companies involved.
History
Three Generations of Venture Capital
The Draper name is well known in the venture capital industry. Bill Draper’s father,General William H. Draper, Jr., became the first professional west-coast venture capitalist when he founded Draper, Gaither & Anderson in 1958. Formerly Undersecretary of the Army, General Draper was responsible for economic reconstruction of Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan.
Bill Draper began his venture capital career in 1962 with Pitch Johnson, when he started Draper & Johnson Investment Company. In 1965, together with Paul Wythes, he founded Sutter Hill Ventures which was managed with great success until 1981, when he was appointed Chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 1985, he was selected to be Administrator and CEO of the United Nations Development Program. While in the venture capital business, Bill Draper was a founding investor in Apollo Computer (acquired by Hewlett Packard), Dionex, Integrated Genetics (Genzyme), Quantum, Qume (I.T.T.), Activision (Mediagenic), Xidex (Eastman Kodak), Measurex, Hybritech (Eli Lilly), and LSI Logic. In 1995, he returned to venture capital by founding Draper International which focused on venture investments in India. In 1996, he turned his attention to technology companies in the U.S. and co-founded a new domestic fund,Draper Richards L.P., with his partner, Robin Richards Donohoe.
Bill Draper’s son, Tim Draper, left Alex. Brown & Sons in 1985 to become the third generation of venture capitalists in his family with the formation of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim restructured a family-owned Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) that had been set up by his father in 1979 and then created a highly successful early-stage venture capital fund. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has become synonymous with early-stage venture capital. Among other successes, Tim Draper was a founding investor in Parametric Technology, Digidesign, Parenting Magazine, Upside Publishing, PLX Technology, Four-1-1, Hotmail, and Skype.
> > > > > > And Mr. Draper’s Partner, Robin Richards Donahue’s background:
Robin Richards Donohoe
General Partner
Robin Richards Donohoe has over fourteen years of experience in international venture capital. She has served on the boards of many portfolio companies including Kana Communications, Selectica and Digital Impact. Prior to managing the Draper funds, she served for four years as Managing Director of Seaboard Management Corporation, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, Georgia investing in media and technology companies. Ms. Donohoe has also worked in Prague, Czech Republic for a venture capital fund and in Paris for an investment bank. Ms. Donohoe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina and has a Master of Business degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She currently serves on the boards of the Stanford Business School Trust, University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences, Advisory Council of the Gladstone Institute at UCSF, Bay Area Discovery Museum, and Gateway High School. She is the Secretary for her Stanford Business School Class and an Advisor to Room to Read.
It seems obvious to me — if we really want to end “welfare as we know it” and eradicate poverty, we should encourage kids to get on the venture capitalist in high tech media track, starting with a college degree that will help them get on board, and perhaps take people out of inner city classrooms and let them see how the other half puts together a deal and structures a nonprofit corporation, possibly one doing business in grants and annuities, or catering to the grants-based marketplace.
This might cut down on “enrons by the sea” as we all begin to realize that the social services segment of the public-employee sector cannot be trusted (which, in truth) it can’t! to those setting policy and deciding who is naughty and who is nice in distributing contracts, business, and other grants. Of course i could be entirely wrong, but I also would suggest that the white collar sector who have their noses to the grindstone for (venture capitalists and the risk-takers with more money to play with) start taking some personal holidays to figure out where their taxes are actually being spent, and do it with a KID old enough to understand watching…
But the two parallel sets of infrastructures — the tax-supported and the tax-exempt — both working together, and seeking clientele among the tax-paying low and moderate income, will help drive their incomes lower, and someone else’s wealth higher, leaving credibility in the dust. Of course, with appropriate assets to spin off payments into old age, this may not matter, and if the US goes bankrupt, a b/millionaire can afford to live somewhere else, whereas a person living on social security alone, most likely can’t.
This of course would be a little messy at times, actually teaching ALL children (not just the offspring of venture capitalists and others where business knowledge including about the function of taxes and corporate identities, is absorbed from an early age) how to deal with the invisible, or at least underlying, intangible principles and skillsets, that are the scaffolding sustaining significant, life-supporting wealth (barring extravagances that lead to early death, such as pharmaceutical or other addictions).
OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:
3. Kids’ Turn took dramatic steps to downsize and reduce event expenses. We downsized the May, 2010 event to a cocktail party (not a sit-down dinner); all invitations were sent electronically (eliminating the need for an expensive invitation mailing). We exceeded our event net goal and will build on this success for 2011.
Yep, that would probably be good. I’m looking at the 2006 return, and for fundraising activities (“Golf Tournament, “SF Event” (whatever that is), and “Other”) the ration of revenue raised to expenses is rather interesting:
(GOLF — someone contributed $25K, expenses were $24,423, leaving net income of $12,802 out of $62K receipts. I’m sure golfing was fun. The “SF Event” (great descriptor) gross receipts of $44,475, expenses $10,752, is it fair to say about 25%? or 11/44ths; “Other fundraising events” (plural), raised $1,140, COST $13,618, resulting in a net loss of $12,478. Essentially whatever those other fundraisers were wiped out the golf tournament’s profit completely, except for $530. And there’s a CPA on the Board of Directors, too.)
Perhaps next time they should simply start raffles — of course this would require REGISTERING those raffles and providing signed receipts from the recipient that the funds were indeed distributed. But they could also run raffles for themselves and the overhead is pretty low, right, on that….)
4. Kids’ Turn is developing its presence on electronic social networking. We have an active Facebook Fan page (currently 335 Fans); a Board member ‘tweets’ regularly and posts on our behalf on linkdn. Just recently, we began actively posting comments on the Huffington Posts’ DIVORCE page. Interestingly enough, our Facebook fan count has increased exponentially since raising our profile visibility on social networking sites.
5. We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. (??) This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.
The “AOC” like “KT” contains AFCC members — and actually represents the “Administrative Office of the COurts” which is charged with administering FEDERAL grants to the states from which KT is likely to benefit. As such, it’s not money from the AOC, it’s money via the IRS from taxpayers.
“The Rally Project” – found in a 2006 obituary of architect Allan Levy
I am posting in August 2011, and this is a FY2010 Annual report, so I’ll just hazard a guess that they mean 2011. I hope there’s more accuracy when it comes to decimal points.
the “rally project” is actually a Family Visitation center, apparently at UCSF. I remember trying to find this before. There are still few references to “the Rally Project’ because that’s not what it’s name is. And this nonprofit is teaching communication skills, too!
Allan M. Levy Died on Thursday, February 16, 2006 after a five-month battle with throat cancer. He was 60 years old. He died at home and in peace, in the company of family and friends. Allan was born and raised in Memphis, TN, and embodied all of the lovely qualities we Northerners associate with Southerners: he was kind and gracious, inclusive, an attentive host (no one ever left Pam and Allan’s house underfed or thirsty), and an avid storyteller. Allan was a creator of community. He had a small army of friends of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds from every conceivable corner of the globeHe had definite opinions. About everything. He gave quietly and generously of his time and energy to non-profit organizations like Kids Turn and the Rally Project. …Allan is survived by his wife, Pam; mother, Mrs. Emily Davis; sister, Diane and brother-in-law, Arnold Eger; brother, Donald and sister-in-law, Shelley Levy; brother, Steven and sister-in-law, Betsy Olim; sister-in-law, Kate DiGiacomo; six nieces and nephews, a whole bunch of cousins, the above-mentioned army of friends, and last, but not least, his dog Maggie. A Memorial Service is being planned for Thurs, April 6, 2006, 3pm, at the Officer’s Club at the SF Presidio. In lieu of flowers, it is suggested that donations be made to Kids’ Turn, Rally Family Visitation Services, UCSF Palliative Care Group, and The Women’s Community Clinic.
I should note here, as it came up, Rally Family Visitation Services is listed twice when it comes to “SVN” (Supervised Visitation Network) which I imagine is (yet another!) nonprofit — and people from “Rally Visitation Services” are mentioned on BOTH SVN Standards and Guideline Committee Chairs & on the SVN Board of Directors, right next to the AOC. I’m sure having a Kids Turn Friend & Rally Visitation Center friend who is networked with the people distributing the access visitation grants and setting standards for who gets them (ideally) — would probably help in obtaining this grant, even if someone can’t figure out which year they applied for it in and proofread their (taproot-foundation-assisted) new website to get it up there right.
Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide
SVN, Supervised Visitation Network, is an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families.
SVN was Founded in 1991 to provide opportunities for networking, sharing of information, and training for agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside.
Providing resources for members and families in need of supervised visitation services
That 1991 date is kind of interesting; NCCSDATAWEB says the ruling date was 1997. So far I see it in Tennessee (for about 5 years) and then off to Florida (as of 2007ff) so presumably it started somewhere else, or AS someone else from 1991 to 1996. Assuming it actually began in 1991…
| Most Recent Tax Period | EIN | Name | State | Rule Date | IRS Sub- section | Total Revenue | Total Assets | 990 Image |
| 2010 | 521831498 | Supervised Visitation Network | FL | 1997 | 03 | 218,620 | 31,703 | 990 |
As of 2009, it self-describes (on the 990) as PURPOSE:
PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH EDUCATION AND SUPPORT THAT PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN TO HAVE SAFE, CONFLICT FREE ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS THROUGH A CONTINUUM OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES IN ADDITION, THE ORGANIZATION IS DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING STANDARDS FOR PRACTICE OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES, MAINTAINING A DIRECTORY OF SUPERVISED CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS, AND PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES AND FORUMS FOR NETWORKING AND SHARING OF INFORMATION PRINCIPALLY, MEMBERSHIP DUES AND ADMISSION FEES TO THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR ORGANIZATION And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost: in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.” This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help. (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items. Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs:
Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004-2006):
Jody Bittrich, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.
I think it’s time to get another crack in about the field of “Supervised Visitation” and the “SVN” network.
First, it is a nonprofit incorporated in Tennessee. These altruistic people (including David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, which helped push the term “access /visitation” to start with, and which nonprofit includes several such centers, not to mention some close connections in philosophy with AFCC founder, it would seem, Jessica Pearson (see my recent posts trying to track down AFCC incorporations over the year, including one time it showed up in Colorado at the same address as Center for Policy Research (I believe) at the time: Emerson Street, Denver).
This is a 2003 IRS form 990-EZ for “Supervised Visitation Network,” a TN nonprofit of moderate means and large influence:
90~IZ~~ Part III:
Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development
28.SVNwebsite-provides information for both the general public and for professionals, averaging over 150 hits per week on the pages for parents and over 400 on the pages with information for professionals.- Expenses : $15,000
This blog — which is free, except for my time — gets close to that on a good day, and has been steadily for a few years — including from some sources I know are professionals (like the ones I report on) and others. Note: as with the field of “Parent Education” (court-supported) the interest is higher among the providers than the clientele….i
29.Conference-Trainingfor150professionalprovidersofsupervisedvisitationservices Expenses-Netgainof$14,410
30. Publications -Distributed 500 Handbook for Parents, 160 Handbooks for Professionals; 80 Sexual Abuse Curriculums;850 informational brochures;2 Newsletters, primarily forprofessional training, to 600 individuals;.
Expenses -$7.700
Its revenue is about $40,000 Program Service Revenue including government fees & contracts, and about $37,000 membership fees. Their highest expense is “Products and Promotions.”
Most interesting is the variety of states (plus Canada) the board of directors are drawn from: If you can’t see the graphic, the pdf is on-line for viewing:
(Karen Oehme also directs a family violence studies institute at Florida State; many of these names are well known) in family law circles, obviously.
At least one of these address shows up as the Office of the Attorney General (445 Golden Gate, SF) — no office given, though.
Shelly Glapion (at that address), 6th floor, at least in 2004, (as we speak?) was Senior Program Analyst for
-
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Shelly Glapion, J.D.. Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator. Senior Court …
As far back as 2004, there were concerns about financial embezzlement/fraud, shifting financial requirements for supervised visitation, at least in California. This is part of a (available on-line) group email (I’ll post complaint and one reply) about the behavior of a supervised visitation monitor, from a mother, criticized for wearing flip-flops (in California…..) and giving her daughter a birthday cake. it appears that the mother was under supervised visitation, although the typical auspices of this is increased noncustodial (FATHER) parent access, which was how Ron Haskins helped sell it to Congress to start with, as I understand:
Supervised Monitoring Message List
Hi,I’m in CA. I have had this supervised monitor that stated I’m a danger to my daughter because one time during the summer I was wearing flip flops and gave my daugther a birthday cake for her birthday.Well, my question is this…now she is constatnly changing the financial agreement we signed several months ago. And she’s now back charging me for phone calls, emails to arrange visits and she doesn’t even respond to most of them. She is now threatening to take me to court if I don’t keep paying her for things I have never agreed to. Additionally, she charges me for cancelled visits and yet doesn’t even notify me that they are cancelled. Isn’t there any law of how she constatnly changes her fees and agreement? Originally it stated that the cancelle of visits is 100% resposnbile for the fees, well last weekend I was 100% resposnbile and she is refusing to credit her account that everyday she comes up with new fees or changes the agreement that was orginally signed. I’m hoping that when she does take me to court that I will not hav to pay for things that I never agreed to and for visits that is clearly stated that I am not financially resposnbile for. She also charges me $5 per min. to discuss any of this on the phone or email. And then she charges me a flat fee ontop of her min incurred fees. Please help me stop this insanity. I also believe that because my ex won in court because of past bribery that he must have also done this upon the monitor. The monitor did state once that the father told her to charge me more and make it exteremly difficult to see my daughter. And the monitor stated that if I wanted this information that I need to pay her for this.I’ve given up all hope that I’ll be allowed to see my daughter – this justice system provides no justice…because the courts don’t care that they purjed under oath (saying I have a criminal record and a bunch of lies like that..that I can easily prove false), let alone CPS closed the case because it was unfouned..and now that the courts have allowed him to do this to me of taking 50% of all my wages. At least now I’m hoping that I can get this monitor to stop asking me for money that isn’t due and to stop fabricating these charges of $5 per min. to read an email and then her $25 fee to just have it in her inbox (even if she doesn’t read them).Any suggestions????THE REPLY is to contact Shelly Glapion (of SVN board of directors, which this person probably didn’t know, and program administrator, via CFCC)Re: Supervised MonitoringIn a message dated 11/27/04 10:06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXX@… writes:
Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?
Especially if she is connected to a supervised visitation center, you should make a public records request for all payoffs she is receiving, and also ask for her tax returns for the duration of time since she has been providing you “service”.Then, go very public with the fact that what she is doing constitutes fraud, illegal and criminal misconduct, so that she will dump you as a client in order to try to conceal what she is doing wrong.
After she dumps you, go to the press with evidence of financial and other fraud operative through your case, saying that this is another example of the type of Access to Visitation Enforcement program fraud that is rampant as the means to promote a pro-abuser agenda in the guise of fatherhood and custody programs. Use this article from NY– re: Viola Stroud of CRC being under investigation for embezzlement — to bolster your case: Click here: Guardian under scrutiny
Next, send a summary (brief and objective re: criminal misconduct and financial fraud) to Shelly Glapion, the CA adminstrator of the SAVP: shelly.glapion@…, asking her, as the person overseeing the AV program in CA, who has been monitoring your supervisor to ensure the integrity of the “service” she is providing. Be sure to tell Ms. Glapion that you hold her personally responsible and legally liable for the kickbacks and illegal payoffs you are sure were being used to cause intential and malicious harm to you and your child on behalf of your ex, using government program funding.
Be sure to send me a copy (use XXXXX not the FCR board) of your complaint, along with the name of the supervisor, the county you are in, your case number, the judges, lawyers and other appointees involved (especially any mediators or custody evaluators) and I will incorporate it into the complaints that we are putting together that are addressing AV program fraud and corruption at the federal level.
Cindy Ross
CA Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice
To this woman, who says she does not have a criminal record, and apparently CPS was told she was some sort of perp, but closed the case — she is being treated like one, which she reports as basically being cursed (spoken evil of) by the supervised visitation monitor. The other point of view — particularly from someone on this nonprofit SVN group and probably also running a program that provides these services, it’s not a curse, it’s a blessing! Barbara Flory, in THIS message exchange (file under “PR”) The URL is a Florida State University address: http://familyvio.csw.fsu.edu/messageboard/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_winter_04.pdf
The supervised visitation and exchange programs have truly been a blessingfor so many families.
First of all, monitored visitation provides yet another level of protection for the victim and the children. This
protection is essential to victims!
(not mentioned — often, the victims ARE children…. this happens when there’s molestation also):
Second, it allows contact between the perpetrator and the children, which would not have
occurred without said programs.
{{now that’s food for thought…… “contact between perp and children = good.” (?)}}
This is especially important for those perpetrators who are truly trying to improve their lives and those of their children.
And the way to tell if a perp is REALLY sincere and wants to improve his(her) life is ….. ask a supervised visitation professional?
Or a judge on the board of a nonprofit benefitting from access visitation (or other) grantsmanship?
It is also extremely important for the children who sometimes do not understand why they cannot see one of their parents, but want to see that parent.
And one tells which children DO and which children do NOT want to see their perp parent? (See Jack Straton; I get tired of reminding us….)
In many cases it is also the hope of being with the children and helping their children that motivates a perpetrator to understand the cycle of domestic violence.
It’s HOPED that HOPING to see one’s kids will produce character change for a perp. I’m not even sure we can find definite validation that batterers intervention programs do that…..
These programs provide a safe environment for all involved and they further provide hope!
Yes, hope of virtually guaranteed (court-ordered) income for supervised visitation providers who pay into the system!
Other than that —
No they don’t. That’s false! They can become and have obviously become nightmares; moreover, some people have been killed at or around supervised visitation, or while the family was utilizing supervised visitation! See this chart from 2001 (i.e., in recent memory of the above message), particularly 3rd from bottom row: The chart is from “MNCAVA” something reasonably accessible to the people involved above:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/strategies/strategies.html
Staff of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation collected examples of behaviors commonly displayed by alleged batterers who were referred to supervised visitation programs in Florida in 2001. As the examples in the following table indicate, the same behaviors of batterers described in the literature, are observed in supervised visitation programs.
Table 1. Common Behaviors of Batterers Seen at Supervised Visitation Programs
| Behavior | Manifestation at Supervised Visitation Program |
|---|---|
| Denial of Abuse/ Minimizations | Children may ask parent, “why did you hit mommy?” Visiting parent may deny hitting child’s mother, say it was accident or minimize his action. Or he may say it’s the fault of mother he has to see child at visitation program. One program reports a 12 year old asked his father why he chased his mother with a knife. Father denied doing it saying the mother told him to say that. This occurred despite witnesses to the knife incident. |
| Blaming partner | Frequently supervised visitation staff report that a batterer will tell staff “this is all my wife’s fault,” “she’s the one who brought this on.” |
| Control/ Manipulation | Often batterers will question, or challenge program rules or suggest exceptions to rules should be made of them. This is seen in examples of refusing to arrive or depart per requirements, bringing unauthorized individuals to visits, bringing gifts or food to visits which may be disallowed, attempting to take videos or photographs. Tearing up rules or throwing intake forms across room. |
| Attacking Parenting Skills | Involving staff in apparent false allegations of child abuse against parent who has been abused, trying to use staff to call Abuse Registry. Makes disparaging remarks about mother, “you need to clean up better than mommy.” |
| Making Covert/ Overt Threats | Program staff report incidents of batterers showing a weapons permit when asked for identification, driving around visitation site at time of scheduled visits but not coming into program as well as verbally threatening to harm staff, volunteers, judge, partner, etc. during visits. Law enforcement officers referred to programs have come for scheduled visits in full uniform wearing their weapons despite instructions to the contrary. |
| Involving Children | During scheduled visitations, batterers may attempt to question children about their current living arrangements (particularly if they are staying at shelter or another undisclosed location); inquire about what their plans are, where they are attending school; or, may try and find out who the child’s mother is seeing. Additionally batterers may utilize visitation times as a vehicle to get children to convey messages back to other parent. |
| Stalking | Following a parent who is leaving a program, recording information about parents car. One program reports two examples of cases when the perpetrator had custody. In one case he left with the child prior to his wife (non-custodial) but waited for her in a nearby parking lot. In another, a non-custodial mother picked up her child for a monitored exchange and was followed to a neighboring city by her abuser. Perpetrators may reveal stalking incidents during conviction with their children during visit Questions such as Where were you all last night? or Why weren’t you in school yesterday? |
| Financial Abuse/ Manipulation | Refusing to pay for scheduled visits, not going to pay to see my kids. Paying in pennies or other small coins. Saying they will not bring food for visits because they’re paying child support to mother and she should make sure food is available for father’s visit. |
| Animal Abuse | Batterers may inform child during visit that a beloved pet has died or had to be given away since the child was not longer in the home. One program reported a father bringing the child’s pet rabbit to the program knowing the child would not be able to take it back to the shelter where he was staying. |
| Physical Violence | At least three murders of [WORD missing — Freudian slip?] have occurred on-site or in parking lots of supervised visitation programs in recent years. Other programs report murders or physical assaults by non-custodial parents off site but while family was utilizing services. |
| Suicide | Visiting parent telling child and/or staff how depressed he is and how he might just end it all. |
Not to mention, see Joyce Welch / Brian Tippe case, where the supervised visitation monitor was in a bestiality relationship (criminal!) with DOGS and a slave/master relationship (as the slave, i.e., fairly “deviant” behavior for someone involved with children, and around the field of domestic violence, which is itself characterized by inappropriate slave/master behaviors, only without the designated slave deriving (?) sexual enjoyment from the degraded status). The mother was ordered supervised by a commissioner who was at the time on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too….
Guess under what banner I found that:
Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases
M. Sharon Maxwell, LCSW, Ph.D.Karen Oehme, J.D.authors commissioned by
Copyright © 2001 Violence Against Women Online Resources
AbstractThe Evolution of Supervised Visitation: From Child Welfare to Domestic Violence Case VisitationRecognizing Common Batterers Behaviors In Supervised Visitation SettingsStrategies to Improve Supervised Visitation in Domestic Violence Cases
Barbara Flory, MSW, LFMT (or whatever) and 2003 at least SVN board member, wrote the above glowing recommendation of supervised visitation; Karen Oehme, here, chairs the FLorida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation. They are talking about strategies to have less abuse and murder occurring around supervised visitation (no mention made of financial fraud, etc., although it’s been found repeatedly) — and not whether it’s a good or bad idea, based on the fact that murders and further abuse HAS occurred around it!
ACTUALLY, Familylawcourts.com has a page on the “AOC” and says it better than I do; it’s funny, but right:
2. The Elkins Task Force, which was headed by the AOC supposedly to promote accountability and listening to children, was an expensive and expansive white wash.
How else to explain why the AOC commissioned a 50k research project to ask family court litigants questions for the entire state; and the results featured only 53 litigants and 83 AOC staff personnel?
3. One lasting, inept brainchild of the Judicial Council, again working in conjunction with the AOC, was to decriminalize crime via a “Supervised Visitation,” form in which kidnapping becomes the more civilized “parental abduction.”
Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council working in conjunction with the AOC, created the non-professional field, there remains no oversight. Which con artists have discovered. Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors are awarding custody to the suspected pedophiles.
As such, if the AOC wasn’t so damaging to the point of lethal, it would be listed as a sub-category to Comic Gold.
Is there anything where AOC excels?
Yes. The AOC excels at wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer funds for slick, expensive conferences, most of which are designed to continue prohibiting access to any real justice in the courts, such as the one below.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/aoc.html
(note: I don’t agree with author in GPS issue, though).
She sarcastically notes:
Practice Hint: Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department. Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest. The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.
Actually, I experienced so-called “parental abduction” (call it what you will) AT a law enforcement station, after having asked (in vain) previously for supervised visitation or something to prevent this (as I recall the LONG case history). Apparently the problem is I wasn’t willing to cut some deal with CPS and let my children go into foster care needlessly to get revenge on my ex. So, they did nothing, knowing it would be off their plate and safely in family court anyhow. This custody-switch kept the case going, which also (FYI) meant a significant delay in child support matters, probably resulting in a little interest accumulation (at least from program funds) on the side, too. The possible profitable (except to the children) permutations are endless in this system.
I figured I’d just hop on over to Tennessee to look up this nice nonprofit I learned was incorporated there: Surprise:
| Search: | 1-1 of 1 | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
WELL, they apparently kept it going about 5 years — with the exception of AFCC, that’s pretty average for nonprofits catering to therapeutic-jurisprudence professions in the courts, which is probably why new ones (such as COllaborative law practice) must constantly be created. …. Maybe the moved to Florida… or just went extra-USA terrestrial…..
TypeDateImage #DetailTermination01/11/20086178-2677Articles of Dissolution01/11/20086178-2675Administrative Amendment12/05/20076164-2457Detail
Notice of Determination12/03/2007ROLL 61612006 Annual Report Due 10/01/200612/19/20065902-1491Notice of Determination12/01/2006ROLL 58932005 Annual Report Due 10/01/200510/07/20055578-01582004 Annual Report Due 10/01/200409/14/20045233-08802003 Annual Report Due 04/01/200402/10/20045032-2914Detail
Initial Filing09/29/20034922-0943
Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?
(I didn’t find out whether or not).
I THINk the first address listed as c/o Nancy Fallows, who shows up as someone probably good at getting grants, and on the board of a substance-abuse-prevention group, “Putnam (County) Power of One”
Nancy Fallows Secretary,
(Grant-Writing Sub-Committee Chair)
Tennessee Community Services Agency,
Upper Cumberland Director
1000 England Drive, Suite F,
Cookeville, TN 38501(work) 931-646-4087; (fax) 931-520-0080
Nancy.Fallows@tncsa.com
Joe Nullet (also on Board, and the registered agent? in Florida for the TN corporation also) is Harvard, JFK School of Government, father of 3 boys, and:

and obviously someone who knows how to obtain funding for a program. This one is selling educational curriculums, isn’t everyone these days?
Joe Nullet
Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the Family Nurturing Center of Florida, *** an organization committed to creating a community of nurturing care for our children.
As recognized Trainer/Consultant for the Nurturing Parenting programs, Joe’s area of strength is in the administration, support, and successful implementation of the Nurturing Parenting programs. Since 2001, Joe has successfully obtained financial support from the Jaguars Foundation, the Community Foundation of Jacksonville, the Reinhold Foundation, the Rice Family Foundation, UPS, Publix, the Martin Foundation, and others for the implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs.
As a father of three beautiful boys, Joe is passionate about nurturing his family and the world in which they live. Joe is available to train your agency staff to facilitate the Nurturing Parenting programs or as a consultant to develop innovative strategies to foster community collaboration, solicit financial support, and manage the effective implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs within your organization and/or community.
Joe Nullet, Executive Director
Supervised Visitation Network
*** per ‘SUNBIZ.org” -a site I really appreciate where you can look up florida organizations — actually, this was incorporated in 1993 as “Family Visitation Center, Inc.” and in 2000 they did a name change (adding the “nurturing”) as we can see in 2001, Mr. Nullet helped them expand the concept, or at least get funding for doing so. The group’s current address, 2759 Bartley Circle (same city) is apparently owned by the City of Jacksonville (a community center) and listed with the courts, or taking business from them:
Family Nurturing Center of Florida
Supervised Visitation, Dependency and Family Law
2759 Bartley Circle
Jacksonville, FL 32207ServicePhone:
Fax:(904) 389-4244
(904) 389-4225
Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.
Services: Information and referral; Other Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7 Fee: Yes; sliding scale for Family Law clients. Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation. Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org
That site shows them in the 2 primary businesses supported by A/V grants: Parent Education and Supervised Visitation and yes, they are a nonprofit; their “For Parents” link hopefully points to the SVN, and has a hastily (or at least crookedly) scanned “handbook” coaching parents on how to pick the right type of visitation center, i.e., one of ours, listing the SVN at 1223 King Drive (although it’s not been there for a while…..)
FNC is proud to partner with a number of local service providers to offer comprehensive services to clients. We have relationships with each of the certified domestic violence centers within the Fourth Circuit, and we also partner with Family Foundations, Youth Crisis Center, and many others. If you have a question about additional resources which may benefit your clients, please contact us or you can conduct your own search using the 2-1-1 system.
Like Kids’ Turn (etc.) it is described as the 1993 brainchild of a judge — only this one, responding to complaints from parents with children in foster-care:
We opened in 1993 as the Family Visitation Center, the first of its kind in Florida. It was the brainchild of the Honorable Judge Dorothy Pate, who was moved to act after hearing frequent complaints from parents who were not being allowed to see their children who had been placed in foster care.
Representatives from the Department of Children, the Children’s Home Society and the Junior League of Jacksonville met with Judge Pate to discuss a new concept called “supervised visitation.” Since that meeting, we have expanded our agency to include three programs at four locations and changed our name to reflect this growing commitment to improving the lives of families throughout Northeast Florida.
(NoTE — that predates the 1996 welfare reform, the 1994 national fatherhood initiative and violence against women act).
GONE SOUTH — literally, to FLORIDA — or at least here’s another corporation by the same name, in the same city (Jacksonville) that decided to get started up around the time the Tennessee incorporation shut down (or was shut down):
| Florida Non Profit Corporation | ||||||||||||
| SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. | ||||||||||||
| Filing Information | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Principal Address | ||||||||||||
| 3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE JACKSONVILLE FL 32205 |
||||||||||||
| Changed 01/06/2010 | ||||||||||||
| Mailing Address | ||||||||||||
| 3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE JACKSONVILLE FL 32205 |
By the former address, yes, this is the same corporation (see files):
EIN# 521831498
IT’s purpose (see sunbiz.org if this doesn’t show, click on bottom link below Annual Reports) is fairly clear — business promotion and collaboration on how to obtain access visitation funding, basically:
Article III ” The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized” — “Provide a forum for networking and sharing of information
between CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS. Advocate for adequate public and private funding for Child access and visitation programs.”
Others at the first Jacksonville Address (1223 King STreet) address include a window-washing service. Now, 3995 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL appears to be a particular real estate group, “Bo Bridgeport Brokers“) which I only figured because google-mapping zooming in on the address contained that label.
Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real …
3955 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
(904) 358-3955
It’s also listed in “Family and Child Services” in a VERMONT (how’s that for the other end of the east coast?) Child Support / Commission on Women office. Cute:
Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women
women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached1223 King Street Jacksonville, FL 32204 904-389-7800 http://www.svnetwork.net/ . SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a …
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223–King–St–Jacks… – Cached
Family Division and Office of Child Support
Vermont Office of Child Support
http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers
Vermont Parent Representation Center, Inc.
77 Charlotte Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-540-0200
http://www.vtprc.org
VPRC is a {{YET ANOTHER…..}} not-for-profit public interest law and policy organization. VPRC’s goals include:
To reduce the number of children removed from their families into state and other out-of-home custody; to shorten the length of stay in state and other out-of-home custody for children who have been removed, and to reduce the number of children re-entering state and other out-of-home custody after being reunified with their families.
This says nothing about “custody-dispute” Parental alienation situations, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t handle such things and get some grants or contracts to do so.
This is clearly more directed at CPS & Foster Care uses, but notice how SVN can springboard that into “custody dispute” or “estranged from the other parent” situations . . …
National
Supervised Visitation Network
1223 King Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204
904-389-7800
http://www.svnetwork.net/
SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free {{AFCC code language; not ‘High-conflict”}} access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.
6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.
I presume they are probably meaning the year 2011; someone has a little data input trouble here….. If the SF Courts ever pay off what it is SFTC has a lien for (see my other Kids’ Turns posts) perhaps they can hire a proofreader for their new website, and get their license back. Oh, this may be a little difficult though, because so many SF Courtrooms are being closed, soon, for lack of funding, budget cutbacks, etc. . . . . You know how it goes….
I think that MOST businesses and charities understand (as well as shouldn’t most attorneys who are going to be sometimes doing business with them, or incorporated themselves as an LLP) that one has to register as a nonprofit with the state, and also file annual reports with the secretary of state whether for-profit or not, if doing business in that state. But here it is stated explicitly:
Florida Charity Nearly Ruined
Sun Coast Law Enforcement Charities (Sun Coast) is a police charity benefiting police officers and their families in several Florida counties. Recently, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) served the charity’s president with a lawsuit.
Why? Because the charity failed to renew its registration with the Department, even though it had sent letters and made phone calls reminding the charity to do so. In Florida, any charity that asks for donations in the state mustregister with the department each year. It costs between $10 and $400, depending on how much money the charity raises. Sun Coast’s registration fee was $75.
The Department’s lawsuit wanted to impose a $10,000 fine against Sun Coast. Paying that fine would have ruined the charity. According to its IRS filings, the charity’s 2008 total revenue was only $11,000. Luckily it avoided the problem.
It explained to the Department that a former bookkeeper had ignored calls and letters from the Department. The Department took into consideration that Sun Coast had been registered since 2000 and kept up its renewals until the 2009 incident. In the end, Sun Coast paid a $1,000 fine and remains in operation.
Registration Laws
Many states are like Florida and require registration of charities. Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, and Pennsylvania are good examples. The rules usually are different in each state, though. For example, in some states, a charity must register:
- And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state
- And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year
- Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both
- By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both
(Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)
Apparently being able to look it up on-line is new? http://www.800helpfla.com/socbus.html

Solicitation of Contributions
Information for Businesses
The Solicitation of Contributions Act requires anyone who solicits donations from people in the State of Florida to register with the Department and renew annually. This applies to charitable organizations, sponsors, professional solicitors, as well as professional fundraising consultants. The Department collects registration fees and has authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. The Department provides financial disclosure regarding organizations on the online Gift Givers’ Guide or you can obtain information about a specific charity by calling our Consumer Assistance Call Center at 1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352), or out of state 850-410-3800.

Looking at the SVN site, describing the backgrounds of its current Board of Directors, here’s a nice connection to “responsible fatherhood” if you don’t get it yet:
Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD
Cambridge, MA
A psychologist and lawyer was Senior Psychologist of the Family Service Clinic from 1982 to 1988, conducting custody and visitation evaluations for the Middlesex County Family Court. From 1988, he served frequently as Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict custody and access disputes.
In 1991, Dr. Straus started Meeting Place: Supervised Child Access Service, a program of The Guidance Center, Inc. in Cambridge, MA, providing a safe setting in which children in high-risk situations can visit parents with whom they are not living.
|
Some details about the organization, including its name change:
| The exact name of the Nonprofit Corporation: GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE
The name was changed from: CAMBRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCI on 9/17/1997 Mergered into : RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. on 8/21/2009 |
|
|
|
|
He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.
So maybe if I want to find what state it first incorporated in, I should go to Massachusetts?
From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.
Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.
Dr. Straus (psychologist/psychotherapist) published in 1994 (as cited in AFCC publication) on traumatized children in supervised visitation. Maybe if the kids are so badly traumatized, they shouldn’t be there to start with? Anyhow, this abstract for the cite:
Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCCARTICLE: Traumatized Children in Supervised Visitation: What Do They Need?
Authors’ Note:
This article was presented as a plenary paper at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, France, November 4-7, 1998.
April, 1999
37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135
Author
Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. StrausExcerpt
The purpose of supervised access, also known as supervised visitation and exchange services, is to provide a protected setting for parent-child contact when such contact presents risk following parental separation, child abuse, or neglect, or after an extended interruption of contact. There has been a remarkable growth in such services over the past two decades, in the United States and Canada, 1 as well as internationally. 2 Although there is a growing literature on the functioning of child access services (see, for example, Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Straus & Alda, 1994)**, to date there has been little concentrated attention in the field on how better to respond to the vulnerable children who are the primary clients of visitation services. It seems likely that several factors have contributed to the relative invisibility of children’s individual and developmental needs in designing access programs. These factors include the urgency with which the needs of these distressed parents and their advocates call for the attention of decision makers and service providers, the fact that visitation orders (usually made in family courts where children lack their own voice) take precedence in defining how children are served, and, most important, the lacunae in clinical and research findings about the special needs of this population of children.
Whereas supervised access is used to provide supportive services and reunite parents with their children when there has not been trauma, the majority of the child clients of supervised visitation services have not been so fortunate. This article …
** of course there was even then a growing literature from certain sources on access services, particularly with the CRCKIDS.org organization on, and the nonprofit board-member multiple inter-relationships in place from the start. Abstract is from “Lexis-Nexis”
![]()
Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.
| RSJ CORP. Summary Screen | Help with this form |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supervised Visitation Access is not suitable for long-term, has been acknowledged (?) since 1999. Therefore, I can see how if business is to keep coming there would need to be new customers. THEORETICALLY a good bit of supervised visitation access will heal all relationships, reform perps of course (Except parentally alienating ones?) and lead to a reunified family. (Alternately, see Warshak….). OR, it could provide a nice excuse to terminate relationship with the offending parent, possibly the one most offended at (and/or paying for) the supervised visitation to start with. Another Lexis-Nexis abstract, delivered in Paris again — here:
Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC
ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?
Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, November 5, 1998.
October, 1999
37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478
Author
Excerpt
Supervised access is ordered to develop, reestablish, or maintain a relationship between a child and a parent, or other relative, generally with the expectation that unsupervised access will at some point become possible. Some courts and commentators have said that supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman wrote that supervised access is “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access,” not “a long-term remedy.” 1 Lawyer Karen Oehme, cochair of the Family Visitation Program of Tallahassee, Florida, said, “Attorneys should realize that institutional supervised visitation is not a long-term solution in most family court cases, and that the programs should not be thought of as a substitute for addressing the underlying problems that resulted in the need for supervised visitation in the first place.” 2
In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible. 3 A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” 4 In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …
WELL, if one looks at the history and membership of the Children’s Rights Council (which does have a chapter in paris, and the link I clicked seemed to indicate, since about 1999 — not that my French is very good.) and remember who active David Levy (also on board of supervised visitation network is) none of this is too surprising except that it’s not about time to make up some new terminology about now, because Collaborative Law is pretty well established, as is Parenting Coordination. It’s recommended to do this before the U.S. goes bankrupt and the $$ is inflated into worthlessness and no longer the world’s reserve currency, which I can see why considering what we DO with it!
http://www.crckids.org/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-trustees/

David L. Levy, Esq. is a CRC co-founder and former CRC President. He has directed 16 CRC conferences, was editor of the 1993 book entitled “The Best Parents is Both Parents®”, and has recently published an eco-novel entitled “Revolt of the Animals.”
![]()
Michael L. Oddenino has been the CRC’s General Counsel since its inception in 1985. He practices family law full time in Arcadia, CA, just outside Los Angeles. He has written numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs and journal articles on family law. His CRC brief in the 1989 Michael H case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court agreed with the CRC that never-married fathers were entitled to a hearing to determine visitation rights to their children, even if the child was born within a marriage of the mother to another man.
![]()
Margaret A. Wuwert, Chief Operating Officer, is a retired social worker and serves as Director of CRC of Northwest Ohio. Her agency is one of CRC’s largest chapters with eight Access Centers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. In 2002, Ms. Wuwert was recognized by the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court for her untiring dedication and supportive access services to the children and families in the Toledo area.
![]()
Mark S. Inzetta, J.D. is the Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Wendy’s International, Inc., based in Dublin, Ohio. Before the CRC, Mark served on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Commission, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Task Force on Family Law and Children, ***and Board of Directors of the Franklin County, Ohio Chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates.
*** Lots of AFCC influence on that one, I think I blogged it. To get input, they simply flew the task force out to Arizona (home to an AFCC organization) to sit on AFCC presentations; I may have even blogged that. Given Ms. Wuwert, and others, I can see possibly why CRC shows up on the Indiana Child Support site.
Just to show how “totally” unrelated AFCC is from this SVN (that’s bouncing its corporation status from state to state?) here’s what’s scheduled for the October 2011 SVN conference, I guess tax-deductible for the SVN because it’s a regional training, and probably for attendees under education, and probably who knows what else.
“2011 REGIONAL TRAINING for “SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK”: INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA“
“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families, Implications for Supervised Visitation”
Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana
October 26,2011

This One Day Institute will focus on the issues presented in Supervised Visitation when Domestic Violence is present. This Institute will provide information to help professionals who work with SV providers, and those who provide direct services, to understand how domestic violence may require changes to their services to respond to the complex dynamic involved.
Scheduled one day before the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Regional Conference:
“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners” at the Hyatt Regency.
For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE
(and you can see the great race-car graphics, too….)
I don’t know about that “no winners” part. It seems like great retirement planning if you’re in the business, particularly if you have published something that could be marketed as “parent education” or how to work with flawed parents, or such . . . . .
Cost: $125 for SVN Members, $150 for Non Members (Includes Breakfast and Lunch):
A rate of $135/night at the Hyatt Regency is available through the AFCC Conference: HERE
I think we should look at the current list of AFCC Board Membership, starting with Linda Fieldstone (of Florida), now President: Is your judge on it?
AFCC Board of Directors
President
Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL
President Elect
Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA
Vice President
Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW, St. Paul, MN
Secretary
Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH
Treasurer
Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ
Past President
Robert M. Smith, JD, MDiv, Windsor, CO
Hon. Peter Boshier, Wellington, New Zealand Hon. Diana Bryant, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Andrea Clark, MSW, St. Louis, MO patti cross, JD, Toronto, ON
Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, Boston, MA Hon. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Los Angeles, CA Hon. R. John Harper, Toronto, ON Grace M. Hawkins, MSW, Tucson, AZ Mindy F. Mitnick, EdM, MA, Edina, MN Hon. Graham R. Mullane, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL, Northampton, MA Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD, Palo Alto, CA Larry V. Swall, JD, Liberty, MO
AFCC Staff
Executive Director
Peter Salem, MA
Which reminds me, some time, to do a post or two on the Hofstra University (NY) connection to AFCC.
Associate Director
Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT
Program Director
Candace Walker, CMP, CMM
Business and Administrative Director
Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA
Office Manager & Registrar
Dawn Holmes
Program Coordinator
Nola Risse-Connolly, BA
Program Coordinator
Erin Sommerfeld, BA
Administrative Assistant
Jessica Murdy, BS
AND IF YOU LIVE IN INDIANA, be comforted to know they have the violence/danger thing all under control:
Co-sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center
I notice that the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (aka “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.)-related “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has fully enmeshed itself now with AFCC (and continuing to receive preventing violence discretionary grants, no doubt) and as such will be just about useless when it comes to objective critiques of the AFCC and its impact on our culture and the culture of divorce in re: murder/suicides around exchange of children or the filing of protective orders (so to speak) (I’m referring to Loretta Frederick: Go to TAGGS.hhs.gov and see if you can find the name, or search my blog on the organizations it’ll make more sense):
4. Judicial Officers institute— interparental conflict and domestic Violence: structuring Parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse
The basic implication of “abuse” is danger to the abused, or if access to hurt the abused is cut off, attempts to hurt HER children instead. The most common sense solution would be separation. But that concept has an “irreconciliable difference” with the fathers’ rights and perpetual new professions contingents, so we need to create more tax exempt entities to confer and rehearse how to make these situations work, even if the idea is ridiculous.
You beat a person — you shouldn’t be around children. GOT IT? Why should everyone else pay an adult to be supervised in the presence of children rather than get that adult AWAY from children and let them deal with their life in an adult manner somewhere else. This is called deterrence.
COMMON SENSE though, wouldn’t support the word “institute” which there seems to be always another one of …….
Research has documented that interparental conflict and violence have multiple negative effects on many aspects of parenting and family functioning and on children’s psychological functioning and dysregulation. It is also associated with multiple adjustment problems in children, including internalizing and externalizing problems, PTSD, sleep problems, and school adjustment problems and performance.
IT meaning “interparental conflict and violence.” Is conflict the same as violence? VIOLENCE is directional, and just might have self-defense counter-moves. Two can have conflict, but generally one starts the violence. ACEStudy.org (Kaiser/CDC study, an old one, but a large and 10-years-long one) talked about adverse childhood events having these impacts, two of which such events included physical violence and sexual abuse.
Presenters in this institute will tie the latest research on [how to rename/reframe partner and child abuse] the impact of interparental conflict and domestic violence on children to the practical task of structuring parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse. As a result of this institute, participants will be better able to structure and evaluate parenting arrangements that account for the unique nature of the violence and conflict in the family and link the abuse to the parenting capacities of the parties.
Loretta M. Frederick, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN
Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH
E. Mark Cummings, PhD, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
Pamela A. Hayman-Weaner, JD, Defiance, OH Gabrielle Davis, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project,
Minneapolis, MN
And be sure not to miss this pre-conference institute cliff-hanger:
7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time
The rubric of utilizing multiple hypotheses is essential to ensure appropriate interventions, services and parenting plans while addressing any shifts in parent-child estrangement vs. alienation. This workshop will help participants grapple with the complex and sometimes changing dynamics of families in conflict, particularly where domestic abuse is alleged or identified. Various typologies of abusers, victims, and relationships will be examined. Presenters will explore how to conduct initial assessments while elucidating the importance of ongoing assessment and monitoring of any progress.
Amy Van Gunst, MA, Fountain Hill Center, Grand Rapids, MI
Randy Flood, MA, Men’s Resource Center at Fountain Hill, Grand Rapids, MI
Make sure to read aloud the portion in red 3 times fast. Then cogitate on the concept of putting “abuse” and “parenting” in the same place at all. Then think about whether you’d like to have people who speak like that to decide where your child lives, or influence others who do.
SUPERVISED VISITATION very linked in with the AFCC and with, at least the California Courts
[PDF]
SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK (SVN) STANDARDS FOR …
http://www.afccnet.org/…/Supervised_Visitation_Nework-Standards%20Final%2…File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
of the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Standards Task Force (the “Task …. 1 TheSupervised Visitation Network acknowledges that the concept of both …California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody …
Jul 28, 2011 – Why can supervised visitation help in cases where there is or has been … and education requirements of the Supervised Visitation Network. …
WELL, that’s enough fun for one post…. Perhaps it will illustrate a few points for my next one, about the SF Courthouses closing down, but still there are ongoing grants to SFTC from a very interesting few sources….
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.
in misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.























![Violence Against Women Online Resources [logo]](https://i0.wp.com/www.mincava.umn.edu/images/comdoclogo.jpg)


Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the





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?
“TAGG” you’re It: CFDA 93.086 Grantees– Let Me Count The Ways (to distribute $121,077,648 on the same old theme, re-shrinkwrapped)…
with one comment
Reader Warning:
Format of these posts — I am simply researching (looking up) as I go, and posting what I find, with commentary. There is a narrative. If you want the list of the grants in question, scroll down to the bottom.
Topics in this post include:
And finally, at the bottom, is another printout of a Grant Series. The post is raggedy and scraggledy (with long incomplete expressive sentences, sometimes missing a predicate) — but I am going to post it anyhow. I believe the information is interesting enough for someone of similar interests to grab part of it, and do his/her own lookups.
Personally, I believe that untold numbers of the HHS grantees are simply front operations, that enable money laundering. I say this because they cannot maintain a corporate name very long, have multiple people, for example, on a central (umbrella or founding) organization board — and then these people form splitoff nonprofits (sometimes also getting HHS grants) — under their names, and the various groups refer to each other (as if independence existed) to further boost their image. That, FYI, is an AFCC pattern through and through. One of the chief groups that led me to come right out and say this was the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (CHMC) — which hails to San Diego County, Southern California + Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project?” – -hailing to Sacramento, Northern California. These guys are absolutely unbelievable. Check the street addresses and personnel. San Diego & Sacramento (State Capitol). Watch out!
Over time, the chronological development of the groups — and their ever-changing rhetoric (exhibiting planning, as one phrase gets discredited, another is in the wings and in the works. Right now, it’s “relationship skills” near the forefront, but Parenting Coordination appears to have been legislated in many states, which is bad news for good Moms, for sure.
OK, HERE WE GO:
The structure & contents of site “TAGGS” is a real window into what US policymakers think of the commoners, i.e., those who work for hourly wages with taxes deducted upfront to fund social science research — much of it “discretionary” “demonstration” and allegedly “new” grants. Another commentary on what someone thinks of the “commoners” is how careless, incomplete, and inaccurate — that’s not including the intentionally obscure and deceptive facets also. It is an appearance only of “transparency.”
The 2011 Total of CFDA 93.086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) grants, per this site (run just now) is:
I have been running searches (of all types) on this website for most of the time I’ve blogged here. It should be telling details of how public money, allocated to the Health and Human Services Department, is being spent, and on whom. So many of the marriage, fatherhood, AND “domestic violence prevention” organizations, when closely examined, are not even legitimate — their incorporation status is lost in one state, and they simply head off to another, networking through the usual court-related associations set up years ago.
I believe a general overview of specific grant series paint a picture, even if one doesn’t study all the details (although groups local to you, I’d want to!). For example, look at the project name of this first sample (the rest, below):
(would display with the navy-blue header row, except I pasted, rather than “dragged” the info onto the blog. Same source as above).
Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003
WTHell is a “Fathers Court”? Is there a Corresponding Mothers’ Court? Should we then eliminate the concept of “Children’s Court”? (that won’t happen — the word “children” in almost any combo is a huge grants draw….). Can we separate childless couples into a “Marriage Court”? And, if so, why should all the unmarried and childless, (or they raised kids without going through family court hell, and are continuing to contribute to society, while this system allows, almost indiscriminately, group after religious or simply elitist group, to skim the profits, collected via the IRS and supplemented by large corporations or foundations (Ford, Annie E. Casey, etc.)?
FK sounds like a new series. For the record, here’s the nationwide total of the “FK” series a quick TAGGS run for 2011 only: to run this (takes seconds, only) is easy:
Select one or all from Fiscal Year. The current calendar year will be searched by default.
ALL 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
Enter a keyword in the Award Title. If left blank, all award titles will be searched. Special characters are not permitted.
Enter an Award Number. If left blank, all award numbers will be searched. Special characters and spaces are not permitted.
Recipient ZIP Code: 63158
Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330
Notice, both of those are $1.5 million grants, and from groups that have been around for a while. Whoever, the 2nd one above (DC zip code) is, this is their total grants since 2006:
Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions
They got $500K per year (2006,7,8,9,10) on a “90FR” grant, and this year, switched to receiving a “90FK,” with triple the amount and a fancier project name — misspelled. Let’s hope that whoever is entering these names isn’t also entering information that involves a decimal point on accounts receivable or payable for our government. More likely, someone is being pressured (too much) to help cover up the abuse & mis-use of these funds, by making them harder to track by names. (recall that the last series of 90FM names had ALL the Principal Investigator last names omitted (the “FN” field was doubled). Either this or there is NO proofreading or fact-checking in the Taggs submission process whatsoever — not too encouraging, considering the amount of money they are reporting on.
I’ve done data entry (and AR/AP before) and had I messed up that many words (and obviously failed to spellcheck, or had spellcheck function consistently set to “off”), I’d lose my job. As you can see, I haven’t been working in government. (Disclaimer: this blog is volunteer, and I do not spellcheck, or copyedit and have a post explaining this, and why).
If I took this number over to USASPENDING.gov, no doubt we’d get a different total, even if selecting grants only & HHS only. I do not know what result would com if (this would be another step) I went to Washington DC and checked their incorporation, or NCCSDataweb.org and looked for a nonprofit filing. (not today…)
Oh well — since you insisted — here’s the data:
http://dccollaboratives.org/
Read the description: This is a 501(c)3 of 501(c)3’s. . .
Our Mission
The Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council (HFTCCC) brings together community leaders to create and sustain a District-wide network that empowers families and communities to improve their quality of life.
Perhaps it would be wiser to figure out what “disempowered” families, including mothers, — confront it, and stop it. As Washington, D.C. is one of the most powerful places on the planet (not including the centers of Finance…), in one of the formerly? most powerful countries in the world, one wonders how, when, and why it became filled with such disempowered families. Apparently there was a power grab somewhere along the way. Address that — and families will be more empowered.
{{Judging by the HHS funding, the word “families” means “fathers” which is common usage among grantees.]]
We are a 501(c) (3), organization that provides leadership, advocacy, resource development, technical assistance, and training to the six Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives. The six Collaboratives are independent nonprofit organizations that operate across the District of Columbia in communities facing intergenerational economic, social and safety challenges. Since the mid 1990s, the Collaboratives supported by the Collaborative Council, have joined with community members – residents and institutions alike – to re-weave the social fabric. Each community solution is tailored to the needs of the community with Collaboratives and their partners offering a range of unique services and supports to children and families.
[[After describing a forum to report results, based on surveys…]]
The street address exactly matches the “DC Children’s Trust,” and, for example, a Parent Training center for adoptive & foster parents.
1112 11th Street, NW
Suite B
Washington, DC 20001
The DC Children’s Trust’s mission is (per its Facebook summary).
Clearly, the standards emphasize getting promoting responsible fatherhood grants in order to teach groups how to prevent child abuse (cf. Footloose in Tuscaloosa post). This, FYI, is national policy, OCSE /Welfare policy and at some level, could be called HHS policy. In order to prevent abuse of children by fathers & mothers, train fathers and get them back in the homes. Period. Children’s Trusts help direct funding, they are often public/private partnerships. Under “products” ( a long list) I see “Parents Anonymous Grant,” which I recently blogged, right? (cf. “Circle of Parents” is basically a NFI mouthpiece; the work together).
At the same address is:
NOTICE — 1996 = established right after welfare reform made father-promotion grants available, block grants to the states (and presumably DC) to enable diversionary programs as a long-term solution to end poverty and child abuse.
History
East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, Inc. (ERFSC) was established in 1996 and is one of seven neighborhood based collaboratives in the District of Columbia participating in the Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council. This program, spearheaded by the DC Child and Family Services Agency, received its planning grant in April 1996 and its implementation grant in August 1997.
ERFSC is also an expansion of the Child Welfare Working Group of the Rebuilding Communities Initiative (RCI) spearheaded by Marshall Heights Community Development Organization. RCI embodies a system reform agenda for which the central goal is the improved and sustained well being of children and families.
ERFSC has operated as an independent stand-alone organization since October 2000. This organization evolved out of a seven (7) year old Child Welfare Initiative funded by the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency and the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1996. For the first five (5) years of its inception, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, Inc. (MHCDO) provided fiscal agency responsibilities. In October 2000, ERFSC received its 501©3 to serve as an independent non-profit agency.
Where are the tax returns for the years 2002, 2003-4-5-6 & 7?
Your query: ( Organization Name: east river family strengthening collaborative , State:“DC” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed)
ORGANIZATION NAME
STATE
YEAR
TOTAL ASSETS
FORM
PAGES
EIN
{There are many directors, and about 3 of them (per 2009 Tax Return) are working 40 hours a week — for nothing. Only Mae H. Best is paid ($115K), so here is her bio — notice the Youngstown, OH connection:
(Website says they became a separate 501(c)3 in 2000. Looks like one of the first things that happened thereafter (or the Foundation 990 Finder is wrong) was to not file tax returns for several years. I will check another source, and retract statement if they show such returns).
This article (scroll down) has a paragraph identifying this neighborhood nonprofit as having grabbed some of the “Promise Neighborhoods” funding, which is described, and modeled ? after Geoffrey Canada’s “The Harlem Zone.”
To be consistent, this should have been labeled “father absence” which is a cause of poverty, right. SIngle mothers in different context might not be so poor; however when stuck in a poor enclave right next to Congressional Districts, than something ain’t right, obviously. The only gender mentioned in association with this list of bad things is female, but I’m sure residents are both female and male….
This should be a separate post. Mr. Canada — clearly an astounding person —
His parents divorced when he was about 4, with 2 older and 1 younger sibling, and apparently didn’t support the family. Nevertheless, being sent away to live with his Long Island grandparents in his teens, he went on to be recruited by (win an award from) the Fraternal Order of Masons, and get degrees in Psychology, Sociology, and finally Education, the last from Harvard. Thank you Mom — I guess you did well! should be a comment, but this is not heard in the publications, is it?
(There’s a reason I took time to mention Geoffrey Canada, The Harlem Zone, which relates to another major nonprofit run by the son of Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, and which (one can see the trend here) is promoting charter schools hard, and has begun to take some serious flack in a few states by program personnel ramrodding their agenda through, over the voices of local, state-based parents and volunteer workers. ). Like Ronald D. Mincy (also of Harvard, but in Economics) here is another prominent African-American male leader whose mother MIGHT have done something right (judging by the degrees, and their current position) — and yet their work — which is helping change society — shows an emotional obsession with the absent father, and an inability to properly credit a mother, or recognize that THEIR OWN SUCCESS comes through struggles but with a single mother. In effect, their work — supported by major foundations which I’ll hazard a guess are not run by any minority whatsoever — (like the Ford Foundation) — has now scapegoated single mothers across the country, and made it not only almost impossible, but also socially unacceptable — and politicially incorrect — to succeed. Children are being REMOVED from such mothers apparently by the thousands, even when after removal, disaster (death in foster care, or in a court-ordered exchange with the noncustodial parent) often happens.
Mixing truths, but framing them according to their personal childhood experience, and buoyed up by federal funding and corporate funding — society is indeed being transformed — and what i see is the continued buoying up of the public education which has failed students according to their color, caste, and neighborhoods (which the unequal system will continue to do, although it also fails those in prosperous suburban enclaves in different ways). We have become (not are becoming) a federally centralized country with a parallel set of government-by-administrative-agency. This is essentially socialism and foreign to the purpose of the country and the Constitution, to which Presidents must swear an oath to uphold and defend, but don’t. Any “Cradle to grave” solution focusing on TRAINING — is indeed socialism, and contrary to LIFE (which has more variety, and also a greater variety of personal goals), LIBERTY (consider the economic angle) and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. People fork this over when they fail to protest, or even investigate where their own money is being spent. I did this also — while working FT, raising children, and seeking to keep all of us alive from the imminent danger of, their father. It took YEARS to get out (after deciding to get out) and then only to face systems putting us back in — and come to find they are based on childhood longing for the father, positioned in Harvard, MIT (see next) and other high places.
Geoffrey Canada, father-absent resounding success & Harvard (Education) grad, created and expanded The Harlem Zone, and Ronald D. Mincy, father-absent, father-obsessed, Ph.D.’d Harvard (economics) Grad, and director of — well, Logo Below — of whom this naturally reminded me– apparently conducted a vertical study of the Harlem Zone:
** (portion in red) — was this Dr. Mincy’s father? Is this is hope — that his Dad really wanted to be involved, but there were just too many obstacles to father-involvement? Is all this really about certain men who ascended to (or were selected & placed, not that they didn’t earn every single degree, but are we allowed to mention the Fraternal Order of Masons (for Mr Canada), are we allowed to mention just how many foundations supported Dr. Mincy?) in VERY influential positions, as the figurehead of the successful black man, who is now — rather than confronting the system-concept which separated families to start with (FYI, it’s called slavery) — and is instead, working for the same TYPE of masters (if not some corporations that went back nearly as far) and doing the same thing to other famlies who share none of their Ph.D. characteristics, and may not even know this has been done to them, and by transforming the welfare system further and further to minimize and curtail “mother-involvement,” ensure that the child support system can be utilized by even mutli-millionaire fathers to separate children from their biological mothers, as well as diverting cash aid to single-mother households by defining success by the number of adult biologically related males in the home?
Why are we allowing groups like Columbia School of Social Policy, or corporations & foundations — to change the forms of government to figure out HOW to produce desired social results? This is nothing other than “Wealth-Makes-Right” and those on the top of society got their because God wanted them to, from which the position of “God” can be fulfilled through social design and planning how others will — or will not– live, bypassing the legal systems, for example, in particular, the criminal code.
Fraternal Order of Masons – interesting…
There’s more . . . .
Hardly surprising — we do remember, right, that former U.S. President severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention over their treatment — and view– of women. While I may not agree with what he’s doing instead (joined a worldwide “Council of Elders” — give me a break!), this part is true:
Jimmy Carter Severs Ties With Southern Baptist Convention: “Many Male Religious Leaders Help Subjugate Women“
Well, the world is fully of nutcase Messiahs, they are found amongst the homeless, and among the ultrarich. Guess which group probably has done more harm, and been responsible for more human misery, wars, poverty, and genocides, in the long-term?
A little more detail on Mr. Canda’s life, from “blackpast.org” an on-line encyclopedia. His mother was a counselor. He had no sisters…..
(VERY) BRIEFLY: The EDELMANS & CHILDREn’s DEFENSE FUND (1992 interview with Marian Wright Edelman) speaks about her parent’s Baptist past
….”her childhood home in Bennettsville, S.C. That was the starting point for the self-assured black girl who would emerge from the segregated South to go to Yale University Law School, create the Children’s Defense Fund and propel herself onto the national scene as an impassioned and relentless champion of needy children and families…. It was in that spirit, to promote continuity, that Mrs. Edelman wrote a little book, a “spiritual and family dowry,” for her sons, Joshua, Jonah and Ezra. She has been married for 24 years to Peter Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University.
I don’t know how much readership understands the role of the Children’s Defense Fund in policies around today, or how one of her 3 sons’ work intersects with Mr. Canada’s, at the nonprofit, charterschoolpromotion level. I am wondering whether she would be OK with the impact of these social programs on real mothers, today:
. . .
OK — now I will link Jonah Edelman to Geoffrey Canada (finally), through Mr. Edelman’s Wikipedia — and hopefully you will see the connection with these inexorable training grants from HHS — there is an HHS connection in the family line:
STAND FOR CHILDREN is no ordinary nonprofit — it was set up to be nationwide from the very beginning and to force social transformation. It is also very well endowed. Currently, this group is facing off with teachers’ unions, (see “Illinois”) and Mr. Edelman was caught boasting about how he got these unions to give away their rights — although the cause is, “improving public schools” – — right? . . .
He is, essentially, a blueblood acting like a blueblood, i.e., arrogant — taking charge — and rescuing poor people by redesigning government policy— and insisting it be done “his way” or the highway. When I say blueblood, we know Marian Wright Edelson’s personal background and commitment, discipline, and values. Her husband/Jonah’s father qualifies as blueblood (See “Georgetown” and working for RFK), and former assistant Secretary to the DHHS — – where the fatherhood programs now life — and it appears these were instrumental in some of their beginnings. And may give a better clue to their actual purposes.
Yes, about that rally:
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE MOVEMENTS NOW GOING ON IN HHS, where “CHILDREN & FAMILIES” precludes speech of individuals, and where leadership is to be followed, not questioned, when it comes to policy. The intent is to transform the public schools, and if necessary, take on teacher’s unions. I see an article boasting about how their legislators all one, and several “status quo” legislators lost. Grassroots advocacy, organization, and funding, right? Next, there is this one showing alliance / alignment with Mr. Canada. As I have explained, that also = alignment with the fatherhood prominence, and getting more children into state care than Mom’s care, by combining early childhood education + public school (regular or charter) education, both federal projects, while endorsing — apparently — welfare-diversions (like the HTTC above) to transform certain communities:
1. Post-Election Message from Stand’s CEO, Jonah Edelman (nov. 8, 2010)
This is grassroots organizing from the top-down, not the bottom-up, and if anything, this organization is ORGANized and visionary; that also apparently runs in the family line, plus (see educations). . . . . (did they attend local public schools, K-12?) . . . . . Checking my Nonprofit status — and actually reading a tax return (great way to learn about a group — read their tax returns if possible) — there is a:
and apparently (per that tax return) a
The (2002) board of SFCLC (DC group) was:
Every one of those corporations / organizations the board of directors sit on has a story, and most likely an interest in education reform. Who are these people, and why have they taken on (with private, not public funding — on this tax return at least) organization to restructure the US Educational system according to their particular vision? For example, because it’s simplest to illustrate, “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS” is top dog in employer-provided daycare.
From the site: INSIDERTRADING.PROCON.ORG
“A new nationwide 4G wireless broadband network provider that will use a unique combination of satellite and terrestrial technology to revolutionize wireless communications in the United States.” ”
SkyTerra is North America’s leading developer and supplier of mobile satellite communications services (MSS). Since 1996 SkyTerra has been providing reliable wireless voice, two-way radio and data services for a wide range of customers across North America, northern South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Hawaii via its two existing MSAT satellites. Satellite service is the perfect communications solution for remote locations lacking terrestrial coverage and when man made or natural disasters strike. Current customers cover a broad spectrum including public safety, security, broadcasting, natural resources, fleet management and asset tracking. {{AND/Or SPYING….}}
LIGHTSQUARED: The idea behind this is providing (4G at least) “Wholesale broadband access” to the entire country. In Nov. 2010, they launched a satellite from Kazakhstan, and the site mentions:
It is waiting? for FCC approval of its service; there’s claims it would jam GPS. Fascinating reading — and here’s an article on the debate between FCC (Congressional favorite) this new one — only slightly technical. Recommended read– it plays into the job market, digital divide.
SkyTerra Wikipedia
The Satellite road aboard a Russian Satellite, launched last November, per the Nasa article: !!!
(Somehow this isn’t as comforting as it is probably supposed to be….)
The Iscol Family (apparently husband made his money in mobile communications…)
<>STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP, JILL ISCOL
It’s hard to know where, on the web, to start. Cornell, Yale, New York City? The portion of Cornell University this husband/wife pair is currently funding / running? Their connections with Hillary Rodham Clinton? Well, while we’re on the topic, how about article from “CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY.”
In this summary (it’s the entire web page) you can see the policy-making influence with Gores, Family Strengthening projects, and the ability to somehow raise incredible finances for whatever project her heart desires. This is what Yale Graduates do, and the Columbia background also includes a penchant the teaching. Does this look like someone who would be taking input from the lower ranks of society, or dishing it out, according to the personal vision determined with the social & political set she runs in, and they do? Or taking feedback on the impact of these programs on the working class, (or, welfare recipients) which might be at odds from program purposes?
Sorry — I have to point this out Bank Street College of Education began with a single person’s idea in 1916, and a humanist (as oppose to, say, Deist) idea to study children and figure out what produces the best results, according to humanist definitions and in the process of creating a better world. This intense obsession — and it IS an obsession — with getting children away from their natural parents (while preaching marriage and family throughout) — didn’t start yesterday. Particularly one sees the institutes throughout the country wishing to “study” children in order to do a better job than previous generations. This is reflected to date in Obama Administration’s expansion of Head Start, Early Head Start, and push to get mothers out of the home and back to work, and kids into daycare centers where HHS will pay for “Child Development Scholars” to take notes, etc. etc. Consider — this was before women got the vote!
(The next three bullets, quotes from a “Harvard Educational Review” very laborious review of a book on the development of Preschool in America)
Your basic “Children as lab rats” concept, but of course for a noble purpose. A Tulane University “Child Development Center” history page describes the Patty Smith Hill Influence, in fact, mentioning the 1969 Chicago University “Lab School.”:
Lucy Sprague Mitchell (from a 2006 “Education Update” site), in short, another blueblood (Radcliffe, UCBerkeley Dean of Women) gets together with others to change the world, starting with studying how to produce a better child:
(I continued looking — got that “childlike curiosity” still, I guess) — this person who never had a formal education til she was 16, was into early education for the purposes of studying how children learn . . . she had a domineering father . . . . this Bureau of Educational Systems was subsidized by a cousin’s inheritance . . . and the methods included:
Wikipedia on Bank Street College of Education directly ties this group to Head Start. (Bank Street was simply the Greenwich Village location of the Bureau of Educational Experiments when it started):
The little kids are brought in to test theory on, but the place started with theory. Of course, little kids in nursery schools is something of a controlled situation, and in fact, studying a young child in isolation from its parents makes next to no sense to me. See my post “monkeying with mothers.” Same mentality!
Some things never change. I found a grant (from another organization currently, I think, associated with a group attempting to eradicate no-fault divorce in Ohio, National Council of Family Relations, in cooperation with Utah State University. Or, at least in the same grant series. Some ideas just refuse to die, including that the best people to change society are those at the top — although typically it’s those who are starting wars, and sending the masses of lower class youth to go die in them, not to mention locking them up the disproportionately to the white-collar criminals…. and then (Lamar Alexander) getting rich by buying stock in the private prisons that oppress them — which they do, resulting in lawsuits for sexual assault and more. (CCA).
Notice the nature of this grant, that it’s at a University, and that it’s funded under “Head Start.” This year, 2011, there were 26 “90YR” projects — ALL at Universities, across the country — and $4.78 million worth — testing, measuring, responding, and attempting to predict human behavior according to certain variables. I really should post them. For example, UCLA Board of Regents wants to get better at predicting children’s behavior (good luck with that one!):
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, BOARD OF REGENTS
Recipient ZIP Code: 90095
And Utah State has its
And Ms. Roggman’s Background:
Lori Roggman
Staff Biography Education
Ph.D., 1988, University of Texas (Developmental Psychology)
M.S., 1981, Utah State University (Family & Human Development)
B.S., 1972, Utah State University (Psychology)
Teaching
Undergraduate: Parenting/ChildGuidance, Infancy/Early Childhood
Graduate: Human Development Theories (6060), Frontiers of Human Development (7060), Topical Seminars on Language Development, Attachment, Play, Fathers.
– – – – Ah Well . . . . .
This is part of the “FAMILY LIFE DEVELOPMENT CENTER” at Cornell…. (NOTE: the “HTTC” far above — the DC-based Collaborative I found on the TAGGS list — has a curious link to “Family Development Institute” and is taking personal information for anyone wanting to get credentialed as one: Guess you can learn how to raise (“develop”) a family, if you get credentialed for it here; wonder who pays how much for the training. SAME CONCEPT AT CORNELL — in fact overall, this is the concept. I call it “Designer Families,” although what often seems to result is family breakup, for a better, state-approved “design,” from my experience (and I’m well networked with similar cases….) (I also did a search on ‘Fatherhood” then “motherhood” at the School of Human Ecology with the usual results: fatherhood 15 to motherhood 8. Several of the faculty appear to have come from Fragile Families studies, and some prior HHS connection. The last reference to “fatherhood” was an article by (AFCC professional?) Robert E. Emery, and discussing Custody Evaluations. Others of course discussed child support….)
THIS is now, East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Executive Director, as quoted in the “promising neighborhoods” article at “Circle of Philanthropy”
**omitted — they may hear or witness their parents fighting, or one being assaulted….
{Annie E. Casey Foundation is one of the major funders of fatherhood studies; I have been studying this for over 2 eyars. They show up EVERYwhere, including in groups allegedly preventing family violence, and providing “resource centers,” (Websites, and the paid-for studies that can be downloaded there, and training opportunities), such as “Family Violence Prevention Fund.” Excuse me, I forgot their recent federally-assisted web facelift, physical move (to the SF Praesidio) AND name change. How, instead of the grandiose promise of preventing Family VIolence (which I see no evidence they are), they are expanding the scope: “Futures Without Violence.” AS I recall (you can check), Annie E. Casey funds this, and probably the “fragile families” study as well.
I like that they state their timeline and incorporation history. That’s good. Notice the “letter to the community” starts with “father absence.”
Letter to The Community
Help Us Make Ward 7 Stronger.
Dear Friend of ERFSC:Imagine a family situation where the father is absent, the mother is unemployed and the children are barely making it in school due to lack of attention and necessary resources. Now consider the stress and embarrassment of not having the “right clothes” to wear to school, a healthy lunch to edify the children’s minds, and a single parent who is so busy trying to make ends meet, that she involuntarily neglects her children. Surely you can see how a family situation like this can negatively affect the mother’s mental health and the children’s self esteem and impact their ability to learn. Surely you can envision how this situation can get worse and result in children who fall into the juvenile system or worse!
I imagine there is not a single person on this board, or among the families served, who is completely and totally unaware that:
To rephrase Daddy’s in jail as putting him back with his family (without addressing the “why” of incarceration, which could range from violent criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to drug-related criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to racism, to the fact that there’s a huge corporate lobbying industry behind expanding the prison system (search CCA on my site, “Corrections Corporation of America” – -to possibly even child support arrearages, if combined with other things . . .at what point is it NOT good to reunite that family, and instead allow the female-headed household to be strengthened without letting an abuser back in?
“With your generous donation, we can open up many windows of opportunity and give our residents a life beyond their limited boundaries along with the tools, the hope and the desire to strive for empowerment. By making a donation, you will not only be contributing directly to the success of these families, but will also be playing an active role in the overall sustainability of ERFSC.
You may donate right here on our Web site or send your donation check to our office”
Look who is funding the individual agency, and the umbrella agency here — and below, it’s clear the money (a) comes from welfare that might otherwise actually REACH the household in question, instead of being DIVERTED to fund non-taxpaying entities which set up slick and donations-collecting websites so they can take credit for any social services provided. . . . Moreover, between TAGGS & HHS — it’s clear one is under-reporting or the other is OVER-reporting. Think about that before you donate, because this is common practice in the field:
USASPENDING has reported (per this DUNS# — which is not always specific only to one organization, i understand — but at least an identifier) only 3 of the 6 grants, or about half of their total. No data pre-dating 2009 exists. We can also see that this money is most DEFINITELy coming out of TANF, or “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families”
I.e., someone’s food and cash aid. It is more important to have healthy, stable marriages — or try to — than for children to eat and be clothed if not living with their biological Daddies. . . ..
Transaction Number # 1
1112 11th St NW Ste B 0 , Washington, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
September 28 , 2011
Obligation Amount:
$1,533,518
to search D.C. corporations, apparently you have to create a user account. I don’t want to do this, so let’s check out just the umbrella nonprofit, and this one:
HTTC: Unlike most households, their assets are steadily increasing. View a tax return, and subtract $500K per year (minimum) from the “government grants” and see if it is a well-run organization that could stand on its own, and note the ration of grants to program service income, and the executive pay, etc. That’s what I do when viewing tax returns. Notice — they got $500K in 2006. Where is the 2006 tax return?
ORGANIZATION NAME
STATE
YEAR
TOTAL ASSETS
FORM
PAGES
EIN
TOTAL of “90FK” awards for 2011:
TOTAL of “90FM” awards for 2011:
Why Think when you can Hyperlink?
The heart of the “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” grantee system is an attempt to get the entire nation (at its expense) in front of trainers and facilitators to — for the sake of our country — submit to indoctrination in what, and how, to speak (i.e., think) about themselves, their children, their neighbors, poverty, work, and their place in this world.
The “CIRCLE OF IDEAS” circulating through this system is getting smaller and smaller, while the ripples from having thrown this stone into the pond of plurality are still spreading. Ig pushed in t is intentional domination and restriction of a nation’s vocabulary — for profit — to subdue and restrict its thinking about cause & effect, particularly so as NOT to connect this type of corruption with incidents of murder/suicide, kidnapping, child molestation, threats, stalking, or ongoing, chronic stress and work attrition — even when the connection is open, upfront, and obviously in the custody context.
In Liberia, women of different faiths united (risking their lives) to “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” and changed the course of the country’s history. They did not want any more excuses for terrorism and attempted genocide. I do believe that in the USA we are going to have to do this too, ladies and men of conscience. Not through Occupying Wall Street — but through sitting one’s behind down on some paperwork (or accounting) of this travesty — and THEN boycott something that is profiting from this enterprise at our children’s futures’ expense.
Recent events in California include: a little girl not returned on visitation; Daddy kills herself and himself. This mother had her child at age approximately 44? (Samaan/Fay). 8 people killed in Seal Beach, California hair salon, one man in the salon, and one outside it, who was sitting in a car — the rest were women. And recently in Richmond, California, a brawl broke out in City Hall, surrounding the “Office of Neighborhood Safety.” Gang members were being paid to attend classes.
I have not blogged this yet, but as I am networked with “Parents” (mothers and grandmothers) across the country who are tired of THIS war, I became aware of an incident in Trumbull County Ohio which totally baffles the mind — until one explores the funding stream, and the organizaing element of “Fatherhood” at the state level. Yes, you danged well bet there is a connection! And I am tired of this propaganda, and excuse-making. I am tired of, when the closer I look, the more questions come up — WHERE is this entity incorporated? Why, when the web page is so fancy, and obviously well-funded — can one so many times not find the nonprofit’s EIN# and tax return — and why when those ARE found, they tend to fall into two categories:
1. The organization would not exist without HHS (and/or DOJ) funding, and is being propped up by them.
2. The organization disappeared (took the money and ran) and no one has caught up with it after an initial, small grant.
3. The organization is itself a FOR-PROFIT and HHS has chosen its (fatherhood promoting, family-strengthening) curriculum as one of about a dozen favored solutions to produce world peace (stop abuse, elmiinate poverty, or make irresponsible men responsible through bribes, or a system of bribes/extortion, etc. — i.e., “training” — and the HHS has helped this organization get all set up, create its private market niche or brand, and then certify or license “train the trainer” seminars (tax deductible) to spread it all over the place. . . . . And is doing this through the already present systems of social welfare, such as TANF, Child Support, Child Abuse Prevention, you name it. For example “Boot Camp for New Dads” is pushed to hospitals where children are being born. And the PR firm “Public Strategies, Inc.” in Oklahoma – which as basically “made” by the Healthy Marriage Initiative (it seems to have almost no other clients) actually got another GRANT?
This, friends, is not what government is for — this is a “Metastasized” government which is eating away the substance of the people that are sustaining it in money, in time, and in labor — and by consuming products it declares we need, when we don’t. Has anyone ever calculated the huge profits made simply to detox people from chronic stress, and the illnesses that that state produces in a human body?
Those who buy into this program will likely have income, including potential retirement income; those who do not will be subjected to it, with the exception of those who designed the curricula, who are probably laughing their way between an offshore bank to the next product idea, or (like ICF International Inc., LLC) buying out lesser companies and figuring out how to expand from their Billion-$$ Business with the US Government, one of the largest spenders (and debtors) in the world.
HERE IS THE SYSTEM:
Middle class pays for it, and if entangled in it, pays (for example, in the courts). Many of the middle class have jobs working in the institutions that market these trainings and are used to SELL curricula to fix poverty (etc — create utopia, basically).
People who have slipped out of or were never out of the lower economic sector — who cannot directly pay for classes — will be forced to take them anyhow, and the implicit “bargain” with the middle classes (from policymakers) is that by forcing the poor rabble into them (through extortion) they will be therefore off the streets and not on YOUR doorstep, so continue to produce wages and taxes that will be distributed to the fatherhood and marriage promoters nationwide, i.e., those who step to our tune.
The HHS GRANTS PROVIDES THE HYPERLINK ADVANTAGE, AND PRE-FAB ASSOCIATIONS:
Most resource centers, examined, are primarily on-line database storage.
The Hyperlink advantage — Federal Help to set up Resources, Visually Engaging Websites, with Official-sounding LInks to the “upline,” and cute new Acronyms for the latest way to market the same material, for example, “FRIENDS” (see last post or so) with the radical concept that Parents might actually know something about their own families. This fact sheet from a Florida group cites Fatherhood grantees “Circle of Parents”(tr) and “Parents Anonymous(tr)” and declares that we are all in this together, and those who have taken control of our families, and are paid to do so, now wish to “collaborate” and “Share leadership” with the actual parents. This being a totally foreign concept to social workers and social scientists in general, SOMEONE had to copyright the concept and run trainings on how to let parents back into the decisionmaking process about their kids and their lives. Get this, from “Factsheet #13” (address to whom?)
Or, here is a “PARENT LEADERSHIP AMBASSADOR FACILITATOR GUIDE” by Circle of Parents & “Friends” — actually by YOU (i.e, USA working citizens), as it cites an HHS grant. Or names a month after its copyrighted concept self: Did you know that
“February was designated as National Parent Leadership Month® by Parents Anonymous®, Inc.”
(which I found out on a site from an organization that my colleagues, family, and friends’ taxes paid to set up and propagate, also trademarked: “Circle of Parents(tr)” Get the picture yet? Here’s the portion of what was taken away from Parents which this proclamation (modeled after the Declaration of Independence, but entirely foreign to it in purpose and process):
How sweet — PPP — Parents, Practitioners and Policymakers. Maybe you can register the trademark “P3” (get a triangle, to imply that we are somehow equal participants, and this is not, instead a basic pyramid scheme run with IRS help….). No thank you — give me back the wasted HHS funds, and keep your gold stars; we are not in gradeschool any more.
I notice, despite all the “fatherhood” words flying around (although not in this PR piece), there’s still no mention of “mother” on it. And as I believe I HAVE established, “Circle of Parents” has been bought out by HHS/NFI-elements, and is walking, talking, and publicizing like them:
PACT I believe stands for PARENTS (meaning Dads) & CHILDREN TOGETHER — PACT. I could be wrong, but check this out:
(this link leads right to the Hawai’i DHS)
Hawai‘i State Commission on Fatherhood
(etc., etc.)
The last several posts, I attempted to correlate the ACF announcement with actual grantees, and find out WTF (the “W” standing for ‘WHO’) they were. As it turned out, most of the grants were the “90FM” series. I found that most of the top half of the ACF Press Release correlated to the 90FM grant series. That “find” was the result of familiarity with the TAGGS database combined with hunch. Then I compared my printout with the ACF press release. The printout was alpha by grantee institution and the ACF Press Release alpha by state. Complicating it was the name changes of the grantee institutions, but I did check them off, one by one.
There are, however, in 2011 (as of today) $121,077,648 of distributions on the TAGGS database, under a single “CFDA” — 93.086.
There’s been major talk between HHS and, say, the Fathers and Families Coalition of America, or even in the recent 2010 law, about making things more fair to fathers (i.e., pleasing the FR movement leadership) by altering the “FATHER”-related portion of money stolen from TANF & OCSE from one-third to one-half. Accordingly, the HHS/ACF Press announcement of october 3 makes it look well balanced between two themes: Top half, MARRIAGE ($59-odd million) and bottom half, FATHERHOOD ($59-odd million).
In practice, the top half having gone primarily to “FM” which sure looks like faith-based groups, is in effect giving it to fatherhood-propagation anyhow; that’s pretty much what faith-based groups do. IF they weren’t so inclined, they would be just secular social service groups, and as such deal with their difficulties with feminism, women having the vote, women controlling reproduction or contraception, married women having a say in household finances, married women actually reporting what their (likewise married, obviously) spouses were doing to them, or their children in the home, and in general opting out of marriage because of that. They also would line up with the rest of the United States that is NOT “faith-based” or practicing a private cult that disagrees with basic laws (such as cultlike beliefs as, you cannot–really- divorce, or beating up someone to dominate the relationship is normal behavior if it’s done to preserve the “father-leader/mother-breeder” status quo).
Yet this next printout shows an increasing variety of grant streams: FM, FR, FK, FN, & FO are among the new ones. FE (Fatherhood Education) is getting “old,” obviously. From what I can tell, FN is for Native American; FK seems to deal with incarcerated populations, and I haven’t figured out FO yet. Notice not a single of these begins with the word “M” for “Marriage.” Perhaps that letter might be mistakenly associated with “MOTHERS” about which this movement has little to do, except in making sure they are not going to be sole physical custodians, and certainly not sole physical and legal ones, for long, if HHS has anything to do with it.
In this listing, you will also see a number of organizations with grants listed as $0, which I gather means either they’re not getting one this year, or they haven’t yet. CIRCLE OF PARENTS, that I landed pretty hard on last post (today’s revision) is among the $0 ones.
THESE CHARTS ARE FOR SCROLLING, BUT THE LINKS ARE ACTIVE — CLICK TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANY GROUP OR GRANT. TAKE A LOOK AT THE TITLES — of the PROJECTS and of the GRANTEES. Compare with the $$. Ask: WTF are they doing? and perhaps look locally, and demand some explanation, or trace the funding in your area.
AGAIN — for comparison — here’s the official announcement:
Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood 2011 Grantees = $59,997,077 + $59,396,652 = $119,393,729.
As of October 22, 2011 evening, I searched the code “93.086” which represents this category of grants — and got $121,077,648.
A difference of $1,643,919 in just a few weeks (could be legit) — but take a look.
At the bottom I talk some about a Community Action Group in Ohio (WSOS). Research is incomplete on this, and I may not have all the facts straight, but readers can fact-check themselves as well. I am trying to answer the larger question about the relationship between “Community Action Programs” in this state and their fundings.
In general, perhaps without my narrative of any guidance, readers might get a general idea of what titles programs are getting how much money, and where. This listing is not by state, but alpha by Grantee — which gets interesting as we already know Grantees have creative name-changing habits already, plus TAGGS has opted some creative spellings of existing names. I figure this is just part of the game. Here we go:
This report ran “AWARD SEARCH” “YEAR 2011″ CFDA 93086” from dropdown list and comes out in 4 segments: 50 entries per page, plus the last few:
Showing: 1 – 50 of 178 Award Actions
Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003
Recipient: ADVOCAP, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 54936-1108
Recipient: AL ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Recipient ZIP Code: 36104
Recipient: ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (ONAP)
Recipient ZIP Code: 99559-0219
Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 36849
Recipient: AVANCE, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 77092
Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754
Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services
Recipient ZIP Code: 81147
Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259
Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907
Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294
Recipient: Brighter Beginnings
Recipient ZIP Code: 94601
Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708
Recipient: CANGLESKA, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 57752-0638
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES INC ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD
Recipient ZIP Code: 06105-1901
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705
Recipient: CENTERFORCE
Recipient ZIP Code: 94901-5516
Recipient: CHAUTAUQUA OPPORTUNITIES, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 14048-2754
Recipient: CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Recipient ZIP Code: 60604
Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE
Recipient ZIP Code: 02903-4011
Recipient: CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES-SCH OF PHYSICAL THER
Recipient ZIP Code: 90027
Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323
Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 90005
Recipient: CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
Recipient ZIP Code: 59521
Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS
Recipient ZIP Code: 60611-3777
Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 80203
Recipient: COEUR DALENE TRIBE
Recipient ZIP Code: 83851-0408
Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303
Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES
Recipient ZIP Code: 59855-0278
Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ
Recipient ZIP Code: 97380
Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 99503
Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 40204-1743
Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
Recipient ZIP Code: 85004
Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215
Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 53211
Recipient: Child family Services of Eastern Virginia
Recipient ZIP Code: 23517
Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863
NEXT! – PAGE 2 of 4
Recipient: Connections To Success
Recipient ZIP Code: 633012634
Recipient: County of Montrose
Recipient ZIP Code: 81401
Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 20032
Recipient: DOUGLAS CHEROKEE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 37816-1218
Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION
Recipient ZIP Code: 90022-5147
Recipient: EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CENTER OF LONG ISLAND, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 11550
Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
Recipient ZIP Code: 79930
Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45405
Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster
Recipient ZIP Code: 18503
Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 74120-4429
Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 98122
Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433
Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 54520-0396
Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE)
Recipient ZIP Code: 10031-7116
Recipient: FRESNO COUNTY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Recipient ZIP Code: 93721
Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554
Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947
Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
Recipient ZIP Code: 77006
Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705
Recipient: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
Recipient ZIP Code: 63158
Recipient: Friends Outside in Los Angeles County, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 91101-1632
Recipient: Future Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137
Recipient: GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 41472
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 55104-1708
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AUSTIN
Recipient ZIP Code: 78703
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH
Recipient ZIP Code: 15203-2102
Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 22182
Recipient: HAYMARKET CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 60607
Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Recipient ZIP Code: 95546
Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330
Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997
Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758
Recipient: Horizon Outreach
Recipient ZIP Code: 77386
Recipient: I C F, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 22031-6050
Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 97220
Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943
Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 72761
Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223
Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 96819
Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 25064-1433
Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457
Recipient: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 45206-1780
Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Recipient ZIP Code: 57105-6048
Recipient: Lexington Leadership Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 40504-3154
NEXT! — PAGE 3 of 4
Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175
Recipient: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Recipient ZIP Code: 21201
Recipient: MEMPHIS & SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Recipient ZIP Code: 38105-5041
Recipient: MID-IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 50158
Recipient: MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recipient ZIP Code: 53226
Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 40066
Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 60187-4579
Recipient: Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry
Recipient ZIP Code: 92116-4557
Recipient: Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice
Recipient ZIP Code: 55415-1200
Recipient: Mission West Virginia, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 25526
Recipient: More Than Conquerors Inc
Recipient ZIP Code: 300835318
Recipient: NASHVILLE METROPOLITIAN BORDEAUX HOSPITAL
Recipient ZIP Code: 37218
Recipient: NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS
Recipient ZIP Code: 90746
Recipient: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 20009-4422
Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 88003
Recipient: NJ ST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Recipient ZIP Code: 08625
Recipient: NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE
Recipient ZIP Code: 98244-0157
Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 97213-2933
Recipient: NW Marriage Institute
Recipient ZIP Code: 98682-2328
Recipient: New York Youth At Risk, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 10038
Recipient: OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
Recipient ZIP Code: 48056
Recipient: OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ
Recipient ZIP Code: 43215
Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 73125
Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE
Recipient ZIP Code: 44087-1654
Recipient: PARENTS PLUS
Recipient ZIP Code: 54952-0452
Recipient: PEANUT BUTTER & JELLY PRESCHOOL
Recipient ZIP Code: 87105
Recipient: PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 19130-2202
Recipient: PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 10023
Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 32216-6241
Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 73116-7909
Recipient: Parenting Center (The)
Recipient ZIP Code: 76107
Recipient: QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE
Recipient ZIP Code: 98350
Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 33157-5372
Recipient: RIDGE Project, Inc
Recipient ZIP Code: 43512-2575
Recipient: Retreat, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 11937
Recipient: SOCIAL ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH (SAY), SAN DIEGO, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 92123
Recipient: SOUTH PUGET INTERTRIBAL PLANNING AGENCY
Recipient ZIP Code: 98584
Recipient: SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 78704
Recipient: SPRINGFIELD URBAN LEAGUE, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 62703-1002
Recipient: STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recipient ZIP Code: 39759-2803
Recipient: SUQUAMISH & KLALLAM HEALTH PLAN
Recipient ZIP Code: 98346
Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project
Recipient ZIP Code: 95821
Recipient: Scholarship and Guidance Association
Recipient ZIP Code: 60609-4231
And FINALLY:
Fiscal Year = 2011
Showing: 151 – 178 of 178 Award Actions
Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Recipient: Shalom Task Force
Recipient ZIP Code: 10274-0137
Recipient: St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition
Recipient ZIP Code: 63108-3302
Recipient: Structured Employment Econ Dev Corp (SEEDCO)
Recipient ZIP Code: 10010
Recipient: Supportive Integrated Services
Recipient ZIP Code: 71101
Recipient: TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE
Recipient ZIP Code: 99701-4871
Recipient: TARRANT COUNTY WORKFORCE BOARD
Recipient ZIP Code: 76103
Recipient: TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS
Recipient ZIP Code: 78666
Recipient: THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 94707-0881
Recipient: THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP
Recipient ZIP Code: 36303-1997
Recipient: TLINGIT & HAIDA TRIBES CENTRAL COUNCIL
Recipient ZIP Code: 99801
Recipient: TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 436201735
Recipient: TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE
Recipient ZIP Code: 24001-2868
Recipient: The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families
Recipient ZIP Code: 29204-2413
Recipient: UNITED WAY OF JACKSON COUNTY, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 49201-1223
Recipient: UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES
Recipient ZIP Code: 10467-2401
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES
Recipient ZIP Code: 72205-7101
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
Recipient ZIP Code: 32826
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
Recipient ZIP Code: 37916
Recipient: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 84322
Recipient: Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 55408-2410
Recipient: VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 05405-3401
Recipient: WAIT Training
Recipient ZIP Code: 80237
Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 43420-3021
Recipient: YOUTH & FAMILY ALLAIANCE
Recipient ZIP Code: 78704-7046
Recipient: YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 73036
Recipient: YWCA OF SAN ANTONIO
Recipient ZIP Code: 78240-1480
Showing: 151 – 178 of 178 Award Actions
Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Comment re:
Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 43420-3021
This is the ONLY agency where an HHS grant (apparently) goes directly to a certain OHIO County where a recent child-rape in a supervised visitation center has been making headline news. In exploring the situation — and the institution — it turns out that the institution where it happens was 75% government funded, with HALF the funding being a special “Children’s Levy” to the state, and the other 22% “Federal Funding.”
OHIO — like a few states — has an actual “FATHERHOOD COMMISSION” which does what Fatherhood Commissions do, primarily directing grants towards saving families by keeping Dads involved. Part of the streamlined funding (or, “Flexible Funding” as it’s called), enabling them to get the money FAST to serve children and families — like this 13 month old girl that was raped and molested by her biological mother and father, who got access too her (despite Daddy already being a registered juvenile sex offender) by taking “parenting classes,” and like her older sister — removed from Mom the day she was born, put in foster care, and there bludgeoned to death by a foster care mother, now in prison I gather, before she turned two. In addition to the funding to provide supervised visitation access centers where by abusers can REALLY bond with their offspring, the state of Ohio now has to pay for jail space for mother and father, and public defenders, as the outrage is normally wanting the couple to go to jail for life.
I looked at the docket for the father and mother, and find out that while the father’s attorney has been REAL pro-active (insanity plea, etc.) — and that it’s $27.00 per action — the mother’s, if any, appears to be doing nothing. I have YET to locate a single tax return for the outfit that failed to supervise here, but we hear (so far) that the citizens attempting to get into the Board meeting for the public-funded organization were turned away at the door. To date, in looking at the “FCFC” setup (hard to understand unless you explore Ohio’s “FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FIRST” site), there are precious few FCFC’s (out of 88 counties in the state) which actually filed — with the state of ohio — as one, resulting in a public-access tax return stating how much money they got, WHAT THEIR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ARE PAID — and where it went.
This organization’s primary business is HEAD START — HANDICAPPED TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FULL AND HALF DAY, with occasional RURAL FACILITIES and just a tad of ‘PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”
FREMONT, OH 43420-3021
This group must’ve given money to some non-TRumbull County recipients, judging by the results searching awards by LOCATION, and choosing Trumbull County. Be patient, I’ll explain. This is selecting no year: I already know all awards to this county (directly from HHS) were ACF awards, from the same basic Location Search / Group by Agency:
County = TRUMBULL
State = OHIO
Summary = Recipient
Showing: 1 – 7 of 7 Recipients
Award Actions
Awards
S
These awards (if you click on it) are in the exact same category and project name as the WSOS ones, above:
Trumbull Community Action program is labeled as a nonprofit PRIVATE org. under TAGGS, for what it’s worth (WSOS as nonprofit PUBLIC,e tc.)
WARREN, OH 44485-3730
AWARD ACTIONS
Showing: 1 – 50 of 64 Award Actions
Page: « Previous 1 2 Next »
Their website explains Community Action Programs as part of the 1960s War on Poverty, generally; explains that in 2002, they got Head STart funding, and in essence, they are a middle-man contracting with the government to provide services. the WSOS apparently represents 4 Ohio Counties (out of 88 available). I”m not quite sure how ‘TRUMBULL” county fits in there, but WSOS grants are apparently going there.
The program under which “HELP ME GROW” classes appear to take place includes the place where the child was raped during a scheduled visitation. (Cell phone images were found, so whether or not it took place is not in question).
2002
2003
Apparently the WSOS stands for 4 different Ohio Counties: Odd there is no “T” in that acronym, seeing as Trumbull is getting the bulk of their HHS monies:
1965
2002
2003
Funding sought to help unemployed fathers in nine Ohio counties
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
October 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM
Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, compulsory schooling, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Who's Who (bio snapshots)
Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Child Support, Education, fatherhood, HHS-TAGGS grants database, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..