Archive for the ‘Funding Fathers – literally’ Category
Let the Blog-roll… My picks, and comments
To tell the truth (per my handle, “Let’s Get Honest”), I’ve got something stewing under my collar. And it’s this. I didn’t bring children into this world and remove them from an abusive situation just to have them and it stuffed back into the situation, myself excommunicated for actually speaking up, and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, So Long as We’re Not Caught” policy I just don’t think is appropriate for the topics involved in our particular family line, including: domestic violence, incest, suicide, mental illness, substance abuse (by my father, who grew up witnessing violence in HIS home), stalking, and in general shred the evidence, point the finger, and let society pick up the tab.
Ain’t that how the cycle is perpetuated?
Sentiments of the Seasons….
I can remember seasons of Christmas (day after tomorrow, my hemisphere), from childhood (glitter, music, lights), from the abusive family (sometimes sullen and nothing — literally NOTHING was allowed to happen). One year, explosive [assault & battery, I was pregnant, toddler witnessing and affected by it, reacting], I cannot forget THAT incident, which I reported to a relative, who gave a single expression of indignation, and went right back into enabling/don’t ask, don’t tell mode. To this day…
Less than a month later, a more dramatic repeat of nearly the identical incident, after which I told a doctor, a pastor (OUR pastor), and my mother. Similar reaction. A pattern was established of non-intervention, and the circus was afoot.
And inbetween the insane, and steadily increasing control, the job sabotage, the transportation sabotage, the shutting down of access to finances, and trying to keep me at home and on my knees, cleaning, and if I got it clean, more stuff was dumped out, lest I GET out. Sometimes it was dumped, and he’d grab the kids for some fun times. Dysfunctional households, major functions not working, and I couldn’t fix this. Increasing animal abuse, and when I tried to intervene, was myself threatened. Kids witnessing this. I kept them, and best I could us, out, and busy with more healthy activities, with strangers who were nicer than family, with classmates, with classes. Their stuff got sabotaged too, at times. I had to sneak, sometimes my education, their education, and bargain, negotiate, and figure it out.
Every possible work scenario: employed FT office, PT from home office, unemployed stay at home Mom, business from home Mom, and no matter what I did, practically, it seemed to even out, we still had to beg for necessities more often than needed. It wasn’t a family together holding it together, it was not a sharing situation, it was a dominance situation. He didn’t lack clothes, transportation, electronics, or freedom to get out unpredictably. I was to conform to this thing I wasn’t, or else…
Years went by, and holidays. I remember 2 days before one, we had to flee the home with a barefoot child from a well-set peaceful dinner. His rage was that I had actually visited a pastor for help (I was still dumb enough to thing that pastors might help with this criminal matter and had not yet picked up on my legal rights to ask for an arrest to STOP it!) (and the pastors, on their part, were dumb enough to counsel us both together, meaning, it wasn’t exactly safe for me to speak openly…). He was furious that I’d done this without him being there to, I guess, “interpret” and do damage control on the truth.
Luckily this time, I actually had a car. In the dark, right before Christmas (and not having received any funds to buy them anything) The youngsters and I deliberated (in the dark), do I head for a relative (the same one who did nothing earlier), or Christian friends in a nearby city (who to date hadn’t done anything so far either, though they knew about his physical and economic in particular abuse towards me, which the little ones witnessed growing up). They didn’t ask questions when we just “appeared” at the door while they ate dinner. We stayed overnight.
One of the dumbest things I ever did was to return home the next day, even though I called first and asked whether he could, according to his stated faith, promise to stop threatening us. I even quoted the Bible verse that said “forbearing threatening.” The answer, basically, along the lines of “the devil made me do it, and [ in short, no…] Did I have somewhere else reasonable to go? NO. So guess where I went. Back. Big mistake, I guess.
We were great at doing holidays in front of others and pretending to be happy family (or else, I learned my lessons years earlier for failing to perform up to snuff, making him uncomfortable, resulting in a physical drubbing I shall never forget, and probably (let’s hope) the children blanked out, as one of them was not yet born, but inside at the time.
Like a ripple in the pond, I had to keep splashing about for years, until finally one of my ripples picked up a responding resonance from a “family violence law center” which helped me out, and then sold us out, almost straight out of the gate. Nevertheless, (him) OUT was still OUT, and a definite improvement.
After that TRO, with the energy unleashed, and a woman intent on getting her house in order, now that the chaos-creator was temporarily disabled (i.e., OUT), I most certainly had hope, and stamina and resolve, and within 3 short years (if ONLY the restraining orders had been even a single year longer, we would literally have made it!), we were just about off anyone’s dole, including child support.
In order to become solvent, I had to increase income and reduce expenses.
Alas, doing this meant disobeying an order (I later found out it was an order, not a suggestion) by another nearby male, no kids’ father, and who had not intervened at all (though informed of the violence, and asked for help) for years. Suddenly he became an expert, and I became a needy child (rather than the blossoming woman and mother I was at that time, and further energized by the ability to practice the profession I was trained in, which had been almost shut down by that abuse, and for a long time, too….). When I informed him and his wife that
~~he had no jurisdiction in this divorce/custody issue; it was between the father and me, not the whole “clan,”
~~a restraining order was on, and please stop sending messages from my ex via you to me, that’s breaking it…
~~In case you’re not watching, I have things to do, i.e., a business to rebuild (like, WORK?), and in essence….
~~thanks, but no thanks, and if you wish to learn more about the thing you just proclaimed yourself expert on (talk about self-anointed!), here’s where you can find out. I’m BUSY…. ”
I had learned, now, not to take years before deducing whether this person was willing to listen, or interested in interrogating me without witnesses, and I didn’t waste much time in making an assessment. Not much time to lose, eh?
Nor did he (not my ex, but his new “buddy” on my side of the family) lose much time in building some momentum from the anti-single-Mom, don’t let them get loose side of the family, and I experienced a new phenonenon — not just tolerance and silence, but actual flip-flopping betrayal, followed by serious aggression. It was a win-win situation for them. They got to be heroes, and nobody was accountable for either domestic violence, or having enabled it, or missed it. They had a common cause enemy — derailing the conversation, and, me if I protested said derailment.
Sensing true male support in his “let’s dominate a woman” cause (sort of like the church had given during the marriage), my ex picked up some steam himself, meaning, I had to face both of them as a single mother. Nevertheless, Dad at least paid child support steadily; apparently he understood this was an obligation. Myself, I tried to mind my own business, get along, and was in general still in “good girl” mode, but this time with more boundaries.
Until we went into family court. Reviewing how this happened, I realized (too late) that the manner, which I hear from respectable authority locally, is common practice — that TOO violated due process. He was informed in advance, an ex parte decision was made by a judge to consolidate actions, and it was sprung on me in court when I went to renew the order. THIS was the beginning of the degradation of:
my relationship with the children, as they watched me both prosper, rebuild, and be respected among colleagues and their friends’ parents (many of who were professionals in this, or that field), and themselves began to blossom as people, wh le still seeing Dad regularly….
~~due process in any subsequent court hearings
~~any sense of predictability and order in our lives, as court orders began to have less and less meaning, of any sort, and
~~first thing to go — of income, and (which family court EXISTS for, folks!)
~~tipping the power balance back towards the (abusive, in this case) father.
Soon enough he picked up ANOTHER woman, this time to live with, drive her car, help with aggressions towards me, and apparently (?) pay h is bills, meaning he could afford to not work: translation: CHild support arrears began to mount, and Dad became more and more troublesome during the week, as well as weekends. Restraining order got stripped off the last round of hearings. I tried for another. This time it was girlfriend, father, and MY ( female) relative on one side of the courtroom, and me, alone, striving to protect what was left of my work life, on the other, as well as the kids’ educational alternatives (which had been a target). I lost. I was sent to debate with his lawyer, him and myself OUT of the courtroom, and for hours, I tried (alone) to stick up for my rights in front of a man who’d asssaulted me. No one — at all — was with me. As good an arrangement as I thought I had (definitely better than nothing), it was inadequate protection.
One more year of more nightmare exchanges — weekly, any week, any holiday, and during the middle of the week (remember? no restraining order in effect, although exchanges no longer happened at my home) — could be, and many were, incidents. I gained and lost a prime music job, a car, and ground. The speed of job losses was beginning to frighten me. Oh yes, and he’d learned a new trick — sporadic child support payments. My credit had already been ruined, and this hurt us, for sure. If only, I thought, I could get some LEGAL help and get either (A) protection so I myself could work without job loss, or (B) child support enforcement, so he would work, and therefore have less time to harass me while I was working. (I was self-employed professional in the arts at the time, working with kids, and had to show up with my emotions intact and usable, and LEAD things. This is dang hard to do when safety, whereabouts of one’s own kids, and trepidation at whether or not right before or right after a job is going to escalate. I burned up the cell phone bill calling crisis lines, stayed on the internet searching for help, got validation of what was right, but no means to do anything about it (Hence, “I don’t CARE “WHY Does He DO that?” I care how to make it stop!) and so forth. My kids managed, somehow…
I learned where help wasn’t. This is helpful, for not going there with hat in hand NEXT time round. I survived by talking to people. I was found at times crying in the parking lot right after an exchange. We went from police incident to job, or job to police incident. The same family members that enabled in the last decade did worse, this decade — they SHOWED my kids now to “Say nothing, Do nothing,” and exploited the increasing PTSD for increased bonding with themselves. I was aware of this and spoke to it; it seemed to be something of an operational plan. Cause an incident, grab the kids, take them to the relatives, they bonded while I was in shock, rather than actually having a respite from the other parent over a weekend, or a week. ….
When I asked for them to support court order enforcement, as I was attempting to do, I was met with increasing anger and indignation. Expect the father to work, like I was? To behave, like I was? WHo the hell did I think I was? A citizen or something?
I began going after the child support also, when that became a thing. I did printouts, mailed my relatives (mistake, but i was still learning), and even attempted to tell a 911 policeman I’d called to the scene for his refusing to leave MY home (and there was only one exit from the place, and I had no car) on a non-pickup day. I showed the nonstop calling, described it, and told the fellow (in this nice suburban town) that we had a history of violence, and I was attempting to say no to arbitrary orders on his part, no reason given (particularly in light of increasing child support arrears) and restrict us to the actual wording of this court order.
No deal. The police officer let him violate, and the race was off. Oh what a season THAT was! That’s what led me to try for a 2nd restraining order. Jobs I got to replace jobs were being affected. Add a new responsibility: It became clear I was going to have to locate a domestic-violence-proof profession, and I was serious about this, and went in a certain direction.
Now, eventually, as I’ve probably narrated ad nauseam herein, this escalated suddenly on an overnight visitation when I’d just moved — again– into another very promising housing and work situation, nearby, great schooling, great opportunities, and income (mine at least) in progress. His actual residence, something up in the air, although my attempts to smoke it out, supported by court order, were NOT supported by him, his girlfriend, my relatives, or even police I asked to enforce THAT aspect of the order,showing it to them. No deal. My kids, naturally, were absorbing this, and every now and then one of them would give me some very pungent analysis of the situation. She knew they (plural) felt they needed another “win.”
I continued to tell, in writing at times, the people NOT on the court order that they were NOT on the court order, and please let the Mom (me) and the Dad (him) work this out like adults; you are supposedly also adults, and don’t you have a life, somewhere? I do — where’s yours? Go get a foster child, there are needy kids. Go get a life purpose, don’t you have another one somewhere? I said, in writing (and when we had to talk, over the phone), if you love (my daughters) as you are shouting from the housetops (and on court paperwork, to which they now began adding), how about demonstrating it in this manner: help their Dad find a job & work. Like I am — see? Encourage him to obey the court order — like I am.
No deal. That wasn’t on the agenda.
AND so yes, another Christmas, after my kids were kidnapped, essentially, Dad dumped out on the street by woman #2, who still won’t fork them over, and what else is new in lala land, no one even in the court OR law enforcement system appears interested in enforcing, or helping me to, any order. Should I try for another CERTIFIABLY INSANE RESTRAINING ORDER (or anti-stalking) for what I would consider, currently to be these CERTIFIABLY INSANE policies being pursued, zealously, by this certifiably dysfunctional family line (mine, I mean)…??? Wow, that sounds like a “great” idea. … Someone else would have to blog any resulting statistics, as I’d be less likely to survive this round. It IS escalating, and there are only so many more places one can escalate to, at this point…
So, yeah, that’s in my mind today (obviously). I do not share the “let’s not have conflict” and “let’s not talk about it” mentality.
Jesus Christ had a lot of conflict in his life, and ministry, surrounding his birth, and death. And we human parents aren’t supposed to?
Should we just go along with the crowd, like too many did until finally someone raised a ruckus, as happened in Richmond?
Is it a family value to shut up under criminal behavior? Or else? No, I have daughters. I wish them to know WHAT”s right and speak up in the face of what’s wrong, if they can do so safely. And I want a society where they CAN do so safely. I have XX years ahead, by the grace of God, and they have XX plus another generation or two more. So, right from wrong counts. Direction they are being steered in counts. Associates count.
Values count. Values about what is most important — placidity? Or integrity? Can’t always have them both.
===============
So, I just narrated some married (WITH a father in the home) and SINGLE (without a father in the home) years. Now, some of my fellow bloggers have a thing to say — by “fellow blogger,” I mean, probably on my blogroll, or another favorite I picked up along the way somehow.
I may be inactive for about a week, depends on internet access. Have a happy season, remember those who don’t, and make plans for what to do when the tinsel comes down… And always, always count the cost of hiring Big Brother to Design, Educate, Evaluate, Raise, Adjudicate, and Legislate YOUR family. Get YOUR family to understand YOUR legal rights (in whichever country) and carve out some time to learn what they are.
And make a big stink about any violation of them: “Don’t tread on me.”
And teach your sons and daughters to do the same.
Beware the 2nd wives club, that’s where women can get pretty vicious, I”ve watched this, and the males involved in the background, enjoying the show, and the perks, including money, respect, and probably just the drama of it. I hear they are, after all, visually oriented, and it’s quite a spectacle, being fought over, or fought for.
NB: I’m not a second wife, you betcha. I’m a Momma. And what I’m steamed up about, I just found out who was carting them off where, again, this season, illegally. Damn….
I was just getting warmed up here. Now for the re-post, and my repartie, afterwards:
HERE”s RANDIJAMES.com, on Obama on Mother… My comments below.
Saturday
Obama and His Fathercentrism
It has become more than apparent that our President has some psychological issues related to his father being “absent.”
But is it really that serious? And does he have to make the rest of us suffer with him?
We all know that the President, in spite of having an absent father, turned out quite well. In fact, President Obama said that his mother was “frequently absent.” So, where does this leave us? Is this such an atrocity because of the racial issues? Because we knowz dat da man keeps telling us dat da Black family be damned ‘cuz of all of dem single momz.
Obama’s father was an “intellectual” who pursued his goals, including attending Harvard. He was like many men who are committed to education and career first, and thus leaving the family behind. He may not have been “there” for Obama but Obama can still attribute some of his own success to his genes.
How many other Black boys and men can say the same?
And don’t go blaming single Black mothers, again. If these fatherless kids end up as troublesome youth and adults, you can likely attribute that to the characters of their fathers, coupled with the constraints of life in poverty.
Obama described his own father as “volatile and vaguely threatening.” Would he have wanted someone like this in his life full-time?
What Obama is doing and preaching is unfair, because he is coming from a position of privilege.
Didn’t Obama make his family secondary to his career?
The fact that he remains married and participating in his household [as a “father”] is related to the resources that he has had available to him (education and money for both Barack and Michelle, and a patient wife whose number one duty is the kids), coupled with his value system and self-esteem issues related to his family of origin.
I respect that as a role model, our President is intent upon helping us reach the mountaintops through speech directed at fathers. But we would be better served if Obama focused on our educational system and jobs, respected different family styles and values, and licked and healed his wounds on his own dollar and time. By giving people the tools they need to reach their potential, everything else will fall into place. Stop legislating the family. [end of post]
My feedback:
Whitehouse.gov on “Families” (notice “Women” are filed separately from “families.”)
Guiding Principles
A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.
This is why, while Fatherhood Folks (Jeffrey Leving, etc.) helped him get in office, and HHS of course going full steam ahead withpromoting the conservative evangelical Norman Rockwell heterosexual, a chicken in every pot and a father — ANY father, no matter the behavior, we’ll haul them out of prisons, too — in every kid’s life, because when H1N1 ain’t got nothing on fatherlessness. On the other hand, we have a bang-up educational system where if you’re not LGBT-friendly, you’re committing a hate crime and to be feared as a religious bigot. This also applies if your kids are not attending public school where they can figure out which values apply. Just to make sure, we have a new appointee…
EDUCATION:
Invest in Education
President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. First, the President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for our youngest children, from birth through age 5.
Yes, indeed, whose children are they? Ask AFCC, ask any mental health professional, social worker, guardian ad lit, and family law attorney (“$$$”), they are OUR children. Forget the parents, and particularly the mothers….
[[I blogged earlier on the absence of the word “mother” in his pages on “families.” You can search this site. I don’t see it currently. Apologize for my sarcastic tone…]]
The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2008)
Sept. 22, 2008
By Paul Singer, Jennifer Yachnin and Casey Hynes
Roll Call Staff
IN 2007, The Obamas were 10th. Interesting, that….Not that I mind, but it’s not exactly the typical perspective….
Published on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 by the Agence France Presse |
Millionaires Fill US Congress Halls |
|
|
| WASHINGTON – The US Congress, the domed bastion of democracy in the capital of capitalism, abounds with deep-pocketed politicians whose fortunes have made the legislative branch of government a millionaire’s club.In the 435-member House of Representatives, 123 elected officials earned at least one million dollars last year, according to recently released financial records made public each year.
Next door in the ornate Senate, whose blue-blooded pedigree includes a Kennedy and a Rockefeller, one in three people are millionaires. By comparison, less than one percent of Americans make seven-figure incomes. |
MANY of the top 10 are Democrats, per this:
Roll Call calculates net worth based on the minimum assets and minimum liablities listed in each lawmaker’s annual financial disclosure report. These reports exclude some assets including primary residences, however, and may not provide a full representation of a Member’s financial portfolio. Click column headers to resort the chart; click Members’ names to see descriptions of their assets; for top 10, click their net worth for PDF copies of their disclosure forms. See story for details.
Assets, liabilities, net worth and difference figures in millions of dollars.
| Rank | Member | Assets | Liabilities | 2008 Minimum Net Worth (MNW) | 2007 MNW* | Difference Between 2007 and 2008 MNW | Percent Change in MNW, 2007-2008 | Rank in 2007 | Chamber | Party | Date Entered Congress |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | John Kerry (Mass.) | $215.41 | $47.86 | $167.55 | $231.88 | -$64.33 | -27.74% | 1 | Senate | Democrat | 1985 |
| 2 | Darrell Issa (Calif.) | 164.70 | 0.00 | 164.70 | 160.62 | 4.08 | 2.54 | 3 | House | Republican | 2001 |
| 3 | Jane Harman (Calif.) | 112.13 | 0.00 | 112.13 | 225.96 | -113.83 | -50.38 | 2 | House | Democrat | 1993-1999, 2001 |
| 4 | Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) | 85.70 | 5.25 | 80.45 | 80.40 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 4 | Senate | Democrat | 1985 |
| 5 | Mark Warner (Va.) | 75.77 | 3.40 | 72.37 | 90.80 | -18.44 | -20.30 | Senate | Democrat | 2009 | |
| 6 | Jared Polis (Colo.) | 76.14 | 5.14 | 71.00 | 97.62 | -26.62 | -27.27 | House | Democrat | 2009 | |
| 7 | Vern Buchanan (Fla.) | 85.39 | 35.60 | 49.79 | 65.49 | -15.70 | -23.98 | 6 | House | Republican | 2007 |
| 8 | Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) | 48.88 | 0.50 | 48.38 | 55.33 | -6.95 | -12.56 | 7 | Senate | Democrat | 1982-2001, 2003 |
| 9 | Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) | 43.94 | 1.00 | 42.94 | 52.34 | -9.40 | -17.96 | 8 | Senate | Democrat | 1992 |
| 10 | Harry Teague (N.M.) | 41.63 | 1.00 | 40.63 | 6.26 | 34.37 | 549.04 | House | Democrat | 2009 | |
| 11 | Michael McCaul (Texas) | 38.08 | 0.00 | 38.08 | 23.93 | 14.15 | 59.13 | 11 | House | Republican | 2005 |
| 12 | Alan Grayson (Fla.) | 31.24 | 0.12 | 31.12 | 29.06 | 2.06 | 7.10 | House | Democrat | 2009 | |
| 13 | James Risch (Idaho) | 19.49 | 0.20 | 19.29 | 20.21 | -0.92 | -4.55 | Senate | Republican | 2009 | |
| 14 | Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J.) | 18.15 | 0.00 | 18.15 | 22.41 | -4.26 | -19.01 | 12 | House | Republican | 1995 |
| 15 | Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.) | 18.22 | 1.10 | 17.12 | 17.19 | -0.07 | -0.41 | House | Republican | 2009 | |
| 16 | Bob Corker (Tenn.) | 21.79 | 4.70 | 17.09 | 19.19 | -2.10 | -10.93 | 15 | Senate | Republican | 2007 |
| 17 | Claire McCaskill (Mo.) | 16.04 | 0.02 | 16.02 | 19.52 | -3.50 | -17.93 | 14 | Senate | Democrat | 2007 |
| 18 | Edward Kennedy (Mass.) (deceased) | 15.74 | 0.00 | 15.74 | 47.62 | -31.88 | -66.94 | 9 | Senate | Democrat | 1962 |
| 19 | Nita Lowey (N.Y.) | 14.38 | 0.00 | 14.38 | 17.77 | -3.39 | -19.08 | 18 | House | Democrat | 1989 |
| 20 | Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) | 16.50 | 2.50 | 14.00 | 19.01 | -5.01 | -26.35 | 16 | House | Democrat | 1993 |
| 21 | John McCain (Ariz.) | 15.83 | 2.05 | 13.78 | 19.64 | -5.86 | -29.84 | 13 | Senate | Republican | 1983 House; 1987 Senate |
| 22 | Gary Miller (Calif.) | 13.26 | 0.00 | 13.26 | 14.49 | -1.23 | -8.47 | 22 | House | Republican | 1999 |
| 23 | Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) | 25.28 | 12.75 | 12.53 | 18.71 | -6.18 | -33.03 | 17 | House | Democrat | 1987 |
| 24 | Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) | 13.04 | 0.91 | 12.13 | 12.43 | -0.30 | -2.40 | 23 | Senate | Republican | 2003 |
| 25 | Kenny Marchant (Texas) | 14.70 | 2.81 | 11.89 | 10.49 | 1.40 | 13.35 | 28 | House | Republican | 2005 |
Interesting, anyhow…
Next Post, Dr. Chesler letter to Alice Walker re: her pro-Obama stance.
…
SHARE THIS POST on...
My gut reaction to more news of a fathering court.
It takes but a few moments of passion — and a woman — for a man to start a child.
Between funding of abstinence education, healthy marriage initiatives, fatherhood initiatives, a “fantastic” public school system (USA), trailing the industrialized world in several core topics, like reading and math, and rampant crime inside and outside the schools; between initiatives preventing parents from knowing whether or not a teen daughter has gone to have an abortion on school time (Google “Pacific Justice Institute”), and so forth — PERHAPS with all these, plus federal funding womb to tomb, more studies and evaluations of those studies, and of course the “help” of the child support system in setting reasonable and consistent standards in assigning — and collecting the child support to relieve the welfare load (supposedly) — and of course with more, and more prominent active fathering courts replacing the rule of law and common sense —
we might find a few good men with moral integrity and empathy for the welfare of their offspring.
Actually, from what I can see, the idea is with ENOUGH props, such men can be made — or bribed — to shape up, and care about their offspring.
This is among the many causes our debt-ridden country has decided to espouse.
As a mother, I didn’t feel it necessary to bribe and/or threaten my children to excel at their studies (which they did), and I am puzzled why this approach is thought to be so important to make sense as applied to grown young (or older) men in order to step up to the fatherhood plate.
So . . . re :
Jackson County Pioneers Missouri Move to Fathering Courts
(below)
I add my sarcastic italicized comments so the text doesn’t blithely slip down reader’s gullets and a warm fuzzy feeling about the nobility of this enterprise get assimilated into the thinking system. This is a first-response post.
Then again, what you assimilate is your choice. When you read, remember that every Court Comissioner, Defense prosecutor, and public prosecutor mentioned is, I would think, on public dole also. Welcome to the OK Corrale.. Everyone feels better after a few sessions in there.
This post is based on an emotional gut reaction to the concept. Perhaps my “reasoning” as such is fuzzy, but I don’t see how it could be much fuzzier and emotionally based than what I’m commenting on. Judge for yourself. Please! – – -these are government-supported policies (and therefore $$), so keep it real!
http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-story-daddy-do-over-110609,0,5997057.story
Jackson County Pioneers Missouri Move to Fathering Courts
John Holt, edited by Jason Vaughn
November 6, 2009
KANSAS CITY, MO – Kevin Gainey was on top of the world. A good job as a bail bondsman, a lake home, and custody of his young son following his divorce.
{{FUNNY, I thought there was gender bias against men in family courts. That’d be an interesting case to look up. . . . Maybe Mom must have abused substances, abandoned children, been a slut and was off witha nother man, or simply a stay at home Mom who was financially outclassed somehow. Maybe she was a working Mom and he was a stayathome father? Or, maybe she just gave them to him, not being financially independent and called that a good deal. Or perhaps she was not emotionally connected to her son. There are a thousand reasons this father, not mother, may have gotten custody of his son after a divorce, all of which might be relevant to the story, and shed a different light on the situations, and the wisdom — or lack of it — of whichever judge decided to allocate custody of his son to a Dad. Boys should be with fathers {{no matter the character…}} was maybe the thinking, I guess. H OW OLD was the son? Who had been previous caretaker? Was his former Mom a stay at home Mom? Was the divorce contested or amicable? What was that background story???}}
But bad habits caught up with him, his son moved back with his mom, and Gainey lost his job.
{{“bad habits caught up with him.” Yeah, let’s gloss over that aspect.
Poor fellow, couldn’t run fast enough. Was it meth, crack, heroin, alcohol, pornography, — WHAT bad habits. No matter, poor dear, he couldn’t outrun himself..
Also, I note, “moved BACK with his Mom,” meaning, she had custody, then lost it. Maybe not. But if so, Gee, sound familiar, folks? — except the actually getting to move back with Mom part…}}
“Wasn’t always accountable for my actions,” Gainey now says. “A lot of it had to do with my substance abuse problem.”
{{So what did the rest of it have to do with??}}
{{Externalizes the problem — I am so familiar with this language pattern! Not his fault, still..}}
{{Notice he didn’t say: I wasn’t always accountable, I abused substances (and which one[s])..and “I hurt my son” }}with what ramifications…was it endangering his son most likely? What was he doing to support his “bad habits” and “substance abuse” problem that caused a radical custody switch?)
With no money, doing odd jobs, and a sobriety issue {{SO it was alcohol…}}, Gainey fell behind in his child support, and wound up facing criminal charges.
{{Again poor dear, he was drinking, making holding a job difficult– apparently AFTER he lost custody of his son, as child support was involved. I say apparently, because I don’t know for sure, but it seems likely…}}
Despite that, prosecutors deemed him a good candidate for a diversion program that could give Gainey a fresh start and keep him out of prison: fathering court.
{{FORMULA: State & Court order child support. Child support not paid. This is contempt of a law, and a quasi-criminal situation that can land a parent in jail, the purpose of which is to communicate that child support is a serious issue and to be paid. However, there’s a way to dilute that message that child support IS for children, IS important, and that neglecting it IS negligence, when the potential to pay exists (i.e., stop drinking, and instead work, or at least seek work…. get help yourself…)
Enter — voila! —
{{FATHERING COURT, LAUNCHED 1998}}
((Somehow, I sense as systemic setup — do you?)) ((My blog talks about the Father’s Resolutions passed in 1998 & 1999 in US Congress, and posts some links and excerpts of the horror that XX% of African American children are sleeping in homes wi thout their fathers in them nationwide, and how Congress can stop th is travesty….
Note: The 15 yr old girl gangraped, with passers by, in Richmond, CA recently had a father in the home. He just wasn’t at the door leaving the dance to get her. The victim, and it’s STILL no excuse, but she was 15 and inhaled a good deal of alcohol first. She had a father. Must have been a statistical anomaly. Meanwhile, in another state here, to protect young sons (like the one exposed to substance abuse, above) and the young daughters (like the one whose currently devastated Dad, I’m sure, did NOT show up needy and underemployed in a fathering court, apparently) we need MORE, not LESS< “therapeutic jurisprudence.”
In fact, let’s actually just SKIP the jurisprudence part (except for the labels on the door) and go straight to therapy, just CALLING it “court.”
Gag me with a spoon.. . .Or show me the up and coming “mothering” courts. No one gives us that rope, that I’ve seen!
It will not change the wheels of the institutions — we still need more fathering intervention nationwide, and grants to fund them, and to alter the philosophical basis of law to accommodate a “required outcome” of more father-contact, and to bribe, cajole, coach, and help men to understand they must actually help FEED those they BREED.
Launched in 1998, Jackson County’s fathering court is modeled after its drug court: parents, most often dads {{Well, THAT”s a shocker….}}, get help meeting the challenges that may be holding them back through an initial screening. Regular follow-up court appearances are designed to keep them on track.
“I think that’s the role of fathering court. To identify the barriers that are preventing payment of support, and then to direct them to the services that resolve those issues,” says Family Court Commissioner Patrick Campbell, himself a father of two.
Commissioner Campbell presides over the court which meets weekly in Division 43.
{{Let me get this straight: He presides over this court, presumably making decisions and signing court orders affecting men, women, and their mutual children, and THINKS he understands its purpose? Does this Commissioner have a law degree in any state?}}
{{Are there any actual rules of court which apply in this situation? By the way, people have a right to be heard by a judge, not a commissioner, if they choose, or so I heard. I suppose that’s not highly publicized over there…}}
On a recent morning it was a crowded docket, as Commissioner Campbell greeted men who must demonstrate that they are making progress, make some kind of regular payment toward child support, and attend a 12 week parenting class.
{{Yes, there’s no problem on earth that a good parenting class can’t solve. }}
“Congratulations”, Campbell tells one dad. “I told you when you graduated and got a job I was going to raise you up a little bit. So I’m going to raise each of them to 150 a month.”
To another dad, the commissioner urges contact with his kids: **”These three kids have one dad and you’re it,” he tells the man, who admits he hasn’t seen his children much.
**I am a mother. I am having to fight pretty damn hard for contact with my kids, and there’s not one court commissioner, court-appointed attorney, mediator, judge or any one else assisting me. But because I wasn’t abusing substances and in trouble with the law, there were no “services” offered to help. In fact, when I went seeking them — after child-stealing on an overnight– they weren’t found. Period. If anything, these courts were resisting. I didn’t understand this fully til, again, I looked up the “Access Visitation” grants system and “REQUIRED OUTCOME” for grant recipients. You can research this, too — my blog, others, or the internet. THAT’s what this is about. NOT the kids…
To other men he’s a cheerleader, a task master, a coach, urging some to get something as simple as an email address so they can receive job listings sent to them by the program.
“You try to make a quick decision as to whether this is a time to encourage them or is this a time to push ’em where they’re not comfortable,” Campbell says later.
{{I am so sorry to find that the public servants in this country feel the need to parent parents, and have forgotten their assigned duties and oaths of office (for th ose who are also attorneys). The President of the USA had to swear an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. This includes due process, and laws. What’s up with this crowd? ???}}
A prosecutor and defense attorney stand at the bench with each of the dads, but unlike other settings, they appear more like a team, working with, rather than against each other in a court where there is no court reporter, and nothing is on the record.
{{WOW. That’s wonderfully reassuring that all decisions will be ethical, fair, not subject to any forms of bribery or kickback, and protect the interests of the children involved, and the rest of the society not to have to pick up the tab….}}
“They see that we’re all trying to help them get to where they need to be,” says prosecutor Rebecca Leavett, who calls fathering court her favorite docket. “And I think they get more relaxed and trust us, they open up to us more about the issues that are actually going on in their lives.”
{{Translation: some of them can be disarmingly open — when there’s money at stake. I am so glad that the prosecutor and the defense attorneys — in an adversarial system designed for the truth to come out, through due process, and fair judgments be made — are in truth not even PRETENDING to do “bad cop, good cop,” but admitting that it’s all a show. . . . . . . }}
{{I”m so glad that these hardened attorneys get to have some moments of warm fuzzy feelings of do-goodism. Perhaps the single mothers (if applicable) and fatherless children can take that warm fuzzy feeling and serve it up hot for dinner, or hug it as a pillow on a cold night. Perhaps th ose attorneys might want to empathize with those not actually present in court, in their warm fuzziness on the law…and accountability…. AA for effort, eh?? }}
Her counterpart agrees.
“This isn’t a time for secrets, this isn’t a time for somebody to come up and say ‘whoa that’s attorney-client privilege, I want to keep this between me and my attorney,” says Gaurika Anand, a public defender who works with most of the dads.
Along with court transcripts, adversarial process designed to elicit truth, we now also want to do away with attorney-client privilege. Gee, I wonder what ELSE is on the docket here??
Are the sons and daughters of these child-support-deprived kids going to grow up realizing, as their Dads now have, that it’s not actual performance, but just a public effort, that actually counts in life? We can’t expect real standards based on real needs, after all….
I say this as a teacher, most of my adult professional life. I know that failing to make standards clear, and then get a consensus to excell at reaching them — accomplishment and stretching those standards upwards by effort (not bribery…) produces the warm fuzzy feelings. Not cheating them by constantly reducing the bottom line…}}
This year, Missouri lawmakers saw the eleven year old Jackson County court as a good model, and approved the concept statewide. So far several circuit courts have expressed interest, but there’s little money for launching new fathering courts. A state court spokesman says it’s expected the concept will eventually spread when the state’s economy improves.
Gainey is just happy he had the concept to benefit from in Jackson County. Initially reluctant to attend the parenting classes, he eventually did, and is grateful for the opportunity. He’s slowly whittling down his $17,000 back child support bill, has attended rehab, and says he’s now sober and working toward a better life.
When Gainey and other dads graduate, the criminal non-support charges are gone, so long as they continue to work to pay down their child support debt.
“There’s no way I could disrespect the opportunity family court’s given me,” he says. “This is gonna’ happen.”
That’s what Commissioner Campbell wants to hear from more of his participating dads.
“In this court you actually see people make changes.” he says. “I would never tell you it would be all of those making changes, but you see a lot of people make primary fundamental changes in their life. And that’s a very encouraging thing to see.”
__._,_.___
When you mix this scenario in with domestic violence, just know that economic abuse is a common factor. While I’m VERY jaundiced, there’s a reason — my personal experience, which is not unique, as a mother, watching the impact of sporadic child support payments, the NONresponse of the system to do anything about it when I worked and invested diligent time to get them to (and involved others). When the children lived with me, it stalled, delayed, obstructed, and gave me double-talk answers to direct questions. This affected my children, and my relationship with them.
The second the custody switch happened, this same system that would NOT move for a single mother, went aggressively to bat for a father who’d just responded to my attempts to collect by snatching the kids!
This will all come out in the wash eventually. Warm fuzzies (I don’t share them, in this matter) in one place don’t compensate for hungry children elsewhere.
For those new to these posts — the OCSE (That’s federal Office of Child Support Enforcement) are administering the grants to the states for increasing noncustodial parent (translation: FATHERS) involvement with their kids through mandated mediation, parenting plans, and other issues designed to — I hate to keep repeating this truth, but it’s the truth– diverting the evidence and fact-finding process from OUTSIDE The courtroom (and off the record — see this above case!) — to court paraprofessionals whose BUSINESS is apparently custody-switching, titles to the contrary….
How far away is the Gulag Archipelago from this Designer Family Concept?
Not too far, from what I can see.
Gag me with a spoon…..
For further reference on this topic.
For more on Kansas, Google (or search my post also) Claudine Dombrowski, Oletha Faust-Goudeau (and etc.). Kansas thought ANOTHER fatherhood initiative was needed recently. Guess they forgot about all the other programs racing through the courts, governments, county jails, chidl support agencies, faith-based nonprofit organizations, and university advanced social sciences programs, and — did I miss a venue? No matter, fatherhood initiatives wi’ll turn up there sooner or later. Just you wait…
LOOK: If it’s a court, let it be a court. If it’s therapy, let it be therapy. Tell the truth on the label outside the door. Also tell all the mothers involved what’s being done, out of their vision, hearing, and awareness, with the Dads of their children. So they can, like me, put their two bits in.
Failure to call things what they are in my book is simply called lying. No wonder confusion is rampant and mental health professionals are swamped, and stressed out with clients.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. In order to put SOME kind of order to thoughts, it’s necessary to have a somewhat standard point of reference for the words used to describe them.
What I read about here — that’s not court, that’s a farce of a court process. Everyone might as well go laughing to their various banks, those that have them, while the single mothers, scourge of our nation, go find a 3rd job, and then get criticized openly in family court for their “relationship” with the latchkey kids.
Some of these Dads had legitimate problems. How many of them were screened for prior domestic violence and use of the child support system to apply pressure on the mothers of their kids? If so, why do they get the kid glove, and the families the backside of the hand?
I advise people to totally avoid the child support system, if at all possible. I do not think it’s redeemable at this piont. Too large, too much power, and too many people are dying when people get pissed off at its proclamations. the office shooting in Orlando, FL had a child support debt element, for those who noticed. The shooting (one died) took place in an office, but it was a Dad, with history of controlling and abuse, and a child support debt of over $11,000.
Was it a fair ruling? Quite possibly that system is adding to the stress factors.
I was within range of not needing child support, but I couldn’t get the protection to my own work life and relationships to make it all the way home. Somehow, that doesn’t seem (in retrospect), “accidental” at all. Strong, independent, law-abiding single mothers upset the machinery here, and it seems courts like these, and other programs, are intent on doing away with us, and our connection with our kids. We may maintain it, but it will cost us — whether through supervised visitation, or thousands in lawyers in the family law system; once entered — exit is difficult.
If these comments are helpful (or your gut reaction to them is like mine to the article), please feel free to comment on-line.
Have a nice day.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Why does he DO that?” A walk on the wild side…. [with some 2013 updates]
I am speaking as an owner and long-time appreciator of the book. “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry & Controlling Men.”.. which showed up like a savior, emotionally, right as my case plummeted from stablized position under protection of a restraining order, into the volatile, “mandatory-mediation” arena of Family Court, which reminded me of “Chutes and Ladders”, with more chutes than ladders.
You take one false step (or have your family placed at the top of a chute through being hauled into this venue) and are on a chute.
Kind of like life WITH the abusive guy (or woman) to start with, anyhow, huh? Hmm… Wonder why they function similarly!
(The post on “Family Court Matters a la board-games” is in pre-development stage, meaning, a little gleam in the blogger’s eye still. Paper, Scissors Stone (last post) got me thinking for sure…..)
If you haven’t read Lundy Bancroft’s material AND/OR you are not yourself a victim or being forced to co-parent with a batterer, you’re not fully informed in the domestic violence field, period.
(2013 Update, In Hindsight):
Then again, if we’d all been talking about something besides “batterers” perhaps neither Batterers Intervention Programs nor “domestic violence” would have developed into “fields,” coalitions, or industries.
And the conversation about those fields and how THEY operate is the conversation that no one seems to want to talk about, even as updates to “The Batterer As Parent” have been published and being circulated in various circles.
I mean, think about it (why didn’t we earlier??) There is a crime called “assault and battery” — but by the time someone has become a “batter-er” that means, it’s habitual — which means someone else is experiencing “domestic violence.” How can you domesticate “violence” and what’s domestic about it? (Well, you can tame down its labeling and call it domestic “abuse” — which has been done…
In fact, as it turns out, “BIPs” are actually diversionary programs to criminal prosecution for the beating up on others. Some people figured out, along with programs like, “moral reconation therapy(tm)” and Psychoeducational classes for kids undergoing divorce — that the more programs the merrier. I guess… The money is made upfront in the trainings, yours truly (The United States Government, which is essentially “yours truly” — the taxpayers) set up the policies and the corporations and then runs the population through them every time someone shows up actually needing some realtime social service — or justice — or help.
I can’t explain it too well in a single post, but this conflict was staged and manipulated in order to obtain more and more central control (literally, an economic stranglehold) on most of us through those of us that are willing to sell out for collaboration, sales, and the conference circuit. As sincere or genuine as these individuals may be, I do know they are playing on empathy to increase sales. I do not know whether or not they see the endgame, after their own use has expired in the long-range plan of bankrupting Americans so we are left as a human resource without other options than begging or slavery, at a sheer subsistence level.
Some of us have been their in marriage, we have been there AFTER filing restraining orders, which were intended to protect us (allegedly), but we were NOT there after even a year or two in the family court Archipelago.
Somehow, in this destitute and distressed state, we grasp at straws of empathy and keep referring friends and neighbors to explain our own situation to the same types of information — such as if only someone would JUST UNDERSTAND batterers’ psyches, our kids would be safer, and life would be better.
Anyhow, what follows was from very early in this blog (October 2009) and shows my understanding at that time. Even then, I was questioning the logic of the question.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Who’s actually TALKS with the REAL stakeholders when it comes to Stalking, Domestic Violence (not “abuse”), and Child Abuse??
I have a question, after finding an unusually honest commentary on how the model code for stalking laws was developed. I’ve spent some years, in the process of seeking help, becoming acquainted with the standards for what makes sense, according to LOTS of organizations. I then tried to bring this common sense into actual practice in our own case after it hit the family law venue.
Yeah, right..
I have a question. As usual, thinking aloud (and posting as I go), the introduction gets longer and the original content that inspired the post, lower and lower. Presently, scroll down to just below all the graphics (logos) and there’s the question, and in primarily BLUE content, the quote that started today’s post.
Eventually, over the years, I got to the point of connecting more and more dots, including why would it take this amount of diligent searching by a woman with two college degrees and highly motivated to get some answers, to come to the inclusion that the tipping point is where the intent to publish hits the point to put it into practice. This is a fulcrum.
Eventually I stopped just reading only content, and started paying more attention to in which publication things were published (most of which I couldn’t afford to subscribe to). THEN I started connecting which nonprofit (or, some of these are almost exclusively the project of some government grants, and say so right on the websites) with which publication, which which professionals. This is what would in interpersonal interactions be called “body language.” Only, without warm bodies and live voices and actual interaction face to face, the next best substitute, especially for those without a travel fund, is sometimes a little background check. On-line. Free.
What I post here today was written a while back by a professional now involved in addressing some family court issues, and who I hope to meet someday soon. We appear to have been circling around geographically within a few miles of each other, but consistently in different venues. In other words, she has worked for and at organizations I’ve sought help from and whose halls I’ve sat in as a “client.”
It’s probably time to make a phone call. Meanwhile, today’s a difficult time for me, and I can’t quite say why without revealing which case. Please bare with some of the over-writing here, and understand why today (and I acknowledge, yesterday), sarcasm is pretty high. Fact is, I miss my daughters, and it’s the beginning of a school year. Instead, I get the back hand and the ugly side (or no side at all) of the parent and other adults in control of their lives. I can and have read law, and after looking, still don’t see that I’ve committed a crime in these matters, and I most certainly HAVE seen and identified several ones committed since the case switched from civil to family law, which I to this day believe is where batterers go to hide, and keep up the same pattern of behavior, only with more validation.
Oops, there I go again.
ANYHOW, as to the conferences and subscriptions, I have a suggestion: Instead of a grant to explicate the context of domestic violence in custody decisions (apparently a recent one) and the “Domestic Violence Conference of the Decade,” whose speakers and sponsoring organizations I did take a pretty good (on-line) look at — and got the general picture for sure — and ANOTHER one I just heard of today:
(boy, the logos, and PR, and branding, is getting more and more professional!):
(SEE: http://dvinstitute.org), which it appears just happened in Detroit. . ..
Here’s another one about to happen in San Diego:
http://dvinstitute.org/announces/files/Partial%20Brochure-5-18.pdf
The logo makes me think I’m back in grade school again (check it out — I couldn’t click & drag).
It has a wooden post with 3 pointers, “Future, Present, Past” all askew on a sky background.
- “FUTURE” is pointing right (the only one pointing right) and UP (ditto).
- Present is horizontal and point left, indicating a change of direction. From WHAT?
- Past is pointing left and down. Talk about not very subtle.
I could suggest some more detailed logos. Perhaps the length of the line I stood in yesterday for $15.00 coupon to go get food, which allowed me to get some nonfoods, which Food Stamps program, onto which I’ve been forced back because of former failed systems, most of which interfered with My system called, working! and complying with court orders. Because we might also have a problem with drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or who knows, perhaps just for simplicity, and of course for the safety of those distributing (i.e., no cash), we could only go to ONE store (a few miles away, which is great for those without cars, with children, and poor enough to need help with food). I figure out the expense to time ratio of this, and between wait, and buses, it was approximately $4.00/food benefit per hour, four hours expended in getting coupon and food. Not including getting home with it. A far cry from a conference.
This line contained live people with real stories, and mostly people of color, different colors, sizes, and manners; most of them also, women, many with children, and each with a story, and their own method of dealing with the long wait. It was detailed and usually cheerful, this waiting is routine. I didn’t see anyone I recognized although I’d been there many times before.
Perhaps I should show some children crying, with a forensic child psychologist, or CPS worker. Perhaps I should show a woman crying. Perhaps I should show General Assistance being cut (as it is) to make way for some of the grants I’ve been blogging on, including yesterday.
If economic distress causes violence (I don’t believe it does) than perhaps this is partly why. But an inane signpost over these words? – –
A New Direction for a Safer Tomorrow: National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Office on Violence Against
Women are proud to sponsor the first National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe
Exchange. This conference will inform professionals (WILL INFORM WHOM?? WHOM????)
about how to provide supervised visitation and safe exchange services that account for (HOW ABOUT PREVENT??) domestic violence.
THink about this: if there is a need for supervised visitation and safe exchange, that means domestic violence is already there.
Pare
nts who don’t threaten to abduct, or hurt a Mom without supervision, or do this (and many do), wouldn’t need this.
National experts will provide education on safety for adult victims and children; services for diverse populations; community
collaboration; and advocacy, in the context of domestic violence and supervised visitation and
safe exchange. The conference will highlight effective practice and programs, offer tips and
tools, provide an opportunity for networking, and inspire and invigorate participants.
Expert Faculty . . .
(I dare site visitors here to look up each and every expert and determine where they are coming from, and who pays their organization’s bills.. . . . . . )
Would you like to see a similar brochure? OK, here. I found it (this search) at
http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/domestic-violence-conference-of-decade.html
|
Please forward to colleagues and friends
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONFERENCE OF THE DECADE!From Ideology to Inclusion 2009:New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention
Sponsored by: TO LEARN MORE OR SIGN UP, GO TO:
WWW.CAFCUSA.ORG Domestic Violence Training DVDs Now Available!
See the founders, the pioneers, and today’s most respected experts together at the one-of-a-kind, historic conference, “From Ideology to Inclusion:.”Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence The conference was held February 15-16, 2008, in Sacramento, California.
Mail or fax in your order today! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DID I forget, in addition to any conference fees, there’s (like any good market niche) the collateral sales market too. Incidentally, downloading information is one of the lowest overhead, most profitable fields of direct selling around, once it’s in place. It’s a GREAT business model.
Is that enough Ph.D.’s? Surely I should just their judgments about my danger level, experience of domestic violence, and whether my kids are or are not at risk of — shall we say — parental abduction — better than my own. After all, look at the degrees!
I wonder whether it has occurred to any of these people that some women leaving abuse might prefer going for not just “job training” but more degrees themselves, rather than defending from the latest round of accusations through this system, or for that matter, the latests fads sweeping through it. . ..
Speaking for myself, I already had the degrees, I just wanted “permission to practice” what I was already trained in and couldn’t, formerly, because of the domestic violence situation.
Remind me to get another Piled Higher Deeper (then I won’t call it that any more…), it may pay better than blogging for nothing, if I’m in one of these fixing people fields. Which, however, I wasn’t. I was in music, which helps heal people many times. It changes them. But it doesn’t approach from the point of view, unilaterally: “You need fixing, and we will do it!” It’s more transformative than legislative in nature. Funding for the arts is in jeopardy, but not for family-fixing.
SO, who attended THIS conference?
Who attended this one? (Sorry folks, if you just missed it, this past June): In the words of one of the groups above:
The conference quickly became an international event after its announcement. This was due to all of the internationally respected experts that presented at the conference, as well as attendees that came from all over the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia. Easily 95 percent of those who had registered and attended the conference were with state, local and U.S. government agencies, including officials and staff from the Department of Health and Human Services. It was also attended by a myriad of public health agencies, Social Services, law enforcement, treatment providers and family law practitioners. The list goes on. In addition, several states had representatives from their Judicial Branches attend, including judges.
Seems to me about the only people NOT there were: family court LITIGANTS, battered women, protective mothers, children who had aged out of the system, in the custody of an abusive parent (these young people DO exist and are now speaking out: Courageous Kids, Alanna Krause, others. I WONDER what my daughter will say, or realize, when she turns 18, soon.) I don’t see the category “shelter workers” there. I don’t see “domestic violence advocates” as a category, do you? Family law practitioners and treatment providers, You BETCHA!
Because of the historic nature of the conference, {{and surely not because of PR, contacts with someone at the station, or anything of a mercenary or publicity-promotion nature…}} Radio Station KFBK-AM 1530, in Sacramento interviewed Erin Pizzey, the founder of the shelter movement and one of the conference presenters (incidentally, it seems Ms. Pizzey, daughter of an ambassador, has come to the conclusion that the shelter movement is run by radical feminists and socialists, and was turned on by them for not going along.).. . Everything is always “radical” “new” “Pioneering” and “launched” (etc.) in this field.
Perhaps this next testimonial may explain why the D.A. was so resistant to allowing me to not lose, or help me regain, custody of my daughters when it was their FATHER, not their MOTHER who had taken them so long ago:
After going through the post conference surveys, we learned that most attendees gave the conference overall scores ranging in the 4 & 5’s (with 5 being the highest score). We have heard directly from many attendees who are mediators and evaluators in family courts, and they called the conference the best they had ever attended on the issue. Many of them have been in the practice for 30 years. One District Attorney wrote:
“I thoroughly enjoyed the conference and felt it was one of the best I’d ever attended (I’ve been attending DV conferences ever since the Judicial Task Force put on a statewide conference after the OJ case!)”
(The clear and blatant theme of this one appears to be that women are equally as violent as men. Hence, the publication “Partner” abuse (and “abuse” not “Violence’) Title: From “Ideology” to “Inclusion.”
Oops: http://www.cafcusa.org/2008%20conference.aspx
It appears these reviews are from the 2008 conference, which was merely “historic” and not “the conference of the decade.” Sorry in searching on the latter term a merely Grand conference got confused with the truly Grandiose, which is about how the language goes too. But it’s not truly likely that the same organizations, in alliance are likely to change directions themselves. They exist, many of them, to change directions of OTHER venues, and other people’s, well, court cases.
(Tell you what — this inclusion does not appear to work in reverse quite so well…)
But, who are the real stakeholders?
Why not instead just raise funds for subscriptions for women leaving abuse to some of the publications talking about us, and our children, and our batterers, and our stalkers, and our children’s abductors, and our options, and how to intervene.
If we could have some “supervised visitation” to some of these conferences, I’m sure we would be competent to stand up and dispel some illusions circulating around these topics. I have known for a long time what would and would not take this household towards safety and self-sufficiency and been asking for it from institutions that had it to offer, they said.
This has fallen mostly on deaf ears. So now I am more interested in talking to these people’s supervisors, and employers, which FYI, happens to be in many cases, the federal grants system.
(note: I talked myself into two such “Screening for Abuse (or, Domestic violence)” type conferences within recent years, AFTER I lost my kids, and while in PTSD, Poverty, dealing with stalking, and working one remaining job. I overcame the PTSD of speaking up, and was called “brave” for doing so, in front of many strangers. One was aimed at health professionals, and was nationwide. ANother was aimed at custody evaluators and was not, although I would characterize BOTH of them as having analyzed the problem of abuse pretty darn well.
It was extremely validating and didn’t make a damn bit of difference in the case, and I doubt will in a whole lot of others. Why?
Because INFORMATION is not MOTIVATION.
EDUCATION doesn’t produce behavior change unless the MOTIVATION to change exceeds the benefits of NOT changing.
Overcoming PTSD to speak in front of strangers, is not my definition of brave. My definition of “brave” entails facing potential death, which I have, not facing a strange audience. It entails facing down that man, with a loaded gun and crazy talk, in my own home, and not just once. The bravery THAT time related to the fact I was a mother, and young children were in the home. My definition of brave is, knowing the possible impact, telling my family to go take a hike and get a life, when they violated my boundaries post-restraining order, and made it consistently clear after this clear statement, that this was not on THEIR agenda.
Similarly SOME people need to start recognizing that surviving abuse may be luck, or it may show competence, and start getting a different attitude about who you are dealing with, when a person shows up not too coherent immediately after an incident. Or when they show up in court (repeatedly forced to, thanks to the family law venue, which specializes on hearsay vs. evidence) also not coherent enough, possibly because of who’s present, and because of the authoritatarian and “it could change on a dime” nature of the interchange.
At this public speaking at a conference for PROFESSIONALS in the FIELD time, I also almost spent a night on the street, because in the process of speaking up, I mislaid car keys, took a commute back home, and found out the keys were in another city. Getting them back took half a night, and more money (of the very little I’d gotten by chance the previous day, allowing me the commute to this conference), help from two friends by phone (my own cell being off) and it was cold, too. I then imposed on someone who was actually a music client (so to speak) to stay overnight so I might not, in the fatigue and stress, oversleep work the next mornign which at this point would’ve resulted in being dismissed.
About a year later (this being halfway through the court cases following child-stealing) I was indeed suddenly dismissed by this same group. Possibly they had what’s called “vicarious trauma” dealing year after year (and it was that) with my inability to get free from ONE abuser, and his friends, and the family law mishandling of a simple, simple restraining order renewal. Which I didn’t, FYI, get.)
I want to say something:
Since then, I have looked into the financing (funding, folks) of this same organization, and at its website. See my post on “the amazing, disappearing word “Mother.” (The group is not featured, but the principle applies). It is a premiere group in the war against violence, not against “women” but, well, “family violence.” I have to really question why in this same state, funds to shelters have been axed, but not to this group. I have to ALSO question why I couldn’t get simple help when I needed it (and that includes, to date) from any of the entities that exist to provide it, after some of the original ones made a few policy mistakes, major ones, in designing the original custody order.
So, why not just invite us to the conferences? Note: before, THAT, raise funds to make sure that their phone and internets stay on (and deal with on-line stalking as well). For example, the other year, had my phone been on, I trust I could’ve found a job and retained access to a moving vehicle through what’s called “work” — even though, through family law inanity, I lost custody on an overnight over a year earlier, all my profession in the aftermath (and buildup), and all hope of collecting any child support arrears in the process.
You know what these conferences are to me, any more? They are like ambulance-chasers. They are carpet baggers.
They are like a person with a boat with room in it, and not too far to BOAT to shore, but too far for most people, particularly people in danger of shock, or fatigue, or not in top marathon shape — they drive by in the boat and wave. Sometimes they grab a kid in the process. They congregate in boats, and talk to each other about the shipwrecks. They even SOS — the shore — for more gas, and refreshments — and “technical support” — to converse — exclusively with each other — about “how to rescue shipwrecked sailors.” SOMETIMES some of them even pull out a child or two, or three, and give the child into the care of other people making a living off the shipwrecks — OR the other parent that helped cause it. That’s bright.
Then they have conferences about “shared parenting.” Or, even about “the context of custody-switch.” Or sometimes even about “the advisability of mediation in family law cases involving allegations of domestic violence or child abuse.” I’ve read many of these, and they are (unlike this blog) generally copyedited, slick, and even have nice charts, sometimes color coded bar graphs, and the whole nine yards.
But what they don’t have is the voices of the people in the water which might show where they missed the boat in these discussion.
NOW — do I think ALL the people in ALL the conferences have impure motives and self-interest in the forefront of their minds?
NO — I know that ALL people are imperfect and have impure motives and self-interest to some degree, including me.
That’s what the Constitution is about, and why any sitting President is sworn, under oath and in public, to preserve, protect, and defend it. It’s about putting some restraint on tyranny.
This includes tyranny by simple exclusion from policy-making conferences.
It should NOT be necessary for almost every mother (or father) who goes through divorce to switch professions and join one that might help him or herself defend herself in a family law custody action, and it PARTICULARLY is not fair where one partner (and it’s most likely to be the female one) has a life in the balance. Not just an emotional economic life, but also a physical life to her or her kids.
TRUTH has a lot of depth and nuances, but the underlying principles are basic, and basically, SIMPLE. When we are talking about human behavior. As a teacher of many years, and I have taught, coached, directed, co-taught, co-directed and/or performed with beginners (tone-deaf) to professionals (in 3 venues: piano/vocal/choral), I know that the same basics work every time, as much as how people sing and their particular voices differ. Certain basics HAVE to be there, including: Air, vocal cords, something to sing, and to do it well — a REASON to sing.
Same for offices, lifestyles, businesses. There is income, expenses, cash flow, overhead, etc. There is some basic math involved.
What the extended decades-long (I’m approaching 10 years, I know others who have been in longer) nonending family law venue DOES is simply divert cash flow. It STOPS what existed before, and recreates a NEW version according to its paradigm. Many times, it stops the process and incentive for either parent to work.
So, IF the actual desire is to STOP VIOLENCE, or CHILD ABUSE and SAVE LIVES: I recommend starting to pay parents, particularly those who are experiencing stalking, abuse, or other threats, for some of these subscriptions, so we can keep up with what’s being proclaimed about us and our kids and our lifestyles,
Or, alternately, we could stop the conferences and get back to something halfway reasonable, like our own businesses. Right now, this thing is really getting out of hand. . . . . After a few years of chasing around the experts, and being ever so happy they had “analyzed” a situation well, I began to realize this is about where it stops. With the talk. (Well, not really, the dynamic of the situation is changing, but the “you’re making it up” folk are cancelling out the “you’re minimizing abuse” folk. Even when they “collaborate.”)
I actually DO have a life (still — not the same one, but a life) to get back to, and it’s clear that this is going to go on, well, forever. I DO have some things I wish to do in life than stop people so intent on stopping domestic violence, they have kept it going a good long while, and people so intent on sharing custody that they are not about to, ever, acknowledge that this is getting too many people hurt. No, “supervised visitation” is NOT a good alternatives, that I can see. For one, I was not offered it once in many years, although it would have been very appropriate given where the problems were happening in our case. Most people I know that HAVE supervised visitation (at their own expense) are women who got it AFTER they reported abuse. They lost custody and have to pay to see their kids.
Do I want to spend the rest of my life fixing this problem? No. I don’t think it’s going away soon. On the other hand, do I accept what has happened and zero accountability for what was stolen from my daughters, and me, and the unnecessary destruction involved? No. Do I want to lose something more if I confront again? No. Would you?
So. why not let the real stakeholders in on the discussions with the “stakeholders” in these systems? Why should we have to run around studying the industry, and finding out about each new conference half of us can’t attend anyhow? And with speakers we have already been exposed to their work, and a sometimes (I speak for myself) even know which grant or grants program is funding the thing and the policy? Have we become a nation of actually employed experts whose very jobs are robbing from the unemployed, whom they are studying?
(I do apologize for my sarcasm here. But my phone is only on today because someone had a good hair day, as opposed to a bad hair day, and another dribble of child support arrears showed up, enough for phone and not much more. In order to get some nonfoods (which is illegal on Food Stamps) rather than ask someone I know for this (again), I waited 2 hours to get a single coupon unredeemable except at one store — not nearby. I waited til the next day to redeem it. On that day, which involved approximately SIX total bus trips, none of them involving more than 10 mile radius total, and after having walked 2 of those miles without proper shoes, I took the baggage home (involving a sack of potatoes and more) and looked for work, a lead on charity cars, and more. Then my phone went off (as happens when one doesn’t pay in time). THIS MORNING, I talked the bus driver into letting me on half price, because the feet wouldn’t make a similar distance this time. It just so happened (couldn’t have been planned around or predicted) that — just under the deadline, a deadbeat Dad paid again. I reflected at how similar this was to life when I LIVED with this man (particularly as to unpredictable access to any kind of cash, and having to dedicate half a day or more to something that would take 20 min to an hour in a car).
The primary difference being then that I had the joy of a little company with my daughters, who were growing up still. I wonder where they are and what they are thinking today.
So, let’s change the dynamics:
Benefits (from OUR point of view, at least):
- Life
- Liberty, hopefully
- Pursuit of happiness
- Decreased National Debt ($1.9 TRILLION, I just heard?)
- Safer classrooms, probably
- Many, many more benefits.
Detriments (possibly from publishers, conferrers, model code designers, and a WHOLE lot more):
- Some professions would have to find a new market niche, because the problems their professions live off would likely abate. Like those who have lived through (see subject line) they would have to be resourceful, flexible, think on their feet, and probably no longer have a “captive” audience or a steady stream of federal grants to solve problems, but enter the free marketplace like the rest of us.
- The professed Ph.D. experts would have to move over for the actual “experts.” An expert is one who has experienced a thing, and has a vocabulary sufficient to communicate to communicate to others what it was. Typically, this entails knowing others involved in the same thing. OUR vocabulary, not the expert social science vocabulary.
- Cash and jobs would flow in a different direction.
I think those would be the primary differences. The question is, HOW would America Survive without the economy of pathology? And the paradigm of the us/them; subject/object expertise heirarchy?
What year do you think this was written?
(Scroll to bottom for answer).
I have pasted an entire section from an article I found on-line today, as I was thinking about the mental segmentation and disconnect between different types of justice (courts), between courts & police, between police & prosecutors (from what I can tell), between “domestic violence” professionals and “child abuse professionals” (meaning, these professionals desire to STOP domestic violence and child abuse, by analyzing and, based on analyses, communicating their results and asking for policy changes. Then, if the policy changes, the matter comes up, is the PRACTICE changed. Again, the typical mentality is to “train” the professionals to practice what’s right.
Very few actually deal with the realities of human nature, namely, that there is no single branch of employment, business, and no profession, where most of the employees are altruistic, and none of them are dangerously self-serving, or motivated by, for example, basic human greed, denial, or lust for power.
This excerpt is a sample of what I’d call honest writing, which shows how even a “model” practice that is published — certain perspectives were omitted. I would imagine that in this case, the voices of the people with these perspectives (the victims the model code was hoping to help) were not present for the dialogue. THAT is indeed a problem, this gap.
it’s really a matter of language. You see, calling an intersection of court, law enforcement, and social services workers when discussing issues that affect people who come under the category victims (i.e., of crimes) without including the victims — IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS — is exclusionary.
It is a larger subset of a larger divide, called “service-providers” (including the “service” of JUSTICE) vs. Recipients/clients.
I’ve blogged on another post here about the effect of stalking on me, and including through other family members. It is a total life-changer (and illegal). I do not know how to sustain regular employment around the degree of it that has come into my life, and have totally switched goals in order to accommodate, if possible, the safety factor. I know other women who have done this. It’s NOT a game, and NOT a joke, but every law enforcement officer I reported to treated it as such, and added in some verbal abuse to go along with my attempt to report. I have reported it to almost every agency or type of individual involved in my case, as I also reported the risk of child-stealing (which happened) and my concerns about the lethality factor in our case, a combo. of gut instinct, only to then find literature that shows my gut was right.
It is an odd feeling to find out how much of one’s life had already been discussed and conferenced about, and how long ago, and relate this to how many women have been killed since because even this (in its own words) “flawed” model still isn’t being followed.
Nevertheless, here it is. It is in off-blue (not “link” color) italics. Any bold or underlining, or variations from italic blue, are my additions,or emphases, except obviously the bolded section headings:
National Institute of Justice Project to Develop Model Anti-Stalking Code for States
Limitations of Report from Domestic Violence Perspective
In response to the great and sudden interest in state stalking codes, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) created a project to develop a model anti-stalking code for states, releasing their final report in _________. (see below) Interestingly enough, the report does not refer to the NIJ’s history of involvement with this issue, which included the development of a model harassment code over 10 years ago.
Unfortunately, the resource group which developed this model code included no domestic violence advocates. (An issue which continues to this day/Let’s Get Honest comments in other fields) Presumably this accounts for the fact that domestic violence, rather than being seen as a central issue in the development of the model code, is relegated to tangential status.
Domestic violence is rarely mentioned in the report, and when it is it may be in a footnote. See, e.g., footnote 83, pages 38 – 39, which touches briefly on the overlap between domestic violence and stalking, and reports without comment on law enforcement attitudes that domestic violence stalking incidents aren’t worth much attention: “… While 77 percent of responding jurisdictions in Australia and Great Britain reported investigating stalking-type incidents, none considered stalking a major problem . High-profile cases were rare in the responding countries, and most agencies consider stalking primarily a domestic violence problem. Typical victims are women of any age escaping abusive relationships with dominant males , they reported… Stalker’s methods did not seem to vary from those used by American stalkers, and the course of events seemed to escalate from unwanted contacts to following and face-to-face threats…” (emphasis added) The message appears to be that a crime in which the primary victims are battered women is not “a major problem.”
Domestic violence is hardly mentioned again until page 92, where one paragraph acknowledges the usefulness of drawing upon criminal justice personnel’s experience with domestic violence in formulating strategies against stalking. However, the report then lays out a research agenda which downplays the body of applicable domestic violence research which has already been conducted. The report calls for research on stalkers (i.e. their behaviors, motivations, demographics, histories), stalking as a crime (i.e. its prevalence and reponse by the criminaljustice system), and the usefulness of restraining orders in stopping stalking (i.e. how well the victim, defendant, and criminal justice personnel understand how to enforce them). Given that the overwhelming majority of stalking cases are domestic violence cases, we can already answer many of these questions. {{I alternate emphasis so every sentence is read in this paragraph.}}
In the discussion on sentencing, the report does not mention batterer’s counseling even once in its three-page discussion of evaluation, treatment, and mental illness, {{I’m not at this point highly enamored of batterer’s counseling, probably because of so many incidents I’ve read where counseling was ordered over incarceration; the batterer then aced the counseling, and went promptly out and murdered his former, reporting, partner. And I believe that where even a 10% outside chance of “murder” as a side-effect of ineffective counseling happens, the chance should not be taken. The concept that behavioral science, which is “prognosis” can substitute some how for safety, is not sound thinking, in my view. }}or in the principal recommendations where counseling is mentioned. This is unfortunate, since there is a growing body of literature on the efficacy of batterer’s counseling which would be applicable to the 70-80% of stalking cases involving domestic violence, and since there are also studies showing that most therapists are woefully untrained and uninformed in the area of domestic violence. {{Cobblers see shoes. Lawyers see legal issues. Therapists see personality problems. I have been stalked, battered, and lost access to the children through “family court matters,” so obviously this is kind of what I notice, too. So even correcting the “training” and “uninformed” factors (imagine the expense) would still be in essence asking a professional in a field to change their outlook on the field. }}
The timing of NIJ’s model code report was also unfortunate. The research was done before any appellate cases on stalking had been published, before the volume of commentators in law review articles, and when very few states had amended their statutes. The model code was based on two surveys sent to police departments around the country and to four other English-speaking countries, telephone interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys, and analyzing the various state statutes on stalking and related issues. {{THIS PATTERN IS COMMON WHEN IT COMES TO GRANT SITUATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES. FIRST, “DEMONSTRATION,” SOMETIMES (NOT ALWAYS) STARTING SMALL. THEN, “PROCLAMATION” BASED ON THE PRIOR “DEMONSTRATION” WHICH WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE PICTURE}}
It is unfortunate that the NIJ report was not seen as Part I of a two-part process, since it is necessary have an in-depth assessment of how the statutes are actually working in order to evaluate the NIJ’s proposed model code. {{This may have been “unfortunate,” negligent, or intentional. I don’t know which; I wasn’t there. At least this author comments on it. After a while, one begins to notice how many things termed “unfortunate” — weren’t quite left up to fortune. This word cropped up in a mediator report in my case, referring to something which had happened specifically and ONLY after repeated interventions and decisions prompted by said mediator. }}
Analysis of utility of model code proposed by NIJ for battered women
Benefits of Model Code
But even with all the above limitations, the NIJ Report has a great deal of useful information and policy recommendations which could help battered women and their children.
For example, the Report’s principal recommendations for a model stalking code include the following, all of which could be helpful to domestic violence victims:
- a continuum of charges, including felony status
- option of incarceration
- orders to stay away from victim
- counseling
- victim notification before stalker released
- early intervention
- systems put in place so that civil and criminal judges know what the other courts are doing with the same case
- a research agenda
- a multidisciplinary approach
In Chapter Two of the Report, the proposed model code is discused in detail. Probably the most beneficial statement is the following: “Of utmost importance is a state’s decision to require the criminal justice system and related disciplines to take stalking incidents seriously.“
{{CAN YOU NAME AT LEAT 3 RECENT INCIDENTS WHERE IT WASN’T? TOM’S RIVER, A TOLLBOOTH IN CALIFORNIA, AND A HOME (WITH TWO LITTLE GIRLS TRYING –BUT FAILING — TO SAVE MAMA’S LIFE) WHERE THESE RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATIONS OR STALKING OR SEPARATION DANGER WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY?}}
The useful elements of the proposed code include a broad definition of prohibited acts; allowing “implied threats”, as opposed to “credible threats”, to be sufficient; the use of increasingly serious penalties to deal with increasingly serious acts, and encompassing misdemeanor and felony sanctions; and the broad definition of intent: “In other words, if a defendant consciously engages in conduct that he knows or should know would cause fear in the person at whom the conduct is directed, the intent element of the model code is satisfied.” The drafters made a similar comment in regard to the fear element: “In some instances, a defendant may be aware, through a past relationship with the victim, of an unusual phobia of the victim’s and use this knowledge to cause fear in the victim… a jury must determine that the victim’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances. ” (emphasis added) This language may open the door to the introduction of evidence regarding the stalker’s past threats toward the same victim, and to expert testimony on stalking generally, which will probably be beneficial to victims.
Similarly, Chapter Three’s sentencing provisions are also generally useful for battered women. The overall goals include protecting the victim, allowing law enforcement to intervene when appropriate, sanctions, and treatment for those defendants who can be helped.
The requirement of victim notification, and accompanying acknowledgements that some stalkers may be more dangerous when released from prison, and that stalking behavior often escalates into violence as time passes are very important for battered women. So are the enhanced penalties for restraining order violations, use of a weapon, minor victims, or prior offenses toward the same or another victim. All of these are typical of domestic violence cases. The no-contact orders upon release are likewise key for protecting battering victims. The advantages and disadvantages of requiring convicted stalkers to wear electronic bracelets are discussed sensitively.
Chapter Four, on pre-trial release, also contains recommendations which are generally good for battered women whose batterers stalk them. These include taking danger to the public into account, considering eliminating release on one’s own recognizance, recommended factors for courts to consider in each case, possible conditions of release, including no-contact orders, victim’s right participate in bail hearings, victim notification of pre-trial release and copies of release orders to the victim.
Chapter Five’s strategies for implementation are also generally helpful for battered women. The emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach underlines the need for all societal systems to work together to end this problem. The recommendations about the response of the criminal justice system are good as well, including training, better police policies and procedures, strengthening restraining order enforcement, providing judges with full criminal and restraining order histories of the defendant at every stage of the case, and the need to keep DMV and voter records of stalking victims confidential.
The NIJ’s proposed model code generally complies with the model code recommended by Susan Bernstein, which was discussed above. The NIJ code includes “threats implied by conduct”, and uses the history between the parties as a context in determining the nature of the threats. While the NIJ code does not mandate using computerized informational tracking systems, the larger NIJ Report recommends these, and also recommends the imposition of increasingly stronger penalties, including felonies. Though Bernstein’s recommendation that harassment include “unconsented conduct” is not addressed directly in the NIJ code, it appears that the NIJ drafters intended to encompass such conduct. Thus, the only key element listed by Bernstein which is not addressed by the NIJ Report is the reasonable woman standard.
Flaws of Model Code
On the other hand, the code has some flaws. First, threats toward the victim’s family are limited to those directed at her “immediate family”, which is defined very narrowly. It would be better to encompass the extended family, both because stalkers do not so limit their behavior, and because many ethnic groups in the US have a much broader definition of family than the nuclear version. Coverage should be provided if the stalker is threatening the victim’s aunt, uncle, grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, godparents, godchildren, in-laws, etc.
Second, “[t]he model code language does not apply if the victim fears sexual assault but does not fear bodily injury.” The drafters discuss the risk of contracting AIDS or being injured for resisting, and state that states may want to include fear of sexual assault in their statutes. However, the idea that sexual assault is not bodily injury in and of itself is ludicrous, and any historical distinction between these two types of injuries should not be maintained.
Third, the drafters propose that states allow for either restitution to the victim, or civil causes of action. It is unclear why victims should not have access to both remedies, since they are not interchangable: restitution is ordered by the criminal court, and covers only out of pocket expenses, while tort suits are under the control of the victim, and also allow for awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women
We last turn to the question of the effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women. On the one hand, such codes can be useful. They serve as an acknowledgement that stalking behavior is wrong, and should be criminalized. They contribute to societal awareness that stalking is often part of the overall pattern of domestic violence. They may be an additional charge which prosecutors can use. In some cases, stalking laws can stop the cycle before more violence occurs by criminalizing behavior which otherwise would be non-actionable. On the other hand, there are many limitations to the efficacy of stalking laws in preventing abuse and violence. In some jurisdictions, stalking laws are the latest fad: they represent feathers in the caps of legislators and criminal justice system personnel, without attempting to solve the underlying problems of men’s violence toward women generally and domestic violence in particular. Secondly, there appears to be a belief in some locations that stalking statutes will be a panacea, that if the legislators can merely write the magic combination of words, they will be able to stop this offense. Such viewpoints fail to take the big picture into account — i.e. without fundamental attitude changes on the parts of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, juries, media, therapists, and the general public, the same old attitudes about domestic violence will attach to stalking cases and result in inaction, undercharging, light sentences, and ineffective orders.
In order to be effective, stalking statutes must be one piece of a much larger coordinated community response. Key pieces of such a response would include in-depth training and written policies addressing domestic violence and stalking, and would be an integral part of the criminal justice system, health care system, educational system, and other social stystems. The training and policies would state that domestic violence is wrong, criminal, and not tolerated. An additional key piece of the response would involve cooperation between all the different parts of the above systems, such as protocols for cooperation, regular interdisciplinary or inter-agency meetings, and death review teams, reflecting the reality that everyone has to work together if we will ever be able to stop domestic violence.
But even with a true coordinated community response, anti-stalking laws are still a limited tool in preventing domestic violence.Even with severe sanctions, some stalkers, like some batterers, will not stop or will repeat this behavior with other victims when released from jail. And some victims may still be reluctant to cooperate with prosecution because protections they are offered by the criminal justice system are inadequate to prevent retaliation. They may also feel sorry for the stalker, love him, want him to get counseling, etc., or they may be forced to deal with him for years to come because they have children in common. It is notable that many state stalking statutes do not cover situations where the former spouse/stalker has visitation rights. This is a major problem for battered women, whose batterers often escalate the violence after separation and transfer their attempts to control the woman to the custody/visitation arena.
In conclusion, anti-stalking laws are a step in the right direction, but in and of themselves will not solve the problems of battered women or other stalking victim.
MY SUMMARY:
(I only commented on top part of article, for a pattern of asking questions. ALL of it brings up good points, and I hope was read).
I COME BACK TO CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE, AND a Survive! mentality for women. (See my Toms River, NJ post). Don’t break any laws, but do like the Boy Scouts, “Be Prepared.” AND, prepare to survive. I suggest that women pretty much be very pro-active in figuring this out themselves and with their own resources, until such day arrives where model codes are appropriate, or if appropriate, enforced, and if enforced, enforced seriously.
I deeply regret the years of my
(1) calling out for others to help me, while
(2) trying to maintain and help myself both, and immediately leave the situation.
I would have been BETTER engaged in time and energy not to have bothered with the first part. Unfortunately, like many women leaving abuse, economics was a huge issue, not just recovery and safety. This is why any effort to address DV issues not taking into account economic issues is simply unrealistic. At this point, i also believe that any discussion of domestic violence which does NOT discuss the negative impact that the realm of family law has had upon all the research, all the laws, and all the protective meaures in place, will not make a major difference. The efforts cancel each other out.
(Verbal Confrontation, or even taking protective action, on my part just brought greater escalations and punishments. In fact, this was typically where it got physical). I am talking about both IN the battering relationship (in my case, called “marriage, co-habiting years” AND in the afterwards years (taking a stand as a separate woman, with children in the household.). I remember one year of emotionally healthy, solvent, sanity — while a restraining order was in place. There was a storm brewing, but the majority of the situation was a sense of growing prosperity and strength, and — apart from the source of this — peace. This was BEFORE I’d had a few hearings in the family law venue.
The only benefit I can see from the whole process is that I now caution women to avoid absolutely every facet of it possible, and go about establishing their own: Safety, solvency and self-determination. It is also necessary to understand that doing so is not just a threat to one’s ex, potentially, but also to the entire “SYSTEM” if you don’t do it “their” way. Which means becoming dependent on aspects of this for safey, solvency, and forking over self-determination to a parenting plan (or something similar) obtained through a custody evaluator or mediator, who are influenced by forces one doesn’t normally have input to deal with, in part because one doesn’t know they exist to start with.
Now, as to my doing this myself, it may entail abandoning this blog, also. However, speaking out is part of a healing process also, and it’s a vital part.
While advocates from more than once side of the fence now dialogue and collaborate with each other (as women and thereafter sometimes men (including men who killed them) continue to die, and children continue to suffer abuse, and some go missing — the one side of the fence that is often not heard — IN the policymaking discussions, IN print IN the publications on these matters, IN the professional organizations that make a livelihood dealing with these matters, and basically on the IN, not the OUT, in these discussions — will continue to be the people with most at stake — their lives.
It is common sometimes to list the “stakeholders” in each new conference. I have looked at many of these lists. Rarely are the actual parents, targeted child, or targeted spouse (when it comes to child abduction or domestic violence or stalking, ALL of which are related, by the way) invited to confer. And if they did, and what such people said WAS published, or broadcast, what about retaliation? Ever think about that?
WHEN WAS THE EXCERPT WRITTEN?
About 15 years after Toms River, NJ – – 1994:
Found at:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/bwjp/stalking/stalking.html#id2355674
Domestic Violence & Stalking: A Comment on the Model Anti-Stalking Code Proposed by the National Institute of Justice
Nancy K. D. Lemon
Battered Women’s Justice Project
Publication Date: December 1994
(And the blank date in the excerpt was Oct. 1993).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Only $118,310,126 (last year), in hopes of Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fathers
Set this Press Release to the “SPIN” Cycle:
California Healthy Marriages Coalition Says GM Bankruptcy Could Create More Than Financial Devastation for Families SAN DIEGO, June 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The GM Bankruptcy is causing six dealerships around California to be closed. These closures will create more bad news for California's economy by increasing the already high unemployment rate of 11 percent, and adding financial stress to the families involved in these cutbacks. Statistics show that financial strain is one of the leading causes of divorce and that divorce itself places additional strains on the economy and on business. This is a distressing cycle for which California's leading marriage-support organization offers some new reassurance. {{Just "trust" our press release, statistics show. Which, or should we say "whose", is not mentioned..}}{{And HOW did this premiere marriage-support organization (at least according to itself) race to the forefront of all California's marriage support organizations?? Clearly it must be on its own merits. . . . blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity (that's true), and entrepreneurship, standing on the shoulders of giants. Seriously, the Dept. of Health and Human Services IS indeed a giant, funding this group from the top down, and some of the other coalitions under its w - i - d - e umbrella from the bottom up.)
Target Population: Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds Federal Award Amount: $2,342,080/year Program Name: California Healthy Marriages Coalition Project Period: 9/30/2006 - 9/29/2011 . . .SOURCE California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Yes, alas, ’tis true. . ..
recently, as well as, well, not so recently, it seems clear from the various newspaper headlines that many marriages are not very healthy. Also, the same could be said of divorces. But, for those readers who, as either (U.S.) employees or employERS, actually pay taxes, I would like to reassure you that the U.S. Government is on it, it has a PLAN. You may or may not be in on the plan, but I assure you it has many plan to fix the overall unhealthiness of both marriages, and the lack of safety attendant to divorce from, well, a spouse that doesn’t believe in divorce. It would also like to assure you to trust the experts (its hired ones and delegated ones) To analyze and fix the situation. This IS, after all, what governments exist for right? I seem to foggily remember something about the purpose of governments in the Declaration of Independence, and about the word “consent.” It seems to me that somewhere along the line “We the People” got turned into a version of “You People,” and the posse of experts got called in to fix families. What they actually ended up doing is breaking the legal system, by turning it into a behavioral health marketplace, clearly infringing on the niche of the faith institutions, for example, I heard that recently the Knights of Columbus, on behalf of Catholics everywhere, have launched a(nother) fatherhood initiative, lest we somehow forget who’s the boss, called: http://FathersForGood.org.
Notice anything missing from the logo there?
And now again, this time with
a little more style…
Now for all those little pieces of education that add up to $118, 310, 126 – – for 2008 — enjoy the panorama of organizations that are addressing this problem of, well, unhealthy marriages and irresponsible fathers. (I have omitted “Abstinence Education,” because it would overload this post’s, well, capacity).
This wordpress page can only carry one year’s worth of links at a time. Moreover these are alphabetical by Grant Recipient, nationwide, and not by state (although zip codes are listed). The fun part is, they are “click-able,” meaning, you can click on an institution’s name and see what else it’s been up to, for how long and for how much. Perhaps I might show a few more ways to search, but someone of basic intelligence (and motivated) can learn a lot simply by looking. Another trick you might try is searching its name on “usaspending.gov” and see what kind of cute bar charts and stats show up.
Thus one can get an overview of almost any CFDA number BUT this one, 93.086, on a certain database.
Is this inintentional? If part of required Civic Literacy was understanding the federal grants system, if rather than whine, moan, or complain — or complain to elected representatives –MORE AVERAGE JOES & JANE DOES (the alive ones) started monitoring our home states, state by state and agency by agency, we might stop asking why states are running out of money for domestic violence shelters and general assistance, because the answer would be obvious. Instead, we would ask intelligent, and pointed questions from the point of view, these are public funds, and (if government) you are public servants, and (if nonprofit) you’re tax exempt for a reason — how does this fulfil the reason, and who is evaluating, and by what standard?
And then question the standards if they are unreasonable, inconsistent, or do not exist.
Alternately, we could chug along and say, “isn’t so and so handling this? Because I’m busy, and have my own life to handle.”
Sure they are. That’s why inbetween talking about this, I can’t keep up with the healines, or follow up with the last ones before there are new ones. That’s why protective orders protect, law enforcement enforces (consistently), child support is collected (consistently and without gender bias), and welfare helps people be better. AND, (case in point) marriages are clearly getting healed — either that, or they can’t keep up with the new babies (despite Abstinence Education, which I omitted from this list, but is still going strong).
(OK, that’ll have to be another post — WOW, I just pulled 653 records under one code, 93.010 (community-based A.E.)
(not a searchable code in “usaspending.gov,” at least not readily…)
However, top 5 programs with the keyword “abstinence” in the PROJECT title:
| 93.010: Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | $128,610,003 |
| 98.001: USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas | $11,058,644 |
| 93.279: Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs | $9,561,182 |
| 93.995: Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects | $8,064,374 |
| 93.273: Alcohol Research Programs | $6,222,97 |
AND as far as WHO is really interested in why people don’t abstain and trying to get them to:
Top 10 Recipients
| FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL (FHI) | $3,593,286 |
| SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $2,551,682 |
| PROGRAM FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN HEALTH | $2,233,162 |
| HERITAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC | $2,000,000 |
| BROWN UNIVERSITY | $1,672,760 |
| POPULATION COUNCIL INC | $1,613,000 |
| PATH | $1,500,000 |
| NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH INC | $1,466,239 |
| NEW HOPE CENTER INC | $1,399,907 |
| CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC. | $1,399,300 |
Results 1 to 500 of 653 matches. restricted to “NEW” only, I got 240 new grants:
(AFTER ALL THIS, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO “ABSTAIN” FROM LOOKING FURTHER INTO THESE?)
Here’s a quick partial look:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | ($$)Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | Columbus Hospital | NJ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 2 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | BERNADETTE VISSANI | $- 739,820 |
| 2009 | METRO ATLANTA YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC | GA | COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CINDY MILLER | $ 300,186 |
| 2009 | Saint Michael`s Medical Center, Inc | NJ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | BERNADETTE VISSANI | $ 677,551 |
| 2008 | A WOMAN`S PLACE MINISTRIES, INC. | FL | ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL LAYTON | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | A WOMENS CONCERN, INC. | MA | HEALTHY FUTURES ABSTINENCE EDUCATION INITIATIVE | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ELIZABETH SNYDER | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP | IL | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SCOTT PHELPS | $ 512,500 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONSULTANTS,INC. | KS | COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | LOIS THEIS | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION | OH | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CATHERINE E WOOD | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | AIDS RESOURCE CENTER OF WISCONSIN, INC | WI | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SCOTT STOKES | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ALPHA CENTER | SD | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | KIMBERLY MARTINEZ | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | TX | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SHARI L CARROLL | $ 454,922 |
| 2008 | ARIZONA MEXICO BORDER HEALTH FOUNDATION | AZ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ALBERT MORENO | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | AWARE, INC. | WA | WASHINGTON STATE: COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE UNTIL MARRIAGE PROJECT | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | JAMES N GRENFELL | $ 499,849 |
| 2008 | About Our Kids, Inc. | MO | STRATEGIES FOR ABSTINENCE AND VIRTUE EDUCATION (SAVE) | 2 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ALICIA HUMES | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | Abstinence the Better Choice, Inc. | OH | ABSTINENCE THE BETTER CHOICE | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CHERYL BIDDLE | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Inc. | AZ | POWER FITNESS ABSTINENCE PROGRAM- TEACHING YOUTH AGES 12 THROUGH 18 THE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGI | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | EVA GODDARD | $ 600,000 |
and $427 mil (see above link “still going strong”) for another code 93.235, plain old “A.E.” Then I searched the word “abstinence” as a keyword in the project title, and got
In these venues, (once under the facuet of grants and publications – alittle easier to do while not being stalked, or in a court case onesself) talking (and publishing) about problems pays more than solving them, in fact, a LOT more. This also provides an incentive to try to keep actual problem-solvers (like those who have observed and been hurt by the system, and been taking names and notes, too) OUT of the talkfests, or decision making process, if they are heard. And, more and more, out of being informed that the decisionmaking process is not where it should be — as to legal matters, in the courts, not the psychologists’ offices.
Solving problems cuts off cash flow. There’s a clear disincentive. Ask someone who’s life, or whose child’s life is at stake (and who has not got a history of perjury in the case file already) and SHE will tell you, safety first, shared parenting second. Child’s right not to suffer abuse or be threatened (let alone the mother’s) or kidnapped supersedes person with history of threatening or abuse’s right to see the child. In re: “healthy marriages,” her /their (if children) right not to be hurt or killed, or traumatized in fear of this happening, or expose her children to being abused, and deal with frequent exchanges with a former batterer (even if the children were not directly battered) supersedes 53 professionals’ need to reconsider this. At what point are professionals to be forced to read these headlines that we read, and sometimes analyze, kind of like sitting through traffic court and watch graphic accident footage after one was caught speeding.
I have been through this. I have been IN a court case, same month, and domestic violence murder going on, same city, and one could not tell from the demeanor on the outside. My case had a history of violence, injury, repeated disregard of laws, and treats to abduct (which in fact had just happened). No matter, we are in la-la-land again. . . . I had a PTSD incident in the courtroom. No matter. . . .
SO, my hope is that the general public will become generally acquainted with how this works, so that if one of THEIR friends is involved (and, of course this presumes that my readers are interested in justice, not perverting it) (which may or may not be wise) – – they can at least see where things went. $$ wise. This year.
Experts are being churned out at an alarming rate. Grants go to this, too. Grants sometimes drive the field of expertise, and very much so in this field of fatherhood and families. I have looked, and can say this. Have you? Could you rebut that assertion with data from the top universities around the country, and colleges? (Not unless several programs disappear fast….)
Do yourself and others a favor — become a LITTLE more expert in this today than you were yesterday.
And show someone else. OK?
One philosophical question I have from time to time is how much of our adult lives (let alone growing up) are spent OUTside any government institutions to start with. I mean, what part of our lives are NOT regulated, measured, examined and evaluated (at our own expense) to drive policiesi (without our informed consent, really) that will further tinker with the dynamics of eat, sleep, breed, marry, divorce, educate (let’s not omit that) and re-educate, regulate, and direct. I have an unfortunate independent streak, and I tend to think there are often better ways to do things. As a woman, I don’t think needlessly repetitive tasks are the natural inheritance of my gender biologically, and although sometimes there’s a comfort in them, there should be other ways to do one thing or another.
Like better, or less wasteful. The benefit is, getting more done. Take for example, deleting religion from public school systems (supposedly) and then trying to re-inject it after criminal behavior, or during the divorce/separation scenarios. Take for example, a system that itself stresses and dismantles families, and then another (equally chaotic and burdensome to the general public) system to put them back together again. Take for example, the talk about “separation of church and state” and then nationally calling upon “faith-based organizations” to, though they are largely tax-exempt, at public expense put them back together again. To WHOM are any of the organizations below accountable, and what demonstration of effectiveness are they showing, or are the “exempt” from that as well as (those that are) from taxes, too?
Anyhow, I give you a single “CFDA” (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance) called “Healthy Marriages Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.” I guess it is assumed that mothers will be healthy without extra coaching and bribing. Or, that if you get a responsible father (i.e., buy one, and this is explained through another grants systems as well, this IS indeed the premise in practice here – – one has to look at the child support system’s role in divorce). . . . or perhaps this acknowledges that for whatever reasons (let’s not mention any OTHER programs this same Of/By/For the people government might have had its hands in), there is a social crisis not just of “fatherlessness” but of “irresponsible fatherhood.”
I can vouch for the one I know — father of my children. He’d rather fight than work any day, which process eventually put me out of work. No matter, the government stepped in, through family court matters, enter mediation, exit civil rights, eventually exit my contact with my offspring (they did spring out of me, physically. I pushed, they sprang. . .. whatever… I was awake for the process and can verify: I had two children a very long time ago). And then out they go, to work their own way through life, lest Dad be humiliated by paying much of his child support arrears, which was partly what the battle was about to start with. I felt that one of us should work, and offered the alternatives of (1) stop messing with me, so I could (since it doesn’t appear you want to) or (2) pay up. Version (1) entailed requesting a restraining order renewal, or 2nd one, or . . . . or . . . . and version (2) required — and I pursued this through the assigned agency – – court-ordered child support should actually be collected before our daughters became adults. However the MAIN conversation was not about what’s good for the children, but who gets to give orders — forever, basically. I categorically disagreed with this philosophy as being anti-Constitutional and anti-civil rights and anti-reasonable. My right to disagree was disagreed with, which makes the situation a GREAT pickings for the family law venue, it LOVES “high-conflict” situations — this draws federal moneys and justifies many professions.
Anyhow, here they are: the helpers, last year (2008):
While not all of these were birthed, or even nurtured, by California Healthy Marriages Coalition (“the coalition of coalitions model.” Sounds kind of like the “war to end all wars,” I don’t know….), they were perhaps started as a gleam in SOMEONE”s eye, having been informed of what’s available from Big Brother, who, on behalf of us all, will make all those ouchies better, soon, soon . . When we “consent” to taxes, it’s good to know what we have consented for them to be distributed to, well, do. For example, ///
CFDA Number = 93086 Fiscal Year = 2008 Recipient: ACTIVE RELATIONSHIPS CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 75205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0037 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Recipient ZIP Code: 96799
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0054 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 36849
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,899,487.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,899,487.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – AUSTIN CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 78704
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0063 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $261,825.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $261,825.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – CORPUS CHRISTI CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 78415
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0071 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – HOUSTON CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 77092
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0084 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $236,851.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $236,851.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE, INC. – EL PASO Recipient ZIP Code: 79902
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0100 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages Recipient ZIP Code: 75246
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0072 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $903,425.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $903,425.00 | |||||
Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services Recipient ZIP Code: 81147
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0055 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $200,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0055 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $200,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership Recipient ZIP Code: 85741
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0136 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BARAGA-HOUGHTON-KEWEENAW CHILD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 49931
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0018 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 45230
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0100 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0100 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BEST FRIENDS FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 20015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0058 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $500,724.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,724.00 | |||||
Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 49501
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0057 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0098 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $499,980.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,980.00 | |||||
Recipient: BETTER FAMILY LIFE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 63108
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0023 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,097,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,097,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BILL WILSON CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 95052
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0096 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $243,469.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $243,469.00 | |||||
Recipient: BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 22041
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0032 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $545,806.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0038 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $795,806.00 | |||||
Recipient: BOONEVILLE MUNICIPAL SEPERATE SCHOOL DISTRICT Recipient ZIP Code: 38829
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0036 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $532,675.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0036 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $532,675.00 | |||||
Recipient: Brighter Beginnings Recipient ZIP Code: 94601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0099 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 90806
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0065 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES Recipient ZIP Code: 67214
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0112 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,368.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,368.00 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 92705
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0080 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CECIL COUNTY GOVERNMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 21921
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0018 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 53211
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0013 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,096,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,096,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CENTERFORCE Recipient ZIP Code: 94901
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $481,554.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $481,554.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHARACTER COUNTS IN MAINE Recipient ZIP Code: 04116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0122 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 85716
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0059 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Recipient ZIP Code: 03101
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0077 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $315,830.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $315,830.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 33609
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0052 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL Recipient ZIP Code: 49503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0038 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0038 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,016,258.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,016,258.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 23127
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0043 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $249,999.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,999.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 78751
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0078 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $511,133.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $511,133.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE Recipient ZIP Code: 02903
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0030 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 16830
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0118 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $226,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $226,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC Recipient ZIP Code: 90005
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0076 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-25-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0076 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0088 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 27869
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $245,296.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $245,296.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 90015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0071 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS Recipient ZIP Code: 60611
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0098 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0098 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 27620
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0059 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 80236
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0085 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 80523
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0028 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $482,687.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0028 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $482,687.00 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSN OF COOK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 60604
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0089 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 18109
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0033 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $228,603.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $228,603.00 | |||||
Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES Recipient ZIP Code: 59855
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0007 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $149,940.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $465,494.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $615,434.00 | |||||
Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ Recipient ZIP Code: 97380
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0009 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $149,918.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0009 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $149,918.00 | |||||
Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 99508
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0066 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0066 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $418,832.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $418,832.00 | |||||
Recipient: CORNERSTONE OF HOPE CHURCH Recipient ZIP Code: 46221
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0119 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $350,560.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $350,560.00 | |||||
Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 40204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $259,532.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0015 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,968.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $759,500.00 | |||||
Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER Recipient ZIP Code: 85006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $275,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $275,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 06106
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0031 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0031 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Recipient ZIP Code: 65211
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0130 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,775.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,775.00 | |||||
Recipient: CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Recipient ZIP Code: 44113
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0052 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $533,730.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $533,730.00 | |||||
Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition Recipient ZIP Code: 92024
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0104 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $2,400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Child Find of America, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 12561
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0020 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 47714
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0034 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $543,303.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $543,303.00 | |||||
Recipient: Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 93726
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0053 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0053 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 20032
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0087 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Denver Indian Family Resource Center Recipient ZIP Code: 80226
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0081 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0081 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $198,280.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $198,280.00 | |||||
Recipient: Detroit Workforce Development Department Recipient ZIP Code: 48202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0073 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 27858
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0017 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $525,161.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $525,161.00 | |||||
Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION Recipient ZIP Code: 90022
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0056 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN Recipient ZIP Code: 79930
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0088 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 45405
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0035 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $1,859,692.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,859,692.00 | |||||
Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster Recipient ZIP Code: 18503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0060 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $225,608.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,608.00 | |||||
Recipient: Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse Recipient ZIP Code: 34981
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0025 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $242,822.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $242,822.00 | |||||
Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 74120
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FAMILY RESOURCES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 33733
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0132 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0132 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 98122
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0032 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTHSOURCE Recipient ZIP Code: 87108
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0061 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $300,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $300,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST Recipient ZIP Code: 37405
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0031 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,099,953.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,953.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY Recipient ZIP Code: 54520
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0006 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOREST INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Recipient ZIP Code: 65807
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0110 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $940,669.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $940,669.00 | |||||
Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE) Recipient ZIP Code: 10011
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0017 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE Recipient ZIP Code: 54115
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0108 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0124 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOUNTAIN OF LIFE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES Recipient ZIP Code: 33027
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0073 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $438,383.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $438,383.00 | |||||
Recipient: FRIENDSHIP WEST BAPTIST CHURCH Recipient ZIP Code: 75232
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0117 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $542,025.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $542,025.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 15143
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0103 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,510,098.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,510,098.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County Recipient ZIP Code: 77006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0082 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $477,539.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $477,539.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 01840
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0087 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $227,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $227,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Services of Westchester, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10573
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0036 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,812.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,812.00 | |||||
Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center Recipient ZIP Code: 46208
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0048 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Florida State University Recipient ZIP Code: 32306
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0022 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,009.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,009.00 | |||||
Recipient: Future Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 30344
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0045 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $402,632.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $402,632.00 | |||||
Recipient: GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Recipient ZIP Code: 30303
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0064 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 55104
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0068 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 78753
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0051 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-25-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0051 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $240,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $240,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH Recipient ZIP Code: 15202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0063 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 22182
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $548,932.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $548,932.00 | |||||
Recipient: GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER Recipient ZIP Code: 30515
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0104 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILIES COUNSELING & SUPPORT Recipient ZIP Code: 64119
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILY INITIATIVES Recipient ZIP Code: 77074
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0081 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $537,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $537,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY START, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 15208
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0103 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 95546
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0001 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $146,750.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,750.00 | |||||
Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou Recipient ZIP Code: 20009
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0049 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC Recipient ZIP Code: 82001
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0025 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,952.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,952.00 | |||||
Recipient: IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 50327
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0126 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Identity, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 20877
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0090 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program Recipient ZIP Code: 92243
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0075 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0075 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $515,615.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $515,615.00 | |||||
Recipient: Indiana Department of Correction Recipient ZIP Code: 46204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0019 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,896.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0101 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $649,896.00 | |||||
Recipient: Indiana Youth Institute Recipient ZIP Code: 46204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0086 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0086 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $999,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 72761
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $544,782.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $544,782.00 | |||||
Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, Recipient ZIP Code: 34237
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0068 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $494,943.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $494,943.00 | |||||
Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 25064
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0012 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,514.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,514.00 | |||||
Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 40475
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0125 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $490,680.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $490,680.00 | |||||
Recipient: LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 20007
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0072 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0072 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 04-29-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: LAUGH YOUR WAY AMERICA Recipient ZIP Code: 54481
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0005 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $274,933.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $274,933.00 | |||||
Recipient: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 45206
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0005 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: LIVE THE LIFE MINISTRIES Recipient ZIP Code: 32317
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0077 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $549,985.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,985.00 | |||||
Recipient: LONGVIEW WELNESS CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 75601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0091 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA Recipient ZIP Code: 57105
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0097 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0097 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 45503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0009 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $540,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $540,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Recipient ZIP Code: 21201
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0091 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $899,991.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0092 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $441,514.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,341,505.00 | |||||
Recipient: MODEL CITIES – EL PASO Recipient ZIP Code: 79935
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0053 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $499,758.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,758.00 | |||||
Recipient: MOREHOUSE COLLEGE Recipient ZIP Code: 30314
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0066 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $549,147.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,147.00 | |||||
Recipient: Madison Cty Com Health Centers, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 46015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0039 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $546,983.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $546,983.00 | |||||
Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 60187
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0011 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry Recipient ZIP Code: 92116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0016 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $268,349.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $268,349.00 | |||||
Recipient: Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice Recipient ZIP Code: 55406
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0028 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Montrose County Health and Human Services Recipient ZIP Code: 81401
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0079 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,552.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,552.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 85022
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0040 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE Recipient ZIP Code: 20877
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FB0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $999,534.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,534.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY Recipient ZIP Code: 10017
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0090 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0090 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $495,285.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,285.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 20006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0047 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS Recipient ZIP Code: 88003
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0135 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $494,996.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0057 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $218,336.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $713,332.00 | |||||
Recipient: NJ ST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Recipient ZIP Code: 08625
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0026 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $394,248.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $394,248.00 | |||||
Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 97213
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0079 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: NW Marriage Institute Recipient ZIP Code: 98682
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0041 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $275,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $275,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: New York Youth At Risk, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10038
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0093 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Northwood-Apppold United Methodist Church Recipient ZIP Code: 21218
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0062 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Nueva Esperanza Recipient ZIP Code: 19140
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0069 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 48053
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0070 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $200,170.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $200,170.00 | |||||
Recipient: OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 48056
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $368,555.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $368,555.00 | |||||
Recipient: OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ Recipient ZIP Code: 43215
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0109 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $544,140.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $544,140.00 | |||||
Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 73125
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0030 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0030 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $549,791.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,791.00 | |||||
Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE Recipient ZIP Code: 44087
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0021 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0021 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $459,419.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $459,419.00 | |||||
Recipient: OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIAL CENTER OF AMERICA, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 19122
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0016 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Osborne Association, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10455
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0050 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $448,856.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0050 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0056 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $698,856.00 | |||||
Recipient: PAIRS FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 33332
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0029 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $990,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $990,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PARENTS PLUS Recipient ZIP Code: 54952
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0113 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $549,629.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0113 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,629.00 | |||||
Recipient: PEACE, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 13202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0107 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $465,937.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $465,937.00 | |||||
Recipient: PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 80231
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0020 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $525,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $525,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 90003
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0092 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 94565
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0012 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER OF STARK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 44708
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0055 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $535,075.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $535,075.00 | |||||
Recipient: PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF WESTMORELAND FAYETTE INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 15601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0075 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0075 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 32224
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0074 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $454,332.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $454,332.00 | |||||
Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 73116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0026 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FH0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-29-2008 | $3,250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $4,250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient Recipient: PUERTO RICAN FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 10011
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0013 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 63146
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0080 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Professional Counseling Resources, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 19805
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0046 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE Recipient ZIP Code: 98350
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0002 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0002 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 33157
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0043 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: RED CLIFF TRIBE Recipient ZIP Code: 54814
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0003 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0003 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $146,672.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,672.00 | |||||
Recipient: REGION II COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 49204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0078 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $203,854.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $203,854.00 | |||||
Recipient: REGION XIX EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 79925
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0042 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: RIDGE Project, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 43527
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0044 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0044 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $412,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $412,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ROCKDALE HOSPITAL & HEALTH SYSTEM Recipient ZIP Code: 30012
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0014 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $455,510.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $455,510.00 | |||||
Recipient: ROSALIE MANOR Recipient ZIP Code: 53210
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0037 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Read To Me International Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 96815
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0062 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 92612
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0058 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Resource, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 55404
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0022 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Resources for Children`s Health Recipient ZIP Code: 19102
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0040 | 2 | ACF | 2 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0040 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 87102
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0067 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $549,961.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,961.00 | |||||
Recipient: SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTERS Recipient ZIP Code: 97212
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0121 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $462,919.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $462,919.00 | |||||
Recipient: SOUTH PUGET INTERTRIBAL PLANNING AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 98584
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0004 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE Recipient ZIP Code: 70813
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0027 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $249,548.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,548.00 | |||||
Recipient: SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 78704
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0034 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $460,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $460,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ST MARY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 70538
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0094 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $230,092.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $230,092.00 | |||||
Recipient: SUNY, STONY BROOK Recipient ZIP Code: 11794
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0131 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0131 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,910.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,910.00 | |||||
Recipient: SUQUAMISH & KLALLAM HEALTH PLAN Recipient ZIP Code: 98346
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Recipient ZIP Code: 95821
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0015 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0015 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,256.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,256.00 | |||||
Recipient: Scholarship and Guidance Association Recipient ZIP Code: 60603
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0042 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $483,333.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0137 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $242,770.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $726,103.00 | |||||
Recipient: Shalom Task Force Recipient ZIP Code: 10274
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0106 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $480,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $480,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Shelby County Division of Corrections Recipient ZIP Code: 38103
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0067 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0067 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0095 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $485,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $985,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: South Coast Business Employment Corporation Recipient ZIP Code: 97420
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0023 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition Recipient ZIP Code: 63103
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0133 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,099,882.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0133 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,882.00 | |||||
Recipient: TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE Recipient ZIP Code: 99701
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0005 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $146,016.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0005 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,016.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEEN-AID, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 99207
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0102 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $495,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEXAS ARMS OF LOVE (dba, PEOPLE OF PRINCIPLE) Recipient ZIP Code: 79761
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0102 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $425,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $425,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Recipient ZIP Code: 78711
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0019 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS Recipient ZIP Code: 78666
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0128 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,641.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,641.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION Recipient ZIP Code:
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0024 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE FAMILY HEALTH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 20706
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0084 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP Recipient ZIP Code: 36303
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0093 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE VILLAGE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN, INC` Recipient ZIP Code: 06105
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0045 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THERAPY HELP, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 80220
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0123 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TLINGIT & HAIDA TRIBES CENTRAL COUNCIL Recipient ZIP Code: 99801
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0008 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TRINITY HEALTH-ST JOSEPH MERCY-OAKLAND Recipient ZIP Code: 48341
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0099 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $545,730.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $545,730.00 | |||||
Recipient: The Family Life Line, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 87124
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0115 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $495,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families Recipient ZIP Code: 29204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0021 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,456.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,456.00 | |||||
Recipient: Trinity Church, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 33168
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0060 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNITED WAY OF JACKSON COUNTY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 49201
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0138 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 02-11-2008 | $1,099,461.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,461.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES Recipient ZIP Code: 10467
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0086 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $495,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES Recipient ZIP Code: 72205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0041 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 08-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0041 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA Recipient ZIP Code: 32826
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0003 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $273,293.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $273,293.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE RESEARCH FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 40292
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0002 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $542,920.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $542,920.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Recipient ZIP Code: 27599
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0094 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0094 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $530,482.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,482.00 | |||||
Recipient: UPPER DES MOINES OPPORTUNITY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 51342
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0082 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 84322
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0129 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $417,324.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $417,324.00 | |||||
Recipient: Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 55408
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0033 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION Recipient ZIP Code: 05401
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0029 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0029 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC Recipient ZIP Code: 92084
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0024 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: WAIT Training Recipient ZIP Code: 80111
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0051 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $1,010,330.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,010,330.00 | |||||
Recipient: WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 48192
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0008 | 2 | ACF | 2 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 80632
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0134 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $974,358.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $974,358.00 | |||||
Recipient: WOMEN’S OPPORTUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 59802
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0054 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $212,399.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0054 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $212,399.00 | |||||
Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 43420
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0011 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,492.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,492.00 | |||||
Recipient: YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION Recipient ZIP Code: 04073
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0014 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0014 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $245,333.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $245,333.00 | |||||
Recipient: YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 87105
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0047 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: YWCA OF SAN ANTONIO Recipient ZIP Code: 78205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0127 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $529,585.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $529,585.00 | |||||
Recipient: YouthLaunch, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 78731
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0069 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $243,315.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $243,315.00 | |||||
Recipient: enFAMILIA, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 33033
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0039 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
| Total of all awards: | $118,310,126.00 |
FOR OUR NEXT “CLASS” WE WILL LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE ONE OR TWO OF THESE GRANT RECIPIENTS. ///
SHARE THIS POST on...
Yes, we SHOULD call them “restraining order suggestions” (Certifiably Insane Protection Orders in MN; meanwhile, more “Fatherhood” in KS) [[Orig. Aug. 7, 2009]].
[[Title & Shortlink added Dec. 1, 2023 to refer to this post]]
[Feb. 17, 2016 UPDATE NOTES:
This post originally published over five years ago — on August 7, 2009. For more recent focus of this blog, see more recent posts (2016, 2014) which focus on systems operations, and consolidation of economic power from outside state lines (divorce and custody remaining under state jurisdiction, as well as domestic violence prevention orders).
I am currently working on posts regarding the Greenbook Initiative (2000-2008) and involved parties, on the NCJFCJ, on IDVAAC, and the “DV cartel” as identified by its participants (centralized, coordinated, and stuck in a policy rut) on the HHS and USDOJ grants stream.
I look up nonprofit organizations functioning as social policy conduits for a small group of inter-related professionals who cut deals with each other on what to minimize, what to focus on. These represent a much larger pattern throughout government, not just relating to domestic violence itself.
Many times by the time individuals find out about the policy deals that were cut, their lives, or kids are “gone.” If not physically, often in all the other critical aspects of life which people NOT entrenched in some of these systems may still take for granted. For example, the ability to get to and from, and hold a job once one has been hired, or completing projects for clients inbetween police events, court hearings, and ongoing threats to one’s personal safety and particularly, financial survival (i.e., ability to sustain food, housing, transportation, etc.). This comment added 2/17/2016 //LGH]
(Short-link ends “-ez” and post is about 10,600 words. Including many quotes…and the text of a Kansas Senate Bill starting a “Fatherhood Initiative” — and the entire text of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (trying to see if there’s a disconnect somewhere between those two?)
I also respond to some news articles at length on the timeline in the first article shown below.) (Parts of this post also refer to the Inter-American Council on Human Rights (IACHR) for a domestic violence (“DV”) case from Kansas (Claudine Dombrowski) which appealed that high up for justice…) //LGH 12/1/23.
Today’s [Aug. 2009] headlines are right on topic with yesterday’s post. . . and the one referenced above….
Mr & Mrs. OUELETTEs, MINNESOTA, 2 accounts of 2,100 on the web, from Kare11News.
(1) Wife had order of protection against husband prior to murder-suicide
(2) Harris man gave up guns before strangling wife, hanging himself
Well, I swore I was NOT going to blog on this today, but I fear that these are indeed possibly copy-cat murder/suicides. It is now “out there” in the news as a possible way out of an emotionally embarrassing and humiliating situation.
Read THIS one, and then see if you can tell which parts were certifiably insane public policy, and how many warning signs people ignored.
And I’ll tell you why this one chills me, and makes me glad to be alive today.
(TOP of post — Minnesota. BOTTOM — Kansas.
They relate.)
Blogger’s Preface
At this point, it seems to be “certifiably insane public policy” to expect women to trust, or men to respect, such restraining orders, when clearly they don’t — I already blogged on this re: the woman in Pennsylvania who fought back.
Recently, I wrote about a father accused of molesting his (teenaged) daughter who, seeing as she was only moved 2 doors down, and into the home of a man that used to be the same father’s employee (say, what???!?). Within one week, Dad had killed: daughter, foster father and himself, and almost killed foster mother, too. So THAT helpful ruling got 3 people dead and one injury.
Great going, child protective services in that region of Tennessee.
Here’s another one that slipped through the cracks somehow, and at several different points. What “gets” me about this one is realizing several domestic violence prevention groups, nonprofits, that have been getting millions upon millions of federal dollars, over at least a decade in grants to provent violence locally, rurally, and in Indian tribes, as well as technical assistance grants to, I guess, “get the word out.”
So far, I can see they are doing a great job with putting together literature that’s already on the web somewhere, positioning themselves as the experts, consulting in private with other professionals about what to do, and keeping a body count. Which hasn’t substantially changed (per these counts) statewide in Minnesota within a decade.
So either the state is raising more suicidal or unable-to-handle-stress people, or immature young adults who then continue the immaturity into adulthood and parenthood (referring to the fathers in this case), or something. . . . . . Or so many people are being born each day that they STILL don’t know the warning signs of danger, and are talked into minimizing them.
Let’s maybe add ONE more “lethality risk” — trusting in protection orders to start with.
That’s for the courts and for the women alike. And encouraging a woman to do so (or continuing to present them as viable alternatives — when in fact they are panaceas too often) also places her in risk, given the facts. Ignorance of them is NOT bliss. . . .
When police DO respond in time, they run the risk of death themselves. When they do NOT respond in time, typically Mom, and sometimes Dad, are killed, and sometimes more. Or otherwise traumatized. SO . . . . . what else is available?
CONSIDER THIS ONE:
- State: Minnesota
- Body Count: 2, no responding officers or bystanders killed this time.
- Orphans: 3, ages 10 (boy), 8 & 8 (twin girls)
- Who are they now living with? Relatives.
- Did they witness the murder – – of their mother by their father, YES, the girls
- Did they try to intervene and fail? – — YES, an 8 year old girl tried to save her mother.
- Was 911 called? – — YES, by an 8 year old daughter?
- Was the call heeded (it seems No), or interfered with (yes, by the father)? – – – read below.
- Was that restraining order as written certifiably insane? – — ABSOLUTELY. (And it seems identical to the one I got many years ago.)
- Does making a restrained person turn in his or her guns always save a life? – — NO. Other weapons also can kill (apparently here, hands).
- Or, a person not allowed to get a gun could get a friend’s (or in a recent case girlfriend’s gun).
- Are risk assessments going to redeem lives from living in fear (or being lost)? – – – I’m not sure. I’m of the current opinion, NO, unless the woman herself takes them seriously and takes serious actions not reliant on 911 to ensure safety.
So, let’s talk about the body counts vis-a-vis the legal terminology:
When you think about it, and read the results, even calling these things “protection orders” makes zero sense. They are restraint requests. A man without restraint is ordered in public by a judge to show restraint.
WHO is to protect, in “protection order”? The power of the state? Does the state, like God, declare “protection” exists because it ordered this? And is the state, in so doing, lying to the protected parties?
I think so, basically.
Here’s a perhaps (I ALWAYS say “perhaps,” or try to) more viable protection order:
A trained, armed mother with an attitude to match, telling the man who just received the judicial order, that she is going to take the boundaries of the property seriously, and understands all laws regarding the 2nd amendment, and any contingencies. IN other words, she needs to be more determined and more aggressive than the person who formerly attacked or threatened her.
So do the people surrounding or dealing with her on this issue.
Alternately, a “not in the same state” “county” “500 mile radius” mother, and kids. And the kids could be told the truth about why this is happening, in age-appropriate terms but without name-calling or derogatory treatment of their father.
But of course that would screw up “access visitation” and “National Fathers Return Days” somewhat….
NOW, this mindset is not typically the state of a woman who has gotten to the point of requesting such an order from her husband, right? The request for an order represents to an abuser an ESCALATION in OPPOSITION to SUBMISSION. How’s he likely to respond?
SHARE THIS POST on...
How can we analyze policy inbetween these leading, bleeding headlines?
Maybe if I intersperse headlines, policy talk, and commentary I can get through another day without mourning evidence of national return to stupidity day.
Man, then about 19, begets child; mother (now in other state) age not mentioned
Separation happens; Dad gets custody, Dad remarries (in which order?)
Dad has two more children and, now 34 himself, is accused of molesting his first one, now 15.
DCFS removes daughter he is allegedly molesting from his custody — SORT of, not quite!
Pissed off, or coldly determined, Dad obtains gun — or grabs one he already owns.
Before much of anything is discovered (LEST it be discovered?)
He simply heads two doors down, kills foster Dad, attempts to kill foster mother, DOES kill his own daughter,
What a life she led with her FATHER, a STEPMOTHER, two stepsiblings, and being molested, ALLEGEDLY.
SOMEONE TALKS. She gets out, but not safe. Now she’s dead.
Oh yeah, and not one to go to prison, her father also shoots himself, fatally.
Her MOM was in another state — WHY?
Just another small, friendly, Tennessee Town.
Does anyone know her brief life well enough to tell its brief story? Because when these things happen
at home, the theme is NOT telling anyone outside the family; collusion is the order of the day.
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM TODAY — August 4, 2009
QUIZ — from what YEAR are the orange quotes mid-article?
ANSWER BELOW.
Color Code:
- light blue — quotes the article
- black — my comments
- orange — quotes from a different article (speech, to be precise).
Police: Dad fatally shoots daughter, foster dad
(AND, SELF) (AND TRIES TO KILL FOSTER MOTHER, too)
DYERSBURG, Tenn. – Neighbors in Tennessee are asking why a teenage girl
fatally shot by her father was placed with a foster family just two doors down
after he was accused of abusing her.
Omitted from this lead sentence — ONE WEEK after . . . . .
I believe one of the tags on this one might be “AFTER SHE SPEAKS UP” (if it was the daughter, or her mother, or her stepmother)
This puts a CHILL on reporting abuse…
As dads disappear, the American family is becoming significantly weaker and less capable of fulfilling
its fundamental responsibility
of nurturing and socializing children and conveying values to them.
In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of America’s children
are becoming significantly higher.
Christopher Milburn, 34, killed the 15-year-old and her foster father and
wounded her foster mother before taking his own life Sunday, authorities said.
Sounds like a virtual honor-killing of some sort..
Children growing up without fathers, research shows, are far more likely to live in poverty,
to fail in school, to experience behavioral and emotional problems,
to develop drug and alcohol problems,
to be victims of physical abuse and neglect and, tragically, to commit suicide.
{{THis being a case in point, I suppose?}}
{{The order of events is reversed. Victims of physical (and sexual) abuse are often
turning to drugs, alcohol, and other risky behaviors as a result, per a decade-long
(and basically ignored by the fatherhood movement) Kaiser/CDC study (see blogroll to right), completed the
year before THIS quote I am inserting to this recent Tennessee tragedy.}}
Neighbor Frank Hipps said Milburn was good friends with Todd Randolph, the 46-year-old foster father,
and had worked for him in the past. Hipps, who had known both men for about eight years, said he didn’t know
the details of the abuse allegations but questioned why the girl had been placed so close.
Maybe he didn’t know them so well as he thought.
Who paid WHOM to get this daughter switched only 2 doors down, instead of the Dad switched out of the neighborhood?
Dad used to work for the foster father? Just HOW inbred was this town, exactly?
A mature 46 year old man, foster father, married, and a daughter in the home.
Let’s do the Father/Daughter math: 34 – 15 is HOW old was he when he got a woman pregnant?
Legally old enough: 19. Probably just out of high school.
“That kid shouldn’t have been in that house,” he said.
I agree. I think she should’ve been with her mother.
“This might have been preventable if she had been placed with foster parents out of the community.”
MIGHT is true, especially if he still knew where she was ….
OR for SURE if the man had been in jail for molesting his daughters, which is where child-molesters belong, at least to start.
Neither police in Dyersburg, in northwestern Tennessee, nor child services agency spokesman Rob Johnson
would elaborate on the abuse allegations other than to say the investigation began last week.
The girl, whose name was not released, had been staying with Todd and Susan Randolph
while the state Department of Children’s Services investigated, Dyersburg Police Capt. Steve Isbell said.
WHo paid WHOM to put her there? Come’ ON! !!! Give the girl a fresh start!
Susan Randolph, the girl’s foster mother, was released from a Memphis hospital Monday.
Frank Hipps’ wife, Tammy, said the 15-year-old was Milburn’s daughter by a previous relationship.
He was married and the couple had two younger daughters.
The court probably saw a stable TWO-parent family, it probably had at least HEARD about
the great crisis of fatherlessness we’ve been plagued with as a nation for the past about 15 years
(This girl was born right around the time this doctrine took nationalized, Congressionally recognized wings..
She must’ve been born around 1994. See below. Gee, by then, my In-the-home husband had already
started assaulting me, between babies. WHat a coincidence that, unbeknownst to me, my government
was aware of the crisis and addressing it. . . . . Oh, excuse me, not the crisis of child molestation or
domestic violence, but of FATHERLESSNESS.
The girl’s mother was living out of state
{{HOW COME SHE LOST CUSTODY?}}
and police were waiting for her to arrive before releasing the girl’s name, Isbell said.
Police found the teenager and Todd Randolph dead at the Randolph home and Milburn about a block away,
dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
One less child molester, allegedly, OR man who didn’t trust the legal system to get the truth out of his innocence.
Guess they must do things different in Family Court in Tennessee; he’d have been FINE if he could just connect
with some PAS-theory court professional and discredit whoever was alleging the abuse. Unless it was the girl…
Charles Wootton, 71, who lives across the street from the Randolphs, said he heard five pops. He looked out the window
and saw Randolph on the ground near the mailbox.
“My wife opened the door and walked out and seen the blood. That’s when I called 911,” he said.
Wootton said neighbors started to gather at the Randolphs’ house and a nurse performed CPR on Todd Randolph,
who had been shot through the neck. {{FOR THE CRIME OF . . . . . . . ??}}
Wootton said when he first looked at Susan Randolph, he thought she was dead, too.
“She told me who did it,” Wootton said.
The Randolphs have two young children who were at their grandparents’ house during the shootings, Wootton said.
Wootton had moved to the neighborhood about two weeks ago, and Todd Randolph had mowed his yard several times.
“The people around here are just about the friendliest you’ve ever met,” said Wootton. “I don’t know what happened to that guy.”
MORAL OF THE STORY: FRIENDLY PEOPLE CAN STILL MOLEST THEIR CHILDREN. WHO REPORTED? THE DAUGHTER?
THE NEW WOMAN? ONE OF HER MANDATED REPORTERS.
Isbell said Milburn had no criminal record in Dyersburg, a city of approximately 18,000 people about 70 miles northeast of Memphis.
Tammy Hipps said Milburn worked as a counselor at the McDowell Center for Children,
which helps at-risk and troubled children.
Well, was he falsely accused or properly accused?
If properly, then again, let’s note here: PERPS like places that give them access to CHILDREN, esp. troubled ones.
The shootings came just over two weeks after Jacob Levi Shaffer of Fayetteville, a small Tennessee town
near the Alabama border about.
70 miles west of Chattanooga, was accused of fatally stabbing his estranged wife,
three members of her family and a neighbor boy to death on July 18.
He also is accused of beating an acquaintance to death in nearby Huntsville, Ala.
BEFORE or AFTER she became “inexplicably” “estranged”??
Perhaps stories like these are why the word “RESPONSIBLE” was added to things like, “National Fathers Return Day?”
One Congressional discussion of which I give, below:
FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
| Lieberman, Joseph[D-CT] | ||
| Begin | 1999-06-17 | 10:13:34 |
| End | 10:21:48 | |
| Length | 00:08:14 | |
Leading off with African Americans and teen pregnancies, he relates:
Mr. LIEBERMAN.
Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues.
Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report,
can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.”
It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
COMMENTARY:
(THis mental image appears to be far less vivid than the ones of SOME fathers doing horrible things when they DID or DO live
with their children..
Like beating them. Or having sex with them. Or beating their mothers. Or simply refusing to work OR help around the home. Or,
engaging in multiple sexual relationships with other women while married. Or verbally berating a mother in front of the children.
SOME Dads are great Dads and SOME Dads are a terror. Likewise, SOME Moms are great Moms, and SOME Moms are negligent
or bad Moms. It is also harder for a mother to care properly for her children, or in the best manner, which she is afraid of being assaulted
over a minor issue by the Dad when he comes home. If he does that day. Are these senators thinking about these images when they
shudder and are aghast at a home without a Dad).
Many homes were without Dads during the World Wars I, II, Korean War, Viet Nam War, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places
men (and women) have been sent because men decided to make war with each other, in the name of peace and democracy and self-protection.
Some homes of law enforcement officers are now without Dads in them because their Dad responded to a domestic violence dispute, and
caught a bullet, generally also taking out the attacking father as well.
MY Dad’s home, growing up between two of the abovementioned wars was without a Dad in it because, guess what: His Dad (a fireman),
got tired of beating his German immigrant wife and abandoned her with three children. He witnessed this growing up.
He went on to become a successful scientist, raise children he did NOT beat (at least I wasn’t and I never saw my siblings taking this),
studied hard, worked hard, sent ALL children not just to, but also through college also, and left an inheritance. And provide for, from what
I am told/understand, not only his own mother, but also a younger brother who never quite got it together, possibly related to something that
happened when he WAS with that abusive Dad, or what, I was never told. That brother also served his country as a soldier, and died before his time,
never having married or had children.
My Dad NEVER put his children (all daughters) in contact with the abusing/beating/abandoning father, ever, in his lifetime.
I never regretted this, that I can recall. How can you regret something you never saw, where the only thing you knew about him was,
he beat the grandmother that I DID know (a little bit).
However, while Sen. Lieberman was making this speech, about a decade ago, I was for the first time in a full decade of substantial
domestic violence in MY daughters’ lives, with them at an overnight, stay-away camp, a music camp, which we had managed to get
to no thinks from the father who never left. For two weeks, I was not going to be abused at night and was around people who actually
treated me respectfully, and I worked along side them in my profession. We had had a real push getting up there, and were punished
soundly for having left, but during that week and seeing the response to us getting free from abuse for only (and not entirely; there was
a dour-faced, rules-of-camp breaking midweek visit, where $20 was casually tossed at me so I might have enough gas to get back home)
I MADE UP MY MIND that this domestic violence restraining order was GOING to be filed, and I’m “out of here.”
How ironic that i didn’t know what was being prated and pronounced in Washington, D.C. at this time.
Here’s the rest of this little 8 minute speech, in case you WOULD like the names of some of the prominent thinkers behind this
June 1999 presentation to the President of the United States, and get a glimpse inside the working of great, Constitution-respecting, minds
when left unsupervised in the Capital of our beloved country:
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped
in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless
profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness,
{{Gee, that must have been a grass-roots appeal from the teen mothers for help, or their mothers, or
theirs sisters. WHERE did this knowledge about the impact of fatherless come from, given the
establishment in 1994 of: (A) The Violence Against Women Act (help some women leave, rather than
stay, in abusive, dangerous relationships) and (B) Also in 1994, the National Fatherhood Initiative.
(Should I compare months of incorporation as nonprofit with the passage of the law?)}}
and indicate we are
in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to
the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
(CONTINUED QUOTE, in different format..):
At the end of this column, Michael Kelly asks: How could this happen
in a Nation like ours? And he wonders if anyone is paying attention.
Well, the fact is that people are beginning to pay attention, although
it tends to be more people at the grassroots level who are actively
seeking solutions neighborhood by neighborhood.
{{Evidence being….. WHO?? Time frame? Organizations? Written declarations by any of these?}}
The best known of these groups {{in fact the ONLY one named here..}}
is called the National Fatherhood Initiative.
{{Possibly because of its funding? and prominence of who’s in it?}}
I think it has made tremendous progress in recent years {{CONTEXT 1994-1999}}
in raising awareness of father absence and its impact on our society and in mobilizing a
national effort to promote responsible fatherhood.
Per the HHS TAGGS search on its name:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90XP0023 | THE RESPONSIBILE FATHERHOOD PUABLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM | 93647 | $ 500,000 |
And for column width, same search (common field: Award# / CFDA Code)
| Fiscal Year | Award Number | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2008 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BEARD | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | 90FB0001 | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | 90XP0023 | 04/09/2001 | 93647 | Social Services Research and Demonstration | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | HEATHER THURMAN | $ 500,000 |
I’d DONE data entry before, and typing. Do you know what the odds of someone even on no sleep, and having a sugar buzz, making THAT many
mistakes in 4 entries (fatherhood, responsible, and public, plus “Christopher” spelled wrong. Same grant, 3rd year, “Christhopher Brown” entered a
samesex marriage, apparently and changed last name “Brown” to his partner’s name “Beard”?
This database exists so the public can search on it. Hmmm…… I wonder if they know to search for misspelled names…. and key terms.
AND SINCE 2000– seen below:
Funding for the “Father Organization” in this “national effort”
| 93.086: Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | $1,999,068 |
However the funding for the wild oats it sowed, under this # 93.086:
(I JUST LEARNED) I believe that this code only arose (emerged naturally of course) in about 2006. However, as of 2009,
it is still not a searchable agency code on the USASPENDING.gov. Either in listing “all” programs, or under the agency it belongs under
Hmmm — $2 million less in California for our shelters? (yes, yes, I realize this is federal, not state, spending).
2000-2009 NFI Funding: (See bar chart): Well, I guessed this may not be responsible “Spelling” on whoever entered the data,
but . . . .
When we simply search only the word
“fatherhood” under “recipient” for FY2000-2009,
we get an entirely different picture (also diff’t database):
Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located 
| District of Columbia nonvoting (Eleanor Holmes Norton) | $6,942,352 |
| Maryland 08 (Constance A. Morella / Chris Van Hollen) | $2,625,112 |
Yes this is definitely an “up from the people” grassroots movement,
and not a DC.-down
initiative, surely. They are just responding to (a certain sector) of their constitutents, and from Washington, acting on it. I know straight out of
getting out of my house safe, the FIRST thing on my mind was telling Washington, I needed (well, another) father in the home, since now
I was a “female-headed” household and my children, while this Domestic Violence Restraining order was in effect, were sleeping in a fatherless
home and in danger of (NOT) learning the rights values. They were learning that that stuff they witnessed growing up was illegal. And how to
leave a dangerous relationship and start to recover.
Of course, family court was there waiting for them to go UNlearn those values, fast, and that the 14th Amendment is just a theory.
Top 10 Recipients
| NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $11,067,190 |
| FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $8,673,900 |
| INSTITUTE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | $6,557,520 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM RE | $1,500,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITA | $300,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. RE | $99,350 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAMILY REVI | $-14,518 ** |
93647 word “fatherhood”
Was that misspelling intentional? I mean, it WOULD complicate a search by Award Title
Searching, CFDA 93647 (Not the CFDA actually assigned the word “fatherhood” in its description) & word “fatherhood” (“keyword in award title”):
Exact same search, different fields, so you can see grantee, principal investigators….
i.e.,
“It did this ALL on its own altruistic self, and I’m just reporting on it here.”
The President (is this the same one that signed that 1995 proclamation? about fatherhood?)
SEARCH ON ALL grants, with only the word “fatherhood” in the grant (not grantee) title, produced
358 records, of which here are the 1995-1999 ones:
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XA0005 | REPLICATION & REVITALIZATION FATHERHOOD MODEL | 93670 | OTHER | NEW | $ 300,000 |
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XP0014 | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93647 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 180,000 |
| 1999 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 139,665 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | State Government | R40MC00141 | AN INTERVENTION FOR THE TRANSITION TO FATHERHOOD | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 344,470 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | R40MC00110 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 149,507 |
| 1998 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 104,927 |
| 1998 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | 1R40MC0011001 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 154,395 |
| 1997 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD35702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 119,899 |
| 1995 | ADDISON COUNTY PARENT & CHILD CENTER | MIDDLEBURY | VT | County Government | 90PR0005 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0003 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0004 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | ST. BERNANDINE’S HEAD START | BALTIMORE | MD | Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0002 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | County Government | 90PR0001 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
Notice the variety of recipients, including Universities (this will be useful for later “evidence-based data” resulting from grants to study the topic.
Notice that the TYPE of grants appears to be either “new” or “noncompeting.” Hmmm.
AND NOW Sen Lieberman is reporting on this grassroots movement.
Along with a group of allies, the National Fatherhood Initiative has
been establishing educational programs in hundreds of cities and
towns across America.
It has pulled together bipartisan task forces in
the Senate, the House, and among the Nation’s Governors and
mayors.
YES< there’s ONE thing that a bipartisan majority male Congress and the Nation’s (also primarily male,
if I’m not mistaken??) can unite on, and that the problem with the nation
relates to a lack of male (father) influence on young children throughout the land.
Presumably, these children that are spending, probably, the majority of their waking hours
in school, are not connecting with any decent father figures or adult males and learning from them
good values.
I wonder what the male/female ratio of teachers is in the nation’s elementary and high schools….
It has worked with us to explore public policies that
encourage and support the efforts of fathers to become more involved
in the lives of their children.
Last Monday, the National Fatherhood Initiative held its annual
(FIFTH?) national fatherhood summit here in Washington. At that summit, Gen.
Colin Powell, and an impressive and wide-ranging group of experts
and advocates, talked in depth about the father absence crisis in our
cities and towns and brainstormed about what we can do to turn this
troubling situation around.
And Last June, 2009 President OBAMA, had a “town hall on fatherhood”
which was visited by a major representative in the Violence Against Women movement
(see last post). 15 years later, these articles are still leading, suicides (NOT by the troubled
teens, bu tby at times the fathers who troubled them….) are still happening. Well, the
doctrine’s NOT about to change, it must because THAT murderous, suicide-committing father
HIMSELF had no father model in his life.
There are limits to what we in Government can do to meet this
challenge and advance the cause of responsible fatherhood because,
Because — Because — Because, “regretfully” I supposed according to this point of view,
the FOUNDING Fathers put LIMITS to government into the U.S. Constitution,** and a few
MORE also made their way into the Bill of Rights as Amendments.
(**To appreciate the link — or be tempted to read it, hover cursor over it)
I can’t WAIT til the “Equal Rights” Amendment makes it in, if it ever will.
Of course I would settle for an enforced and respected 14th Amendment:
after all, it is hard to change people’s attitudes and behaviors and
values through legislation.
Possibly because the purpose of legislation is to express THEIR attitudes, by laws they voted on,
or their elected representatives did. Possibly because the purpose of government is to PROTECT
the inalienable rights of citizens….
But that doesn’t mean we are powerless,
Yes, time has shown that the federal grants systems, and initiatives, and private deliberations IS a
way to get around the danged legislation that has made “us” (Who all agree about this fatherhood crisis)
so “powerless.”
nor does it mean we can afford not to try to lessen the impact of a
problem that is literally eating away at our country.
How do you know it’s a PROBLEM and not a SYMPTOM of another problem?
In recent times, we have had a great commonality of concern
expressed in the ideological breadth of the fatherhood promotion
effort both here in the Senate and our task force, but underscored by
statements that the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services have made on this subject in recent
years. Indeed, I think President Clinton most succinctly expressed the
importance of this problem when he said: {{in 1995….?}}}
The single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing
absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes
to so many other social problems.
Again, in your opinion, supported by government-funded research with the premise already supposed.
AS WE CAN SEE BY THE ABOVE NEWS ARTICLE. THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE SITUATION, AND
WHAT CAUSED THE MAN TO KILL 2 (NOT INCLUDING HIMSELF, AND THE FOSTER MOTHER HE TRIED TO KILL)
was HIS INDIGNANT FEELINGS ABOUT, WELL THE FATHER-ABSENCE IN HIS ADOLESCENT DAUGHTER’S LIFE.
IT WAS, REALLY, LOVE IN ACTION.
(FOR REFERENCE: This was the Monica Lewinsky president, right?
Well, I guess we can overlook that because he has just flown to North Korea,
with a shock of white hair and looking dignified (and leaner) to attempt to retrieve
two FEMALE journalists sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. I hope he succeeds.
However, his signing of that 1995 Memo sentenced women here locally to some unbelievable
long-term trauma, because of its chilling effect on the 14th Amendment (and others)
and the placement of daughters and sons in the household of men who abused (or are
abusing) either them, OR previously their mothers) (case in point).
So there are some things we can and should be trying to do. I am
pleased to note our colleagues, Senators BAYH, DOMENICI, and
others have been working to develop a legislative proposal, which I
think contains some very constructive and creative approaches
Yup, parTICULARLY creative with the laws, due process, and the titling of the
various grants involved. Let alone the use of them, or the monitoring of their use
if any indeed actually takes place.
in which the Federal Government would support financially, with
resources, some of these very promising grassroots father-promotion
efforts,
WOULD support? WOULD support?
Check HHS’s CFDA# 93.086, “promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage” for yourself on THIS site:
http://usaspending.gov (under “SPENDING” “GRANTS”)
and also encourage and enact the removal of some of the
legal and policy barriers that deter men from an active presence in their children’s lives.
A “LEGAL BARRIER” MUST REFER TO A LAW, RIGHT?
Another thing I think we can do to help is to use the platform we
have on the Senate floor–this people’s forum –to elevate this
problem on the national agenda. That is why Senator GREGG and I
have come to the floor today. I am particularly grateful for the
cosponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire, because he is the
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families.
YES, I AM SURE WE ARE REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MORE THAN CHARACTER, OR LEGAL RIGHTS OF MEN AND WOMEN BOTH….
We are joined by a very broad and bipartisan group of cosponsors which
includes Senators BAYH,
BROWNBACK, MACK, DODD, DOMENICI, JEFFORDS, ALLARD,
COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BUNNING, ROBB, DORGAN, DASCHLE, and
AKAKA. I thank them all for joining in the introduction of this special
resolution this morning, which is to honor Father’s Day coming this
Sunday,
but also to raise our discussion of the problem of absent fathers in
our hopes for the promotion of responsible fatherhood.
Senator GREGG indicated this resolution would declare this Sunday’s
holiday as National Fathers Return Day and call on dads around the
country to use this day, particularly if they are absent, to reconnect
and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, to understand and
have the self-confidence to appreciate how powerful a contribution
they can make to the well-being of the children that they have helped
to create, and to start by spending this Fathers’ Day returning for
part of
the day to their children and expressing to their children the love they
have for them and their willingness to support them. [Page: S7164]
The statement we hope to make this morning in this resolution
obviously will not change the hearts and minds of distant or
disengaged fathers, but those of us who are sponsoring the resolution
hope it will help to spur a larger national conversation about the
importance of fatherhood and help remind those absent fathers of
their responsibilities, yes, but also of the opportunity they have to
change the life of their child, about the importance of their
fatherhood, and also help remind these absent
fathers of the value of their involvement.
We ask our colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution, and
adopting it perhaps today but certainly before this week is out to
make as strong a statement as possible and to move us one step
closer to the day when every American child has the opportunity to
have a truly happy Father’s Day because he or she will be spending it
with their father.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Just for a reminder:
– Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
– Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
WELL, wordcount 5216, enough for today.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as 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.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
FYI: In re budget crisis……
For your viewing pleasure and information.
http://www.taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm
This unbelievably patronizing budget, focused on healthy marriages, head starts, responsible fatherhood, parenting classes, and forcing adults who separated — often for the woman’s, or the man’s own safety and sanity — to stay joined at the hip (through “access/visitation grants — more on this below), and thereafter trying to manage “high-conflict relationships” — through the court system – is (collectively) the truly most IRresponsible father(land) I have yet met.
Most irresponsible fathers will affect a family line, and those individuals who come into contact with members of that family line, through work or otherwise. This, however, respresents an unbelievably presumptuous and dishonest treatment of the portion of the American public that, by maintaining taxpaying employement or employEES, including many who populate and staff its institutions, pays its bills.
At some point it is simply responsible to admit that a relationship has failed, and separate. ESPECIALLY in cases involving battering, domestic violence, or other forms of abuse. Or even, say, ongoing promiscuity — or refusal to participate in supporting the household — on the part of one or both partners. Generally speaking it’s one more than another. One person has been “used.” This is a horrible example for any children involved, and a real drain on the community, which often has to make up the gap. But the principle of cutting one’s losses can come to the rescue, and stop the process before another family is dead, or homeless, or traumatized out of social functionality.
When it comes to hazardous JOBS, if there is an alternative, a person is allowed to of his or her own free will, QUIT.
I admit that some people take relationships casually, and perhaps when these people are identified, their LOCAL communities should address the issue. But good grief — to try to force this on an entire NATION, and bill the entire nation (those who pay taxes) to fund the concept that there should be a chicken in every pot (yet we have vegetarians), and a biologically related FATHER in every child’s life, no matter whether this is good for the kid, or the mother or not — that’s budget suicide, and sometimes suicide for him, and death for the Moms too, or children. This is the story the headlines are telling us. Some people don’t handle stress and relationships well, and are better off kept away from the person they hate to the point of having committed crimes against their partner. Rather than face their personal demons, they externalize, blame (“demonize”) someone else, and then attack and attempt to destroy them, and people associated with them.
I am sorry to say this, but this at times includes the children. When a situation has become dangerous to a parent, then to suddenly proclaim “Kids need their Dads no matter what!” is social insanity. And, presently, policy.
Why not when it comes to hazardous marriages? WHY?? oh WHY??? is the Federal Government encouraging the States encouraging the Courts (with help from “faith-based” organizations and “Community Action Organizations” and other nonprofits of dubious parentage) to rake divorcing families over the coals in order to recreate a United States in which EVERY child has a Dad in his or her life, and EVERY mother has either a MAN in her life (if he’s alive), OR the Government telling her how to raise her children and educate her children (and by virtue of this, her lifestyle? To be permanently punished for a poor choice of spouse or partner, when one has otherwise behaved in an upright and responsible citizenhood fashion, is abusive, and a sign Federal Government In Loco Parentis having totally forgotten its own origins: “of, by for the people” and “consent of the governed.” It has lost its mind — or, has NOT lost its mind, and is of a mind to leech a living off its own people by creating a constant source of conflict, between the courts, promoting this “fatherhood” thing (alongside most fundamentalist religions) and the nationwide school curriculum saying “It’s Elementary” (etc.) that some families have two parents of the same sex, and anyone who disagrees is committing a hate crime.
It seems to me that in both institutions – courts, and schools — a habitual undermining of basic civil rights, as well as promotion of a certain “religion” (in one place, the nuclear family, in the other, the dismantling of the traditional nuclear family [if indeed this ever existed], both practically and as to teaching), and at the other end — as people come of age to procreate, which appears to be a more engaging activity than the studies in many public schools — as if an afterthought, now that some of these parents are on welfare, this same government then wants to now teach them how to be parents, especially Dads. Moms are taught by default how to make babies for government studies and programs; the fodder for Ph.D. “Child Development Scholars” and other therapists.
OK, now that that’s out of my system, how this relates to
the “Gold Rush” in the “Golden State,”. . . .
I’ve posted below, for only ONE state, and only TWO “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (“CFDA”), and from only ONE major U.S. Exeuctive Branch Department, “Health and Human Services.” These are (some of) the many types of grants given for redesigning the U.S. family. Apparently the also significant U.S. Dept. of Education didn’t do a good enough job the first time through (either that, or it’s them “foreigners” (meaning, any group whose feet hit these shores en masse after your particular ethnic group did, except Native Americans…). We need to constantly make and remake the family til we get it right one of these days.
Again, this is only SOME of where your funding for the local public schools, homeless assistance, or law enforcement, or other social services went. It went in large part into social engineering programs.
OH, by the way, these programs are also compromising due process in the courts ~~even in the family courts which exist primarily to compromise evidence for conciliation to start with!~~ so they are affecting civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. That we let this happen is probably a factor of the educational system (and NOT accidental over the decades….), which teaches us neither, really, how government NOR the economy actually operate. Nor is it real good at uncensored history, especially the history of its own self (dating to a little while after the Civil War, and before women got the vote).
So, this time, I searched:
- CFDA #s: 93086 (healthy marriage), 93597 (Access Visitation Grants to states)
- California Only (California has largest court system)
- All Years, All Recipients, All etc..
I usually cannot get the chart to confine itself to the margins of this post — it goes off into the “blogroll” area and becomes unreadable.
It’s better to view the original site; to this end, welcome to a research tool. Don’t you want to know WHY some fathers are committing homicide/suicide in desparation over the economy, or (overentitled?) outrage at being ousted, or because they have been publically humiliated in some fashion their psyches could not or would not handle. Why a decade after this started, can’t we keep up with the family fatalities before the next generation of irresponsible (because, and ONLY because, according to this viewpoint, they were) fatherless Dads is born?
(Present CEO of the nation that styles itself as leader of the ostensibly Free World excepted).
NOTE: Mothers are used to being put down, humiliated, forced to beg, and treated like second class citizens for so long, we are not typically going off the deep end over loss of social status by murdering our kids, our spouses, or if they’re not available, someone else associated with them will do. Women as a whole or men as a whole are not culprits. We come in different colors, income levels, temperaments, and psyches. ON THE OTHER HAND, given this, a governmental attempt to define us, our relationships, and our children, is going to be resisted. It’s a recipe for ongoing conflict, and economic drain. I suggest ALL U.S. Citizens take a serious look at this. Here’s ONE underestimated tool.
In almost seven years in the system, I didn’t find ONE entity apart from this site, point me to this federal department. One humble but FULL website did. http://www.nafcj.net. The site didn’t get my attention (no gov’t grants helped its design, or press), but what it said did.
MOST organizations that say “prevention of violence” in them or “stop abuse” or “battered women” or even “family court reform” or something similar, don’t even mention this TAGGS site or point us to investigate its activities. Father’s groups naturally wouldn’t, or they could no longer claim that concerns about certain social epidemics just “emerged.” They did nothing of the sort — they were urged, publicized, promoted, and proclaimed, from Top Down, in typical government style. I have now gotten to the point of finding out UP FRONT before I deal with any nonprofit or “let us help you” group, who is funding them. You should too. Ignorance ain’t bliss. And it’s got to be a sin (faith-community or no faith-community) to fail to inform women in trauma filing protective orders about all the cooks in the kitchen.
SO . . . ..
ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN OR RESIDENT? THEN
THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED
IT IS A RHETORIC RADAR. IT IS A DOGMA DETECTOR.
IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**
EDUCATE THYSELF!
http://taggs.hhs.gov
**
For example, when Glenn Sacks, Jeffrey Leving, Esq. Sen. Evan Bayh, or President Obama — or any noble-sounding nonprofit (or government agency) such as “American Coalition for Fathers and Children“ [Doesn’t THAT sound worthy, and united and concerned about, well, FAMILIES??] — writes, blogs, or receives high-profile press coverage stating that we need MORE money to stop the woefully underfunded fatherhood movement (as if this was a new crisis the U.S. (i.e., taxes) hadn’t already poured millions into, without addressing, for example, how the US being the world’s largest jailer MIGHT relate to why SOME kids are fatherless) you will realize when they are simply lying.
Or, whether they are actually quoting each other and playing Good Cop, Bad Cop {{pretending to fight with each other and be more separate in intent than they actually are}} to confuse the viewers (see ACFC link above). Broad allegations and statements are made without links or cites, such as this, (date, 2007):
AUTHORS: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:
The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—CLAIM: a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.
FACT: The duty of any COURT system [[HINT: JUDICIAL branch, not LEGISLATIVE — remember this??]] is to protect the existing laws, not re-write them. To determine and allocate consequences for people who violate laws, especially intentionally and repeatedly.
To make sure that due process happens and evidence is considered as to whether the EXISTING laws have been (a) observed or (b) violated. There are also RULES for many courts, to aid in the process.
FACT: The primary characteristic of the “family law SYSTEM” is the prominent use of outside the courtroom decision making. Even the Acronym of this organization “ACFC” is modeled after another organization “AFCC” which title means “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” an international organization of dubious tax-compliance history until someone caught them operating out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse without a separate EIN (IRS Tax) # — i.e., until they got caught in an audit — and drenched with psychologists, mediators, & custody evaluators holding international!! conferences, with judges and attorneys (conflict of interest there, anyone?) publishing, promoting, and proclaiming all kinds of theories (and making alliances) that the average low-income litigant is naively unaware of, not invited to, and not encouraged to know about. All of this is patronizingly, ostensibly, for the greater good, or the country, the families, and I suppose apple pie, too. As such, these experts don’t trouble to tell ignorant litigants about their alliances, or how much profit is made from the conferences, books, trainings, and publications.
IRONICALLY, IN 1992, per this source, the courts are drenched with:
2.Due Process Violations
a. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1994.
b. Attorneys quit prematurely in violation of procedural and ethical laws.
c. Orders issued after ex parte hearings an/or in chambers meetings or upon
the judge’s discretion without proper notice and evidentiary hearing.
d. Removal of testimony from the court (where it should be) under the guise
of mediation and evaluation.There is no control over the mediation and
evaluation processes, no public debate of the issues, and no record of evi-
dence. Once an evaluation report is issued, the court makes few discre-
tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report.
e. Presumption that the parents are “equal” upon dissolution in spite of evi-
dence to the contrary
Or, whether (possibly) having used one of themselves for a specific purpose, they then turn and backstab the same person. Kind of like a high-conflict, divorcing bitter spouse might.
Now you, too (I ALREADY DID), can have a catharsis (SHOCK) of understanding of WHY there is “Disorder in the Courts” and certain systems appear broken, when they aren’t really. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do — create a cash flow and ongoing transfer of wealth from the taxpaying public into the hands of the “experts” and away from two working parents (whether cohabiting, married, or not) to children, their offspring.
Here’s the “TAGGS” site.
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System
(You didn’t expect to pass Big Brother 101 without learning a few acronyms, did you?)
Welcome!
The Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is an extensive tool developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Grants. The TAGGS database is a central repository for grants awarded by the twelve {{12, count’em, 12}} HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs). TAGGS tracks obligated grant funds at the transaction level.
NOTE: To actually find out what those transactions were used for will take a little more legwork, locally.
What’s New
Several new search pages have been added and grouped under the new Search menu.
TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format. TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format. Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.
A search of all states resulted in nearly 1,500 results, which I doubt wordpress could handle the pageload.
I find the pattern below (try this link for a better view — OR, select the CFDA #s 93597 & 93086 ONLY, for California, and with the column titles you see below (scroll to bottom of the Advanced Search page to select) and it should come out the same).
Before you actually LOOK at this, consider yet another Fatherhood “whine,” dating to (originally) 06/30/2007 — after Father’s Day THAT year…):
“Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. {{False}} In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court , and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.
According to the Children’s Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents {{male, or female?}} interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.”
WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?
This is from:
|
|
| ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 800-978-3237 |
@@@
Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.
@@@
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | County | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0910CASAVP | FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 942,497 | |
| 2009 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $- 148,172 |
| 2008 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2008 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES GREENE | $ 481,554 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | VICKIE KROPENSKE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2008 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 515,615 |
| 2008 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2008 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2008 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2008 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0810CASAVP | 2008 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 957,600 | |
| 2007 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2007 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 378,020 |
| 2007 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARRY ZACK | $ 474,555 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD N HUME | $ 174,034 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 384,951 |
| 2007 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2007 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 399,253 |
| 2007 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2007 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2007 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2007 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0710CASAVP | 2007 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 950,190 | |
| 2006 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0610CASAVP | 2006 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 987,973 | |
| 2006 | OFA | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 207,469 |
| 2006 | OFA | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARRY ZACK | $ 481,555 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | RICHARD N HUME | $ 249,034 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2006 | OFA | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 461,186 |
| 2006 | OFA | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $ 388,193 |
| 2006 | OFA | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PL | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | NORMA MCADAMS | $ 146,750 |
| 2006 | OFA | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MARY CAMACHO | $ 479,031 |
| 2006 | OFA | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,449 |
| 2006 | OFA | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BENJAMIN HARDWICK | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | FRANCES GREENE | $ 527,664 |
| 2006 | OFA | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | M>P> WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2006 | OFA | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CATHERINE M REED | $ 549,999 | |
| 2006 | OFA | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2005 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0510CASAVP | 2005 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2004 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0410CASAVP | 2004 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 250,805 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 139,812 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0310CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2002 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0210CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0010CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0110CASAVP | SAVP 2001 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2000 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 1999 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | ||
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9701CASAVP | SAVP 1997 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 | |
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 |
Does the word “Demonstration” raise an eyebrow for you? Are you curious what a “Demonstration Priority Area” is, and whether your residing (if so) in one either aided or compromised due process in your particular family law case (if such be), or exercise of your civic duty of fatherhood (if such be).
I wonder why a subset (Program Office OCSE) of a subset (OPDIV “ACF” — and ALL of these grants were ACF grants) of a subset (HHS) of the Executive Branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)– which the “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) indeed IS — it IS in the Executive Branch of the US Government — is doing distributin cl
I wonder whether this information is posted at courthouses, or child support offices, like an “under Construction” would be at other sites? I didn’t realize til, well, recently, that the last X years I spent in the family law system were part of someone else’s Demonstration Grant. This is what we get for minding our own business, and failing to secure enough excess time in our daily schedules to ALSO mind the business of our elected representative governments, both Federal and State.
We farmed out government to the government have ended up (our children, basically, and incomes) becoming someone else’s family farm.
Suggestion:
If fewer categories (column titles) are chosen, a search will produce interactive recipient names, or grant #s, and this will tell more about
the individual activities. And gets pretty interesting . . . . .
. . . Dang it, I just slipped into bureaucratic passive and Impassive; the language is like a pheronome, or like stale air, if you hang around it too long, you begin exhaling in the same manner: categories are chosen (I didn’t act), searches (not my choices) produced, just like a domestic dispute “arose” between two individuals, during a, er, ACF-facilitated “ACCESS” exchange between parents.
I find it interesting that the “OCSE” is administering these grants designed to help noncustodial parents get more time with their children.
OCSE is the “Office of Child Support Enforcement.” I thought it wasn’t about the money, but about the best interests of the children, who need both parents in constant contact with them. For example, nonpayment of child support is NOT a basis for withholding visitation of a child from the noncustodial parent. Women are certainly told that loud and clear when pursuing child support arrears.
Unfortunately, some parents can’t be trusted alone with their children. For example, some kids get killed or stolen on overnight visitations which are not supervised. On the other hands, some unsupervised parents (mostly Moms) also supposedly cause severe emotional distress to their children by actually following through when child abuse or other violence is reported, causing more “high conflict’ between the parties. Which is “bad.” “Bad” protective parent: Here, let us order some parenting classes for you….A common, but costly solution appears to be switching the custody to the other parent, and forcing the reporting parent to pay to see her offspring.
But one way to withhold visitation from a designated parent is if she (most likely) cannot afford to pay to see her own children in a supervised visitation situation that arose AFTER something else (such as child abuse, or other domestic violence-related issues) has been reported or investigated. I know mothers who cannot afford to see their children, after a custody switch. It does not seem to work both directions AFTER a custody switch (possibly enabled by some of these grants’ services). Where’s the “healthy families” in that scenario?
If these whole movements (Healthy Marriage, or Responsible Fatherhood & Access Visitation, meaning, it supposedly takes a Village to raise a Child and BOTH Parents (especially Dads) to also do this, which the taxpayers should then fund) are about the CHILDREN and our SOCIETY, then somehow it seems a little odd that the agency entrusted to do this is the CHILD SUPPORT branch, not another one.
The fact, and that history of the matter is that it went kind of like this, as to finances:
1. OOPS! Welfare roles are too high! (Personal Work and Responsibility welfare reform)
2. Let’s go Collect Child Support — get those paternity tests and those deadbeat Dads.
3. OOPS! A lot of them are in jail, and others just don’t want to pay, they’ve moved on in life? What can be done?
4. Enter “Access Visitation” grants, in hope that more time with kids will result in more child support collected. It’s all for the kids, after all. If they get more time with the children, we will (artificially) “flex” the amount of child support actually due.
4B. And the multiple assorted professionals all along the way, all of who are also of course in it for the kids and not the money.
5. Who picks up the tab, in the long run, and what is it? When custody switches are involved, then a parent who historically had been struggling or learning to manage a life (including a work life) around the children will then restructure the life differently, while the parent who just GOT the child will either restructure his (or her) work, or delegate the care of the child to someone else.
6. Did I mention Head Start yet?
By the way, a lot of the funding below is what i call “Designer Families,” i.e., the US Government is actually studying US families (at the expense of the same families) to determine what they DO look like, to run some tests (see “DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” below) and then report back (not to the consumer — to the experts, of course) on what the tests showed, and then expand the scope of the practice. This, FYI, is business (perhaps not YOUR employer, but government) business as usual. Something you don’t learn in grade school, or often in high school, unless your parent was a Senator or a Sociologist.
Well, two can play that game. Who wants to come out and play?
Want some answers?
Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?
Let’s do it.
At least it would make some more interesting dinner conversation (assuming you still have dinner), or at a commuter bus stop (assuming you still have a job) than the latest office politics, or doom and gloom. You can say, “Did you know that I now spend one-quarter (one-tenth, etc. — adjust according to your payscale) of my work day, which keeps me away from spending quality time with my kids, earning money for the government to spend getting other people who won’t or can’t pay child support to spend more time with their kids, in hopes that they will? Or to keep them married when otherwise they’d divorce? Or just leave?”
Or you could say, “Where do you think the HIGHEST grant for reducing abuse, poverty, drug use, and other social ills (i.e., promoting healthy marriages) went to in our state?
They’ll probably name Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento (or other urban area known for its homicide rates, or radical agenda).
And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:
No: “Leucadia.”
“Leucadia? You’re kidding!”
“No, I’m not. California Healthy Marriage Coalition, out of Leucadia, California got $2,400,000 last year alone to, er, well — well, they’re not in favor of same-sex marriages, let’s put it that way. I don’t know where they stand on domestic violence, but they say — well, another group run by the same person says — he needs unconditional respect, and she needs unconditional love. And those dang feminists, you know, are putting CONDITIONS on how he expresses his love, or whether they continue respecting him, in the form of these anti-violence allegations, and so forth….”
“In 2006, The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received a five-year, $11.9 Million 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.
{{{FYI: “Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California. Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs. “}}
“As a result of these efforts, CHMC expects to see a decline in the divorce/marriage ratio, a reduction in child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, criminal behavior, and an improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health.”
HEY! IF I SAY I EXPECT TO SEE SOMETHING, CAN I GET A FEDERAL GRANT, TOO?
I WILL MAKE UP A NICE NAME, AND USE BIG WORDS, STARTING SMALL WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, AND THEN EXPANDING NATIONWIDE. SEE BELOW FOR A TYPICAL PATTERN. . .
Now I’m curious. Let’s see where they are on the $11.9 million…. In 2006 I was definitely on the wrong side of the politically correct agenda, obviously, in that I was trying to get UNMarried, complete a safe separation begun years earlier…. and retain housing . . . . (Searched on “Principal Investigator,” pulled up an unrelated “Stoica”). Well, maybe not a relative…) (the name “Stoica” I picked out arbitrarily — well, actually because of the size of the grant — from the larger chart below).
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Grantee Type | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 75,350 |
| 2006 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NEW | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 77,600 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2005 | OCS | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90EJ0064 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 583,475 |
| 2005 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute | ANAHEIM | Other Special Interest Organization | 90IJ0201 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
| 2004 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Resource Center | ANAHEIM | Other Social Services Organization | 90IJ0121 | CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE | 93647 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
The next RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN behavior then might be to ask, for example, what a particular grant recipient is doing with some of the funds, either on line, or hey, give them a call! Say, “Hey! $50,000 is more than I make per year, and a good part of this is being garnished to pay child support already. Can you tell me what your group did last year with YOUR $50,000 — and who’s on the payroll? I’d like to see a line item listing, or a few cancelled checks perhaps. I mean, I work hard (yes, I’m sure you do), and I’d just like to know where my taxes are going. Thanks! Send the printout to _________________).” (And then install a security camera….)
Note: In the example above (where I picked one of the larger grants in the big chart, and searched on Principal Investigator)
In the next post (or so), I will, possibly, show how well all this Healing Families and getting Dads responsible has reduced Violence Against women SO much (in the same time period) that we really don’t need (?) VAWA to keep funding shelters, and other things to help them stay alive, or in one piece. The momentum of the emerging (still???) Fatherhood movement and Responsibility Movement and Shared Parenting Movement, has really worked, and we now have significantly less separation violence, fewer family wipeouts, and children in the care of the other parent, with help in care of possibly a new girlfriend, or boyfriend, are faring better. Like the 7 year old boy who was just taken off life support in Massachusetts, after his Dad came back into his life, possibly under one of these programs (although I didn’t investigate further on that one, I admit), after only 8 weeks summertime fun with his father.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Rocky Mountain High– if you’re in one of these professions…
leave a comment »
or should I say, Rocky Mountain HYbrid? Sure looks like one here….
A.k.a. Carpet Bagging on Divorce Distress, at high altitudes…
I just had an odd question: Why is SF’s famous, and well-established Family Violence Prevention Fund, a pace-setter and leader in the field of violence preVENtion conferences and training, promoting conferences like this?
I mean, I just got on “endabuse.org” and searched for “family law,” to see if they actually address some of the rampant troubles with the family law system. After all, they are a FAMILY violence prevention fund….
Here are links on top right, first page”:
ACTION CENTER
LEARN MORE
Do you see anything about preventing violence against WOMEN? In fact, women show up, if they’re immigrants. A search of “fathers” versus a search of “mothers” on this site pull up entirely different stats — you should try it some time.
This came up on page 1 of search results, only the 4th item:
**:have evolved.” Wake up. Want to know how? Look at AFCC’s “About us” or history page — this was not accident, it was intentional transformation, and “how” they evolved was particularly through conferences such as the AFCC puts on, policies which the FVPF has now more overtly (i’m not sure for how long they were ever truly independent) bought into….
I DID “click here,” which brought me not to New Orleans, but to Denver. At which point, this post was conceived and “evolved” — we deserve to know that the organization called “endabuse” is advertising for, and sponsoring conferences for, the organization that is promoting doctrines specifically originated to cover up domestic VIOLENCE (not “abuse”), Child Abuse (is the term, although it does violence to children), and incest, etc. . . . To cover up criminal behavior and change it into something else, linguistically.
/ / / / /
Let me clarify “AFCC”, in case you’re under 20, IN one of these professions, and haven’t been a parent involved in divorce: Custody Switches Happen. HOW do they happen? When something is confronted by one parent, or reported by a children, generally speaking. WHY does this occur? Well, a variety of reasons, but generally in retaliation for reporting. (From what I can see). I mean, what’s the common (?) or $$-and-cents for pulling a sole-custody switch midway through a growing child’s life? It’s $$ and sense from a certain perspective… The “best interests” of the child is not as common sense as we might wish to think (see my blog on slavery & domestic violence, a recent one).
But I’m blabbing here: AFCC, per Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net, and I have to agree after my studies, at least of grants patterns and some of the printed materials, not to mention experiences:
The LEGAL disincentive for defaulting on child support obligations is a contempt of a court order action. There was no problem in using this against the protective mother in Oconto Wisconsin, recently, so I know the judges “understand” the concept. But when a father is involved, somehow we need to give them “incentive” to care about their children’s welfare by helping “bribe” (you give me this, I may give you that, perhaps) them to carry this out in the form of stepping up to that child support plate. That alone is suspect to me, as well as many other aspects of the child support system.. . . . . Women are supposed to care, men have to be bribed to?
ALSO, Is that what any type of courts are FOR? To resolve family conflict? I thought that’s what counseling and therapy was for. Sounds like we have a confusion of purposes somewhere (and should throw out the Constitution as irrelevant, as well as laws). ANYHOW, here they are:
47Th Annual Conference
June 2-5, 2010
Denver, Colorado
More information>>
December 7-8 & 9-10, 2009More information >>
AFCC Training Programs In Houston, Texas
February 22-23 & 24-25, 2010More information >>
Subscribe to the AFCC free Monthly eNews
Subscribe>>
‘Traversing the Trail of Alienation: Mountains of Emotion, Mile High Conflict‘
I’d like to pause here for a brief prayer: “Lord, deliver us from all do-gooders, parent educators, and unsolicited profiteering helpers that may cross my life, or my children’s this day, in Jesus name, Amen.” (I’d rather SEE a sermon than attend a parenting seminar any day. This is parenting: you get your kids SAFE, FIRST, and teach them right from wrong based on behavior, character — not family function. You do not assault & batter yourself, and you protect them from those who do, to the best of your ability, and empathize at least when you can’t. How many of those parenting educators have actually GONE through what family law system has put us through, and after DV, too in many cases? Moreover, I’m not paid for being a mother. In some contexts, doing this can be criminalized as resulting in family “conflict,” i.e., taking a stand somwhere along the line!)
FVPF should not be promoting this! Why are they? Oh– I forgot to tell you:
Do you see the word “discretionary” in the “grants to shelters” ??label? Really, it’s about conferences and training, not actually STOPPING violence. For another, perhaps, because they can: I mean — this is 2009, alone.
Funding is going GREAT for THIS nonprofit:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “family violence prevention fund”
(FY 2000-2010)
Total number of recipients: 1
Total number of transactions: 67
Look at which branches are funding it now — the best of both worlds, from HHS and DOJ both. One is promoting fatherhood through federal grants, another is spouting out millions (and that’s literally) to organizations like this, and others, to “train” judges how to recognize domestic violence (clue: look in the law, look at the facts, look at the bleeding, look at the casualties) and be good and address it, supposedly.
Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance
HERE”s the CALIFORNIA chapter of AFCC, transforming the words “clear and present danger” (lifted DIRECTLY from the legislature’s own definition of a spousal batterer) into a budget crisis — which the same group has contributed to!
Whose children ARE they now? Are they your subject matter or the progeny of two parents? When you see a kid, do you see a $$ sign for your profession?
Apparently so, and government grants to ENDABUSE.org going to promote AFCC — a membership charging organization — for professionals to hawk their wares, while too many parents are UNaware of it.
Which I hope to stop, obviously!
That’s what I call Carpetbagging, no matter what the altitude.
Would like to analyze a bit more, but time and technical limitations prevent. Check this out yourself….
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
November 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Posted in After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids
Tagged with AFCC, Alienation, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Due process, DV, Education, family law, fatherhood, FVPF, Grammar of Male Violence, HHS-TAGGS grants database, mediation, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, Supervised Visitation, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..