Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for the ‘History of Family Court’ Category

105th Congress,ff. — Congressional Record — How many times can one say “father,” “fatherhood” & “fatherless” in one minute?

leave a comment »

Congressional Record
105th Congress (1997-1998)

In describing the AFCC, I saw that Mike McCormick of ACFC was presenting a workshop, alongside a PAS Parenting Coordinator AFCC Board Member  Matthew J Sullivan, Ph.D. and The Hon. Robert A. Schnider, long-timer from Los Angeles County who retired in 2008.

I t hought to look up the 1998 & 1999 resolutions on fatherhood in the U.S. Congress.  Here’s some of the record from Thomas.gov:

Congressional Record article 659 of 1000House of Representatives – June 12, 1997;

Congressional Record, [Page: H3723]        Printer Friendly Display – 1,471 bytes.[Help]

someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.
􏰁
FATHERHOOD PROMOTION TASK FORCE
(Mr. MCINTYRE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member from North Carolina, it is a high honor to serve the people in the House. Yet an even more important role in my life is that of being a father. As I approach my 14th year of being called ‘‘Dad,’’ we must all realize that fathers do make a difference in the home.

The statistics speak for themselves and are staggering. Four out of ten children in America will go home to- night without a father. The time a fa- ther spends with a child averages, one on one, only 10 minutes a day. Violent criminals too often are males who have grown in a home without a father. As leaders of our country, we must do bet- ter.

I urge my colleagues to join the Con- gressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. We will explore ways to challenge fathers to that type of commitment, not just another law or another government program, but encouraging fathers to fulfill the calling that they have in their lives.
The future of our country lies in the hands of our children. Through this task force, we will ensure that those hands are properly prepared with persistence and purpose and ready to lead. Please join us in this important mission that we not fail.


PROMOTION OF FATHERHOOD IS CRITICAL

(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as we ap- proach this Father’s Day, many of us are fortunate to reflect upon the positive influence of our own fathers and to feel the sense of joy that comes from being a father. We understand that the experience of having a father is critical to shaping our lives, and we know that there are numerous studies that have been done that point out that loving, committed fathers help children get a better start in life.

FIRST, it’s for what it does for them personally to be a father, SECOND, it’s for helping children get a “better start in life.”

According to the Journal of Family Issues, interaction between children and their fathers improves the child’s early mental development and physical well-being. We know that children who grow up with committed fathers are less likely to get involved with gangs and drugs and turn out to be better parents themselves. That is why the Book of Proverbs tells us to train the child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

A group of Members in this House have joined together to form the Fa- therhood Promotion Task Force for the purpose of examining Government poli- cies to ensure that those policies pro- mote, encourage, and support families. Every child deserves the love and care of a responsible adult, and the pro- motion of fatherhood is critical to our future.

􏰁

REDUCING THE TAX BURDEN ON FATHERS

(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Father’s Day, and I would like to start by paying tribute to my father, who has done such a great job in help- ing myself and my brothers and sisters in getting to where we are in our lives today. Certainly, without his support as we were growing up, we would not be here and would not be able to be doing the things we are doing here today.

I also have to think about in the so- ciety that we live in how many fathers are forced to work two jobs because of the large tax burden. And I have to hope that the work we are doing out here this week in Washington, working to reduce that tax burden on our Amer- ican families by providing a $500 per child tax cut and by providing a college tuition tax credit, let us hope that that work and that effort that we are going through this week out here in Washing- ton will somehow allow our fathers to not have to work that second and third job out there in America so that they can in fact spend more time at home with their families and spend more time with their children, providing them the guidance to make this a better nation in the long term for everyone.

818 . REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF FATHERS IN RAISING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN (House of Representatives – June 09, 1998) 
This one is long.  I am going to post it here:

WORDCOUNT “fatherhood”– 31 occurrences; “fathers” – 31 occurrences (including title), mothers (plural) ONE occurrence;  “father” – (over 100 occurrences)

Fatherhood Promotion – 9 matches + Promotion of fatherhood – 1  – 10 total.

Families – 10 occ (incl. single-parent & two-parent, 1 each).  Family – 11 matches; Children – 62 matches; parent/s — 11 matches.

“absent” — 11 matches.  “VIOLENCE” — not found.  “Abuse” – 1 occ, only with “alcohol abuse” and attributed to fatherlessness:

“Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. National research tells us that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor, twice as likely to drop out of school, et cetera. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency”

“fatherless” – 5 times.

MOTHER

[Page: H4249]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 417) regarding the importance of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 417

Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not become delinquents;

Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual abilities, and competency for relatedness with other persons, even at a young age;

Whereas premature infants whose fathers spend ample time playing with them have better cognitive outcomes, and children who have higher than average self-esteem and lower than average depression report having a close relationship with their father;

Whereas both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control when they are reared with fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;

It would be nice to see that reference.

Whereas, although mothers often work tremendously hard to rear their children in a nurturing environment, a mother can benefit from the positive support of the father of her children;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans believe the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the resulting lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

Whereas, according to the Bureau of the Census, in 1994, 19,500,000 children in the United States (nearly one-fourth of all children in the United States) lived in families in which the father was absent;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 90.9 percent of Americans believe `it is important for children to live in a home with both their mother and their father’;

Whereas it is estimated that half of all United States children born today will spend at least half their childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent;

Whereas estimates of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce range from 40 percent to 50 percent, and approximately three out of every five divorcing couples have at least one child;

Whereas almost half of all 11- through 16-year-old children who live in mother-headed homes have not seen their father in the last twelve months;

Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families;

Whereas children of single-parents are less likely to complete high school and more likely to have low earnings and low employment stability as adults than children reared in two-parent families;

Whereas a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children;

Whereas almost 20 percent of 6th through 12th graders report that they have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month;

Whereas, according to a Gallup poll, over 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;

Whereas President Clinton has stated that `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’ and that `the real source of the [welfare] problem is the inordinate number of out of wedlock births in this country’;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion were both formed in 1997, and the Governors Fatherhood Task Force was formed in February 1998;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion is exploring the social changes that are required to ensure that every child is reared with a father who is committed to be actively involved in the rearing and development of his children;

Whereas the 36 members of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion are promoting fatherhood in their congressional districts;

Whereas the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a National Summit on Fatherhood in Washington, D.C., with the purpose of mobilizing a response to father absence in several of the most powerful sectors of society, including public policy, public and private social services, education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community;

Whereas both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate will be participating in this event; and

Whereas the promotion of fatherhood is a bipartisan issue: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes that the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

(2) urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children and urges the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who fail to fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support;

(3) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but more importantly a secure, affectionate, family environment; and

(4) expresses its support for a national summit on fatherhood.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from California (Mr.Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

[Page: H4250]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 417 expresses the importance of fathers in the rearing and development of their children. This is a bipartisan measure and has the support of both the majority and minority leaders.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to move this resolution forward. Perhaps the committee selected me to move this forward because I am a recent father. Elizabeth Jenkins was born into our household last fall on October 23, and Ellie, as Ruthie and I have been calling her, is the source of unending joy for me and for my wife, and I share that joy with all of my colleagues who I know are also fathers, and it has meant a great deal to me.

I hope today by this resolution to be able to share some of the sense of joy and importance of fathers in rearing our children, because it should be alarming to all of us that half of the children born today are likely to spend half of their childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent. We should be especially alarmed when study after study shows new evidence of the negative impact of an absent father on children.

I would like to highlight one study in particular, a recent study that was released last October by the Department of Education’s National Center of Education Statistics. This study, entitled `Father’s Involvement in Their Children’s Schools,’ found that a father’s involvement, whether in a two-parent family, a single-father family, or a nonresident family had a very positive impact on the children.

Specifically, this involvement increased the likelihood of their children getting mostly A’s in schools, reducing the likelihood of their having to repeat a grade, and reduced the chance of being suspended or expelled from school. These associations remained even after controlling for other factors, such as the parents’ education level, household income or the mother’s involvement.

The fact is, a strong father’s presence can improve both fetal development and infant development, promote physical well-being, and increase the ability of children to get along with each other. Conversely, the lack of a strong father figure presents an increased likelihood of delinquency and criminal behavior when the child is grown.

Social scientists are not the only ones who realize this. …

Maybe not, but they & psychologists, sure are the primary ones (along with religiously oriented leaders) i promoting it!

A 1996 Gallup poll found that nearly 80 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Americans, believe the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the resulting lack of the involvement of that father in the rearing and development of their children.   (??)

Last year the leadership recognized this as well, and, with that leadership, they appointed a Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). This congressional task force was formed, along with a similar task force in the Senate, as well as one by the national Governors.

One of the main goals of these groups is to highlight the importance of fatherhood, to explore the social changes that are required and to ensure that every child, every child in America, is raised with a father who is committed to that child, who will be actively involved in the rearing of that child and be involved in the development of that child.

On June 15, the National Fatherhood Initiative will hold a summit. It is a National Summit on Fatherhood here in Washington, D.C. *** The purpose is to mobilize a response to the problem of absent fathers. It will mobilize this response in several of the most important sectors in our community, the most powerful sectors in our society, including the public policy sector, private and public social services, education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community.

For the record, the National Fatherhood Initiative, is a nonprofit formed in 1994 INAPPROPRIATELY, with a CONFLICT OF INTEREST  — when one of its originators was at HHS.   THis is well- known by now, but the outfit continues to receive federal funding and trains the trainers.  It’s in full swing.

This resolution that we have before us today was first introduced to the House by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and others who want to express support for such a summit. This resolution goes on to state that the House of Representatives, one, recognizes the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of the children; two, it urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing the children and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children; and, thirdly, it encourages each father to devote time and energy and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but, more importantly, the love of both parents, who provide an affectionate family environment.

I would also note that during consideration of this resolution by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) was unanimously accepted by the committee. This amendment added a clause urging the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who failed to fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support. I note that this amendment and modification is entirely consistent with the Deadbeat Fathers Punishment Act of 1998, which passed the House in May by a vote of 412 to 2.

In closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and all the members of the Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, the majority and minority leadership and others involved for their efforts in this area. I urge my fellow Members to support this important resolution as we bring it to the House floor today, and, hopefully, we will have a unanimous vote in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), on the birth of his first child. The committee selected him because he was a new father, I guess they selected me because I am an old father, being the father of 5 children, the grandfather of 14 children, and the great-grandfather of 2 children.

I can tell the gentleman that he has got a lot to look forward to, especially when those children just before his eyes grow into adults, get married, and have children of their own. That is the greatest time, because you get to take your grandchildren and spoil them and send them home to their parents to run their parents crazy.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution and this topic, the importance of fathers in the raising and the development of their children, is extremely important. The role of the father in the family has been one of the more prominent issues to gain public attention in recent years.

Too many of our children are growing up in families which do not have the benefit of a father. In fact, the percentage of children growing up in a home without their father nearly tripled between 1960 and the early 1990s. Today, over 24 million American children are living without their biological fathers.

Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. National research tells us that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor, twice as likely to drop out of school, et cetera. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency.

Clearly, the important role that fathers play in the development of their children cannot go unnoticed. Unfortunately, the issue of absentee fathers is not restricted to those who do not pay child support, or `deadbeat dads,’ as they are commonly referred to. Many fathers are tragically caught between their duties at work and their responsibilities to their families. The problems encountered by today’s families are not limited to deadbeat dads. Today’s families are also hampered by dead-tired dads, who want to be there for their children but do not have the time.

In closing, I want to say I am encouraged by the work of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. Their efforts, throughout this resolution and other activities, have begun to center attention on this very important issue. I believe this resolution sends a strong message which all Members should support. I certainly do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[Page: H4251]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the author of this resolution.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to reiterate the importance of fatherhood in this country. As one of the cofounders of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, I am pleased to recognize the significance of this resolution.

Today, Members of Congress will commit to promoting the role that faithful, dedicated fathers play in the development of our young people and, indeed, of our Nation; and, how timely, for it is again that time of year when we honor our dads. In two Sundays, we will celebrate Father’s Day, a day to acknowledge the special place which dads hold in our hearts, and recognize dad’s role as father, husband, teacher, provider, care-giver, and friend.

Although every American has a father, not every American has a dad, one whom they know, love, spend time with and trust. Because of this fact, our country has suffered.

The United States is now the world’s leader in fatherless families. This has taken its toll in our society, when you need no longer talk about the Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown debate. And we have a litany of statistics supporting the position that a family unit with mother and father is an ideal environment for our children.

The realities are staggering. Four in ten children who go to bed tonight will sleep in a home in which their fathers do not reside. Overall, nearly 2.5 million children will join the ranks of the fatherless this year. This is a sad commentary. We must each be committed to bringing this to an end.

But this is not just about fatherlessness. We as a society must work to elevate the importance of fathers who value their commitments. Men across America struggle to be good dads. Many of us are co-laborers in this struggle. This is why we as elected officials must be the ones to lead by example, to take up the bully pulpit in order to effect change in this spirit of this country.

Through the events of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force, we have sought to heighten the discussion of responsible fatherhood and emphasize the importance of fatherhood in neighborhoods and in community forums across the country.

Working with the National Fatherhood Initiative, we are looking forward to the National Summit on Fatherhood next Monday. Leaders from across the country, from the highest levels of government here in Washington to sports figures such as Evander Holyfield, Michael Singletary and entertainment celebrities such as actor Tom Selleck, all will gather to honor the role of the father and to turn our momentum to action. We will gather at the J.W. Marriott next Monday for this fatherhood summit. All Members of Congress have been invited to take part in this event, and I hope many of them will come.

The time has come for fathers to take hold of and be proud of their role as dad. In the words of filmmaker John Singleton, `Any boy can make a baby; it takes a man to raise a son.’ The choice to place children above others is a noble one, and one which we as a society must recognize and reward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In doing so, together, we can commit to promoting an office above all others in this country, that of the father.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the comments of the testimony that heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield recently gave to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

[TIME: 1430]

He said, `I, Evander Holyfield, did not meet my father until I was 21 years of age. I missed the advice, the guidance, and time that only a father can give. However, thanks to my mother, Annie Laura Holyfield, and my coach at the Warren Boys’ Club in Atlanta, Carter Morgan, I was given the faith, determination, and perseverance that helped make the boy into the man and father I am today.

`Perhaps the absence of my own father, but the presence of a strong and moral father figure in my childhood has helped me realize how important fatherhood is. In fact, being an active and caring father to my sons and daughters is just as important as being the three-time heavyweight champion of the world.’

The man became a three-time heavweight champion of the WORLD, thanks to his mother and the involvement of a father figure, a coach at Boys Club, and he says, himself a good father.  That’s success!   And this is used to justify that (because such people would rather have had their own fathers around) millions of US$$ should make sure others do NOT have this chance to prove themselves (nor do their mothers) but instead society should be re-arranged to put Dads back.

His wife spoke, and, finally, they said this: `As father and mother to our children, even with the time constraints of our careers, we realize the importance of quality time with our children. Not only is this our obligation as parents, but it is also one of our greatest sources of joy. We especially stress the areas of faith and education with our children. We love them; and loving children requires not just good intentions and feelings, but also time and attention.

`We reiterate our strong feelings about this important issue. And with God’s guidance and help, we will do our part in encouraging and elevating the status of fatherhood in America.’

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 17 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority leader.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding to me.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for this resolution, also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), and others who have worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr.Martinez), and others on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) who care about this issue.

The life of a child, it goes without saying, is so critical and so important. Nobody can replace a father in the life of a child, nobody. Fathers are role models, and they are teachers, and they offer, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned in his comments by Mr. Holyfield, they offer the most important ingredients that a child could have in their childhood: love; guidance; encouragement; discipline, which is so critical, it would carry with a child throughout his or her life; wisdom; and, yes, inspiration.

Mr. Holyfield just witnessed that someone DID replace the role of a father for him, resulting with the care of his mother, in success and his own becoming a successful father also as an adult.  How does this justify the fatherhood resolution?    Because a grown resoundingly successful man raised by a single mother would have preferred to have his Dad there?

Fatherhood is a responsibility, perhaps one of the greatest responsibilities, in a man’s life. It is also one of the greatest joys that a man can have, along with the bumps along the way in raising a child, the joy of having the input, giving the love, providing the guidance, providing the inspiration, the encouragement when it is needed. These are all so very important in a child’s development.

And only Dads can give this, not mothers.

Mr. Speaker, America needs strong families, and America needs strong fathers. This resolution has been long in coming, and I am so proud of the fact that Members have decided to raise this issue to a higher level in the country today.

Congress recognizes the important role fathers play and honors fathers for their contribution. So it is with great pride that I rise today to thank my colleagues for offering this resolution, for recognizing fatherhood, for setting aside a day in which we can, as a community, come together and recognize the great values that emanate from fatherhood.

We sometimes talk about a lot of different issues in this institution, and we sometimes forget some of the very basic fundamental bedrock issues on which the others are built upon. Fatherhood is one of them. I am just very happy to be able to share some thoughts on this today.

I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this, and wish the event that will take place much success, and wish those who have put this together and who are trying to make sure that fatherhood is respected in this country and is honored. I thank them for their efforts.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

And finally . . . ..

Congressional Record article 921 of 1000         Printer Friendly Display – 1,583 bytes.[Help]

FATHERHOOD (House of Representatives – June 12, 1997)

[Page: H3722]  GPO's PDF

(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the fathers who do it right. A good father should first be a good husband and show his children by example the love and respect that their mother should receive. A father is one who is there, who quietly and faithfully sees needs and fills them. From diapers to bicycles to homework to growing to adulthood, fathers must be powerful forces of leading by quiet example.

Fathers keep things strong and solid, but they keep it simple. My father set an example for hard work. He came home for dinner. He stayed with the family in the evening, but he had his own business to build and he went back to work late and would work until midnight and then be back home. He set an example.

My father helped me through college, the first to my knowledge in my whole family tree, to get a college degree.

When I married, my wife’s father took it on himself to stock our kitchen and our pantry with its first set of food and supplies for us. Simple but significant.

[TIME: 1015]

I hope and pray that I will be as good a father to my five children as my father has been to his five children and someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.

AND IN THE SENATE< QUITE A BIT OF ACTIVITY:

S. 1364:
106th Congress
1999-2000

A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to increase public awareness regarding the benefits of lasting and stable marriages and community involvement in the promotion of marriage and fatherhood issues, to provide greater flexibility in the Welfare-to-Work grant program for long-term welfare recipients and low income custodial and noncustodial parents, and for other purposes.

19 cosponsors along with Evan Bayh of Indiana:

This one didn’t get passed into law.  For the record, Title IV was amended in 1996 along the same lines.

7/14/1999–Introduced.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
– Title I: Public Awareness and Community Involvement in Fatherhood Issues
– Title II: Removal of Burdensome Federal Restrictions
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999 – Title: I Public Awareness and Community Involvement In Fatherhood Issues – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States and territories to:
(1) develop and carry out media campaigns promoting the formation and maintenance of married two-parent families, strengthen fragile families,** and promote responsible fatherhood; and
**this term ties directly to some studies with wealthy foundation backing, which have helped certain people’s reputations and careers in this field.
(2) obtain donations of media access necessary for such campaigns.
Requires the Secretary to contract with a fatherhood promotion organization (meeting certain requirements) to:
(1) develop and distribute a media campaign to interested States, local governments, public agencies, and private nonprofit organizations; and
(2) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities to promote and support responsible fatherhood by making available to other States information regarding media campaigns and programs instituted by States using grant funds under this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
Amends SSA title IV part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF) to mandate block grants to States to provide support to responsible fatherhood efforts of local governments, public agencies, and private nonprofit organizations. Authorizes appropriations.
Title II – Removal of Burdensome Federal Restrictions
Yet, Gol-dang those burdensome federal restrictions.  See my commentary on “Section 1115 Waivers” or read them direct, yourself.
Amends SSA title IV part A with regard to TANF grant recipient requirements, custodial and non-custodial parent requirements, in-kind donations, additional use of TANF funds, and a TANF bonus to reward a State’s effort to encourage the formulation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Amends SSA title IV part D to give States various specified options to: (1) pass through directly to the family a portion of child support collected, including amounts collected pursuant to a continued assignment; (2) disregard child support received in determining a family’s eligibility for, or amount of, TANF assistance; and (3) use amounts collected by a State as child support, and otherwise payable to the Federal Government, to provide fatherhood services (especially to low income non-custodial fathers) encouraging the appropriate involvement of both parents in the life of any of their children.

How would women & mothers stand a chance in this scenario — especially if they didn’t happen to be reading the Congressional record or on familiar terms with their local legislators?  They are scandalized for receiving welfare, and some welfare funds are going to be redirected to encourage the fathers to get back in?  When some of this single-parent household relates to violence by those same fathers, or neglect?

Cosponsors of this were:

Cosponsors:
This bill never became law.  This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
Last Action:   Jul 14, 1999: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.

108th Congress try — by Evan Bayh, 2003, this time had these  co-sponsors:
Cosponsors:
Cosponsors:
Same general idea, only focusing on getting demonstration & evaluation projects going — by forcing the Secretary of HHS to run them:
3/12/2003–Introduced.
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2003 – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary to award grants to eligible States and entities to conduct demonstration programs to promote responsible fatherhood.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to contract with a nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to: (1) develop and distribute a media campaign that addresses the issue of responsible fatherhood to States, local governments, public agencies, and private entities; and (2) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States and community efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood by disseminating information regarding media campaigns and programs instituted by States using grant funds under this Act.
IT cites the same tired old rhetoric — and note, is requesting to legislate that this rhetoric is spread around, but good, including:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact–

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;
(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;
(E) more likely to commit suicide;
(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and
(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
Is anyone still around in Congress to ever question this material?

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

They are for sure overwhelmingly male.  Growing up without fathers is ONE factor, poverty may be another, having witnessed violence by THEIR dads BEFORE they became ‘fatherless’ may be another actor.  Lousy schools, too.  I am the child of a parent whose father abandoned the family, and my father did not assault or to my knowledge abuse.  Had that father stuck around, her probably would have, and not stepped up to the plate and had the successful professional career he did, supporting his own family starting as a young man.  I would have had far less chance of making it to college with an abusive grandpa having raised my own father.

That a House of Representatives which is overwhelmingly male should vote this in and consider its viewpoint acceptable for the whole population, is hardly surprising.   Read on and recoqnize that as these speakers recognized that men from single families often DO succeed, and sometimes become world champions at one thing or another (i.e., Lance Armstrong did all right, too) – — they ALSO recognize there is a tie between Domestic Violence / abuse & poverty of households headed by women.  Perhaps these voters should think more about stopping abuse of women by MARRIED or INVOLVED men, and there might be fewer households like these.   Of COURSE violence is related to poverty — one can’t continually work while being beaten at home, sooner or later something has to give!

(8) Between 20 and 30 percent of families in poverty are headed by women who have suffered domestic violence during the past year and between 40 and 60 percent of women with children receiving welfare were abused sometime during their life.

This right here ADMITS that domestic violence and abuse impoverishes women (not to mention the fact women are typically paid less per hour) — which leads to poverty in 20 to 30% of poor families, but 40 to 60 % of welfare families have reported abuse.   How much stronger can one speak to stop the abuse?
And yet this solution still maintains that the REAL cause of poverty and violent crime is ABSENCE of a male, a father, in the home.
….”

(13) The promotion of responsible fatherhood and encouragement of married 2-parent families should not–

(A) denigrate the standing or parenting efforts of single mothers or other caregivers;

(B) lessen the protection of children from abusive parents; or

(C) compromise the safety or health of the custodial parent;

Our Constitution didn’t even provide for the Department of Education; it’s become such a politicized institution who even remembers when there was none?  This Dept has a  background as does our so-called “public” school system.   When the Dept. of Health and Human Services (I think even a more recent creation than the Dept. of Education) goes this far off the deep end, we are going to be drowning in debt with or without having to purchase our currency from a PRIVATE professionalized bank called the Federal Reserve, and pay interest on it.   Just as — seems to me — the judicial system is now outsourcing its business to private contractors in all kinds of fields – fatherhood, therapy, parent education and sometimes even rearrangements of itself, as in the hybrid Family Justice Centers and other outfits.
Why should ALL of us have to sponsor the personal vision of a FEW fatherhood-obsessed members of the US in their Congressional function when they cannot, as leaders, seem to comprehend that being primarily men, they have limited understanding of the experience of being a mother in this country.  This legislation literally undermines key agencies of government AND the legal system when it comes to family courts.   What this is REALLY about is certain males concerns that they are going to lose their function in society, or get out-bred by supposedly inferior-status populations.
If our legislative bodies had more women participants (senators, representatives) there’d be a better understanding of the experience of motherhood (single or two-parent) and what contributes to crime and violence in the home — after all, mothers give birth to, nurse (if they can) and in many ways shepherd children through the school years; they are also the predominant sex in educational / teaching positions (if I”m not mistaken), which may also account for why it’s among the lowest paid professions around, per the recent Georgetown study on pay scales of college graduates by what field they are in.
More, from this one (which didn’t pass in this version):

‘(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for purposes of making grants to States under this subsection.

The Access Visitation grant series (similar purposes) was already in place as of 1996 at $10 million/year.  This sought $20 million MORE….

‘(b) GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO CONDUCT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS-

‘(1) AUTHORITY TO AWARD GRANTS-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall award grants to eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs to carry out the purposes described in (a)(2).

This is requesting authorization to run demonstration projects on people.  As such, I object — past tense (too late), but if it came up again, I still object.  This is not what HHS is for!
Cosponsors for another one, 107th Congress – 15 people; year, 2001-2002

2011, same old behaviors:

HR 1135 still says TANF / Food stamp purposes includes “healthy marriage.”  Guess they don’t want too many unclaimed poor females and unclaimed poor males running around.  Note:  This doesn’t apply to RICH unclaimed females and/or males — see gossip rags, see even behavior of Obama appointee on responsible fatherhood’s behaviors:

Congress further finds that it should also be the goal of the food stamp program to increase employment, to encourage healthy marriage, and to promote prosperous self-sufficiency which shall mean the ability of households to maintain an income above the poverty level without Government services and benefits.’.

 

Seeing as the healthy marriage idea has made it harder for some people to LEAVE abuse and support themselves, and their families, I suggest we scrap the idea and let all  citizens figure this out, rich and poor alike.  It really IS possible that a creative single parent without ongoing stressor of a difficult relationship might be able to work harder, or faster — and probably figure out an alternate to the public school system (a time-soaker and underproducer in many ways) and simply become self-sufficient.  Or to figure out their OWn networked combinations of school, food, housing, education, health and self-defense (although the latter is one of the hardest).  There are few things more toxic than spending month after month in welfare lines or soup kitchen lines and the stigma that goes with it.  Child support is problemmatic, because this is going to be channeled into more custody wars (or elsewhere through the family system), so it seems that there might be another way.  ESPECIALLY with the $30 million here, $30 million there frauds  being caught, the racist, sexist, and just awful treatment of some clients needing child support by groups like Maximus and others.  And did I mention the $20 MILLION California settled with Jaycee Dugard family (if I have that figure right, DNK about any updates or revisions) for having so failed at supervising a convicted rapist & kidnapper, Phillip Garrido in his MARRIED household with Nancy — that this woman literally raised to girls to ages 12 & 15 in backyard sheds in a prosperous SF Bay Area County.

Other scenes in this county included a MARRIED couple & another literally torturing a young man who’d run away from a foster c are situation.  He’d managed to get over the fence and showed up in a gym? in his gym shorts and  covered with feces and curled up in a fetal position under the counter.  This was a TEENAGED BOY.

This particular HR (Welfare) act also has prohibitions on Abortion — except physical injury, incest or rape (etc.) and talks at length about definitions of the “family head and married spouse” which makes me wonder about why a married  couple with the children being both theirs, needs (for these purposes) a designated “head” making obviously a designated Non-Head, presumably the female when both are biological parents.  That’s a religious concept…

 

H.Res. 315 — this past June 16th, 2011, just in time for Father’s Day:

the immeasurable contribution of fathers in the healthy development of children:

The 35 co-sponsors (who wouldn’t want to get in on that one?) are:

Cosponsors:

Assuming Shelly Capito is a woman, that’s a whopping 4 females that voted for this bill essentially cheerleading the GOOD Dads.  Incidentally, it’s my understanding at least Marsha Blackburns’ office has been approached about MIS-appropriation of some of the fatherhood grants.

/16/2011–Introduced.
Commends the millions of fathers who serve as wonderful, caring parents for their children. Calls on fathers across the United States to use Father’s Day to: (1) reconnect and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, (2) spend Father’s Day with their children, and (3) express their love and support for their children. Urges men to understand the level of responsibility fathering a child requires, especially in the encouragement of children’s moral, mental, social, academic, emotional, physical, and spiritual development. Encourages active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, including the devotion of time, energy, and resources.”  THIS one didn’t vote any $$ so it’s an easy one to go along with.
The schools have justified their existence to do many of the things this resolution says fathers are to do (no mention of Moms made, of course) and used to justify funding, no doubt.  Schools are NOT just about academics.  However it’s handy to be able to blame an absent parent when the schools cannot perform up to standards.
“Fathering” is a verb used by this contingent. Prior to this new, improved (late 1990s) application of the term, the word “fathering” meant basically impregnating a woman who carried a child to term or at least to pregnancy — and NOT a whole lot more.
I notice that Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore (if she’s still there) did NOT sponsor this resolution.  Maybe she was busy.  See my post on it, early 2011.
Oh well….

 

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 3, 2011 at 6:57 PM

My response to Wayne County, MI issues: Behind many issues is often an AFCC judge…. (and what “AFCC” entails)

with 4 comments

 

Review Time – who/what is the “AFCC”?:

“AFCC JUDGE” — Briefly, by this, it means all that AFCC believes, entails and habitually DOES.

  • What is AFCC?

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

This is not necessarily what the US Court systems are in place for, nor civil codes of procedure, nor the bill of rights, nor the criminal law.  AFCC views “conflict” as bad — seemingly worse than criminal behaviors by individuals in families towards others in the families.   I can’t think of any field of human endeavor or growth that doesn’t have some built-in conflict, which can be resolved either by reference to an agreed-upon-standard, or by separation.  However, in AFCC language, whoever has conflict (including with these dedicated professionals) is the bad guy, and court-ordered punishment can be meted out.

In this system, parents are required / forced to work it out being treated and viewed as a “family” whether or not they are one any more.  Even if one has threatened to kill the other, to kidnap the kids, has caused serious injury to the other partner and/or their children, or has interfered with court-ordered visitation, the problem is viewed of conflict PER SE as being wrong, rather than there being an identifiable position of truth (and from it, some justice) on various matters.

Naturally it also sees its membership as an association of dedicated professionals who are going to resolve family problems.

  • Who are AFCC members? – WHICH dedicated professionals, in what fields?

AFCC Members are:

Judges Lawyers
Mediators Psychologists
Researchers Academics
Counselors Court Commissioners
Custody Evaluators Parenting Coordinators
Court Administrators Social Workers
Parent Educators Financial Planners

It seems to me this list of professions keeps expanding, which is another thing AFCC as an association does.  We note that while there are some people as direct public employees/ servants who work in the justice system (judges, mediators, court administrators, court commissioners, and some categories of attorneys — i.e., child support attorneys, county-paid GALs, etc.) — some are not.  The category “researchers” & “Academics” is definitely broad.  Although many of these people certainly have been through divorce or custody issues, or are themselves parents please notice that “parents” is not a category.

In this worldview, then, the “PARENT” (regardless of what profession(s) any parent is in, including sometimes even some of the above categories) is the plebian, the novice, the uninstructed, the person that the professionals must handle.  One thing many parents are definitely “uninstructed” in is that this organization exists and runs conferences to strategize how to handle THEM and their flawed selves.

AFCC personnel, when judges, are often highly placed (including state supreme courts) and activist.  A look at the membership in this 2007 conference brochure shows an opening PLENARY session hearing;

The Presumption for Equal Shared Parenting: Pros and Cons There seems to be increasing support throughout the United States for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting. Proponents say that such a presumption brings the best interest standard into comportment with parents’ protected and privileged status under the Constitution and will apply only to those situa- tions in which 1) parents cannot reach agreement; 2) both parents can present realistic parenting plans for the responsibility they seek; and 3) neither parent can present convincing evidence that the other parent is unfit. They say that this presumption will change litigants’ and practitioners’ expectation that gains are produced by proceeding to adversarial judicial hearings, will decrease post divorce conflict, and will uphold each parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his/her children. Opponents, while often sympathetic to shared parenting, argue that the presumption would seriously impede the Court’s ability to tailor custody determinations to the needs of each particular child.** Presenters: Michael McCormick; Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider

 

[The 2003 link points to an article from a Journal of CFCC (Center for Families & Children in the Courts, put out by Ca. Judicial Council:    

Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families / How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court “The emotional and psychological risks to children resulting from conflicted custody disputes and the varied needs of separated families have led to the increased involvement of mental health professionals in child custody cases. …But though treatment services can be expensive, high-quality treatment may be a more cost-effective intervention than continued litigation. …   Courts can also maximize resources by appointing a forensically sophisticated therapist to fill a child- centered role (e.g., to provide the child’s treatment or child-centered conjoint or family therapy) and by allowing the therapist to confer with other therapists about the case. “

Sorry, but actually AFCC was founded to bring on the mental health professionals.  It’s typical to talk in passive terms of needs that arose and demanded their services, however, this is a very aggressive organization that lobbies for constant expansion of the involvement of its professionals, as does this particular article.  Some of the topics of conflict include economic depletion by constant involvement of custody evaluators and therapists to start with …

The Hon. Robert Schnider apparently one of the originals in Los Angeles area, born into a family law practitioner family — or at least working in his father’s practice.  Purely for entertainment purposes, here’s a 2004 article in which this judge was going to possibly unseal (unsavory) parts of a divorce record affecting an Illinois Republican Senatorial race — Jack Ryan against . . ..  Barack Obama.   The author questions why any judge would be allowed to do this for high-celebrity cases, and notes that “To Unseal or Not to Unseal” (My terms) would either affect a political race, and might be called “child endangerment.”  Jack Ryan was being compared to Bill Clinton as to his sexual habits at the time….]

((**including totally eliminating contact with the mother, in “interventions” when she has alienated the children — which would mean sole legal & physical custody to the father, i.e., “Tailored custody determinations” The fact that no opponents UNsympathetic to shared parenting (presumptions) are mentioned tells us how unlikely that either feminists or people advocating for domestic violence victims’ viewpoints were considered).

Many of the conflicts within marriages and sometimes causes of separation actually can come from violence by one partner towards another; it can be a dealbreaker in any relationship (and can and does sometimes turn lethal).  AFCC positions itself at the crossroads and in this little paragraph above, has borrowed? the phrase “rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting” from the rebuttable presumption AGAINST custody going to a batter” legislative language in many states.

 

“Rebuttable Presumption” talk:

For example, a quick search comes up with Delaware Code.  Even this Delaware Code, as strong as it is, has several loopholes to allow joint or sole custody of a child to go to a perpetrator of domestic violence — but even so, AFCC and others wish to change this to presumption for equal shared parenting (see above):

DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Search DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no perpetrator of domestic violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child.

(b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a perpetrator of domestic violence.

(c) The above presumptions shall be overcome if there have been no further acts of domestic violence and the perpetrator of domestic violence has: (1) successfully completed a program of evaluation and counselling designed specifically for perpetrators of family violence {{aka “Batterers Intervention Program” — a thing marketed by the Duluthmodel.org philosophy}} and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional; and (2) successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counselling if the Court determines that such counselling is appropriate; and (3) demonstrated that giving custodial or residential responsibilities to the perpetrator of domestic violence is in the best interests of the child. The presumption may otherwise be overcome only if a judicial officer finds extraordinary circumstances that warrant the rejection of the presumption, such as evidence demonstrating that there exists no significant risk of future violence against any adult or minor child living in the home or any other family member, including any ex-spouse.

(i.e., RISK ASSESSMENT PROPHETIC UTTERANCES.  How can anyone demonstrate no significant risk fo future violence when people have walked out of batterers intervention programs, with flying colors, and gone on to murder the same person that got them in there?)

Along with “best interests” is of course if the other parent might “alienate” the child, allegedly.

An AFCC judge is going to oppose anything “high-conflict” and be favorably inclined towards shared parenting.  Note presenter Mike McCormick, whose bio is:

Michael McCormick. Mr. McCormick is Executive Director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children and has written exten- sively and spoken throughout the United States on family law reform.

No presentations by NOW members or feminists in this association, that I’ve seen.  Mr. McCormick is MORE than active in fatherhood issues, and complained that even Obama’s and Evan Bayh (Indiana) fatherhood and healthy marriage promotion just didn’t go far enough.  It was too little carrot and too big a stick.  He hangs out with Glenn Sacks and friends.  I note that the acronym “ACFC” (below) is “AFCC” re-arranged.  Coincidence?

 I (Glenn Sacks) co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State JournalBuffalo News, 6/30/07

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.

Readers Every Year
Are you looking for an affordable way to reach over 6 million readers a year with your business or organization? My blog and my websites GlennSacks.com andHisSide.com receive over 10,000 unique visits a day. My weekly E-Newsletter has over 50,000 subscribers, and is by far the world’s largest regularly distributed E-newsletter devoted to family law reform, fatherhood and fathers’ issues. Contactus for more information.
(Note he’s not complaining about fathers being treated like animals & mules, which is where the “carrot & stick” reference comes from.  He wants the bribe, the incentive, and less regulation.  Personally, being a mother, I’d be offended — and have been — when anyone came to me implying or saying that I needed federal intervention to attempt to maintain work to support my kids.  This article was written 5 months after his presentation at AFCC, same year, or published then.

So one factor to remember about AFCC — they have no problem with conference presentations run by activities fathers’ rights leaders.  They are definitely a father-friendly organization, at least certain kinds of fathers.   They are also typically influential within the courts they preside over, when judges:

Another factor is that they are quite interested if not obsessed with redefining (and narrowing the definition) of domestic violence; they are going to discredit domestic violence as having primarily male perpetrators upon females, even though homicide data consistently shows this is who kills the most.  This is consistent with Mr. McCormick (above)’s membership on a group called ‘RADAR’ who pushes this theory.  Read on, same conference:

PLENARY

Rethinking Domestic Violence

This presentation will review research studies on the relationship between domestic violence and custody assessments. The domestic violence paradigm presented in many studies consistently suggests one model of domestic violence, that of male perpetrator and female victim; the argument is then made that this male-abuser model will extend to child abuse.

In other words, let’s consider a different paradigm, the “theory” (“argument”) that male abusers often extend to child abuse is just theory ……just an argument…

The data on gender differences in both intimate personal violence and threats to children indicate, however, that the male-perpetrator model is only one of several models of domestic violence, and that risk to children occurs equally from mothers and fathers. The ethics of presenting a gender biased perspective for custody assessors are discussed.

Presenter: Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D.

I have posted on the Dueling Duttons (just for fun — there is a Donald Dutton, of this premise, and a Mary Ann Dutton also Ph.D., who deals more with the resultant trauma from abuse).

FINALLY as to “AFCC JUDGES” , AFCC is a very activist organization seeking to reform family law and lobbying for changes in laws, practices etc.  They also have foundation sponsorship for conferences on “Domestic Violence and the Courts” as below:

Task Forces and Initiatives

Child Custody Consultant Task Force

Child Custody Evaluation Standards Task Force

Family Law Education Reform Project

Parenting Coordination Standards Task Force

Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project

Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network

Brief Focused Assessment Task Force

Court-Involved Therapist Task Force

And, of course, I believe I have made the case that many AFCC members are actively promoting their own products, curricula, and nonprofits are not at all above utilizing their positions as judges to direct traffic (through court-ORDERED participation into the programs, for example, see posts on Kids’ Turn. Questionable financial practice appears to be part of the territory..  See Johnnypumphandle on some of the Nonprofit Organizations:

Many non-governmental organizations exist to reap profit from the Family Law system. Most are identified as Non-Profit and are exempt from taxation. You may have contacted some of these organizations for help, only to discover that help is not available – particularly if you are seeking justice.

Many organizations have been established by professionals in the Family Law system for conspiracy and protection of these professionals. Thus we have many Bar Associations, whose members are lawyers and judges; Psychological Associations for classifying family members syndromes, so that none will be overlooked; and other associations established merely to act as a conduit for family member’s money collected in the process.

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community“. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.

He is talking about private and/or nonprofit associations with judges as members using public buildings and premises to run their own businesses.

It appears that this “Los Angeles Superior Court judges Association” is quite likely the predecessor of the AFCC. See this:

Update 4/11/99Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 16 — May 3, 1999 . . . .
http://www.insightmag.com

Insight Magazine

Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

An alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association {“LASCJA”} is at the heart of a scandal involving possible income-tax evasion and gifts that may affect judges’ rulings.

Dozens of checks, obtained by Insight, deposited in the LASCJA account were made out to several other institutions, including the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the Judges Trust Fund, the Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services.These organizations are not registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, and if the Bank of America has accounts for any of them, the checks were not deposited in those accounts.

So, what was up with that?
. . . . Not only were attorneys who argue cases before the family court making payments to the judges’ fund, but so were the court monitors — appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.
 Bringing in the topic of supervised visitation, and what’s up with tracking usage of those funds.
These monitors qualify for their jobs by paying to take a training and certification course from the judges, with the check going to the fund, whereupon they are placed on the exclusive list the judges use when assigning monitors.
Sounds like kickbacks to me.  That’s definite conflict of interest.  The supervised visitation monitors paying the judges’ account  and those judges funneling them business from the courtroom, from the bench….

“. . . . The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s contributions to the fund were payments to the judges run through a joint partnership with the court on MCLE classes. They split the proceeds from legal and professional seminars. . . . . So, in addition to the ethical issues involved in how the bank account has been maintained, its funding also raises numerous legal issues, according to attorney Richard I. Fine, a taxpayers’ advocate. “If a private group [the LASCJA] is using a public building and everything associated with that private group is being paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, then it is clearly fraudulent,” Fine contends. He adds that “unless the public entity has passed an ordinance specifically allowing the private group to exist and specifically stating that the public will bear the costs — separate phones, leasing office space, furniture, computers, etc. — then it should be paid for by the private organization.”. . . . According to Fine, “If the judges have provided false information on official financial statements submitted to government agencies or financial institutions [the Bank of America account], then they have defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and the county and the people of Los Angeles by receiving tax-free status under fraudulent means. … This would be the same as if a person lied on their tax return. It is incredulous to me that something like this could have happened and the IRS, state attorney general, county district attorney and auditor have not acted over all these years.”

Unless they, too, were in on it somehow.

OK, now I think we’re ready to consider why, when a judge that Wayne County, MI child support workers want OUT goes to privatize child support contracting — although I realize this issue is larger, and different (child support collections is multi-million$$ business within most states) the behavior of doing this is common to AFCC personnel from the outset.  “BEWARE AFCC” “Court Cancer Metastasizes” summarizes it in this timeline (to review):

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)

A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county {the public} would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

1962

The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)

Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

1963

Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse. 

No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin.

(Meyer Elkin awards and memorabilia are all over AFCC entitities and spinoff organizations).

(NOTE:  Visit “AFCCnet.org” History page and you’ll see it claims to have begun in 1963.)

I continue to be amazed how little reported this powerful lobbying group is even spoken about. It’s like talking about the air — taken for granted, you inhale and exhale it, with little consciousness of the content.

OK, NOW — My RESPONSE TO THE MICHIGAN POST:


My last post:   Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket.  Judge was AFCC

Showed county workers picketing against the privatization and outsourcing of Child Support Enforcement, particularly as the companies bidding on the contract already had a history of fraud and other legal issues.  Particularly as it would reduce workers’ salaries to $8 to $9 per hour, and more.  People in Wayne County MI picketed to remove the judge (Marybeth Kelly) that did this.

This response shows how simple it can be to look up some basic data on a court situation.   I’m simply pasting what amounts to a fast-track search of some information on the judge in question.  I did not handle the issue of grants systems possibly going to county workers to bring marriage, fatherhood, or other program funding to them rather than the custodial parents, which may have been involved in part.  This is an “off-the-cuff” response, minor phrasing perhaps re-arranged for this different format.

I wrote:

I’m not a Michigan native, and came to this posting because I am investigating some of the privateering in the child support industry, particularly Maximus, but in the course of this, Lockheed-Martin and Tier Technologies do come up.

RE:

 As Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor noted in a statement thanking Kelly for her service, “What about the children whom the Wayne County Friend of the Court is supposed to serve? What about the families for whom a timely child support check makes the difference between survival and not being able to buy groceries?” ***
Excellent questions. 
{{** this reply doesn’t address what the picketing and rally did– that at least one of the firms bidding for the contract had a known history of corruption, including fraud and conflicts of interest. }}
Actually nice appeal, but wrong questions.  The child support system probably needs to be shut down at this point, because it is so corrupt whether done through public agencies OR farmed out.  I have been blogging at http://familycourtmatters/wordpress.com, and if you search OCSE (or read 06/29/11 posts), it’s clear that Federal Funding (HHS — and OCSE is under it) has been co-opted by special interest groups, and is a $4 billion-a-year industry.  
In California, where I live, a respected attorney (Richard Fine, Esq. at the time) with a record of confronting fraud and taxpayer waste, took on “Silva v. Garcetti” where the L.A. District Attorney was sitting on $14 million undistributed, collected child support.   In return for exposing this, and other financial corruption, Mr. Fine was tossed into coercive solitary confinement (age, 69) and of course disbarred, and his settlement monies compromised, his family had to foreclose on the home, etc.   
Whether it’s done through the Friend of the Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, or otherwise, these grants carry incentives to the states, which impacts custody outcomes, and also provides a wide range of action for various money-laundering and other corrupt practices.  
Tier Technologies is (I think) run out of a Northern California area where the local child support agency  literally advertises and recruits commuters  (targeting at the noncustodial parent) to open a child support case.  Title IV-D child support cases are handled differently than others, and the entire system is I believe more of a public burden than a public waste.  It has undermined the family law process entirely, and introduced outside agents into play, which only ONE party is informed of.   
PRIMETIME AFCC BEHAVIOR IS TO PRIVATIZE AND DIRECT BUSINESS TO CRONIES:
I note that Judge Kelly (Whether she be good, or not so good, I hold no opinion — don’t know her.  I know systems) — reduced the budget by $30 million and added family law judges.  Just check which of these judges are AFCC members.  If so, this is going to expand, not contract, services needed ,and introduce more players into individual court cases.
Maximus sounds horrific, and I REALLY thing anyone else who lands on this page should check out my blog in it.  I am a DV survivor and custody wars survivor.  I am sure there are hardworking, honest, decent office and administrative people throughout the child support system — but when it injected promoting marriage and fatherhood into divorce court, or social science demonstration projects, etc. — it has created a system parallel to the IRS (and working alongside it), and it’s polarizing our society.  I KNOW that without the influence of this group, my court case could’ve closed much sooner, and I could’ve as a single mother handled life without child support and allowing the father regular contact.
Because of these incentives our case, and many other moms cases (I now advocate and report) went south; the children were switched to the non-caretaking parent, many times an identified abuser or molester — and thereafter there is no “Shared parent” or anything close to it.  Child Support gets immediately eliminated if the switch was after a considerable arrears ran up (in my case it was about $10K).  Everyone BUT the children literally gets a piece of the action, and some of the grant moneys.  Double-billing exists.  Like the national debt, one cannot forever support a nationwide infrastructure this large — who will be left to pay the IRS to pay them?  Or are the poor just going to be starved out, or left to kill each other over money from the pressure. 
My judges are on this courthouse forum too, but I’m not commenting on them.  I comment for example, HERE:  
https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/lets-talk-child-support-hhs-series-90fd-grants-to-states-research-and-demonstrate/
Plenty of links and data on the blogroll to others who follow this.
Judge Marybeth Kelly I see (at least 2002) was on the child support leadership council appointed by a governor, and is AFCC — meaning, she has an agenda.  Mothers (=/= 2nd wives stepmothers) should be alert to this.   There are fathers’ activities on that council too it seems.    
Even a brief look, 2010 article about her run for Supreme Court, shows AFCC tendencies (read article, pls):
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_mary_beth_kelly_family_l.html

Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Family law bench stint aids high court bid

Published: Sunday, October 03, 2010, 3:13 AM 
As she is Republican & Right-To-Life, she is probably not too sympathetic to women leaving violence, few religious groups are.  While she’s boasting about dealing with runaways, including from kids in foster care, a lot of those children I bet were inappropriately placed there (bet MI gets incentives like others states, see Georgia, Nancy Schaefer).  Notice:

She came under fire for acting too independently and trying to privatize the Friend of the Court.

That privatization effort was among the issues that prompted a labor-led coalition in 2007 to call for her resignation. Lawyers representing children under the supervision of the county’s juvenile court sued her the same year.

The lawsuit alleged Kelly violated the children’s right to counsel and effective representation when she removed hundreds of individual attorneys and replaced them with hand-picked “attorney groups.” **The lawsuit argued she created a “fixed-fee” system that resulted in far fewer attorneys for a growing number of children.

(**hand-picked, aka sounds like cronies to me. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a PRIVATE trade association of judges, mediators, evaluators and the type of personnel who mean courthouseforum sites have plenty of horror stories to post.  They get positioned in high places, including state supreme courts, or Friends of the Court associations, and then influence policy, try to and do get laws passed to direct more business to themselves, meaning it’s harder for people to conclude their own court cases.     PRIVATIZING — the complaint is that the courts are jammed, overwhelmed, but the logic behind that fails to say why.  Privatizing removes protections including oaths that Judges are under as to not having conflict of interest, and their required statements to disclosure that have to be filed. )

The suit was filed in April 2007, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case three months later.  (Who is on the Supreme Court?)

Julie Hurwitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said changing the system was politically motivated and leaves her concerned if Kelly is elected to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t think that political ambition has any place on the bench,” she says. “One has to look at the history.”

Kelly says she wanted to reduce deficits and improve services and wasn’t motivated by politics. And even as a conservative endorsed by Right to Life, she says she aims to keep partisanship off the bench.

{{ANYTHING BELOW HERE NOT IN “{{…..}}’s” is quoted material:}}
Article from Aug 2010, from RIGHTMICHIGAN (note: this isn’t a left/right political issue when it comes to this venue):

Judge Mary Beth Kelly a Rule of Law Judge? Obviously not.

By Maryland Farmer, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:28:35 PM EST
Tags: Judge Mary Beth KellySupreme Court (all tags)

~ Brought out front, as it is good debate. ~

I believe that the rule of law requires judges to be impartial and not decide cases based on their own personal, social or political views. Judges must take the law as it is written: we should neither add to it nor subtract from it, and apply it equally to everyone alike.

When the State of Michigan seeks to terminate parental rights, it is more than a mere temporary disruption of relationships: it is the forced, irretrievable, destruction of family life. It is an awesome power. “When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” The Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply with full force to parental termination cases. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)

The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing

A parental termination case is essentially no different from any other kind of case. Both the parent and the State are entitled to a “rule of law” judge who faithfully applies the Constitution and the plain language of the statute, one who is unbiased, impartial, fair minded, and principled. The judge must give each party a fair opportunity to present his evidence. The judge should consider the evidence with an open mind. The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the law.

In the Matter of Felicia Alicia Clemons, Minor – a Chilling Story of Abuse of Judicial Power

When Tamara Alicia Clemons appeared before Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly in August of 2007, Judge Kelly was no rookie; she had been on the bench for eight years.

The Court of Appeals opinion details a chilling abuse of power, an abuse that conservative Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan later labeled, “disturbing.” See In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928, 938, 763 N.W.2d 618, 627 (2009) (Corrigan, concurring)

A Petitioner had requested that the Court terminate Tamara Clemons’s parental rights to her daughter, Felicia. The Petitioner, that is, the person who filed the complaint against Ms Clemons, did not appear for the hearing. Neither did an attorney for the State of Michigan. Although Tamara appeared, she did so without a lawyer to represent her. Astonishingly, Judge Kelly did not dismiss, or even adjourn the case. Instead, she decided to abandon her role as an unbiased judge and take on the role of accuser.

Judge Kelly called witnesses to the stand. Instead of being fair minded, her questions displayed, according to the Court of Appeals, “an accusatory or prosecutorial bent.” Judge Kelly only elicited information that could be used to support termination. She assiduously avoided obtaining information that might help Tamara’s case.

After compiling the one-sided evidence, Judge Kelly refused to allow Tamara to introduce any evidence of her own. Judge Kelly used her power as a judge to deny Tamara the right to even defend herself!

At the conclusion of this inquisition, Judge Kelly wrongfully terminated Tamara’s parental rights to her daughter.

The Court of Appeals naturally reversed the decision. But the Court went one step further: the Court of Appeals, appalled by Judge Kelly’s lawless conduct, actually removed her from the case:

Given the egregious violations of respondent’s constitutional rights that occurred in this case, this case shall be assigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice.

This action by the Court of Appeals, removing a trial judge from a case, is extraordinary. It is reserved for conspicuously bad conduct on the bench.

These are not the actions of a Rule of Law judge. 
Here is the case:http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcehb&searchTerm=eUiQ.GeLa.UYGU.IbTY&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652,*

In the Matter of FELICIA ALICIA CLEMONS, Minor. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF OAKLAND COUNTY, Petitioner-Appellee, and LATRECHA ADELL FOX, Guardian, Appellee, v TAMARA ALICIA CLEMONS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 281004

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652

August 19, 2008, Decided

– – – – – 

[ENDQUOTE / start LGH comments]:

Again, the thing is the systems; get a grasp of that, and how individual judges act will be clearer.  California, alas, is responsible for spawning that AFCC organization decades ago, and a lot of the trauma now going, plus excessive removal of kids from one parent or both parent is going to include 2nd and 3rd generations of people affected by policies run through the child support & welfare system, and pushed by AFCC judges in their conferences.  This is privatizing not just the Friends of the Court, but in effect, the entire family court system (and associated ones), court proceedings are seen as problem-solving rather than being subject to justice, and new generations of law students are being coached and trained into this line of thinking, but highly placed AFCC judges, as in UBaltimore School of Law’s “Center for Children & Families in the Court.” (“CFCC”).   Just check out their conference agenda and materials, under-reported situation.

I’d have to side with the county workers in the Wayne County issue because, their being public employees, I can do FOIAs and get payroll information, have a shot at any money trail in individual cases (if I were living in Michigan).  Besides, no low-paid FT employee should lack benefits – if they didn’t have benefits, what’s the motivation for FT employment?  It’d be better to work somewhere else…..

No charge for this PSA.  If you read it, please pass it on, I doubt this is a high-traffic post!

I attach 2008? Annual report (from IN) of a private nonprofit group entrenched in the court system:  Fathers & Families.  Scrutinize who is on corporate donors (Indiana Dept. of Child Support services).  Look at how many court officials and public employees are on the board of this group — which is focused on ONE out of TWO sides of the parents in most custody issues.  Conflicts of interest, much?

Other states (Ohio, PA) have noted copying practices from Indiana.  I even found Ontario, Canada, copying some US practices — the link was AFCC membership (international).

The courthouse forum where I found this had a “reply” button, but my reply has not shown up yet (that I can see), so here it is:

Let’s Talk Child Support — HHS series “90FD” Grants to states: (Research and Demonstrate)

with 5 comments

The size of Child Support Enforcement in some states in phenomenal.  Within this phenomenally large infrastructure, there is not just enforcement activity, but a subset of grants to encourage certain activities — research and demonstration to improve one of the many purposes of “OCSE.”   I’m reporting on a smaller subsection of this today.

Nationwide $4 BILLION per year payments to states for family support and child support enforcement — how much per state, and for what?  The child support itself comes from the parent’s earnings (or assets, income) — the funds to pay the $4 billion per year are of course public funds, also collected from taxes via the IRS, distributed to the various government branches, and then different departments within those branches.  Health and Human Services encompasses welfare (“TANF”), Early Childhood/Head Start, a lot of funding of medical research and institutions, all kinds of things. But the ability of the OCSE / Child Support system to make or destroy an individual, to support or tear down (depending on how administered) and if payments are not made, to potentially get a parent in jail — and this does happen, check your local arrest sheets — makes it a huge United STates Institution affecting most families, it would seem.

Privatized Child Support, some principal players:

While revising/expanding this post, I ran across a site, GuidelineEconomics, for what it’s worth, summarizing some players in

The Child Support Industry

  • Policy Studies, Inc., Denver, CO.
    • Founded and headed by Robert Williams in 1984 while still working for National Center for State Courts (NCSC). NCSC was under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement to develop guidelines for states to consider. ***
    • Vends (sells) the Income Shares child support guideline, originally developed by Williams while working for NCSC as part of the contract with the Office of Child Support Enforcement.
    • Acts as a privately contracted child support enforcement/collection agent in various jurisdictions in a number of states.
    • Also see PSI’s timeline for expansion of their contracted services in early 2004, and their description of their enforcement and collection services.
  • Maximus, Inc.
    • Acts as child support enforcement / collection agent for numerous states. Will also act as a jurisdiction’s child support administration, setting awards.
  • Systems & Methods, Inc
    • Acts as child support collection agent for North Carolina and runs the child abuse reporting system for Georgia.
  • SupportKids, Inc.
    • Private child support collection agent.

There is no question that this person appears to be “fathers-rights” oriented, there’s a link to David Levy & Sanford Braver, to Father’s organizations — but he’s an economist.  Robert G. Williams of PSI, after Princeton, etc.,  apparently branched out into his own business while working with a nonprofit on a government contract.  (My “to do” list included finding out where this person was coming from, philosophically).  … MAXIMUS has a large (and very disturbing) section on my post here.  I don’t know “Systems & Methods Inc.” and I’ve run across a networked group of mothers complaining that when SupportKids, Inc. changed hands (?) they simply stopped receiving their checks, with no recourse.  That’s as I remember it — don’t quote me…. NCSC: NCSC | National Center for State Courts  SupportKids — “ripoff report” — after the mother contacted (private co.) SupportKids, the County gets its act together — and the checks on $20K arrears are finally coming through the Florida County, then they stop.  Finding out why, SupportKids had falsified an order, and had the money redirected to them!

Submitted: Monday, May 19, 2008   Last Posting: Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Support Kids.com withholding child support paid to me including ex- husbands tax return that was garnished by the State of Florida and no one from Support Kids management will even call me to discuss this Austin Texas

 My ex’s tax return is garnished (because he is SO in arears) AND SUPPORT KIDS GOT IT!!!! WHICH IS ILLEGAL!!!! When I call Support Kids to discuss this matter (IF they EVER ANSWER THEIR PHONES!!- well I take that back-THEY do answer their new application line BUT RARELY ANSWER THEIR ESTABLISHED CLIENT LINE) they tell me they do not know when they will send my checks!!!! I left a message for a supervisor (someone named JoAnn), and she does not return her phone calls. I have emailed supportkids many times and all I get is an automatic response!! I went to Hillsborough County Child Support Enforcement for the State of Florida and they are aware of reports and complaints regarding support kids and told me to contact the Florida State Attourneys office (which I plan to do tomorrow). I also checked out the BBB, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST SUPPORT KIDS!!!! Please do not sign up with them!!!!! I do not know how long it will take to get this fixed. (or if it ever will) they are going to sit back collecting my son’s child support AND THEY DID NOT EVEN DO THE WORK (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DID) TO EVEN GET THEIR 10%…AND NOW I GUESS THEY WILL KEEP COLLECTING MY CHECKS. Please, please do not do business with this company, YOU WILL SO REGRET IT. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT- STEALING CHILDREN’S CHILD SUPPORT. THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION OF HOMELESS ARE SINGLE MOTHER’S WITH CHILDREN!!! DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM!! Kj Tampa, Florida U.S.A.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 5/19/2008 4:08:21 PM

Support Kids.com NOT only are the Custodial parents being scammed so are the NON Custodial parent!!! Ripoff Austin TexasAuthor: Cypress TexasCollection Agencies: Support Kids.com   8/10/2007  5:44 PM  (Private company lied, fabricated child support amount due. “A lawsuit by the State of Virginia is challenging the business practices of an Austin-based company that collects money from parents who are behind in child support payments”  (2008) Law firm posts news article reviewing criminal lawsuit against SupportKids for violating state law.  discussing the 34% cut SupportKids is allowed to take, and how it helped draft legislation in California which had no cap on the % it could take.  Austin-based company does business in 47 states and has 40,000 open cases.

And this appears to be the blog I saw earlier.  The mother says she started the blog to put SupportKids out of business; that it’s been bought by another (who is similar in its practices):

“Singleparentsunite:  District Attorney v. SupportKids”   {{meaning, use the DA for enforcement, not this private agency}}

After 16 years of battling the system, it finally worked! I was informed 4 months ago that I was going to get the back child support that was owed to me and my children (who are both grown adults now). My ex husband inherited a house that he put on the market. When it sold, the DA put a lien on the house and guess who got the first cut of the profits? I did. My suggestion to all struggling single parents who are going thru that same fight? File your case with the DA’s office. They keep track of everything and it NEVER goes away. Not only that, collects interest. If you sit back and wait for your ship to roll in without researching your options, you’re going to be waiting a long time. Companies like SupportKids are the wrong way to go. They may collect money for you but they take 34% (or at least that is what is use to be) off the top and send you the rest. The DA’s office doesn’t make a profit off of your case, they fight for you for FREE. When they cut my check it was for the full amount that was owed.

I started my blog to put Supportkids out of business and get out of my contract. Both were accomplished. Supportkids has since been bought by another company and have proceeded to do business as usual. During that time (when the company was bought and in transition with the new owners) was when I put up the biggest fight and won. Supportkids was going out of business and the new company was clueless. I started my blog in 2007. 4 years later, I’m out of my contract with Supportkids and received full payment of my back child support. That may seem like a long time but is it really? Not compared to the years I spent trying to collect the money. 

By the time you finish reading the Maximus information, or some of the Canadian person’s commentary on having Canadian health information handled by the US company, with the US under the Patriot Act (which allows governmental snooping), you JUST might agree with me that the OCSE ought to be eliminated, period — and whatever proper functions it might have left to fulfil, to be transferred to another dept. of the US.  If this post doesn’t convince, there are more.   BELOWTHAT, and with the title to this post, my chart shows some of the various discretionary uses to which child support is put, and for how much, although why — you’ll have to ask the principal investigators of the HHS-funded projects.   And finally (with a little more commentary), I post some of the “Section 1115” US law that permits the bending of the law, the creating of various exemptions, and complain some more about ONE person, in the US, (Secretary of HHS) having so much power to approve what might be termed behavioral modification projects up on (the poor, among others) through the child support system, and at public expense.  Happy reading.  Alas, this all seems to be nonfiction..   .

“MAXIMIZING” CONTRACTS, MINIMIZING ACCOUNTABILITY:

(Circus) Maximus, Inc.

In addition to what the IRS powers to collect and enforce gives to the states, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing, we know that also outside private contractors are also paid by the US Government to do the same thing, such as Maximus,and others:

MAXIMUS helps Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity and support orders, and enforce payments to families. Since 1975, we have partnered with CSE agencies to improve the lives of 940,000 families throughout the United States and Canada. Effective CSE operations demand more than business as usual. Innovative solutions, together with a highly skilled staff, are critical to achieve successful outcomes. We support our comprehensive services with technology solutions that enable us to serve participants more efficiently, effectively, and economically.

MAXIMUS. Because Children and Families Come First.

MAXIMUS improves the lives of children and families through a variety of services:

  • Full service child support enforcement
    • Establishment of support and medical orders
    • Administrative remedies to establish orders  {{This sounds like the outside contractor establishing a legally-binding order without proper legal protections to the payee or payor parent.…The remedy to establish any court order, other than ex parte ones, is called a motion and a hearing so the other side can be heard.  These guys adjust (reduce) arrears based on a contract with the noncustodial parent only; without notifying the other parent, at least that’s how it went down in our area.}}
    • Paternity determination
    • Location
    • Enforcement
    • Financial Services
    • Legal Services
    • Reduction of undistributed collections  {{So, what happens to $$ collected but not actually sent to the kids’ custodial parents?  After it sits around earning interest, as it did in Los Angeles County DA’s office previously…}}
  • Customer service call centers
  • Employer repository verification and maintenance
  • New hire compliance
  • Medical support enforcement
  • Income withholding enforcement
  • Early intervention/delinquency prevention programs
  • Review and adjustment of orders
  • TANF arrears case management and collection
  • International full service child support enforcement
  • Business process analysis, testing, training, and documentation

All our services are supported through a team of CSE experts, which includes former state and local IV-D directors and others with significant child support legal, policy, and operations experience.

Program Consulting

MAXIMUS also offers a variety of child support program consulting services. “We also remove barriers to non-payment {?}, allowing NCPs to consistently pay on time” “MAXIMUS experience in designing and implementing early intervention/delinquency prevention programs and operations is unequaled. We can assist any IV-D agency, whether state or local, in establishing a successful early intervention/ delinquency prevention program…” It is affiliated with these nonprofit agencies, which it so happens, I blogged on (some) recently:

As a corporate member of several civic associations across the nation, MAXIMUS is dedicated to the business areas and communities in which we operate.  These are nonprofit organizations whose membership appears to be CSE professionals.

Child Support

Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association National Child Support Enforcement Association Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council

[Corporationwiki of Maximus Federal in Reston, VA -gives a visual]

Check it out @ usaspending.gov (DUNS# 08234747 is Maximus Inc.;  ($684 million overall of which $260 million HHS contracts. it administers Medicare & Medicaid….)  Also has locations? in 4 countries; DUNS# 36422159 Maximus Federal Services — shows $27 million, 71 contracts or grants.) I googled “Maximus Fraud” (knowing of some high-profile instances) and got this scathing “Rip-off Report,” which goes far beyond fraud.  Rip-off reports are personal filings, but listen to this laundry list and compare with “Prospecting among the Poor” and other records.  it’s just too (damn) large, for one:

Maximus Inc. employees are stealing Medicare, Medicaid, child support, child welfare monies etc. Maximus Inc employees are blackmailing the poorest of the poor so that they can get their child welfare checks. Maximus Inc. employees are sexually abusing clients so that they can get their child welfare checks/child support checks.

Maximus Inc. hiring persons without background checks for caseworkers. One caseworker was a convicted forger, with an arrest record that included kidnapping, battery, and impersonating a police officer. Maximus Inc hired him while he was on parole. He blackmailed child welfare clients into giving him monies or he would cut off their benefits. Maximus Inc. hired one caseworker that pushed his clients to help him sell drugs, and another who told women they would lose their benefits unless they had sex with him and her children were present at the time. Maximus Inc. hired sexual predators as caseworkers who pressured their clients for sex. Maximus Inc. employees were extorting monies under blackmail from women on child welfare/child support, and these employees were sexually abusing these women. In addition, they wanted these women to prostitute themselves on the streets. They were also getting these women pregnant after they were blackmailed into having sex. Maximus Inc. massive theft of monies from child welfare, child support, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, etc. Wire fraud, bank fraud, theft of States monies etc. Maximus Inc theft of clients monies and diverting the monies to other bank accounts so that clients do not get any monies. How do these women pay their rents, and other bills? Children go without food and other necessary things in life. Blatant fraud. Maximus Inc steals welfare funds, and they overlook the victims of this crime. Maximus Inc. steals monies from impoverished mothers, children and people with disabilities who sought assistance and were illegally turned away, sanctioned, and terminated. Maximus Inc. has so many formal gender or racial discrimination lawsuits filed against it to be unbelievable. Maximus Inc has corporate malpractice, including inadequate and poor provision of services; misappropriation of funds, cronyism, and other financial irregularities; and discriminatory practices at company offices. Maximus Inc. used welfare funds intended for the poor to pay consultants who gave campaign contribution advice and solicited new business for the firm. Maximus Inc. spends child welfare monies lavishly on themselves, and they were illegally denying eligible families cash assistance, child care assistance, and even food stamps. So that they can steal the monies. (Reported By: Dr. anthony — Columbia Maryland USA Submitted: Sunday, September 06, 2009 )

This is not just one disgruntled complainant:  Hear this from a Whistleblower Law Firm, on Maximus, Inc.:

Posted on July 23, 2007 by LaBovick Law

Maximus, Inc. pays $30.5 Million to settle False Claims Act Case

“Helping the Government serve the People” is the tagline of Virginia basedMaximus, Inc., latest corporate citizen entangled in a Medicaid fraud scam. Unfortunately, this company needs a new tagline. The DOJ announced today that Maximus has agreed to pay $30.5 Million to settle qui tam lawsuit. The company admitted to their part in submitting fraudulent Medicaid claims for children who may not have received foster care services. … http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2007/July/07_civ_535.html  The Whistleblower was a Division manager at Maximus; it took guts!

it goes on and on.  This is a DIFFERENT $30+million fraud case — same company:

FORMER MAXIMUS EMPLOYEE INDICTED FOR $32 MILLION FRAUD

August 16, 2007

A federal grand jury has indicted a Alan B. Fabian, a Baltimore corporate executive, over allegedly running a scheme that made $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment.

According to prosecutors, Fabian’s alleged scheme defrauded his former employer, the government consulting company Maximus Inc., as well as an equipment leasing company called Solarcom….Fabian has presented himself as a successful entrepreneur, who started an activity-based cost and information technology consulting company which was later sold to Maximus in 2000. While at Maximus as an executive he supposedly made fraudulent sale-leaseback transactions for purchasing computer hardware and software. Prosecutors allege the equipment was either never purchased or much cheaper products were purchased.

And another, an employee feigning unemployment to get herself enrolled…. commonly called lying… Maximus Employee Pleads Guilty to New Jersey Medicaid Fraud
Submitted by Robin Mathias on Mon, 12/16/2002 – 5:21pm. Fraud Cases | Medicaid Fraud Cases

Rayonne Clark pleaded guilty to Medicaid fraud for her role in fraudulently obtaining admission into the Medical Family Care Program. She worked for Maximus, a contractor hired by New Jersey to assist eligible residents obtain health insurance and other medical benefits. Seven other Maximus employees were also indicted: Ifeanyi Akemelu, Kattia Bermudez, Victor Cordero, Lenora Grant, Iris Sabree, and Akbar Oliver. Clark admitted that she enrolled herself and family members into the Medicaid Family Care Program by providing false applications and personal information. “The investigation determined that the defendant was hired to assist those in desperate need of health insurance. Instead, she abused her position and enrolled herself into programs she was not eligible for,” said Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Greta Gooden Brown. “The defendant withheld the fact that she was gainfully employed to make herself appear in need of assistance.” The Consequences Rayonne Clark will be sentenced in February 2003. She was found guilty of 3rd degree Medicaid fraud, which is punishable by up to five years in state prison and a criminal fine of up to $15,000. The other Maximus employees who were indicted must serve 50 hours of commity service as part of a Pre-trial Intervention Program.
And here they are (2007) getting a big contract to PREVENT Medicaid etc. fraud and abuse, with the State of New York.  Notice the date in re: Above:

09/13/2007 | 06:00 am

Maximus Inc : New York Awards Medicaid Fraud Contract to MAXIMUS

MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS), a leading provider of government consulting services, announced today that it has been awarded a five-year contract with the State of New York, Office of Medicaid Inspector General to provide Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Recovery and Retention consulting services. MAXIMUS will work as a strategic partner with the newly-formed New York State Office of Medicaid Inspector General to assist the State in combating fraud, waste, and abuse in the State’s $45 billion Medicaid Program. MAXIMUS will assist the State in developing and implementing strategies to supplement its efforts to combat Medicaid fraud and abuse. The efforts are expected to improve the efficiency of New York’s Medicaid program and allow them to better serve their citizens.

Well if anyone ought to know about Medicaid fraud and abuse, it ought to be this company…. and finally,

You’ve Got to be Kidding Me!  This blog appears to be dedicated to Maximus’ role in the TN Child Support system, and the post is April 18, 2011.  There are plenty of comments, and it’s a good discussion.

State of Tennessee and Maximus Privatization Contract Largest in United States

I came across this article on Business Wire. The article was written in 2009. The title of the article is MAXIMUS AWARDED 49 MILLION CHILD SUPPORT OPERATIONS CONTRACT IN TENNESSEE. This article is sure to get your biscuits burning, since it hails the Tennessee/Maximus Contract as being the “LARGEST CHILD SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION CONTRACT IN THE U.S.” The most sickening statement comes from one Virginia T. Lodge, who is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services. She states in the article that the renewed contract with Maximus in Shelby County is part of their “primary goal” to ensure that all children throughout the State, especially Memphis and Shelby County, “receive the support to which they are entitled”. Maximus CEO Richard Montoni puts his two-cents into the article, but only to brag about the fact that by signing this contract with Tennessee, it allows Maximus to “build upon its portfolio”. His statements almost made me lose my lunch, since he mentioned nothing about the importance of collections, and only talked about the building of their portfolio and gaining a “market-leading position” in child support collections. This article proves my point about Maximus and their contracts. They are only in this business to gain contracts. After all, 49 million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to put back into the “market”. This simply proves that Maximus could care less about the collections of child support, once they have that contract, they already have THEIR MONEY. Why would they give a rats behind whether or not some poor single mom, or dad, in a town in Tennessee gets their child support payments?

And one of the comments on this:  I think the blog author is a man; another article talks about paternity fraud:

Well, they (Maximus) do have the contract, but their performance has been absolutely atrocious. A couple of the TV stations in Memphis have produced “expose’s” on just how bad their child support collections have been when compared to the rest of the State, the prior years and the prior vendor (Shelby County Juvenile Court). One has to wonder why maximus still has the Shelby contract. Is it the 4 in state lobbyists on their payroll??? None of their competitors for these contracts have in state lobbyists. Why FOUR lobbyists??? Is someone’s palm being greased???? Just wondering why a company performing on a very sub par basis has not been sanctioneed. Hmmmmm???? Does Tennessee Department of Human Services personnel not have eyes in their heads??? Juvenile Court had 242 employees working on child support collections, maximus has nothing close to that number. Was Juvenile Court overstaffed??? … Perhaps, but they had much better collections that maximus. Something bad wrong with this situation … very bad wrong!

(I have seen large contracts to Maximus in various states, still, despite all this.  Makes me wonder sometimes, how much it relates to “birds of a feather fly together.”)

And that was just a sampler of the articles on this corporation…  A nuclear physicist claims his life was destroyed, they couldn’t get mistaken orders corrected;   I am wondering as an American (USA), what we are doing having an internationally-connected company deal with USgovernment services.  Well, here’s a Canadian person wondering about confidentiality issues now that his country has given a health care contract to an American company.  A logo, for some visual relief:

Our Opinions, Thoughts, & Ideas*    {{*at least the person qualifies it as opinions.  That’s a far cry from the fatherhood theorists. or many custody evaluators…..}}

ARE CANADIAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS  HANDING OVER YOUR PERSONAL/MEDICAL  INFORMATION TO CORPORATIONS?

From my own reading, research and listening to alternative talk radio, I am, like so many others, fed up of being referred to by family and friends as a conspiracy “theorist”, when the facts to back up the reality, that we are rapidly descending into a global fascist tyranny, are everywhere, for anyone who cares to open their eyes.

(Lets Get Honest just has to interject . . . . .. )

Bronze Fasces

The word “fascist” is at root binding of separate strands to make a stronger whole:  the fasces — there are  Bronze “Fasces” in US House of Representatives — it represents the binding of the various individual states into a federal government, making it stronger (link contains explanation/photo courtesy Office of the Clerk).  what is beginning to happen again — enabled by technology / internet — is that this “fasces” is literally becoming the strong, bound branches of US governmt (designed to be separate, originally) into an impenetrable (almost) unified whole such that individuals in the various states cannot stand up to it alone.  The symbol was in conscious reference to Republican Rome.  Well, Rome later became a dictatorship, an empire, also.  This URL summarizes the years 28 – 23 (BC):

8 The Senate, its numbers already somewhat reduced by Octavian, grants him the title of Princeps Senatus. Census held by Octavian and Agrippa. Mausoleum of Augustus begun. 27 January 13, Octavian makes the gesture of returning command of the state to the Senate and the people of Rome, receiving in return vast provinces and most of the army as his own. Three days later the Senate confers on him great powers, numerous honors, and the title of Augustus 27-25 Augustus directs the final subjugation of Spain and the administrative reorganization of Spain and Gaul 23 The Senate grants Augustus the titles and powers of Imperium proconsulare maius and tribunicia potestas for life, thereby turning over to him complete control of the State and ending the Roman Republic

Probably happened already here, or just about….  Back to our Canadian friend, astonished that his/her private health information might end up in the hands of a US corporation and thus subject to the US Patriot act, allowing snooping without warrants into company’s records ,and forbids the company from revealing that its records have indeed been snooped upon.  This writer goes on to note that many of Maximus’ leaders came from the Pentagon, or military backgrounds:

(After naming several entities. . . . . ):

On and on it goes in ties between Maximus and the US military industrial complex. Very little of their military background seems especially suited to the task of managing storage and dissemination of health and pharmaceutical records of BC residents. They are instead more suited to services like surveillance, monitoring, and tracking of individuals-exactly the sort of thing the government says is its priority to avoid.

“It is the Patriot Act that turns all information management companies working in the US into de facto arms of the sprawling US intelligence gathering monolith.”

Hmmm…..

As a senior, I was appalled to learn recently of the BC Government’s decision to award a ten year contract to outsource the administration of the BC Medical Plan and Pharmacare to a private, for profit, American corporation, and the implications of such to sovereign Canadians.

Wanting to understand fully the implications of this outsourcing, I began in late December by calling my local BC member of the legislature’s office. I asked the assistant who answered my call, was it true that my private medical information was to be handled by a private American corporation, to which she answered “yes.” . . . .

This information is compiled from searches of 3,000 of 21,200 links listed on Google, and 2,000 of 13,100 links on Yahoo for the term “Maximus Inc“.

!  That’s one motivated (or retired / unemployed  / alarmed) person! to do 5,000 searches on one company.

I urge you to do further research on this company, and perhaps all of the companies mentioned herein. Here goes.

ARE CANADIAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS HANDING OVER YOUR PERSONAL/MEDICAL INFORMATION TO PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, CORPORATIONS OF THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?

Beginning at the B.C. Medical Plan Services web site: http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/msp/ which states:

“The Province is moving to modernize and improve the administration of MSP and PharmaCare, and to enhance the timeliness and quality of service to the public and health professionals. After a year-long procurement process, MAXIMUS BC has been selected to provide program management and information technology services to government. This will help to improve B.C.’s health benefits operations services, which include responding to public inquiries, registering clients, and processing medical and pharmaceutical claims from health professionals. Direct health care services to patients are not involved. Under the 10-year, $324 million contract, the operations will remain in Victoria.

“Operations will remain in Victoria” seems to refer to the fact that this giant swallowed up a Canadian company:

MAXIMUS Canada was incorporated in 2002 when it bought THEMIS Program Management & Consulting Limited, the Victoria-based company that has delivered the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General since 1988.”

MAXIMUS just bought ’em out. .. .

We are on the edge of a new and frightening era in which surveillance of citizens by governments and their private-sector partners could become the dominant reality of our society in other words, an era in which Orwell’s “Big Brother” vision could actually be realized. Whether or not we go over that edge and create what has been called a “surveillance society” will depend on how willing citizens are to draw a line and say “no further” to government attempts to probe into and record the facts of our private lives, said Darrell Evans, Executive Director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.”

SERIES “90FD” GRANTS TO THE STATES FOR

RESEARCH, DEMONSTRATION, HEALTHY MARRIAGE, YOU NAME IT….

An exhibit of the many uses to which child support funds can be put, with a little creativity.  Just calling attention to a grant series that caught my eye in one state’s stupendous OCSE enforcement bill.

INTRO — the continued growth of child support* and emotional involvement of fathers, @ Texas Attorney General’s Office.

*aka “Don’t Fence Me In” (=AUDIO link) to actually collecting child support with a view to distributing it to children…

Required reading for this post — the whole post, here, and if you’re into it, I also added some comments.  The post mentions the “Section 1115” grants we’ll see below.

Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support

(source:  Randi James blog)
I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychology pseudoscience and court litigation.Well, who is Michael Hayes?I’m glad you asked.

. . . after a brief chart (Here’s the 2008 section of OCSE grants to the Texas Office of Attorney General — which is who handles Child Support in Texas):

2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008 OCSE $ 157,717,616
2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 2008 SAVP $ 687,405
2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER $ 703,000
2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) $ 60,000
2008 ACF TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
$ 25,000

(Obviously this little “$ 25,000” escaped its box and belongs in the bottom right of the chart above. I don’t feel like fighting wordpress over this tonight.).  Notice the variety of grants? The OCSE — $157,717,616 was just to collect or enforce child support.  SAVP is access visitation funding (mentioned below, and I mention it MOST posts), then there is a 1115 Waiver, whatever that is, and then a “section 1115 (PA-3)” and last, just in case we missed something, $25,000 for “Special Improvement” as opposed to regular enforcement, increasing access of noncustodial parents to their kids by farming the out to parenting education, counseling and supervised visitation (and thereby encouraging or enabling noncustodial parents to get their act together and actually pay support) etc. It took me a while, but I finally figured out (as it occurse below and above) that “PA-3” stands for “Priority Area 3″ probably indicating the OCSE is getting ready to pilot some other project and then go nationwide with it based on the fact that their own reviews of the pilot were positive.  this is how we became a ‘research and demonstration nation.” more from Randi James’ post, here, quoting Mr. Hayes:

The current national child support enforcement strategic plan (for 2005 – 2009) clearly describes this emphasis on both emotional and financial support and the involvement of both parents. 

I also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP {Special Improvement Program} grants have had for the evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.

Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.

OK, NOW THIS CHART  — This section here is a small sector – SELECTED:  I had noticed a certain grant series with the letters 90FD in them, on TAGGS.HHS.GOV “Search Awards” — I did not select year, state, or almost anything except two program categories:  94563 (Child Support Enforcement) and 93562 (Child Support Research).   This produced a printout below: (it’d be better to view, Selecting & choosing the columns below (and/or others) under “Awards Search” –because of the clickable  links, but this is a sample). These are 406 records, alpha by state as you can see.   Use the scroll bar, notice how some are Healthy Marriage, some are Fatherhood, some are “Noncustodail” (mis-spelled).    The Action issue date keeps the chrono, and while the amounts are small — what is being demonstrated?  What’s the benefit?  Also, I notice in various states, different agencies are getting these grants (enforcing Child Support?) — anyone want to tell me why in OHIO, that’s 3 different entities?   Would this, perhaps have anything to do with the Commission on Fatherhood, legislatively created in about 2001?

Grantee Name

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

AcT’n Issue Date

CFDA Number

Award Activity Type

Award AcT’n Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of AcT’ns

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/29/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

GLENDA STRAUBE 

$63,063

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$63,063

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

02/23/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$63,063

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

05/16/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

05/12/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

-$6,054

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA 

1

09/17/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

BARBARA MIKLOS 

$30,491

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA 

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$30,491

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA 

2

02/04/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA 

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$30,491

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLA 

3

05/18/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AZ ST DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY 

90FD0065 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN L CLAYTON 

$99,596

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORC 

1

09/19/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PEGGY JENSEN 

$72,500

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PEGGY JENSEN 

$72,500

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST 

3

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PEGGY JENSEN 

$72,500

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMT SYST 

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PEGGY JENSEN 

-$73,983

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0047 

OCSE – 1115 DEMOS – URBAN HISPANIC OUTREACH PROJECT 

1

09/13/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

RICHARD A WILLIAMS 

$50,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0083 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

09/15/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LEORA GERSHENZON 

$60,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

08/24/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

DANIEL LOUIS 

$150,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

2

09/19/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DANIEL LOUIS 

$75,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

2

08/29/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

LESLIE CARMONA 

$0

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

3

09/09/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LESLIE CARMONA 

$75,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

3

10/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KATHY HREPICH 

$0

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0158 

SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORAT’n 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MR BILL OTTERBECK 

$29,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 

1

09/16/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$72,500

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$72,092

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 

2

02/11/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAULINE BURTON 

$0

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$72,500

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0028 

NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$75,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0028 

NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAULINE BURTON 

-$75,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0069 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$100,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0080 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/10/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$55,023

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0080 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/17/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$80,108

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0080 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/01/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$64,869

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0096 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/14/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$125,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

1

07/12/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$114,741

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DAN WELCH 

$174,845

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

3

07/31/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DAN WELCH 

$125,579

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

3

04/30/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DAN WELCH 

$0

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$99,815

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 

2

08/28/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$74,998

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 

3

07/20/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$49,923

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 

3

04/27/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOHN BERNHART 

$0

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0132 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$30,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0166 

PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS 

1

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$52,443

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0168 

TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$84,783

CO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0033 

COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$80,000

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0005 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN FORD 

$66,862

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0005 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL 

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DIANE M FRAY 

$66,862

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0005 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILDSUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COL 

3

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DIANE M FRAY 

$66,862

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0037 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration, SECT’n 1115 

1

09/01/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DIANE M FRAY 

$50,000

DC DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

1

09/01/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CORY CHANDLER 

$135,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0072 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOE PERRY 

$52,525

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0072 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 

1

02/16/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JOE PERRY 

-$31,189

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0072 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 

1

09/21/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JOE PERRY 

$0

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0100 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/20/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LYNNE FENDER 

$86,574

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

1

08/28/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CORY CHANDLER 

-$135,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

1

10/12/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CORY CHANDLER 

$135,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

2

09/27/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CORY CHANDLER 

$65,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CORY CHANDLER 

$60,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

07/14/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TANYA JONES BOSIER 

$50,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

08/28/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TANYA JONES BOSIER 

$37,500

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

06/07/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TANYA JONES BOSIER 

$0

DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0091 

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1

09/22/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ART E CALDWELL 

$50,000

DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0091 

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

2

09/15/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ART E CALDWELL 

$50,000

DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0091 

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

2

09/29/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ART E CALDWELL 

$0

DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY 

90FD0040 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration SECT’n 1115 

1

08/31/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ANNMARIE MENA 

$50,000

DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY 

90FD0112 

DEVELOP & IMPLEMENT A WEB BASED ARREARS CALCULA TOOL THAT WOULD ALLOW COURTS, .. 

1

06/28/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LEONA HODGES 

$120,000

DEPT of Children and Families 

90FD0159 

ENHANCING THE CHILD SUPPORT POLICY KNOWLEDGE OF TANF-ELIGIBLE FAMILIES AND TANF CASEWORKERS: A COLLABORATIVE STRATEGY FO 

1

09/20/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RON HUNT 

$99,985

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0098 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

09/14/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NANCY LUJA 

$99,853

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0099 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

09/20/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

VELVA MOSHER-KNAPP 

$124,144

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

HEATHER J SAUN 

$14,619

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

2

09/19/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$12,202

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

2

02/25/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

3

09/01/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$12,202

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

3

02/08/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

1

11/23/2009 

93564

OTHER 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

PATRICIA CLARK 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

1

08/26/2010 

93564

OTHER 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

PATRICIA CLARK 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

2

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICIA CLARK 

$13,237

Florida DEPT of Revenue 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

1

09/19/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

PATRICIA CLARK 

$16,713

Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen 

90FD0165 

NON-CONVENT’nAL SEARCH & IDENTIFICAT’n OF DELINQUENT PARENTS 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

SHARON KERI 

$97,872

Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen 

90FD0173 

CHILD SUPPORT AND ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE COLLABORAT’n 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MARILYN MILES 

$60,363

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0090 

GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

1

08/27/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RUSSELL EASTMAN 

$125,000

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0101 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

1

09/16/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RONNIE BATES 

$43,000

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0156 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RUSSELL EASTMAN 

$99,000

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0156 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

01/28/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

RUSSELL EASTMAN 

-$55,500

HI ST DEPT of VOCAT’nAL EDUCAT’n 

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

06/30/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JAN IKEI 

$108,400

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT 

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

07/27/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JAN IKEI 

$108,400

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT 

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

05/07/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE 

$0

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT 

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE 

$108,400

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT 

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

03/27/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SHERI WANG 

$0

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT 

90FD0133 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 

1

11/13/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

MS SHERI WANG 

$0

HI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM 

90FD0133 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MS SHERI WANG 

$30,000

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0086 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

1

08/27/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JEANNE NESBIT 

$58,000

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0086 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

1

05/04/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JEANNE NESBIT 

-$2,205

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0093 

IOWA DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/02/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL EATON 

$29,000

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0130 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LORI WETLAUFER 

$30,000

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LOIS RAKOV 

$63,318

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

2

08/28/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LOIS RAKOV 

$64,000

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

2

03/09/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LOIS RAKOV 

$0

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LOIS RAKOV 

$64,000

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

PRIORITY AREA 1.30A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

3

05/05/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LOIS RAKOV 

$0

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0007 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/29/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBERT LYONS 

$56,145

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0007 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

10/06/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ROBERT LYONS 

-$56,145

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0057 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOSEPH MASON 

$193,268

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0075 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN J BOYCE 

$100,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0076 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 3 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

THELZEDA MOORE 

$100,000

Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services 

90FD0144 

LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

HAROLD B COLEMAN 

$50,000

Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services 

90FD0144 

LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/06/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

HAROLD B COLEMAN 

$50,000

KS ST REHABILITAT’n SERVICES 

90FD0068 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JAMES A ROBERTSON 

$59,558

KY ST HUMAN RESOURCES CABINET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

90FD0149 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT RESEARCH 

1

09/23/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVEN P VENO 

$45,295

Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services 

90FD0145 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KELLY POTTER 

$15,272

Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services 

90FD0145 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MONICA REMILLARD 

$14,946

LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

09/01/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$49,981

LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$0

LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

03/19/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$0

LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

09/21/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$37,445

LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

05/05/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$0

LA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE 

90FD0160 

PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$99,570

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMIH 

$72,500

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$72,500

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT 

3

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$72,500

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMT 

3

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$3,706

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOME 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMIH 

$34,078

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$64,355

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI 

2

02/04/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI 

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$80,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REQ. & PREV DOMESTIC VIOLI 

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$2,045

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0030 

ENHANCING INTER-AGENCY COLLABORAT’n & CLIENT COOPERAT’n IN MASS. 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$80,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0030 

ENHANCING INTER-AGENCY COLLABORAT’n & CLIENT COOPERAT’n IN MASS. 

1

04/13/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$16

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0049 

OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT 

1

02/16/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$3,019

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0049 

OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT 

1

09/21/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0067 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 4 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$100,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0067 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 4 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$6,479

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0094 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS – PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

09/18/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PUAL CRONIN 

$100,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0141 

FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 

2

01/24/2011 

93564

OTHER 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0157 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN RAY SMITH 

$100,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0162 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KAREN MELKONIA 

$38,060

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF E 

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DENESE F MAKER 

$78,677

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DENESE F MAKER 

$79,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT 

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DENESE F MAKER 

$78,677

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT 

3

11/10/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

DENESE F MAKER 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT OF ENFORCEMT 

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

DENESE F MAKER 

-$2,045

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0011 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR 

1

09/09/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN 

$22,030

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0011 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR 

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN 

$20,200

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0011 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT CHILDCARE, & HEAD START COLLABOR 

3

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN 

$20,200

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0034 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TERESA L KAISER 

$127,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0034 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

TERESA L KAISER 

-$50,677

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0066 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT- P.A. 4 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TERESA L KAISER 

$100,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE 

3

07/27/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$102,414

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE 

3

01/11/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0116 

PROJECT FRESH START 

1

08/24/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOSEPH A JACKINS 

$135,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0116 

PROJECT FRESH START 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$64,998

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0116 

PROJECT FRESH START 

2

05/08/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SARAH BRICE 

$150,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

2

07/18/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$100,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

2

03/05/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

2

05/11/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

3

08/31/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$74,706

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

3

05/20/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0154 

PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHNNY RICE 

$99,962

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0164 

EXCELLENCE THROUGH EVALUAT’n: ASSESSING ADDRESSING AND ACHIEVING – AN ENHANCED PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN MARYLAND???S 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SARAH BRICE 

$267,063

MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0041 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKER CERTIFICAT’n IMPLEMENTAT’n PROGRAM 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TERESA KAISER 

$49,979

MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIV

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

BRIAN D SHEA 

$105,562

MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE 

2

07/27/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BRIAN D SHEA 

$102,421

ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS 

90FD0009 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDER

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$67,294

ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS 

90FD0009 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$67,000

ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS 

90FD0009 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

3

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$67,002

MI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, BUREAU OF MGNT & BUDGET 

90FD0170 

REACH-REFERRAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSET DEVELOPMENT, COOPERAT’n, AND HOPE 

1

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$85,000

MN DEPT of HEALTH 

90FD0048 

SECT’n 1115 OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$50,000

MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0042 

SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$50,000

MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0045 

SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR 

1

09/09/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$59,606

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$96,570

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR 

2

01/20/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LAURA KADWELL 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – STATE APPROACHES – NONCOOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIR 

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$96,570

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0015 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/22/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$29,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/22/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$46,110

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

2

08/28/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$46,110

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LAURA KADWELL 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$46,110

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LAURA KADWELL 

-$38

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0059 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT (PRIORITY AREA II) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DENNIS ALBRECHT 

$65,250

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0071 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DENNIS ALBRECHT 

$43,500

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0089 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

1

09/23/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

WAYLAND CAMPBELL 

$43,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

1

09/11/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$100,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

09/07/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$75,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

05/05/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

04/08/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

3

09/26/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

3

04/27/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0140 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

PATRICK M KRAUTH 

$78,735

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0140 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JILL C ROBERTS 

$75,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0140 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS 

2

06/02/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JILL C ROBERTS 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0147 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

MOLLY CRAWFORD 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0147 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

SOCIAL SERVICES 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MOLLY CRAWFORD 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0147 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 

2

04/06/2011 

93564

SOCIAL SERVICES 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MOLLY CRAWFORD 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARL BLANCHETTE 

$38,896

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$39,539

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY BURKS 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY 

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$24,190

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT SY 

3

08/18/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CINDY BURKS 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0018 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARL BLANCHETTE 

$29,015

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0018 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKE 

$29,015

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0018 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03A – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT, CHILD CARE & HEAD START COLLABO 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

DORIS HALLFORD 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. 

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARL BLANCHETTE 

$43,738

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$51,282

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY BURKS 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

PRIORITY AREA 1.02 – COOPERAT’n WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS & PREVENT. DOM. 

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$27,817

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0062 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

GARY BAILEY 

$192,607

MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV 

90FD0036 

A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA 

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ANN STEFFENS 

$50,000

MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV 

90FD0036 

A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ANN STEFFENS 

-$925

Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services 

90FD0043 

SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$50,000

Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services 

90FD0044 

PHASE II: MAINE’S NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OUTREACH & INVESTIGAT’n PROJEC

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

 

$84,640

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$60,000

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n 

2

05/22/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$0

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n 

2

01/22/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$0

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n 

3

09/02/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$60,000

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n 

3

01/25/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$0

ND ST Office of the Governor 

90FD0118 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration/PRIORITY AREA 3 CHILD WELFARE COLLABORAT’n 

1

08/28/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$75,000

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0097 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

09/14/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARGARET J EWING 

$72,466

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

1

08/24/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NANCY MONTANEZ 

$51,005

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR SCOT ADAMS 

$48,487

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

2

04/08/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MARGARET EWING 

$0

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

3

08/31/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARGARET EWING 

$50,269

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0020 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/22/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARY WEATHERILL 

$24,928

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0020 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

08/28/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

NEAL BOUTIN 

$24,928

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0020 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

NEAL BOUTIN 

$24,931

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0070 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

THOMAS PRYOR 

$44,868

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0038 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES DEMONNSTRAT’n, SECT’n 1115 

1

08/31/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$50,000

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0060 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$127,600

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0122 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

2

08/26/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$78,852

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0122 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

3

09/19/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$71,797

NJ ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0122 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

08/24/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$150,000

NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0055 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

HELEN NELSON 

$217,667

NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0055 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

HELEN NELSON 

-$217,667

NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0136 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CYNTHIA D FISHER 

$99,320

NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0136 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CYNTHIA D FISHER 

$74,671

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/16/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBERT DOAR 

$187,640

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ROBERT DOAR 

$188,000

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ROBERT DOAR 

$0

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

09/24/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ROBERT DOAR 

-$375,640

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0142 

OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

12/10/2009 

93564

OTHER 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

ATHENA RILEY 

$0

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0142 

OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ATHENA RILEY 

$50,000

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0152 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

12/10/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

CARRI BROWN 

$0

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0155 

PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE SUDDEN AND PROLONGED EFFECT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON IV CASELOA 

1

09/23/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARRI BROWN 

$60,000

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0174 

OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT’n WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU 

1

09/24/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

ATHENA RILEY 

$85,000

OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0142 

OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CARRI BROWN 

$50,000

OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0152 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARRI BROWN 

$104,663

OH STATE SEC. OF STATE 

90FD0095 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/18/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARRI L BROWN 

$50,000

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE 

1

02/27/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

-$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDE 

2

02/27/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

-$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0084 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

09/01/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

HARRY BENSON 

$79,750

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0084 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

02/16/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ANTHONY L JACKSON 

-$79,750

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0146 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$31,708

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0146 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$30,300

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0146 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

04/07/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TERY DESHONG 

$0

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0151 

PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE SUDDEN AND PROLONGED EFFECT OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN ON IV CASELOA 

1

09/23/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MS KATHERINE MCRAE 

$36,681

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0163 

1115 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT MEDICAL REFORM STRATEGY PROGRAM 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$37,728

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0167 

GET PAID! COLLABORATE TO COLLECT 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

ANTHONY JACKSON 

$100,000

OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE 

90FD0135 

EMPLOYER PORTAL 

1

08/30/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

BECKY L HAMMER 

$87,483

OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE 

90FD0135 

EMPLOYER PORTAL 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BECKY L HAMMER 

$61,347

OR ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES, ADULT & FAMILY SVCS DIV 

90FD0023 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

SHIRLEY IVERSON 

$72,500

OR ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES, ADULT & FAMILY SVCS DIV 

90FD0023 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 

1

04/05/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

SHIRLEY IVERSON 

-$72,500

PR ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT 

90FD0046 

SECT’n 1115 

1

08/30/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MIGUEL A VERDIALES 

$145,000

RI ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0153 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SHARON A SANTILLI,ESQUIRE 

$105,000

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0024 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE 

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

BOB BRADFORD 

$17,998

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0024 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE 

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL THIGPEN 

$14,835

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0024 

PRIORITY AREA 1.03B – CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT COLLABORAT’n WITH CHILD WELFARE 

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL THIGPEN 

$15,050

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0056 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

R. ROSS JOLLY 

$106,801

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

1

09/08/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARK JASONOWICZ 

$145,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

2

09/18/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$145,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

2

01/19/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

3

09/15/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$145,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

3

02/07/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

3

11/22/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0150 

CHILD SUPPORT PROJECTS TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$103,221

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0161 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL CHILD SUPPORT STRATEGIES 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

PAMELA G MCKEE 

$50,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0170 

REACH-REFERRAL FOR EMPLOYMENT, ASSET DEVELOPMENT, COOPERAT’n, AND HOPE 

1

01/07/2011 

93564

OTHER 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUT’n / AWARDING INSTITUT’n 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF TENNESSEE 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$82,853

State of Louisiana, DEPT of Social Services 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$59,983

TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

07/20/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$108,112

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0077 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 

1

08/26/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$60,000

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0102 

TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/16/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LINDA CHAPPELL 

$62,300

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$101,427

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

07/27/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$100,688

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

03/06/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

02/24/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$54,612

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

08/09/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$52,034

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

07/12/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

05/13/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/01/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$50,000

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

05/18/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0139 

FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$100,000

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0139 

FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$71,240

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0139 

FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 

2

03/14/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0148 

TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$49,300

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0148 

TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$49,300

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0148 

TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

03/14/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0171 

BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$85,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0052 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

WILLIAM H ROGERS 

$105,254

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0052 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

WILLIAM H ROGERS 

-$8,058

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0064 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CYNTHIA BRYANT 

$71,630

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0073 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0073 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-P.A. 2 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MICHAEL HAYES 

-$6,976

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0078 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5 

1

08/26/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$80,040

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0085 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 

1

08/26/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$60,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

08/29/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

WILL ROGERS 

$196,555

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/27/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICIA CAFFERATA 

$196,555

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

01/08/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KAREN HENSON 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

08/16/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

KAREN HENSON 

$196,555

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0092 

TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

1

09/09/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL D HAYES 

$125,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

07/27/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$108,400

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

03/19/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

06/26/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

07/31/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$108,400

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

06/27/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

1

08/29/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

HAILEY KEMP 

$60,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

2

08/11/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TED WHITE 

$60,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

3

09/01/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TED WHITE 

$50,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

3

03/30/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TED WHITE 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0134 

OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER 

1

09/29/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$703,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0137 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 

1

08/16/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

KAMMI SIEMENS 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0137 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 

2

09/07/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$75,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0137 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 

2

01/13/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0169 

URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$85,000

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

90FD0049 

OCSE DEMOS – FATHERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORAT’n BETWEEN CHILD SUPPORT 

1

08/31/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$167,748

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

90FD0141 

FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$99,348

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

90FD0141 

FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 

2

09/19/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$75,000

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

1

09/01/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$150,000

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$75,000

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

2

08/10/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOHN BERNHART 

$0

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

2

06/15/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOHN BERNHART 

$0

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

3

08/31/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$75,000

UT ST DIV OF AGING 

90FD0104 

UTAH DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARK BRASHER 

$120,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0029 

NEW APPROACH TO COLLECTING ARREARS 

1

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$96,396

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0032 

INCREASING THE COLLECT’n RATE FOR COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$80,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0050 

SHARED PARTNERSHIP: INCREASING EFFECTIVENESS LOCATING NCP’S & ASSETS WITH ON-LIN 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$70,265

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0051 

SECT’n 1115 

1

08/30/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$50,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0063 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG, JR. 

$100,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0074 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL YOUNG 

$150,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0074 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

NATHANIEL YOUNG 

-$6,421

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

08/29/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. 

$200,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/17/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD W ARESON 

$200,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/22/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TODD W ARESON 

$0

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/15/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD W ARESON 

$200,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/22/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TODD W ARESON 

$0

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0087 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 5 

1

08/27/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. 

$81,000

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JEFF COHEN 

$72,500

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JEFFERY COHEN 

$72,500

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

2

01/27/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JEFFERY COHEN 

$0

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING & ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JEFFERY COHEN 

$72,500

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JEFF COHEN 

$199,941

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

$199,941

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/08/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

$0

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

-$42,007

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

OCSE – SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/12/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

$199,941

VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0106 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

06/29/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBERT B BUTTS 

$118,607

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0027 

DETERMININGTHE C0MPOSIT’n AND COLLECTIBILITY OF ARREARAGES 

1

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$75,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0031 

EXEMPLARY COLLECT’n PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ELLEN NOLAN 

$80,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0031 

EXEMPLARY COLLECT’n PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY 

1

03/12/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ELLEN NOLAN 

-$47,987

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0035 

A STUDY OF WASHINGTON CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$50,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0079 

DEMON. AND EVAL. OF CENTRALIZED MEDICAL SUPPORT ENFORCEMT 

1

09/10/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVE STRAUSS 

$80,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$60,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

08/13/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$60,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

09/20/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$50,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

01/21/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0131 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/24/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$30,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0172 

BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES 

1

09/26/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MICHAEL HORN 

$85,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$200,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

08/31/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$200,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/12/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$200,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

03/22/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$91,381

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

2

11/06/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

3

07/31/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$91,390

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

3

05/26/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0138 

FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$100,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0138 

FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE 

2

09/02/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL HORN 

$75,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0138 

FOCUS ON THE CHILD: FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN WASHINGTON STATE 

2

02/08/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH KOLLIN 

$0

WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$108,400

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN 

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

RONI HARPER 

$72,500

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SUSAN MATHISON 

$72,500

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN 

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SUSAN MATHISON 

$72,500

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELAT’nSHIP TO THE SUPPORT EN 

3

06/30/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SUSAN MATHISON 

$0

WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TODD KUMMER 

$166,619

WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAUL SAEMAN 

$175,871

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

02/04/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAUL SAEMAN 

$0

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/23/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAUL SAEMAN 

$172,724

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

1

07/11/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SUE KINAS 

$108,400

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

TODD KUMMER 

$0

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD KUMMER 

$108,400

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

3

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD KUMMER 

$108,400

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

3

07/07/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TODD KUMMER 

$0

WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0039 

“PARENTHOOD AND YOU” (PAY) 

1

09/05/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

SUSAN HARRAH 

$50,000

WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0103 

WV DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/22/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ELIZABETH JORDAN 

$43,000

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NANCY Q ROBERTS 

$124,993

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

HOLLY CLARK 

-$4,377

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOANNE MADRID 

$102,511

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

10/01/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

HOLLY CLARK 

$0

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

HOLLY CLARK 

-$11,272

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/23/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOANNE VERMEULEN 

                               $ 71,967

~ ~ ~ (TOTAL — per my export to Excel and using the “sum” function — is over $22 million — a spit in the bucket to the larger system, is over $22,000,000. For a contrast, the Florida (only) Dept. of Revenue HHS grants for child support (all categories, not sorted by year) shows as:  $ 2,213,325,477:  two billion, two hundred thirteen million, etc.   This is what caught my eye. Did you notice Maryland, “Baltimore Healthy Marriages” — if only marriage were healthier, maybe there’d be fewer poor people on welfare…. (?) Indiana I didn’t see anything catch my eye, but I already know their Child Services Dept. not Child Support, but Child Services — got to serve the whole child, right? — on the page referring to child SUPPORT links straight out to Fathers and Families and recommends it apply for a grant.  One can hardly distinguish the two.  And Indiana is ALREADY fatherhood land, through Evan Bayh (jr.) and many more entitities. I would bet that most of these projects are labeled “Discretionary.”  At any rate, one can see the variety of Institutions getting them, and perhaps the investigators backgrounds may or may not be interesting (Mr. Hayes sure was, I found him conferencing up in MN with a Fatherhood Summit, fascinating — as with the increasing success of the “parental alienation” theory in custody-switching, more and more MOTHERS are going to be the noncustodial parents and subject to a child support order, wage garnishment, etc.  I know one Mom like that, presently, who was made homeless while working FT, and a DV survivor too.  Fancy that. So how will it work for the mothers when the entire structure, mammoth in scale — has been geared to fathers on the basis that the courts are biased towards Moms and theres a fatherlessness crisis in the land which child support system could fix?

Section 1115″ of the Social Security Act: Means, “Let’s Demonstrate!”

SSA logo: link to Social Security Online home

(a)

Sec. 1115. [42 U.S.C. 1315](a) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I, X, XIV, XVI, or XIX, or part A or D of title IV, in a State or States—

Hence the term flying around in our custody, divorce, child support circles, “TITLE IV-D” — which kicks in a different set of standards (and removes some protections) for example, if a person leaving domestic violence has to resort to welfare in any form.  This becomes a “Title IV-D” case up front and is flagged, from what I understand, for potentially different treatment — IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY IN THE CUSTODY PROCESS. WHY — because other funds can be freed up.  For example, funds in this particular divorce or separation to promote healthy marriage… Note:  one person — the Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (I think, as I read this) — has the discretion to justify projects that do not have to ACTUALLY assist Title IV-D purposes, but in this ONE PERSON’S judgment, be LIKELY to.  No wonder the place is full of demonstration experiments.

(1) the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 24024541002,14021602, or 1902, as the case may be, to the extent and for the period he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry out such project, and

The current Secretary of Health and Human Services is a woman…. with power by this Section to waive the lawfor demonstration projects.  Kind of sounds like kingly (queenly) powers, doesn’t it?  Is the public notified how often, how much, and why these laws are waived?  (The grants lookups gives a clue as do other publications).

(2)(A) costs of such project which would not otherwise be included as expenditures under section 3,45510031403, 1603, or 1903, as the case may be, and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110, shall, to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as expenditures under the State plan or plans approved under such title, or for administration of such State plan or plans, as may be appropriate, and

Permission granted to Secretary to knight certain expenditures as crusade-worthy and bill the public. Just trust us, it’s a good idea, or likely to be a good idea.

(B) costs of such project which would not otherwise be a permissable use of funds under part A of title IV and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110, shall to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as a permissable use of funds under such part.

Permission granted to the Secretary to alter perceptions of project costs.

In addition, not to exceed $4,000,000 of the aggregate amount appropriated for payments to States under such titles for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1967, shall be available, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may establish, for payments to States to cover so much of the cost of such projects as is not covered by payments under such titles and is not included as part of the cost of projects for purposes of section 1110.

Permission granted to the Secretary to add up to $4 million aggregate (per project?  Per year?) just in case previous mind-bending, law-bending 1115 exceptsion weren’t quite enough.  I imagine “payments” means, up-front? because in most projects, for the rest of us contractors, costs come later, or are billed at the end of the project after a certain amount down.

(b)

(b) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project undertaken under subsection (a) to assist in promoting the objectives of part D of title IV, the project— (1) must be designed to improve the financial well-being of children or otherwise improve the operation of the child support program; (2) may not permit modifications in the child support program which would have the effect of disadvantaging children in need of support; and (3) must not result in increased cost to the Federal Government under part A of such title.

WELL, who is going to see that (b) (1-3) is adhered to, as most people are too stressed to even know that these projects are taking place, and what impact it has had on the target, pilot, demonstrated upon population?  It’s a lucky person who happens to notice they are in place, outside of the professions involved in demonstrating (etc.).There’s anecdotal evidence in the form of newspaper headlines and other protest movements that some of this fatherhood agenda is getting kids killed and keeping them in the custody of batterers (convicted) and molesters (convicted), they are experiencing abduction, and in some cases child support and contact with the other (originally caretaking) parent is totally eliminated.  However section (b) doesn’t say it actually HAS to improve the financial well-being of the children, just that it must “be designed” (in the opinion of one person — the Secretary of the HHS, when you look at who approves it) to do so. Perhaps there is some leeway here for upstanding and alert citizens to protest some of the more egregious SECTION 1115 PROJECTS above…  Although they are small compared to the total enforcement costs — what are they being used for?

(c)(1)(A) The Secretary shall enter into agreements with up to 8 States submitting applications under this subsection for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects in such States to test and evaluate the use, with respect to individuals who received aid under part A of title IV in the preceding month (on the basis of the unemployment of the parent who is the principal earner), of a number greater than 100 for the number of hours per month that such individuals may work and still be considered to be unemployed for purposes of section 407.If any State submits an application under this subsection for the purpose of conducting a demonstration project to test and evaluate the total elimination of the 100-hour rule, the Secretary shall approve at least one such application.

The entire welfare system is based on a concept of the 40-hour week as a means to financial well-being, even though the wealthiest people in the country, while they may work 40 hrs a week or more, if they love their work (or have chosen to run businesses, or a business, that requires this) do not HAVE to.  This is why they have time to run around and make sure the rest of society is occupied with the 40 hour week standard.  School is based on this general concept too — quantity versus quality and efficiency.  Crowd control.  Perhaps this is why we have such masses of peasants, etc. that need to be managed — because they are viewed and treated as unable to manage their own lives, direct their futures, LEARN significant things, and achieve beyond middle management level in life. So, the goal is to see if the 100 hour rule can be totally eliminated?   This section is a little unclear, the reasoning that was behind it.  Perhaps I haven’t spent enough months or years on welfare to understand this fully.  I DO understand the concept of hours spent waiting in lines at government offices of all sorts. The 2nd “shall” seems to mean that if not even 1 state came up with a decent plan (unlikely, but if this were so), the Secretary had to approve at least one, anyhow.

(B) If any State with an agreement under this subsection so requests, the demonstration project conducted pursuant to such agreement may test and evaluate the complete elimination of the 100-hour rule and of any other durational standard that might be applied in defining unemployment for purposes of determining eligibility under section 407.

Sounds like when unemployment figures are circulated in the newspapers, these may not be included — people being demonstrated upon and participating in special projects proposed by states, and baptized by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources (IF I’ve named the right Secretary – if not, it would be some other single person over a huge dept.) — so the figures are actually higher than reported if so. New Deal, much?  All of us must pay for the projects of some of us.  This is called Taxation, but not exactly representation.   It’s not so much the amounts (relative to the CSE enforcement budget) but the principle, and the fact that it’s acceptable to demonstrate simply because people got a Title IV-D status at any point in their lives, or were born into such a household. In the case of Child Support system, it has already been declared by the past three (male) presidents that FATHERHOOD is the thing, and worthy of investment.  So of the approximately half the population  (females are 50+% of the US) existing here, and paying taxes here (of the working population, I imagine that’s safe to say.  How many stay at home 100% of the time Moms are around any more?) — of that %, we are paying for projects aimed at teh other gender, and which may benefit us -and our female and male children — if they do at all — only INdirectly. Is that really good for the men, either?  Does it make them better men to know that they can either pay child support or enroll in a program or go to jail? (which is often the case — see Kentucky Court system, for example).  Or that they can beat the system through these programs and get “even” with their ex, to the detriment of the public? Is a Section 1115 activity good just because the Secretary of the HHS (you gotta admit,a busy person) says it is? How much discretion are we going to allow?  Take your head off the next Presidential candidates every now and then, and look at some of these things. Future posts I hope to just put up a few figures (charts) for people to get a mental image of the scope of this OCSE.  When I said, it ought to be eliminated, I meant it. There are so many practices which undermine the legal system – — unbelievable.    And, I repeat, people are being killed over these things.  When there are hotly contested divorces and separation, one of the things we hear the most griping about is child support system — whether from the Mom’s side or the Dads.  Remember Silva v. Garcetti.  Remember Maximus…~ ~ ~

The word “MAXIMUS” is Latin for Largest, greatest.   

CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center & Fatherhood pending legislation

with 2 comments

This post first published 6-25-2011.  Being formatted/broken-links checked in prep for a 3-2017 quote, as this font and the border, plus posting title with link, indicates.   In 2011, I didn’t know how certain formatting techniques which would’ve made for easier viewing…//LGH.

CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center &amp; Fatherhood pending legislation (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-L3”)

 

AN Ex-NOW (California Chapter) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

Just a little reminder of an old 2006 missive on the use of Fatherhood Funds from HHS

[“http://www.now.org/issues/family/law/HHSletter.pdf&#8221; no longer valid.  The letter was found under Internet Archive, and was only saved in a single snapshot SIX YEARS after its writing.  This version is now uploaded as a pdf and will not disappear; it’s only 2 pages long. //LGH 3-30-2017]

WayBackMachine (Internet Archive) showing that as of March 2017, there was only ONE screenshot of this ltr (in all years). It apparently was not a high-traffic site, or was taken down after being posted earlier.

For broken or missing links, sometimes Internet Archive may have the answer (I used it this time…)

(Click to read; I’m also posting the two full-page screenshots below): 2006 to CalifMembersCongress re HHS (ltr fr CA NOW (signed HGrieco) per WayBackMachine (sole snapshot only 3-22-2012),re-loaded 3-30-2017byVEnglund 2pp

 

 

 

Click here for both pages full-sized (no annotations other than to label the URL (p1 top) and filename (p1 bottom, yellow).

See link in above caption to view this page full-sized.

There are some developments that I report on (and some others) which are not covered in this letter, but it sure has the basics.  I am not (FYI), a NOW member and never was.  However, I do endorse this letter.  Because California NOW is moving its pages around and appears to have dropped or eliminated some of its Family Law Links, I’ll also post the entire letter, below.

Just a little reminder, the origins of the “fatherhood”movement were in part to counteract the perceived threats of feminism and NOW.

Every “now” and then someone trumpets that they have got a reformed or converted feminist in their ranks.  Warren Farrell, Ph.D. is one, and another one I discovered recently (although the activities were in the previous century) is a Karen DeCrow, who is a member of the Family Advisory Task on the Children’s Rights Council, which the author of the 2006 letter cites as a fathers’ group (which it is).  I have blogged far more on AFCC than CRC, but they are related, have personnel in common and as the next link will show, are Richard Gardner-favorable.

 

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS COUNCIL – FAMILY  BOARD

A reminder:  this is not a Republican/Democrat issue.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as in “It takes a Village to Raise a Child,” back in 1997 endorsed this group.  In looking into WHY, I ran again into the network of secretive meetings around “The Family” which have involved many U.S. Presidents and other world leaders, among them senators which are definitely pushing fatherhood funding (Santorum, Brownback, Grassley).

(OK, here is that 2007 Mother Jones article:  Hillary’s Prayer: Hillary Clinton’s Religion and Politics )(and another one detailing how Hillary got involved, under the title The Family:  Hillary Clinton’s Fascist Spiritual Guide)  The Family’s connections with anti-Communist dictators (the key word being “dictators” and racist groups mentioned in 2008 article by Barbara Ehrenreich.)(<==hover cursor over the second link for summary text).

Just because someone is a powerful woman doesn’t mean she is in favor of doing something to remedy the family court situation, in which people are dying around exchange of children after or during divorce, or even a rumour of divorce sometimes.  The system is unfair to both men and women because it is indeed “fascist” — it ties systems of control together and holds them at the top policymaking levels.  This is why such organizations are so focused, perhaps, on training judges and training workers and training practitioners of this and that.

 

(All these images from the CRCkids.org “About us” page — thank you).

 

CEO

Family Board has some familiar names:

Although without governing authority, the Family Advisory Board plays a vital role in helping to recommend advocacy initiatives, strategic planning and policy development to the Board of Trustees. Serving members include:

Karen DeCrow is a nationally recognized author and attorney specializing in Constitutional law, gender and age discrimination, and civil liberties. Her long involvement with the National Organization for Women goes back to 1967; from 1968 to 1974 she served as National Board Member of NOW, and from 1974 to 1977 as its President.
Many of the difficulties in the divorce system date to the 1990s, not the 1970s — and they were legislative reactions to feminism and divorce itself in the 1970s.  We tend to forget this.  As a woman who had her children in the 1990s, not 1960s, I find that the feminist movements are not always on the same page with the situation in the family law courts of the United States.
DeCrow2.jpg

In 1988 she co-founded (with Robert Seidenberg) World Woman Watch. Karen is based in upstate New York (picture to left)

Being nosy, like I am, about these things, I googled, and found Ms. DeCrow presenting — alongside David Levy (CRC Board) and Richard Gardner, Sanford Braver, etc. at a 1998 conference by the On Step Institute,* a 1992 nonprofit in NY founded by Mental Health (practitioners  Ph.D.’s):

[*2017 UpdateThat link gone without a redirect, Internet Archive Results Screenshot show who are the founders and early discussions of  men’s rights in divorce.  The bottom entry of that 2nd “Conferences” screen shot may have been the same 1998 conference but (clicking on it), no screenshot of that page was taken:]

ONStepInstitute Mental Health Rsrch (NY) 2 FOUNDERS fr WayBackBachine (Karen DeCrow~ see FamilyCourtMatters’ORG 6-25-2011 post) (Screen Shot 2017-03-30 at 3.27PM

(Other links below that look like “ONStep Intitute” filenames are to one of the images (screenshots) on ONStep provided below, all from the WayBackMachine).  I didn’t find any specifically referencing Karen DeCrow, but they do give an idea of the discussions professionals (such as the two founders profiled) were having during those years, under the label of “Mental Health.” (The links are separated by “|x|” this time but click the filename, not the “|x|”))

Whitepapers

Conferences (1998 one on Divorce at bottom)

OSi (OnStep Institute) past conferences, 1999-2011 (frm WaybackMachine)

 

Update (as I’m getting ready to reference this post in 2017 because it refers to that SB 557 Family Justice Center).  In the interim, Karen DeCrow (nee Lipschultz), the third President of N.O.W. and longtime also supporter of men’s rights, died in 2014.  Some of her obituaries characterize her position including, as some feminists are (but at the time apparently absolutely were not) in favor of shared custody for men, and de-emphasizing the male violence against women | domestic violence factors as exaggerated or somehow over-emphasized.

Speaking as a formerly battered (while pregnant and married) wife, I obviously do not agree.

However some updated images and texts FYI; this first one is from Warren Farrell:

“In the early 70s, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Karen and I  would often say, “what the world needs is more women at work, and more dads at home.” This was N.O.W.s position until about 1973. However, as divorces increased, NOW started hearing from moms who were dropping their memberships because, as the complaint usually ran, “I know my child best; I know what she or he needs. If I don’t want the dad involved, it’s for a reason—he’s either a bad dad or we’ve had a bad experience and I just need to take my children away and start a new life.”

N.O.W. was caught between supporting equality versus jeopardizing its base. It chose to not jeopardize its base. Gloria and Betty, while not changing their position rhetorically, looked the other way as NOW intensified its efforts to portray men either as deadbeats or self-interested (“they just want the money”) or prone to domestic violence. Karen was the only other leading feminist who not only spoke differently, but agreed to speak at fathers’ conferences. Karen’s courage marginalized her from the feminist leadership and the millions of dollars of speaking fees she could otherwise have obtained.

[2017 comment, “Ahem — fathers’ conferences have speakers’ fees too…!”]

I knew what Karen was enduring, because I took the same road she took. While my break was cleaner, Karen tried to walk the tightrope of the balance between integrity and retaining feminist colleagues and friends.

When she agreed in 2005 to write the foreword to my Why Men Earn More: the Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap–and What Women Can Do About It, she shared with me some of her lifetime of worries about losing feminist support. It wasn’t just the lost speaking fees. It was the isolation. It was desiring to lead, but being kept at arm’s length by feminist leadership.

As Karen shared that, I recollect envisioning a devil and angel fighting inside her. In the case of the foreword and in other cases I witnessed, Karen almost always chose the angel of integrity.

That was by Warren Farrell, In Memoriam of (A Karen DeCrow Appreciation), image here (to read the 91 comments, click that first link).  Also the closing sentence (next to last sentence is in the quote above):

With Karen’s death passes a feminist who, were her leadership allowed to be the guiding light, would have allowed millions of children to have a dad to guide them and love them.

Image by Karen DeCrow
Editor’s note: This article is also available in Italian.

To claim this in 2014 after both the 2006 and 2011 rounds of $150M/year “marriage/fatherhood” HHS funding (CFDA93086) as though it didn’t exist, is really a testament to the power of pretend exercised by Farrell at this time.  This type of funding began as welfare diversions back in 1996, too….and as I said, CA NOW was reporting on it, at least a few public attempts, as of 2006….

Karen DeCrow Appreciation in AVoiceforMen by WarrenFarrell *6-14-2014) with 1 comments (Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 8.42PM)

K Decrow 2014 Obituary (from funeral service LLC) Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 8.41PM shows affiliations: NOW, Chamber Music (in Syracuse), Planned Parenthood, Central NY Women’s Bar Association, or NY Chapter of ACLU.

[[picking up the post from before 2017 updates and inserted images on OnStep Institute and Karen DeCrow…]]
Richard Gardner’s presentation was on.  “Criteria for Differentiation between True and False Sex-Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Disputes (Part II)”  The entire conference (I am looking at the pdf but can’t get the computer to copy the phrasing) is about “changing the paradigm”   The conference was “in invitation to [note order of professions listed] mental health professionals, legislators, attorneys, mediators (an AFCC emphasis) and members of the judiciary to discover solutions in the new reality of dual-provider families.  Shared primary care responsibilities (i.e., that was the goal) require a new developmental paradigm for families in the 21st century.

Shattering Fictions and Myths in Divorce
Stern Auditorium, Mount Sinai College of Medicine, New York City
Video available  June 6, 1998

[I see this was from the On Step Institute, “OSi” — see images above]

Invite the mental health professionals in to fix the paradigm — perhaps not the best idea, but it’s definitely a going operation at this point.   Again — what about law?  Mental health norms + legalizing them?  Frightening concept; who gets to say what’s normal, and what happens to creativity in a country when that power is centralized through a national (and in fact, international) network of rhetoric dispensers, with funding through IRS and wage garnishments (Child support system) — and with power to commit people who disagree to jail for being mentally incorrect?  Sounds like a Gulag to me — and has felt like one in practice.  Where is the feedback loop here?

[This list is continuing from the CRC Family Advisory Board, started above, after taking time out to discuss Ms. DeCrow)..

  • He’s all over my blog, primarily for the egregious act of having snuck in the Access Visitation language at the 9th hour into the Welfare Reform (Title IV-D) bill which is to this day making divorce a long-term, hell hole — because it undermines due process and informed consent on basic legal processes.  Through incentives.  Ah well…
  • S. Richard Sauber Ph.D., author;
  • Ms. Vicki Lansky, author and columnist; (Child Support connection, I THINK, though am not sure).
  • Ms. Lola Bailey, President of the National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights;
  • Larry Gaughan J.D., Professional Director for Family Mediation of Greater Washington DC;  {AFCC, though probably not the only one on here who is}
  • James Levine Ed.D., former director of the Family and Work Institute;
  • Chief Rabbi M. Bruce Lustig, Washington Hebrew Congregation of DC; and
  • Elliott H. Diamond, co-founder of the Children’s Rights Council.

Well to the main topic of today’s (6-25-2011) post:



CA SB-557

Search CA SB-557.  First result I found was a comment from Survivors in Action asking for a slight revision to it.

The next several results were me, saying ‘WHOA! — Just say NO!” etc.

Below that was an “Open Government”link which says this:

At the moment, we’re finding no mentions of the search term “California SB 557” in our daily automated search of the Web (viaGoogle News and Blog Search). There may be relevant news articles & blog posts outthere on the Web that refer to this bill by a slightly different name or title — in which case, they’re not included here, but our goal is to aggregate as much relevant info as possible. If you know of any, contact us with the specific links, and we’ll display them here for everyone to access.

It’s only a bill to repeal part of the California Penal Code, which in part decides who does and doesn’t get punished for (or protected from) crimes.  Penal / Penalty, etc.  Breaking the Penal Code subjects one to potential prosecution by a local (i.e., county-based) District Attorney, or not.  California has 58 counties, and the author of this bill (Christine Kehoe) comes from San Diego, one of the counties that was characterized as “Enron by the Bay” in the New York Times.  So, what exactly, is being sold here?

California Senate Bill

SB 557

An act to add and repeal Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers.

A portion of this fill encourages victims (likely to be uninformed and highly traumatized and/or injured) to OK a sharing of confidential information among partners (in the justice system) in the assurance that this will help provide the victims better access to justice:

Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
(d) All family justice centers are encouraged to maintain an informed consent process to authorize any sharing of confidential, privileged, or protected information between individuals or agencies working within a center. “Informed client consent” shall refer to a process established by a family justice center to inform the victim of all applicable confidentiality provisions of state and federal law, inform the victim of the implications of waiving of these confidentiality provisions, and a written process for authorization to share information within a center. A victim may authorize the disclosure and sharing of information among partner agencies for the
purposes of providing enhanced services.

 

Just to play the opposite side:  What about issues where there has been police violence, or DA simply tossing cases inappropriately?  More to the point, what about some of the indications that like all other agencies, law enforcement is subject to undue influence and corruption — hence what are the checks and balances?

This is in a recent San Francisco Bay Area County — and the 2nd Family Justice Center (Alameda, containing the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Alameda, etc.) was in neighboring county.  D.A. Nancy O’Malley [helped appoint the CEO, a political crony, helped obtain I heard the initial $3 million grant — and was recently found in Washington D.C promoting SB 557) of the 2nd Family Justice Center here is from a well-established family, the O’Malleys.  The Contra Costa District Attorney metioned here (Mark Peterson) here ran against an O’Malley, and it was a close run, hear tell:

 

FBI and U.S. Attorney Take Over Alleged Police Corruption Cases

Contra Costa County District Attorney says the feds have more resources to conduct investigation

by BAY CITY NEWS SERVICE on June 3, 2011 – 8:46 p.m. PDT

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12ANZ)

Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson announced that as of today the U.S. Attorneys’ Office and the FBI will be taking over the investigation of a case involving three allegedly corrupt law enforcement officers and a private investigator.

He said his office was not, however, dropping the 38 criminal charges filed against the four men, Norman Wielsch, Christopher Butler, Stephen Tanabe, and Louis Lombardi.

Those charges include conspiracy and the sale and possession of marijuana, methamphetamine and steroids. The charges also include possession of assault weapons, embezzlement, receipt of stolen property and bribery, Peterson said.

So, can I indicate a degree of caution in just assuming that all law enforcement officers, such as those who will be in the family justice centers, are free from corruption, undue influence, or ulterior motives?  Not to mention that none of them are personally abusing their own wives or kids (it happens).

The case began in January as a state Department of Justice investigation into alleged criminal activity of Wielsch, who was at the time the commander of the state-run Central Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, known as CNET, and Butler, a private investigator and former Antioch police officer.

The state charges, however, will be set aside while the federal case is being tried and will likely be resolved when the federal case is resolved, Peterson said.

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wielsch, 50, and Butler, 49, in February, accusing Wielsch of stealing drugs from law enforcement evidence lockers and working with Butler to have them sold back out into the community.

Within the next three months, investigators uncovered evidence that Tanabe, 47, who was a Danville police officer at the time, and Lombardi, 38, who was a San Ramon police officer at the time, were also involved in some of Wielsch and Butler’s alleged criminal activities.

Some of the crimes were allegedly committed while the men were serving as law enforcement officers.

Wielsch, Tanabe and Lombardi have all since resigned from their positions as law enforcement officers and Butler has surrendered his private investigator’s license.

According to Peterson, the case has consumed hundreds of hours in investigation and prosecution efforts and there are still some matters that need further investigation, including allegations involving a possible brothel and possible marijuana growing farms.

A possible brothel.  Other indicators of sensitivity towards violence towards women, not to mention that Casey Gwinn (of the San Diego / first “Family Justice Center”) was sued by one of his own employees for ignoring a clearcut and potentially lethal domestic violence situation with one of his own employees (I blogged it) and simply giving another female employee, (Josie Clark) the task of cleaning it up — but only after the victim had gotten herself arrested for threatening to kill her spouse.  (The spouse that was beating her up — was he arrested?)

Wielsch’s attorney Michael Cardoza said federal investigators would likely also be looking closely at the Antioch Police Department, since at least three of the defendants are former Antioch police officers.

That’s encouraging, especially in the context of a brothel.  The Jaycee Dugard / Phillip & Nancy Garrido case was in Antioch; she was imprisoned and repeatedly raped in a set of backyard sheds, and raised the two girls that the rape led to the birth of.  Some of the local news at that time (less highly publicized, although the case was definitely international) from neighbors said they were concerned it was being used as a brothel also.  Of course, neighbors are neighbors, but at least ONE had attempted to get help and reported people living in the sheds back there — in Antioch.

Peterson said his decision to turn the investigation over to the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI will bring more resources to the case.

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12ANZ)

 

They are talking potential RICO in this case, and it has a divorce component also, private investigator allegedly on the take, cooperating with police officers to set up men in divorces with DUIs.  However, unless they were actually injecting the liquor into the men’s mouths, they still did allegedly drive drunk and were in the wrong place with the wrong women at the wrong time.  BUT, a setup is still a setup:

Article by Cecile Vega:

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) — New allegations are surfacing after the arrest of yet another officer linked to the Contra Costa County narcotics team scandal.

The investigation now claims that female decoys were used to trap men, a private investigator plotted it all, and a police officer was on the take. 47-year-old Stephen Tanabe of Alamo was contracted by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department to work patrol in Danville. He is now in a Martinez jail on $260,000 bail.

A popular Danville wine bar was one of the locations where decoys, usually attractive women, plied unsuspecting men with liquor. Almost as soon as they left the parking lot, they were reportedly stopped and arrested for driving drunk by Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputy Stephen Tanabe.

(Copyright ©2011 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
REGARDING THE RECENT FATHERHOOD BILLS:
Other bills have already been passed by state assemblies (about 10 years ago) establishing commissions on responsible fatherhood.  Violence Against Women groups hardly mentioned it, that I can recall (locally), despite complaining loudly about their treatments in the courts.  Here’s one from 2001 in Washington State.  It regurgitates the same National Fatherhood Initiative rhetoric, the NFI having itself been started by an INAPPROPRIATE, non-competititve $500,000 fund steered to it by an involved (can you spell conflict of interest?) person in authority in HHS.  The rest is, as we say, “history” and still being written — in state and national legislatures.
Fathers, commission on responsible fatherhood: SB 6801

6801 Sponsor(s): Senator Kastama

Brief Description: Creating the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood.

SB 6801 – DIGEST

Establishes the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood.

I’m not a Washington State resident, but for the record, it dates to 2002.  It reads like the boilerplate stuff we hear over and over and over again:

AN ACT Relating to the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood; and adding a new chapter to Title 43 RCW.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that:

(1) Children living in single-parent households are more likely to be living in poverty;

(2) The overwhelming percentage of children residing in poverty reside in homes where fathers are not present;

(3) Children living in poverty are at a significantly greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse;

(4) Children living in poverty are twice as likely to drop out of school;

(5) The vast majority of homeless and runaway children are from homes where children live in poverty;

(6) Washingtonians recognize that children are more likely to thrive with support, guidance, and nurturing from both parents;

(7) The absence of one parent from a child’s life can place that child at a greater risk of health, emotional, educational, and behavioral problems associated with the child’s development;

H.R. 2193

Federal Interagency Initiatives

The White House Interagency Responsible Fatherhood Workgroup, led by the White House Office of Faith- Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is working to increase awareness of the importance of fathers in the lives of their children and to integrate fathers into family services throughout the government.

• The HHS Incarceration and Reentry Work Group is part of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, which has partnered 18 federal departments and agencies to leverage resources for reentry, remove barriers to reentry, and clarify federal policies. (Take a look at the Council’s interactive map for major federal reentry initiatives and active reentry grants in each state.)

The Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative, part of President Obama’s FY 2012 budget, proposes continuous emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency, and provisions to help further encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children and to promote strong and safe family relationships.

• The Department of Labor’s Transitional Jobs Initiative is funding grants to support transitional job programs, as well as other activities and services, to increase the workforce participation of low-income, hard-to-employ populations, specifically noncustodial parents and ex-offenders (who may or may not be noncustodial parents) reentering their communities.

• The Homeless Veteran’s Project partners HHS, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the American Bar Association to work with homeless veterans and their families to address challenges (such as old fines, child support debts, and other legal judgments) that compromise their ability to move into permanent housing.

• As part of the National Partnership for Action to End Health Disparities, HHS released two strategic plans to reduce health disparities and achieve health equity in the Nation.

(in the original, these are all links);
CHECK THIS ONE OUT:  June 2011 “CHILD SUPPORT REPORT” 
6/15/2011–Introduced.
Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011 – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to condition continued approval of a state plan upon state assessment of its policies with respect to barriers to employment and financial support of children. Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a court- or state child support agency supervised-employment program for noncustodial parents who have barriers to employment and a history of nonpayment, so that they can pay their child support obligations. Directs the Secretary of Labor to award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships. Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) with respect to: (1) funding for responsible fatherhood programs, (2) activities promoting responsible fatherhood, and (3) elimination of a separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. Prohibits a state from conditioning receipt of TANF or certain other benefits on: (1) participation in a healthy marriage or responsible fatherhood program, or (2) assignment to the state of certain support rights. Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to prohibit a state from collecting any amount owed it by reason of costs it has incurred for the birth of a child for whom support rights have been assigned. Requires a state to make a full distribution of collected child support to the family. Amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to: (1) deductions from family income for child support received in order to qualify for food stamps, (2) verification of child support payments, and (3) inclusion of economic opportunities programs in qualifying work programs. Amends SSA title IV part A with respect to: (1) grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic violence intervention and prevention, and (2) grant recipients and their procedures for responding to the risks of domestic violence. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the credit percentage under the earned income tax credit for eligible individuals with no qualifying children.
THE AUGUST 6, 2006 LETTER FROM CALIFORNIA NOW CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF FATHERHOOD FUNDING.  READ IT WHILE YOU CAN:
[In 2017 March update, I added the images and a link to the full (2-page) document, closer to the top of this post.//LGH]]
This excerpt highlights what I’m concerned about in the above legislations (both of the) pending in Washington, and California:

In addition, CA NOW believes that Wade Horn, current Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, has a major conflict of interest in his role overseeing such programs, given his past affiliation as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Horn, as President of National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), promoted (in collaboration with fathers rights groups) during 1999 and 2000, “Fathers Count” legislation, which would have mandated $10,000,000 in total annual funding to fathers organizations. According to the legislative language, only NFI and the leading fathers’ rights group, Children’s Rights Council, would have qualified for the grants. The bill passed the Congress, but was stalled by the Senate Finance Committee.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way:

In March 2001, NFI received a $500,000 non-competitive grant, shortly after Horn became “Acting” HHS Assistant Secretary ( February 2001), while he was still NFI President (not resigning until July 2001). This grant was authorized by a December 2000 Congressional “ear-mark” inserted in an appropriations bill after the “Fathers Count” bill failed to pass the Senate Finance Committee. NFI refuses to disclose how this money was used. Also, Horn conceals he has on-going conflicts-of-interest with NFI and the implementation of the fatherhood programs.

The passing of this legislation was preceded by a conflict of interest grant ear-marked.  The man allocating the grant was a member of the nonprofit to which the grant was directed.  This practice is STILL going on today, and viewed in its proper (economic, legislative) light — without the jargon — it is basically dedicating public funds to pursue what is really a private dream of a self-styled group of “prominent thinkers.”  Yes, the NFI site at one time characterized NFI as having been started by “prominent thinkers.”  A more appropriate term might have been “pushy self-promoting egotists.”  These people should be allowed to undermine due process, target services to one half the US population on the basis that there is a crisis in fatherlessness.
As I like to say, two other institutions which promote fatherlessness are wars, and slave-like human conditions, a spinoff from the institution of slavery, the backbone of the US economy.  If the MEN who don’t like too many fatherless children littering the streets are so concerned about this, then let them vote us into fewer wars.  The US Congress is nowhere close to half women, and yet the leaders are ever afraid we are going to take over, especially the browner populations with more babies.  I’m getting, frankly, tired of this language all over the internet, and in government circles.  Houston, we have a serious problem.
Here’s the entire letter before I say any more:

California Member of Congress, 8/02/06

California National Organization for Women (CA NOW) is respectfully requesting that you join the call for a federal investigation, by the U.S. Government Reform Committee, into the operations of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration of Children and Families’ Access/Visitation and “Responsible Fatherhood” programs, including those operating in California.

CA NOW believes that these fatherhood programs misuse funds, do not account for their spending nor evaluation of their programming, and encourage illegal court practices that result in harm to women’s safety and well-being. We believe that fathers’ child support arrears are frequently abated by these groups, in violation of the Bradley amendment. We also believe that Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration of Children and Families, has a conflict of interest serving in this capacity, and operates from a dangerous political ideology that actively favors fathers’ rights and seeks to minimize mothers’.

CA NOW believes an investigation would expose serious system failure and fraud in these fatherhood programs. They are funded with federal money intended for resolving parental disputes, but instead give legal representation to fathers, which often results in high conflict litigation against perfectly fit mothers. CA NOW believes many fathers use these resources in order to avoid paying child support, and that many batterers do so in order to continue to abuse and manipulate their spouses and children through financially draining and emotionally devastating litigation, that often stretches on for years and years.

Fatherhood programs operate on the false premise that there is a “crisis in fatherlessness,” which is contradicted by Census data. CA NOW asked HHS, and the National Fatherhood Initiative (the most cited program on the HHS website) to justify this claim of crisis, and to date have not received an answer from them. We believe the entire premise for the programming is erroneous, and that mothers and their children are suffering harm from the consequences of such a focus.

Through political connection, legal trainings, and funding diversions, these fatherhood programs emphasize false syndromes, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome as a technique to remove children from their mothers. Fatherhood groups train court appointed minors’ attorneys, mediators and evaluators to discriminate against mothers, and create a vacuous draining of mothers of funding, faith in the system, and ability to fight to protect their children. These are primary caregiving mothers. Single mothers whose children’s fathers come back after years without contact, and demand and receive full or partial custody. Mothers are losing custody to their abusers, to men who have abused or neglected their children, and men with criminal backgrounds. Often fathers are awarded custody based on frivolous justifications, such

as insufficient cooperation with the father, while documented evidence of domestic violence and abuse, even sexual abuse, goes ignored.

In 2002 California NOW analyzed 300 complaints from California mothers who believed family courts ignored laws, procedures and evidence in their cases. We used this analysis as the basis of our report, the CA NOW Family Court Report 2002. The report shows that in these particular cases, where women had lost custody of their children, there was a high correlation between grounded evidence of child abuse by the father and the mother losing custody. 86% could prove that their children’s father had a history of domestic violence, child abuse, or a criminal record. In many cases, illegal maneuvers, such as the labeling of mothers with false syndromes, as well as the use of ex parte hearings, and biased and unqualified extra-judicial personnel, were used to remove children from their primary care-giving mothers, thus violating the woman’s parental rights and injuring the child(ren) by loss of contact with their non-offending mother. Other professional comprehensive studies show similar results, including the Wellesley Women’s Center Battered Women’s Testimony Project, and sociologist Amy Neustein, PhD and attorney Michael Lesher’s book, Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts—and What Can Be Done About It.


In addition, CA NOW believes that Wade Horn, current Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, has a major conflict of interest in his role overseeing such programs, given his past affiliation as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Horn, as President of National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), promoted (in collaboration with fathers rights groups) during 1999 and 2000, “Fathers Count” legislation, which would have mandated $10,000,000 in total annual funding to fathers organizations. According to the legislative language, only NFI and the leading fathers’ rights group, Children’s Rights Council, would have qualified for the grants. The bill passed the Congress, but was stalled by the Senate Finance Committee.

In March 2001, NFI received a $500,000 non-competitive grant, shortly after Horn became “Acting” HHS Assistant Secretary ( February 2001), while he was still NFI President (not resigning until July 2001). This grant was authorized by a December 2000 Congressional “ear-mark” inserted in an appropriations bill after the “Fathers Count” bill failed to pass the Senate Finance Committee. NFI refuses to disclose how this money was used. Also, Horn conceals he has on-going conflicts-of-interest with NFI and the implementation of the fatherhood programs.

California NOW has HHS evaluation reports that show that the “Responsible Fatherhood” program is used for unauthorized practices such as soliciting fathers through the child support system with offers of abatements on their child support arrears (in violation of the Bradley Amendment) and free attorneys for their custody litigation. Some litigating mothers have provided us with county payment records that show the attorney of the litigating farther was paid from these programs. These unauthorized practices are so common that flyers soliciting fathers into ‘litigation assistance’ groups have been found displayed in county court buildings, while some state court web sites display links to their fatherhood programs. This practice violates the mission of the judicial system, as it provides special litigation assistance to one-side of a legal dispute.

While being funded by federal money, these court-based fatherhood services do not admit non-custodial mothers into their programs. (In fact, a search of the HHS website includes 286 references to “motherhood” and 824 references to “fatherhood.”) California NOW has copies of internal HHS e-mail showing Wade Horn’s staff have obstructed investigations of mothers’ complaints about the Responsible Fatherhood and related programs

California NOW is asking for you to join the call for a thorough investigation by the Government Reform Committee into the fatherhood programs—including those in California– and HHS Assistant Secretary, Wade Horn’s conflict of interest in these programs. We implore you to support the Government Reform Committee’s investigations–already now underway–by contacting the staff investigator and urging that California be included in the investigation. The staff director is David Marin, phone number 202-225-5074, address c/o Government Reform Committee, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

Thank you for your time and immediate attention to this matter.

For Justice, Helen Grieco

Helen Grieco Executive Director California National Organization for Women (CA NOW)

This is not going to happen voluntarily.  Through the internet, interested parties (after they’re done purchasing, promoting, and interviewing the authors of THIS book:

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE, AND CHILD CUSTODY

Legal Strategies and Policy Issues

Edited by Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D.

...should start using their heads, hands, and mouths to consider and investigate the HHS grants system and its conduit, the Child Support System (see links above) which this book simply chose to ignore — wrongfully.  
As  nice a disbarred person has Mr. Goldstein is, he has totally ignored that in the case that helped GET him disbarred (Genia Shockome), one of the agents, a supervised visitation person, Viola Stroud, was later convicted of embezzlement.  
There are issues with the supervised visitation field, and serious problems.
Nor does the book talk about the stupendous proliferation of parenting education nonprofits, and how little account of the funds going to them (i.e., double-billing concerns) even after this has been identified.
To not even mention child support agencies, AFCC, CRC, or the basic people (personnel) involved in some of these movements, is simply to me, unconscionable.  Any honest person who has had exposure to some of this would be motivated to expose and publicize it, as I have been.
No “legal strategy” in a custody case is likely to defeat a situation where extortion or RICO influences are at play within that court.
I regret how so many protective mothers groups have really drained people’s energies away from more productive — and friendly to both Dad and Moms overall — solutions to these troubles brought upon many people by just a few sets of people, primarily in the late 1980s through about 2001 (Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives).  From that point on, we have seen only expansion and multiplication from the original themes, spawning profession after profession that the rest of the country who contributes to the IRS has to prop up, whether or not they were responsible for the problems.
I also will continue to report on the coalitions against domestic violence and the “Family Violence” sectors which dominate the conversations on stopping violence against women — without actually doing so, and who prefer taking “technical assistance” grants to reporting on their fellow-crooks in other nonprofit organizations doing the same thing.
[[2017 March interjection.  Read the Table of Contents.  I kept my word on this!]]
Although the symbol on the US$ includes a pyramid, these activities are stacking the burden on the lowest economic sector higher and higher — as more people have jobs in the government, or government contracts (grants) based industries.  This is supported FORCIBLY through collection of taxes and FORCIBLY through child support wage garnishment, all supposed to be wonderful institutions we should support indefinitely because the average human being can’t raise or educate a child (or connect with someone else who can), or alleged tell his _ _ s from a hole in the ground.
This is sheer population management, and brings out the passive in the people farmed, and the aggressive in the leaders.

[Apart from formatting the quotes (adding boxes) and adding some color and bold to the latter part of the post, the wording has remained the same.  As I said in early 2017 (Feb “Retrospective” post), I also basically said in 2011 — and “I told you so!”]  Certain people chose NOT to report on certain things, to this day, allowing the infrastructure of the system to become entrenched and from there just keep expanding.]]
You just read an updated June 25, 2011 post, CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center &amp; Fatherhood pending legislation (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-L3”).
.

Psst! “PSI” (Policy Studies Inc.) in its own words…. plus ….

with one comment

Blogger note, 2015 — Policy Studies, Inc. now redirects to “Maximus” another well-known (if not universally respected) child support and other government services contractor.  “Global Expertise at the Local Level.”   

Actually, Maximus’ home page has its services split into:

  • Health
  • Federal
  • Child Support
  • Education
  • Workforce
  • Consulting
  • Business and Tax Credit

Recent meeting, seminar, or webinar Sept. 14, 2015:


Maximus, despite is size, scope, purpose and some stains in the past (which it earned enough to at least pay settlements on, and continue receiving contracts — it’s nice to be “too big to fail,” eh?”), is a good “Corporate Citizen” too and wants readers to know that this (and not reducing corporate tax rates) was why in 2000 it set up a Foundation:

MAXIMUS Foundation

At MAXIMUS, we hold a strong sense of corporate citizenship and responsibility. We recognize the importance of giving back to the communities in which we live and work. In response, the MAXIMUS Board of Directors created the MAXIMUS Foundation in 2000.

The MAXIMUS Foundation is committed to supporting organizations and programs that promote personal growth and self-sufficiency through improved health, augmented child and family development, and community development. We provide financial support for non-profit organizations and charities that share our commitment in helping disadvantaged populations and underserved communities.

The MAXIMUS Foundation is funded by charitable gifts from the employees of MAXIMUS and supplemented by grants from the Company. It is a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is exempt from tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…

View a list of organizations that received financial support in our most recent grant cycle. (by state, doesn’t show, however amounts, or for previous years.  For that, you have to actually go to their tax return declarations, at least).

I see a Spring 2015 grantee for NY is a major (and not in need of grants, either) foundation involved in transforming the NYS justice system (and others, internationally) through a cooperative project with the Courts.  The cooperative project is “the Center” but the actual 501(c)3 is “Fund for the City of New York,” started in 1968 by Ford Foundation, as its tax return says:

Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities THE FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEWYORK WAS CREATED BY THE FORD FOUNDATION IN 1968 WITH THE MANDATE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS, THE FUND WORKS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT INNOVATIONS IN POLICY, PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY TO ADVANCE THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

They’re just trying to systems-change, continually, for a better world…. better particularly for nonprofits (what about taxpayers who don’t organize themselves into nonprofits, or working for them or government — what about that sector?).  Well, this organization (the Ford-founded Fund for the City of New York), oddly, is licensed to solicit in mostly East Coast states — and California.  It also runs two other nonprofits (Schedule-R/”Related Tax-Exempt Organizations”):

(1) NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC   to “FACILITATE FCNY’S MISSION TO OTHER CITIES IN THE U S” and

(2) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INC for “IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERMENT AND NONPROFIT ORG WORLDWIDE”

“CT, NY, NJ, FL, CA, MA” (tax return below next quote, see Schedule G, Part I)

New York

Abraham House
CASES
Center for Court Innovation/Fund for the City of New York
Coalition for the Homeless, Inc.
Common Ground Communities, Inc. d/b/a Community Solutions**
Community-Word Project, Inc.
Harlem Educational Activities Fund, Inc.
Move This World
New York Common Pantry
Odyssey House Inc.
The Children’s Village, Inc.
The New York Foundling Hospital
Women’s Prison Association

Fund for the City of New York is clearly doing “poorly” and Maximus — a lot of whose business comes before, and relates to business being handled by the NYS Unified Court System with which this Fund works, influentially — clearly ought to step in the funding gap.  After all, it’s not even within range of a billion dollar assets yet, although it did increase by about $25M  in the past two years:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Fund for the City of New York NY 2013 990 105 $86,222,421.00 13-2612524
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2012 990 51 $71,729,914.00 13-2612524
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2011 990 90 $60,361,290.00 13-2612524

I don’t know that I’d make such a big fuss about this foundation — it’s not that large.  It’s also registered as a “PF” (Private Foundation), not public charity, although both are 501(c)3s…

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
MAXIMUS Foundation, Inc. VA 2013 990PF 34 $285,511.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2012 990PF 31 $218,121.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2011 990PF 22 $167,190.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2011 990PR 6 $0.00 54-1993677

(Click on Org. name to view return).  For example — Year “2013” above — the form says, it RECEIVED contributions of $665,818 (of this, $562,181 from Maximus itself) and CONTRIBUTED $682,930 to others, which are listed in very fine print at the back.  These are mostly in small amounts, from $250 — $500 – $1,000 – $1,500 and $2,000, with just a few organizations getting more.  In that year (note:  Tax return 2015 not viewable yet — so it’s easy to tell about grants which the public can’t, yet, fact-check on a tax return..) “Community-Word Project, Inc.” got $1,500.  “The Fund for Public Schools” (NY) got $50K, an American Red Cross in the National Capital Area $40K, One Fund Boston, Inc. (whoever they are), $25K.


 

One Fund Boston, Inc. was formed in 2013 for Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings “and related events.”  It has a board of 3 people, 1 employees, 25 volunteers, and the first year shown here, received $76M of private (non-government) donations.  Of these it gave out $58+M in the US, and $2.195M overseas (East Asia/Pacific) — and not to organizations, but to individuals.

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
One Fund Boston MA 2013 990 32 $18,727,756.00 46-2547157

(Code, )(Expenses$ 60,607,308. includinggrantsof$ 60,504,000 )(Revenue$ DISTRIBUTION OF CASH GIFTS TO VICTIMS OF THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS AND RELATED EVENTS OF 4/18/13 AND 4/19/13 TO HELP MEET THE SIGNIFICANT ONGOING NEEDS OF THE SURVIVOR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO THE PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES NOTED ABOVE, THE ORGANIZATION ALSO INCURRED $895,960 OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM-RELATED EXPENSES, ALL OF WHICH REPRESENTS SERVICES THAT WERE GRACIOUSLY DONATED BY MANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Entity Name ID Number Old ID Number Address
ONE FUND BOSTON, INC. 001105027 53 STATE ST.
BOSTON, MA 02109 USA

While it’s commendable to donate a nice chunk  ($0.025 Million) out of the $76million that came in,  I should also note that the likelihood of the funds being traceable as actually received and distributed by One Fund Boston, when its recipients are individuals, not organizations, is minimal.


Common Ground Communities dba “Community Solutions” has this EIN# 27-3523909, and this website (in addition to a blog): 

Web URL: www.cmtysolutions.org
Blog URL: cmtysolutions.org/blog

 

Guidestar says that in 2011 its main funding was from HUD and a certain foundation:

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – $450,000
  • The Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation – $400,000

The name “Common Ground” is so “common” around town, at first I thought that the above, more recent nonprofit might be unrelated to the series of HFDC (housing development fund corporations) found below — but I think they are the same, based on this description of the 2011ff group:

Rosanne Haggerty is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Solutions. She is an internationally recognized leader in developing innovative strategies to end homelessness and strengthen communities.

I have recently been studying HUD programming in more detail.  It came up in the context of other blogging, although I’ve been aware of it since about 2012 in connection with writings by someone formerly near the top of FHA who quipped that HUD was being run like a sewer (criminal operation) and explained how some of that went.  Her times of working there, late 1980s; contracting with it, mid-1990s, and after she was almost put out of business for her software (LLC?) having exposed that the federal government was — deliberately — investing with a negative ROI into communities, when it didn’t have to (i.e., fees for RE developer friends took precedence over revamping useable single-family homes in the same areas, and which were already on the books, i.e. FHA books), she was just about ruined and essentially driven out of the USA.  (Catherine Austin Fitts).  I knew less about real estate than about HHS grants, which I could also see were being run, well, “crooked” at least in significant PRWORA (1996ff) categories, namely promoting marriage and fatherhood.   Some of the HHS grantees were already involved in real estate development and community financing actions dating from the “CDBG” (Community Development Block Grant) era.  Hard to explain in one paragraph, but…

The HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (a public law) encouraged the strengthening of CDOs (Community Development Organizations) and CDHOs (Community Development Housing Organizations) nationwide.  FIVE and ONLY FIVE “intermediary” agencies were receiving HUD funds under this program — currently those five are:

  • Living Cities
  • Local Initiative Support Corporation
  • Enterprise Community Partners  (For this, see also The Rouse Company  [<=a very interesting history, taken ca. 2004/2006]/ James W. Rouse, planned communities, shopping malls, “ending poverty” — the real estate/community development way:
    • In the 1960s, he focused on the development of Columbia, the planned community in Maryland. In the 1970s, The Rouse Company developed the festival marketplace concept and opened Faneuil Hall in Boston. Jim retired as CEO of The Rouse Company in 1979 and in 1982 he and wife Patty launched The Enterprise Foundation, now known as Enterprise.He was a member of President Eisenhower’s Task Force on Housing in 1953 and of President Reagan’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives in 1982. …

Note — he’d already formed Enterprise Community Partners (originally, “Foundation”) in 1982...

The Rouse Company (from Encyclopedia.com, date is ca. 2006.  Note, in 2004, I learned, another group, Growth General Partners” (an even larger shopping mall developer/owner nationwide) bought the Rouse Company.  However, in 2009, it filed for bankruptcy — not nice for shareholders, but nice for those who got some of the assets for lower price — including the former subsidiary company, Howard Research Development (?) as in Howard Hughes, Jr. heirs.

Public Company
Incorporated: 1954 as James W. Rouse & Company, Inc.
Employees: 3,169
Sales: $1.17 billion (2003)
Stock Exchanges:New York
Ticker Symbol: RSE
NAIC: 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (Except Miniwarehouses); 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property; 721110 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels (pt)

One of the largest publicly held real estate development and management firms in the United States, The Rouse Company has a reputation for innovation. Under the direction of founder and “industry prophet” James W. Rouse, the company was in the vanguard of suburban enclosed-mall construction in the 1950s, the planned community movement in the 1960s, and the proliferation of urban “festival marketplaces” in the 1970s and early 1980s. The saturation of the retail development market in the early 1990s led the company into the construction and management of more office and mixed-use projects. By the early 21st century, The Rouse Company—now operating as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)—owned and/or operated more than 150 retail, residential, and office properties nationwide.

Timeline — James W. Rouse died in 1996, his (second, but long-term) wife Pattie, in, I think, 2012. See also the Wikipedia article for more details.

{{PLANNED COMMUNITIES — Columbia, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., first}}

Rouse assembled a coterie of planners, sociologists, educators, religious groups, and cultural and medical institutions to advise and support the creation of the new city. When it was launched in 1967, Columbia featured 11,000 residences (including low-cost housing jointly sponsored by the three primary religious denominations); schools within walking distance of elementary and junior high students; Howard County’s first hospital; public transportation; and a shopping center. By 1975, when the city boasted 38,000 residents, it had become “suburban Baltimore,” and within a decade it would be, according to Financial World (1986), “one of the hottest developing territories in the country.”

Rouse’s stock soared from $2 per share in the early 1960s to $30 by 1972. But during the 1974–75 real estate slowdown, the company lost Housing and Urban Development funding for a major low-income housing project. This, in turn, effected a $7 million loss and compelled Rouse to pull out of two engineered communities in Tennessee and Maryland, resulting in additional losses of $4.2 million. Connecticut General {{Life Insurance}} even had to purchase most of Rouse’s share of the Columbia project during this difficult time. Short-term debt stood at $80 million, while equity was at $6 million. From 1974 to 1976, the company retrenched by selling 50 percent stakes in 7 of 24 retail centers, reaping a total of $24 million cash. It also eliminated half the headquarters staff and wrote off $30 million in bad investments.

Thus we see for all the development, it was heavily underwritten by HUD, which public funds are “underwritten,” so to speak, by people who pay tax revenues, a.k.a., work jobs.  On  given year, the primary government revenues, per a pie chart at FMS.Treasury.gov (and posted on my blog — see table of contents post, at the top of the website; you can find this one), of all federal receipts. On the 6/29/2014 post “My Challenge:  Talk Sense or become an OxyMORON (And Someone Else’s Dinner“) there’s a section titled, with a somewhat frustrated commentary right underneath it:

HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

(FOR EXAMPLE, ITS BALANCE SHEET)

If across the US, our independent, and species-survival alertness and thinking has been either disabled, or is being culled [and by personality types, sorted and sifted] for use in the administrative population control professions (the “behavioral change modification” professions which are funded from “on high” (corporations, universities, the US government), and/or the science and technology for yet BETTER population control (and, when it comes to military, systematic decimation of other countries’ populations, while increasing the incarceration rates of our own by the various wars), then I will forget the consciousness-raising herein, and just look for a better place (and that means country) to inhabit.

 

…and then links to Federal Receipts piechart (for 2013).  Look at the two largest sectors in the piechart, and remember, it ain’t corporate taxes (which were only 10%)!   Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts (that must include for federal employees also, I think) — 35%.  Individual Income Taxes — 46%, with some commentary right after the link:

FMS-TREASURY-GOV piechart + legend, 2013 Federal receipts 10% Corp, 46% Income Taxes, 30+% SocSec-Retiremt Contributions-2

“Total receipts [YEAR 2013] increased by $324.9 billion, totaling $2,774.0 billion in fiscal 2013. The graph below shows receipts by source. “Translation of “$2,774.0 billion,” other than “a lot” is:   $2,774,000,000,000.  Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, and another way of putting this would be $2.774 Trillion — that is, for 2013 only, and that’s the federal government of the US, only.  Anyhow click to see what the largest piece of the pie, and the second-largest, is.”

Government tends to get reorganized, regularly, in small or large ways, so the former link now reads tells us that, if you were looking for those “Consolidated Statements of Receipts, Outlays and Balances,”  the Treasury Department’s “Fiscal Management Services” (FMS) and Bureau of the Public Debt have been consolidated:

The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
Current Report Page Has Moved

The Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) have consolidated into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. You will now be redirected to the The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Web site. If you are not redirected in 15 seconds, you can continue to this site by visiting
Current Report.

Please remember to update your bookmarks.

ANYHOW, a look at the page for 2015 reminds us just how large the Executive Branch is:
Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays and Balances (2015)

 

These are not yet available to view (haven’t been uploaded — obviously, I’m typing in Fall 2015 (on a much older post, 2011, true…) but the headings are there to view.  This is what to expect — but look under the last heading to see just how many “Departments of” are listed — those are Executive Branch of the US Government departments.  You can see that “Legislative” is a single link, as is “Judiciary” — but when it comes to “Department of Justice” — that’s an Executive Department.  Notice also there’s an “Executive Office of the President” on the list.  See also (sidebar) the two articles about social sciencification of America, and abolishment of representative government by executive orders.  Think it’s not still going on ???  I wonder how far we are in the process of making Congress (and laws) all but vestigial organs kept there for show, or simply basic operations, while decisions are simply made elsewhere… as there is always SOME crisis, SOME emergency, SOME global problems and of course a shortage of funds for all of the above.

We’ll post files on this page as they become available.

Note: Text Files will be available in Portable Document Format (PDF), and data files will be available in PDF and Excel 3.0. Excel files do not contain footnotes or Table 1.

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four

  • Commissioner’s Letter
  • Preface
  • Description of Accounts Relating to Cash Operations
  • Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures
  • Part One Fiscal Year 2015 Summary
  • Financial Highlights
  • Receipts by Source <= <= <=  (would have another pie chart, I’m sure).
  • Outlays by Function
  • United States Summary General Ledger Balances
  • Part Two Fiscal Year 2015 Details of Receipts
  • Table A – Receipts by Source Categories
  • Part Three Fiscal Year 2015 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances <=<=<(View long List of Departments under here.)

THAT LIST:  Legislative Branch, The Judiciary, [[and then all these other:]] Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense-Military, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services [= Largest grantmaking agency], Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD, HOUSING; pretty influential, would you say?], Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, , Department of Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Other Defense-Civil, Environmental Protection Agency,  Executive Office of the President,*** General Services Administration, International Assistance Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Independent Agencies

 


 

During the company’s difficult years, Rouse invented his own method of accounting. He pioneered a new accounting figure dubbed “current value.”

 

    • In 1987, he became chairman of the National Housing Task Force, which made proposals to Congress in March 1988 for a new housing program. The report formed the basis for comprehensive housing legislation signed into law by President Bush in November 1990. Jim was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, by President Clinton in September 1995. He passed away at the age of 81 at his home in Columbia, Md. – See more at: http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/about/history/about-our-founders#sthash.6FBLOQ3P.dpuf

  • Habitat for Humanity
  • YouthBuild USA

Here a link at Thomas.gov to H.R. 2517, which later became that Act; see the CRS Summary.  The timing is, early 1990s, beginning of Clinton Administration.  Keep in mind that with the passage of 1996 Personal Right to Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA”), which has also been phrased as “privatizing government” and with its “Block grants to States” for TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) instead of the help actually being directed to only needy families, we then go the “Family Values Factor” an open door into proselytizing about marrying and staying married.  In the 1990s, I WAS married — and being battered in front of my children; which “might” have been why the passage of 1996 and its future impact on mothers dealing with domestic violence and abuse in the decades (1980s, 1990s at least) where single mothers were being alternately scapegoated or patronized, but still subject to media campaigns at how our children were — by virtue of being “fatherless” households — at risk for juvenile delinquency, a life of crime, promiscuity, failure, and ending up on welfare or in foster care, etc. etc….

So Title IV-A and Title IV-D of this Social Security Act were already priming the pump to continue causing, actually, more trouble for working single mothers, by encouraging lawsuits for sole legal and physical custody from their former abusers, where abuse had been a factor, or where child support arrears had been run up, and would be compromised if these custody battles –which FOR THE RECORD, tend to interfere with sustainable work, increase poverty, and drive finances and resources (including TIME) which might otherwise go to the next generation — to the problem-solving courts and their professionals, para-professionals, and proselytes/acolytes and hangers-on. {{for further information, follow “AFCC” “CRC’ and friends, including their nice, “don’t ask, adn we won’t tell (about marriage/fatherhood funding or access/visitation funding) friends in the DV industry…)

Oops..  Got a little expressive there…

Here’s that HUD Demonstration act of 1993, summarized.  Try to pick up on the details:

H.R.2517
Latest Title: HUD Demonstration Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Gonzalez, Henry B. [TX-20] (introduced 6/24/1993)      Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 10/27/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-120.


SUMMARY AS OF:
9/23/1993–Passed Senate amended.    (There are 2 other summaries)

HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 – Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary) to carry out an innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program through FY 1994. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to increase funding for the moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program.

(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to the National Community Development Initiative** for grants to local community development organizations for: (1) training and capacity building; (2) technical assistance; and (3) community development and housing assistance. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.

**The other name for this nonprofit is “Living Cities.”  It was initiated by “Rockefeller” and several private foundations and currently has a member list of 22 significant (wealth) tax-exempt foundations in combination with bank / financial institutions.

(Sec. 5) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to increase the authorization of appropriations for community housing partnership activities.

(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program through FY 1998 to attract pension fund investment in affordable housing through the use of project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Requires that at least half of appropriated funds be used in the disposition of multifamily properties. Requires a General Accounting Office program evaluation report. Authorizes FY 1994 program appropriations.

(Sec. 7) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to extend: (1) the termination date for the National Commission on Manufactured Housing; (2) the deadline for the Commission’s final report (after an interim report); and (3) authorization of appropriations for the Commission.

(Sec. 8) Amends the Housing Act of 1949 to: (1) extend authority for Federal agency housing subdivision approval reciprocity; (2) increase Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage authority; and (3) increase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantee authority.

(Sec. 11) Sets forth an administrative fee formula for the section 8 certificate and voucher programs. Directs the Secretary to assess public housing agency costs in administering such programs.

(Sec. 12) Amends Federal law to: (1) extend the commencement deadline for a specified Massachusetts housing project; and (2) permit rental units in a specified Texas project to be project-based.

 

 

 

In 1990, Rosanne founded Common Ground Community, a pioneer in the development of supportive housing and research-based practices that end homelessness. To have greater impact, Ms. Haggerty and her senior team launched Community Solutions in 2011 to help communities solve the problems that create and sustain homelessness. Ms. Haggerty is a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, Ashoka Senior Fellow and Hunt Alternative Fund Prime Mover. In 2012, she was awarded the Jane Jacobs medal for New Ideas and Activism from the Rockefeller Foundation. She serves on the boards of the Alliance for Veterans, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America. She is a Life Trustee of Amherst College.



  •  **This Delaware Corporation only registered in NY 4/29/2012 as a Foreign Not For Profit.  This one shows no “d/b/a” however on its NYS registration (click to see, or repeat the search, google “NYS Corporation Search” or for the charitable registrations, charitiesnys.com

    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITIES, INC.

    By street address search, I see from NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy)  its purpose is:

    Common Ground CommunityHOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES

    Email: info@commonground.org 14 East, 28th Street  New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 471-0815  Fax: (212) 471-0825

    Common Ground Community is a non-profit housing and community development organization whose mission is to solve homelessness. Common Ground provides comprehensive support services, including access to medical and mental health care and job training and placement, designed to help people regain lives of stability and independence

     

    It will be taking then, probably grants from both HUD and HHS as well as probably private sources.  As the site “commonground.org” says:

    Our buildings combine affordable housing with on-site social services.

     

    The money is project-based.   There are nonprofits with the words “Common Ground” in them throughout the country (NY, TX, LA, OH, CA, etc.), but as we can see the HDFC (Housing Development Fund Corp) ones in New York come “I, II, III and IV” and of varying sizes. A change in EIN# means a change in Entity — however, they are probably, if one looks through individual returns for “Schedule R – Related organizations” — with overlapping board members, or otherwise related:  common in real estate development…

    ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2013 990 35 $159,877,710.00 11-3048002
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2012 990 33 $151,961,518.00 11-3048002
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2011 990 41 $141,259,282.00 11-3048002
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY II HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $39,882,573.00 13-3846708
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY II HDFC NY 2012 990 32 $39,055,076.00 13-3846708
    Common Ground Community II HDFC NY 2011 990 36 $37,452,569.00 13-3846708
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY III HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $64,935.00 13-4138205
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY III HDFC NY 2012 990 29 $901,304.00 13-4138205
    Common Ground Community III HDFC NY 2011 990 35 $750,850.00 13-4138205
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY IV HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $15,652,447.00 13-4196931
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY IV HDFC NY 2012 990 30 $17,056,703.00 13-4196931
    Common Ground Community Iv HDFC NY 2011 990 36 $17,764,773.00 13-4196931

     



     

    Plus:  “Preventing Violence by Promoting Fatherhood (Discretionary Grants)”

    A lot of posts, I don’t think were my best.  Yesterday’s, however, I felt was a good one.  There is information on it that is GOOD to be aware of.

    Imagine what vision, some strategic planning, good target market (the U.S. Government, one of largest purchasers in the world, I heard) and TECHNOLOGY can do.

    This report from 2004? comes from  “Encyclopedia.com”

    Policy Studies, Inc.
    1899 Wynkoop Street
    Denver, Colorado 90202
    U.S.A.
    Telephone: (303) 863-0900
    Toll Free: (800) 217-5004
    Fax: (303) 295-0244
    Web site: http://www.policy-studies.com

    Private Company
    Incorporated: 1984
    Employees: 1,030
    Sales: $128 million (2002)
    NAIC: 541611 Administration Management and General Management Consulting Services

    Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI) provides administration outsourcing, research, and consulting services to local, state and federal agencies in the areas of child support enforcement, health benefits administration, and judicial systems organization. The bulk of the company’s business involves consulting and administration of child support enforcement, including payment collection and redisbursement, voluntary paternity establishment, backlog collections, review and adjustment, and other aspects of case management. In addition to providing research and consultation for specific aspects of case management for government agencies in all 50 states and administration outsourcing for specific programs in 21 states, PSI provides full-service child support enforcement administration for counties in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    Trade names (i.e., I gather Fictitious Business names)– at least those registered in Colorado under this corporate name  include:

    # ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
    2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
    5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
    10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

     

    And  just because I feel like it, I”m also posting one (of many) projects another corporation, “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” worked on, via Grants from the HHS.  Basically this is what anyone in the “domestic violence prevention” field AND the “marriage fatherhood” field (the major grantees) really like to do:

    Set up a “resource center” and train someone (via the web, in great part)…

    From Taggs.hhs.gov (This post published 6/22/2011)

    AWARD INFORMATION

    Award Number: 90EV0375
    Award Title: FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
    Organization: FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU (FYSB)
    Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

    Award Abstract

    Title Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance 
    Project Start/End  /
    Abstract Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance
    PI Name/Title Denise Gamache  Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project
    Institution
    Department NONE

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 5 0 ACF 09-15-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 1,178,812
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 4 0 ACF 08-27-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 4 1 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 50,000 
    Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 1,228,812
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2008 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 3 0 ACF 07-22-2008 $ 1,178,811 
    Fiscal Year 2008 Total: $ 1,178,811
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2007 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,810 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,178,810
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2006 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 1 0 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,811 
    Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 1,178,811
    Total of all award actions: $ 5,944,056

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions


     

    The “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has been working alongside the wonderful “AFCC” to Explicate what Domestic Violence is (gee, I didn’t have a clue!) and what is going on when it comes to custody decisions.   The head of this project is working with BWJP:  Denise Gamache  Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project

    The award 90EV0377 was taken by Family Violence Prevention Fund (ExCU u u u se me, “Futures Without Violence” is its new name – at least on some links).  Please notice the similar $$ amounts — $1,178,811 or 812:

    Recipient: FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94103-5177

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 93.592 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 
    2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 08-28-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 175,000 
    2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 07-28-2008 $ 1,178,812 
    2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 09-27-2008 $ 145,000 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 08-13-2007 $ 1,178,812 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 01-26-2007 $ 32,940 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 09-20-2007 $ 182,375 
    2006 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 09-19-2006 $ 1,145,872 
    Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 6,396,435
    Page Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 6,396,435
    Total of 10 Award Actions for 1 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 6,396,435

    Total FVPF funding from HHS (this doesn’t count additional funding from the DOJ, or contracts, vs. grants):

    Total of all award actions: $ 19,368,114

    Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions

     

    SO…..  MPDI got HHS Award #90EV0375, and FVPF got #90EV0377;

    Gee, who got award # 90FE0376?  Another special issue resource center, probably — right?

    Recipient: CANGLESKA, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 57752-0638

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 5 93.592 ACF 09-09-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.592 ACF 09-02-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2008 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.592 ACF 08-01-2008 $ 1,178,812 
    2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.592 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,812 
    2006 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.592 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,812 
    Award Actions Count: 5 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 5,894,060

    Whoever CANGLESKA, INC. is (actually, I do have an idea, have read before) . . . . . Always click on the name and see what other goodies they got:

    Total HHS awards:   $15,650,167.

    Total of all award actions: $ 15,650,167

     

     

    Which includes (go figure) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood”:

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2007 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 
    2006 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 0 ACF 09-25-2006 110316478 $ 400,000 

    (DUNS# 110316478 will also work on USASPending.gov.  Now, there are obviously some discrepancies — because TAGGS, which reports grants only (not contracts — work for pay) is about twice as large as what USASpending.gov — which is to report both grants and contracts — comes up with.  One would think that the USASpending.gov# would always be larger for any group that got both contracts and grants.  However, it comes up with instead (for Cangleska, all of the work in South Dakota, per the map):

     

    • Total Dollars:$7,822,150
    • Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
    • This includes several from the Justice, VAW and/or Agriculture Depts ,not just HHS.  (Whassup with that?)

    Transaction Number # 8

    Federal Award ID: 90FR0074: 0 (Grants)
    Recipient: CANGLESKA
    P.O. BOX 638 , KYLE
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.086 : Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants
    Description:
    PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
    Date Signed:
    September 21 , 2007Obligation Amount: 
    $400,000

     

    PROMOTING FATHERHOOD = PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE???

    Yes, the way to prevent family violence is to promote fatherhood.  This is although the fatherhood movement originated in great part as a complaint against feminism.  I’m so glad that the federally -funded groups have got their act together and just take funding from both sides of the same question, and do webinars, trainings, etc. (to both target clientele):

    2007 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 
    2007 90EV0376  FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 110316478 $ 1,178,812 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,578,812

    (The grants are “discretionary” anyhow….)

    Meanwhile PSI cleans up on the technological end…..

    Here’s another big-bucks resource center group:

    Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
    2009  362486896 National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges NV 1975 03 13,620,813 2,742,133 990

     Our government is still offering grants to make more and more resources available to explicate and analyze (rather than, say, STOP) Violence Against Women (now called “Family Violence”) for purposes of research.  Very Discretionary, I imagine.  here are some:
    Funding Opportunity Title Funding Opportunity Number CFDA# App Due Date Post Date Program
    Early Care and Education Research Scholars: Head Start Graduate Student Research Grants HHS-2011-ACF-OPRE-YR-0150 93.600 06/01/2011 03/29/2011 OPRE
    Early Care and Education Research Scholars: Child Care Research Scholars HHS-2011-ACF-OPRE-YE-0159 93.575 06/14/2011 04/08/2011 OPRE
    Modified: Street Outreach Program HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-YO-0168 93.557 06/24/2011 05/03/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Modified: Basic Center Program HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CY-0166 93.623 06/24/2011 05/03/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Project to Test a Predesigned Data Warehouse Model HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0154 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Partnership to Strengthen Families: Child Support Enforcement and University Partnerships HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0155 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Partnership with Child Support Services to Develop Workforce Strategies and Economic Sustainability HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0152 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Modified: Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CG-0170 93.254 06/27/2011 06/02/2011 ACYF/CB
    Special Improvement Project (SIP) — Projects to Address the Economic Downturn on IV-D Operations HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FI-0151 93.601 06/29/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Modified: Discretionary Funds for Refugee Childcare Microenterprise Development Project HHS-2011-ACF-ORR-RG-0160 93.576 07/05/2011 06/03/2011 ORR
    Modified: Discretionary Targeted Assistance Grant Program HHS-2011-ACF-ORR-RT-0161 93.576 07/06/2011 06/01/2011 ORR
    National Center on Health HHS-2011-ACF-OHS-HC-0190 93.600 07/06/2011 05/06/2011 OHS
    Modified: Grants to Tribes, Tribal Organizations and Migrant Programs for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Programs HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CA-0147 93.590 07/07/2011 05/25/2011 ACYF/CB
    Modified: Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CS-0174 93.658 07/07/2011 05/27/2011 ACYF/CB
    Community Economic Development (CED) Projects HHS-2011-ACF-OCS-EE-0178 93.570 07/11/2011 05/10/2011 OCS
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0213 93.592 07/15/2011 05/17/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – Culturally Specific Special Issue Resource Center (CSIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0210 93.592 07/15/2011 05/18/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Modified: Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – National Indian Resource Center Addressing Domestic Violence and Safety for Indian Women (NIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0211 93.592 07/15/2011 05/23/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – Special Issue Resource Center (SIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0212 93.592 07/15/2011 05/17/2011 ACYF/FYSB

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) announces the solicitation of applications for one cooperative agreement under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants program to support a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV).  The NRCDV will maintain a clearinghouse library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and disseminate information and statistics related to the incidence, intervention, and prevention of family violence, domestic violence and dating violence; and the provision of shelter, supportive services, and prevention services to adult and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence which includes services to prevent repeated incidents of violence.  The NRC is part of a network of National and Special Issue Resource Centers providing leadership and support to the existing programs serving victims of domestic violence and their children.

    The will do the same thing on the fatherhood end, just as large.  What good is all this research doing when it comes to the next custody decision?

    Re:  THE Battered Women’s Justice Project and MPDI grants, I searched only on the principle investigator last name, and in MN, to come up with 15 years of grants.  if you’re IN, I guess you’re IN.  So — how do these activities tie to reduced homicides, femicides, infanticides, battery, molestation, rape or any other forms of violence (or having the family law system ignore these when making a custody decision)?  Or is that even required?

    Results 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
    Excel Icon
    Page 1 of 1
      1
    Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
    Technical assistance is one thing — it set ups a infrastructure and enables conferences.  now, what, precisely else does it do?  ESPECIALLY because at this point restraining orders aren’t even legally enforceable.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — and hush, don’t tell the people getting those RO’s and justifying more funding to violence prevention trainings…and supervised visitation expansions….
    I gotta run.  Just some food for thought…

How to tell “PSI” in Denver, from “PSI” in Denver?

leave a comment »

CORRECTION FROM LAST POST:

If in the last (long) post I associated “Public Strategies, Inc.” with “Center for Policy Research” directly.   Mea culpa, and hopefully this sin is forgiveable; this is my atonement -and a chance to point to what both of them do, although I do not “hail Mary” for either one’s agenda.  More properly, I should’ve associated “Policy Studies, Inc.” with Center for Policy Research, as we can see from reports like this:

CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES

Prepared for:

Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children & Families

(i.e., “OCSE/ACF”)

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 4th Floor Aerospace Building 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, D.C. 20447

Prepared by:

Jessica S. Pearson, Ph.D. Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218

David A. Price, Ph.D. Policy Studies, Inc. 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80202

This project was supported under contract number 105-00-8300, Task Order 22, from the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

And  covering topics such as:

Implementation Issues…………………………………………………………………………. 15 Making the Commitment to Serve Unmarried and IV-D Populations…………….. 15 Identifying Cases with Access and Visitation Issues…………………………………. 16 Resolving Access and Visitation Problems Using Mediation Techniques ………… 18 Inducing [IV-D] Custodial Parents to Participate ……………………………………………… 18 Negotiating About Child Support ………………………………………………………… 19 The Status of the Mediation Agreement ……………………………………………….. 19 Other Access and Visitation Services for IV-D Populations ………………………… 21 Reactions to the AV Program …………………………………………………………….. 22

and engaging the Faith Community, talking about “High-Conflict” stuff…. the term “high-conflict” appears 40 times in the document, an indication of AFCC influence.  In fact a great overview of what’s happening in the courts might be found in this short document — NONE of which information is actually told, evidently, to the actual Title IV-D (custodial mothers, and I DNK to what extent, fathers either) – engaged in “high-conflict’ custody proceedings, or even enrolling for Food Stamps while in possession of minor children.  On page 4 of this report is a neat summary:

1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments (P.L. 98-373): In this legislation, Congress urged states to “focus on the vital issues of child support, child custody, and visitation rights.”

1988 Family Support Act (P.L. 100-485): The 1988 FSA authorized state demonstration projects to “develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders,” and to promote improvements in existing procedures or the development of new methods and techniques to resolve child access and visitation problems.

1990 Child Access Demonstration Projects: Begun in 1990 and implemented in seven states, the multi-year projects involved the use of mediation, parent education, counseling, and other measures to assist parents to communicate about the needs of their children following parental separation and divorce, and to increase the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children.

1995 Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects: The evaluation confirmed that access was a complex problem for many separated and divorced parents, and recommended that courts and other agencies help parents with access problems by developing no- and low-cost dispute resolution interventions like mediation (including mandatory formats), and that they be made available to parents at the early stages of dispute, when it is most possible to get successful outcomes.

There is zero question, when examined, that these projects were aimed at helping fathers — not mothers, who were perceived as the problem (gatekeepers, “welfare mamas, etc.).   In short, mandatory mediation places power in the mediator to recommend more access to the father, circumventing the courtroom in the process, except in a nominal hearing to endorse the mediator’s recommendations.  While these may not actually help fathers (who may be forced to choose from an unreasonable child support payment — or being unable to pay and facing the alternative of criminal sanctions, including jail) — they were sold as doing so.  This was also timed with a Democratic President’s Executive (memo/order — I keep forgetting which) to revamp agencies to promote fatherhood. Same year….

1995 U.S. Commission of Child and Family Welfare Report to Congress: In a report to the President and Congress, a bipartisan commission endorsed efforts at all government levels, including the state and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family has a parenting plan that encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved.

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193): This legislation authorized state grants to “establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.” Activities specifically covered by the legislation included (1) mediation (voluntary and mandatory); (2) counseling; (3) education; (4) development of parenting plans; (4) development of visitation guidelines and alternative custody arrangements (??); and (5) visitation enforcement services, including monitoring, supervised visitation, and neutral pick-up and drop-off.

1997 Initiation of the State Child Access and Visitation Grant Programs: With OCSE as the administrating unit, Congress awarded $10 million per year to states to promote the development of a variety of programs designed to alleviate the problems associated with access and visitation. The program served over 50,000 individuals in 1998.

1997 Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects and Washington State Waiver: Following a competitive process, OCSE awarded multi-year grants to seven states to conduct demonstration projects that provide services to low-income, noncustodial parents to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children. OCSE also granted Washington State a waiver to receive matching funds from the Federal child support enforcement agency for programs aimed at helping noncustodial parents with a variety of issues. All eight programs, which served over 1,800 parents, offer noncustodial parents a variety of services, including assistance with access and visitation.

2000 Waivers for the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) Initiatives: OCSE authorized waivers for another set of fatherhood projects in ten states. The purpose of these projects, which involve collaborations between child support agencies and community-based organizations, is to recruit and help young, poor, noncustodial parents (1) find and retain employment; (2) engage in greater parent-child contact; and (3) improve their compliance with child support obligations. An evaluation of the nine PFF demonstration projects is underway.

In short, Policy Studies Inc. & Center for Policy Research both ahve the word “Policy” in common, and often publish together.  One is profit, the other is nonprofit. David Price, who participated in this report, also publishes with Jane Venhor, who sits on the CPR organization also.

1996 WELFARE REFORM =Welfare Management Goldrush:

Perhaps this is a good place to post “PROSPECTING AMONG THE POOR:  WELFARE PRIVATIZATION” (a 2001 publication by Bill Berkowitz). Below, as I looked at Policy Studies Inc., some of its employees were formerly at “Maximus,” another mega-contractor with mega-problems, including being caught embezzling and in fraud to the point it disrupted a NYCity Mayoral race…  Both are mentioned in this document.

Some observers were less convinced that privatization would improve anything besides the privatizers’ bottom lines. “This is one of the biggest corporate grabs in history,” said Sandy Felder, Public Sector Coordinator for SEIU, commenting onthe Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, signed into law by President Clinton.3 In 1997 Mark Dunlea, executive director of the Hunger Action Network of New York, predicted that “the privatization of welfare- related social services…will mean a massive handoff from government to the private sector.”4

The federal government turned over $16 billion in TANF money to the states without setting any federal standards for privatization,” says Cecilia Perry, public policy analyst for AFSCME. The early contracts in Wisconsin were particularly egregious in that they set “perverse incentives aimed at reducing caseloads and making huge profits.”5 Yet in March 1997, Phillip Truluck, Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation, hailed then-Governor of Wisconsin Tommy Thompson (who is now President Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services) as “the real star of welfare reform today…whose perseverance and dedi- cation brought about this Wisconsin miracle.”6

Time magazine notes that pas- sage of the welfare reform bill set off a “welfare-management goldrush.”8

Many corporations, large and small, are taking advantage of this modern-day “goldrush.” These range from the corporate elite – such as Lockheed Martin, Andersen Consulting, “the world’s largest management and technology firm” (now renamed Accenture),9 and Ross Perot’s Electronic Data Systems – to smaller companies like the rapidly expanding Denver, Colorado-based Policy Services Inc., which has 39 privatized service locations in 16 states and bills itself as the “first company to operate a full-service child support privatized office.”10 Other prospectors include Nebraska-based Curtis & Associates and the flourishing Maximus Inc., which as of May 1999 held a “30% share of this booming privati- zation market in health and human services.”11 Despite the fact that Maximus seemed ready to mine the mother lode of privatization, the company is now fight- ing a growing negative image as things seem to be going haywire in a number of programs.

“Maximus” — its own website has motto “Helping Government Serve the People.”  Why does this remind me of CIRCUS Maximus in Rome?

It partners with:

Child Support

Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association  (ERICSA)

ERICSA’s motto:  “Build.  Develop.  Strengthen.  Enhance the well-being of Families”  (aren’t all organizations claiming to do this?)

ERICSA is a nonprofit (EIN# 41120981093) formed in 1980 (or, its 2009 form says, “1989”).  Its membership is largely government employees; one wonders why they in addition to this need to form a nonprofit to get it together.  The infrastructure (and power) of the Child Support Enforcement of the USA is unbelievable — most people have no clue unless they got nabbed.  For example, in 2005, here’s a “Robyn Large” (OCSE employee?) in a document for Virginia about how to help private employers that may have multiple wage garnishment orders…ERICSAs 990 form one year was c/o her, although Robert Velcoff of NY is its treasurer.and the principal activity listed is a conference in Myrtle Beach SC once a year. “Promote Child Support Enforcement”

With top link leading to OCSE’s blurbs:

National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA)
Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council (WICSEC)

One might question why an organization/agency (i.e., OCSE)  that falls so heavily on Dads would be so into fatherhood movements which claim that it’s unfair to Dads, and they are going to help ’em with custody issues…..

“PSI” Oklahoma (and satellite office in Denver) with “PSI” with HQ in Denver and programs all over the United States. Moreover, in both cases the programs relate heavily to issues such as child support and families and are enabled by Title IV-D programs.  Ah well…

For the record, this is the PSI more directly working with CPR. As both of them take federal contracts and have apparent ties to Dr. Jessica Pearson (among others) in Denver — but PSI OKLAHOMA (Mary Myrick) seem more through AFCC-affiliates and PSI-DENVER, well, probably more directly.

How can we tell them apart & keep them straight?  By looking closer…

POLICY STUDIES, INC.

Mailing Address
Policy Studies Inc.
1515 Wynkoop Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202

PSI has more than 25 years of successful government outsourcing and consulting experience reaching across more than 35 states and the District of Columbia. Our contracts include large-scale, multisite child support, government health, and employment and training operations and consulting projects for local and state clients.

Major Milestones History TreeMap of U.S. - highlighted states represent where PSI holds a contract.

It’s obvious they have a focus on child support, originally:  ”

Leading the way in the health and human services industry

Founded in 1984 as a consulting firm specializing in child support enforcement, we’ve become a leading provider of services to the health and human services industry. We help organizations reach out to the people they serve; qualify them for essential services; and manage their cases with precision, speed, and superior customer service. Here are a few of the milestones we’ve accomplished so far in our desire to make a difference in public health and human services programs:

  • In 1991, PSI was the first company in the country to operate an outsourced full-service child support office through a contract in Tennessee’s 10th Judicial District. We now run 13 such programs across the country, including one of the nation’s largest outsourced full-service child support enforcement office in Baltimore, Maryland.
  • In 1994, PSI was the first company in the nation to administer an outsourced paternity acknowledgment program. Since then we’ve managed a variety of paternity acknowledgment programs and projects around the nation.
  • PSI was the first company in the country to operate a state new hire reporting program beginning in 1996. We are now the premier provider of new hire reporting programs across the country, administering 22 new hire reporting programs.

PSI’s founder, Robert Williams, has an Ph.D. & MPA from Princeton, B.A. in Political Sciences from Univ. of Illinois, and it’s obvious from the start that this company ties into the Title IV-D programs, and influential in forming them. I imagine if I kept looking I’d find he had some ties or connections with either The Brookings Institute, Ron Haskins, CRC, or in general people promoting marriage and fatherhood (and doing so funding it through the HHS/ACF/OCSE in great part).

Williams is a national leader in child support enforcement, playing a key role in the development of today’s IV-D program. Williams has authored numerous articles on child support in professional journals and government reports, and has made dozens of presentations to state, regional, and national child support organizations, as well as judicial, bar, and legislative entities. He has actively participated in management studies of child support enforcement in nine states, and has provided testimony to Congressional committees on a diverse range of child support issues.

As one of PSI’s founders, Williams has played a key role in building the company’s business over 23 years. Williams served as PSI’s chief executive officer from 1984 until early 2006, leading the company through consistent growth in revenue and scope of services—from a small startup to more than $120 million in revenue and from four employees to more than 1,900. He currently serves on PSI’s Board of Directors.

Robert Williams - Founder, Policy Studies Inc.Margaret Laub - Chief Executive Officer  CEO Margaret Laub has an amazing background from the “outsourced healthcare services industry.  SHe joined the PSI Board in 2005 with a background in nutrition and accounting, and ”

She is the former president of McKesson Health Solutions, an $850 million revenue, 3,000-employee, multi-national business unit of McKesson Corporation. In this role, she managed a group of businesses spanning nine states and Australia, and spearheaded successful initiatives related to acquisitions, divestitures, strategic development, and the integration of new business practices.

Additionally, Laub served on the Executive and Operating Committees of McKesson Corporation, and from 1995 to 2001 was a founder and then president of McKesson Healthcare Delivery Systems, a pioneer in the specialty pharmaceutical services industry.”

While we are here, in searching Robert Williams Ph.D. Title IV-D, I came across this — an irate appeal from a Georgia father.  However, it brings up valid points from the man’s point of view (that almost zero DV advocates even bring up to women — they typically don’t even mention that “Acess Visitation” exists — and by keeping the focus on the emotionally super-charged topic of “Batterers” and “Batterer Personality” and “Batterer Intervention Programs” (which I don’t think have a valid basis to even exist, any more than “Parenting Coordination” should be a profession, at this stage of the game).

the discussion on these matters has to happen — and it’s clear that these are still social issues — BUT — it should no longer be a public discussion which does not include the financial incentive to keep couples fighting for custody.  And THAT discussion is about County & State & Federal government policies and finances.  Finances are a high motivator — and men are typically more informed on this issue than women are, or are encouraged to be by their “advocates.”  Why?  The “advocates” any more are in on the same grant streams and incentives!

At any rate, this article shows how when a couple HAD some agreement, an OCSE agent got involved — this time with the mother — and encouraged her to start a custody battle.  Typically they will do this with fathers, but this mother was already noncustodial.   Read on (and bear with any “rhetoric’ if possible to get at the facts of this one).

Title IV D

We as Americans can see the destruction of the family unit on a daily basis all around us. Our friends, family and the stories we hear, all give us shudders. 50% of the families are falling apart. 90% of the divorces are initiated by women. Our children are being sold by the state for Title IV D funds from the Federal Government. Title IV D as of 2007 returns Federal dollars to the State at 66 cents for every $1.00 a man pays in child support. This money is then distributed to the counties of the state. Judge’s pensions are supported by this money. You can figure that if you make $60,000.00 or more a year, you are a target for higher child support, to support your local county. Counties are selling your children for what is no different than blood money.

I have to acknowledge this is true.  Even as a DV survivor, and a former custodial mother, I saw it happen.  The father didn’t want custody!, but was encouraged to go for it. This is part of the restraining order mill – and part of the assembly line to keep custody battles going on.   As things heated up, it became clearer and clearer that while not IN the courtroom, the child support agency was definitely a Player in the mix.  By deciding to act / not act at critical points, they re-introduced poverty to this family line and eventually resulted in zero child support to our children, and more business for themselves.

The morals of some see nothing wrong with this concept. Write the US Congress to eliminate Title IV D funds to the states. Tell you congressman that the selling of your baby to support the county system is wrong.

Georgia Superior Court Judge Declares State’s Child

Support Guidelines to be Unconstitutional


On February 25, 2002, a courageous Superior Court Judge in the Alapaha Judicial Circuit, by the name of C. Dane Perkins, granted the motion of Michelle L. Sweat, which declared the Georgia Child Support Guidelines to be null and void as the guidelines violate numerous provisions of the constitutions of both the United States and the State of Georgia. Michelle Sweat was divorced on November 12, 1998, and had agreed to allow the father to have custody of the three minor children of the parties while she received visitation, and a provision of the agreement of the parties was that she not be obligated to pay child support. On or about July 14, 2000, Monica Houseal, an agent with the Georgia Child Support Enforcement Agency in Nashville, Georgia, forwarded to Michelle Sweat a written request for “possible modification” of her child support obligation and requested certain financial information.

It sounds to me that the very fact the couple had somehow worked out their own arrangement and bypassed the child support system entirely, was a real problem to this agency.  They recruited her!

At the time of trial, Michelle Sweat’s approximate monthly gross income was $1,862.00, and the father’s gross monthly income was approximately $2,650.00.

This is no stage at which to begin any court action, with that kind of income.

Ms. Sweat was requested by the Department of Human Resources to pay $452.00 in child support and up to $79.00 per month for insurance for the minor children for a total of $531.00 per month. After this request by DHR, Ms. Sweat filed her challenge to the constitutionality of the Georgia child support guidelines.

Had their children showed up in some matter at risk, or impoverished, or abused?

Judge Perkins noted in his order that in a study conducted in 14 South Georgia counties between 1995 and 1997, it was found that 82.2% of contested custody cases resulted in custody being awarded to the mother and that guideline support had an impermissibly discriminatory affect upon men based upon their gender.

The Georgia child support guidelines were enacted by the legislature in 1989 in order to qualify for approximately $25,000,000.00 from the Federal government for child support enforcement.

Take a look at your local county payrolls and see what’s involved.  Then go look up some of the agencies contracting out child support enforcement — like Maximus, and understand that despite fraud and embezzlement, mega-sized, and after paying $30 million SETTLEMENT, Maximus continues to get contracts in various states.  I’ve seen them on county payrolls.

While the originators of the guidelines no doubt had good intentions, they were extremely rushed and adopted guidelines from the state of Wisconsin, which were based upon poverty cases where the total income of the parents was $12,000.00, which would be approximately $21,000.00 in the year 2000. They were based upon the assumption that the custodial parent had no employment and that the non-custodial parent had no visitation with the children. They were never intended to be applied to higher income families and they had a built-in cap in that they were only intended to recover welfare payments to the custodial parent.

etc.  And he quotes Dr. Williams of PSI on this:

Mr. Robert Williams of Policy Studies, Inc. in Denver, Colorado, testified at length before Georgia Commission on Child Support (the “Commission”) on May 1, 1998. As to the use of guidelines designed for poverty/welfare cases, Dr. Williams was asked “[w]hen the federal government mandated states adopt presumptive-type guidelines and the advisory panel … specifically recommended against Wisconsin-style guidelines, is anything changed that would revise those recommendations?” He replied, “there’s never been another advisory panel, so I would say basically not.9

While I am not analyzing this particular article or case (I’m not familiar with it), the footnote leads to this document — which shows a relationship between Policy Studies and Center for Policy Research by who prepared the report:

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes

September 2003

(Better viewed on actual pdf)

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement

David Arnaudo, Program Officer

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Office of Human Services Policy

Linda Mellgren, Program Officer

Contract No. HHS-100-98-0015 Prepared by:

Center for Policy Research

1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D. Lanae Davis, M.A.

Policy Studies Inc.

1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. David A. Price, Ph.D. Tracy Griffith

This report was prepared for the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., under Contract No. HHS-100-98-0015 with Policy Studies Inc.

In addition to support from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Multi-site Evaluation and Synthesis of Responsible Fatherhood Projects is supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Center for Policy Research.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services or its agencies, nor the views of the Ford Foundation.

CONTRACT (=/= “Grant”) from HHS to Policy Studies Inc., and GRANT (=/= “Contract”) to Center for Policy Research, which is set up to get these:

MOBIS Contracting

The Center for Policy Research is a Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) contractor and has a Federal Supply Schedule contract with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). This allows federal agencies to purchase supplies and services directly from the Center for Policy Research using CPR’s Contract Number GS10F0416S.

Through GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule, CPR is approved to receive a wide variety of contracts and task and delivery orders on a streamlined basis. CPR is approved to provide services that fall under Special Item Numbers (SIN) 874-1 “Consulting Services” and SIN 874-3 “Survey Services.” Examples of consultation and survey services include strategic, business and action planning, organizational assessment, program audits and evaluations, survey design, analysis of quantitative and qualitative survey data and the production of comprehensive reports summarizing data collection techniques and analysis results.

Corporation Wiki, Center for Policy Research, Inc.  Shows Pearson, Thoennes & Kelly Kreycik (sales & Marketing)

(apparently Mr. Jeffrey G. Pearson & “C T Corporation” and Jeffery G. Pearson, LLC is also involved…)

2009  840849945 Center for Policy Research CO 1982 03 1,079,756 708,138 990
Total Revenue $1,079,756
Total Assets: $708,138

I looked at HHS grants system to find its DUNS# (easiest way if it is a recipient).

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER CO 80218-1450 DENVER 149387185 $ 997,740

Readers should CLICK on the name above and see what types of projects are involved — for a sampler:

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90FI0073  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 2 0 ACF 08-25-2006 149387185 $ 24,730 
2006 90FI0085  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1 0 ACF 08-24-2006 149387185 $ 198,664 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 223,394
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90FI0073  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 1 0 ACF 08-31-2005 149387185 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2005 Total: $ 100,000
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2004 90FI0059  EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT 1 0 ACF 06-16-2004 149387185 $ 99,926 
Fiscal Year 2004 Total: $ 99,926

(i.e, recruiting customers through agencies?   ??)  One can click on any of the grants also.  MOST of them read “discretionary.”  CPR is a small recipient, but something of (it appears) a rather large fish when it comes to policy influence, I believe. Leverage and Positioning is what counts — and they got in this business early on.

Once I get a DUNS# I can go to http://usaspending.gov/advanced-search ignore ALL other fields, and after having chosenPrime Award or Sub-Award advanced search, simply paste in the DUNS# to second “Recipient DUNS#” and hit search.  The only problem being it’s obviously incomplete (USAspending.gov) reports are by agencies providing them, and some articles talk about the lack of completeness — but it’s an indicator at least:

  • Total Dollars:$671,017
  • Transactions:1 – 11 of 11

They are also drawing from the same fund as was the PSI (Public STRATEGIES Inc) as I noted on comments to yesterday’s post:  75-1553, ”

Children’s Research and Technical Assistance
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.601 : Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects
Description:
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

(whatever that represents…)

Corporation Wiki for Policy Studies Inc. (2 in Denver, and plenty more) The Denver visual reflects the size, and includes David Price.

Per State of Colorado, PSI incorporated in 1984 (duration:  Perpetual) and is in good standing; in 1995 it filed a namechange to remove the ‘comma’ in its name.

Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID Number Document Number Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Event Status Form Formation Date
1 19871554610  19871554610 POLICY STUDIES, INC. Articles of Incorporation Name Changed DPC 01/24/1984
2 19871554610  19951029240 POLICY STUDIES INC. Entity Name Change Good Standing DPC 01/24/1984

DUNS#  is 149410573

This Colorado site (unlike some other Secretary of State sites) is very helpful information in learning about the company.  For example, Articles of Incorporation show that PSI began with 3 board of director members — Robert G. Williams (above), Betty A. Schulte, and David A. Price, and apparently out of Dr. Williams’ home.

Business description:  “Public Policy Research including system design, management analysis and evaluation (1986 document image).  with a Ph.D. from Princeton in such things, I’d imagine the founder would certainly be capable of these activities!

1994, it’s “research and consulting services to state and local government agencies.” and Ms. Schulte is gone, it is 3 men on the board. (williams, Price, Levy) and the shares of common stock (which any corporation can declare….) offered was increased at this time to 10 million, “no par value”.

(One of the moves appears to have a mistaken address:  It read 999 EAST 18th Street, #900, Denver.   Denver appears to have “East” as to Avenues, and no direction attached to its Streets.  999 18th Street appears to be a downtown office building. )

There are some documents protecting the director and stipulating conditions of sale or merger of the sale is above 25% of (gross profit, or such).

A document (pretty illegible) stamped March 1990 (but not filed in order on the page) shows a Katherine R. Wegner from Arvada, CO on the organization, as well as a man from John F. Walz Montpelier VT

In February 1996 (after 12 years of PSI operation, and a location move or so, the addition of Mark A. Levy to the Board)  a Colorado Corporation called “Design Templates Inc.” (DTI) merged into PSI.  DTI’s president being a Ruth K. Rosenfield.    So naturally, I am interested in, who was DTI? and why the merger?

By 2001, they have issued 10 million shares of common stock and 5 million shares of preferred stock (etc.)

TRADE NAMES OF POLICY STUDIES INC. (from Secretary of State website):

Hmm.  makes sense, given the line of business they are in:

Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.*** Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM
ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM

PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES, in another words, IS “PSI”  Get it?     The link is to a 1997 article “US Black Engineer.”   Psiber Technologies IS PSI — but not all “PSI”-named companies are.  A few for comparison, below.

With focus on the immense Child SUpport field, and the technology necessary to (garnish checks, record new hires, etc.) there seems to be more than one company with the “PSIBER TECH” root name — I found one in Hong Kong, and another one formed in 1997! in South Africa, note description:

PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
CO, 80202 DENVER, 999 19TH ST.

psi, policy studies, child support, full service, health, outsourcing, consulting, technology, government, justice, workforce, systems, application, design, manufacturer, development, computer,

A NANCY STARLING (ROSS) reference to Psiber Technologies, courtesy pipl.com and me searching the trademark.  Hmmmm.

PSI is the only privatization firm where our experts own and Nancy Starling Ross. J. Fred Katzman. David Price. Mark A. Levy. Jim Hennessey. Mike Henry  [ www.dadsnow.org ]

and

DENVER, May 17 /PRNewswire/ — Policy Studies Inc.  Vice President of Service Delivery Nancy Starling Ross, is extremely proud of  [ www.prnewswire.com ]  This also describes what Policy Studies Institute does;

This( Felix Infausto Award sounds interesting)

From “CSF” (Center for Support of Families) another one of the many “Human services” contracting organizations

Ann Clements

xx-xxx-9998

Ms. Clements, Senior Associate at CSF, has over 15 years in the field of Child Support. She is presently working in Columbia, SC with the CSES/FCCMS project as a Subject Matter Expert. Previously, she was the Operational Manager and District Manager with the Hampton District Office. She worked with Policy Studies, Inc. from May of 2002 to July of 2008 in the states of South Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. Prior to May 2002, she worked with MAXIMUS as Project Manager of the Horry Regional Child Support Office in Conway, SC. She began her career in Child Support in the Regional Office in Florence, SC. She also taught school for 10 years before working in the area of Child Support.

Trademarkia says the name went out of use in 1996:  “On Monday, March 11, 1996, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC.. This trademark is owned by Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO 80202. The USPTO has given the PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. trademark serial number of 75070862. The current federal status of this trademark filing is ABANDONED – AFTER INTER-PARTES DECISION.

This is from an April, 2011 review:

Here’s another one from San Diego:

About Psiber Data Systems Inc.

Psiber Data Systems is located in San Diego, California, USA. Based in our 4000 square foot facility, Psiber is an employee owned entity committed to the development, manufacture and marketing of electronic test instruments for the rapidly expanding data communications market, including the CATV broadband arena.

(The Company: Psiber Data Systems Inc., located in San Diego, California, USA, with affiliated companies in Germany, Italy and UK)

Psiber was founded in 1994 and began with a simple philosophy of building low cost test equipment that possessed meaningful and unique features in handheld testers for everyday maintenance. Psiber has always strived to do what others have not and to serve customers overlooked by the big corporate competitors

The first tester developed by Psiber Data was the PsiberNET data clamp in 1994. This tester created an entirely new class of computer Local Area Network (LAN) diagnostic tools. The PsiberNET data clamp is the only non-intrusive test instrument that can acquire and display LAN traffic information without a direct electrical connection to the network. This innovative new product was recognized by Data Communications Magazine as the “Hot Product of the Year” in physical layer testing.

LAN, being “Local Area Network,” i.e. computer traffic within a company or agency, etc.

COMPANY OVERVIEW

PSIber Works is a South African company specialized in the development of web-based human resources, payroll and package structuring solutions. The company’s offering is aimed at both the individual user and the small to medium-sized business user, providing them with a host of resources through the web-based product.

26 Seventh Avenue

Edenvale,  1610

South Africa

Founded in 1997

A similar one (Hong Kong, sounds like, with a relationship to MicroSoft) talks about outsourcing (Something it seems “Child Support Services” has been doing to multinational corporations, or local ones such as PSI):

PsiberTech

Offshore Outsourcing is looked upon as a value added service to organisations.  It helps organisations to focus mainly on their core business than worrying about the other business related activities that they are unfamiliar with.

The outsourcing model has some distinct advantages:-.

  • It allows organisations to focus on their core business
  • It builds confidence within the organisation to venture into new business opportunities
  • It provides cost effective solutions
  • It provides development of solutions rapidly

PsiberTech Offshore outsourcing services covers the entire project management and development lifecycle.  Our software development experience in latest technologies allows us to deliver solutions to align with your cost, timelines and requirements.

Well, as fascinating as this study has been (to me at least) — to recognize that PSI as of 1995 trademarked itself as “COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES” — an interesting choice of names — all good studies must come to an end some time.   OnUSASpending.gov I found this group getting about $2million of a $15 million contract to the STate of Virginia (to collect child support, or for CSE activities at any rate).

I’m going to look more into who is Dr. Robert G. Williams and what is he about….  Amazing what some fine degrees and forethought, plus incorporation the booming Internet & outsourcing of government services can do to a business (and the landscape for those it is “serving”)

CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES __ PRICE & WILLIAMS 

Center for Public Policy Studies

YOWZA, heres another one — I’ll just paste the staff bios right here:

CPPS is a partnership of senior consultants who have worked together for many years. Each of us has an independent business and we collaborate through CPPS on larger projects where we can offer more value to our clients working as a team than as individuals. We have a very streamlined organizational structure that includes a president/treasurer and vice president/secretary. CPPS operations are governed by a national Board of Directors.

David A. Price, Ph.D., is the President and co-founder of CPPS. He has more than 30 years of experience working with public sector agencies across the country — human services agencies, foundations, non-profit organizations, courts and justice system agencies — conducting research, designing tools to improve organizational performance, facilitating planning processes, implementing demonstration projects, and documenting and evaluating project outcomes. Price received a Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Denver and a B.A. in Economics from the American University of Beirut in Beirut, Lebanon.

John A. Martin, Ph.D. is the Director of the CPPS Immigration and the State Courts Initiative.  Dr. Martin, a planning, policy, and management consultant, is recognized as an innovator in planning, management, performance measurement, and institutional development for justice and human service organizations.  Over the past 36 years, he has worked with courts, justice, and human service agencies of all types.  Dr. Martin received a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Colorado, an M.A. in Political Science, University of Colorado, a B.A. in Political Science from Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado, and has had extensive mediation training from CDR Associates.

Steven Weller, J.D., Ph.D., has more than 34 years of experience working with state courts and other justice system institutions in the Unites States and internationally.  In the United States he has served as principal investigator or consultant on a variety of national, state, and local research and strategic planning projects aimed at improving different aspects of the justice system and developing responses to public policy problems.  Dr. Weller’s current and recent projects include work on immigration issues, alternative dispute resolution, civil case processing, alternative sanctions to incarceration, family courts, child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, courthouse safety, and jail overcrowding.  His work has also included developing approaches to help courts deal more effectively with cultural issues in family and domestic violence cases.

Robert G. Williams, Ph.D. is the Chairman and co-founder of CPPS.  For more than 40 years, Williams has provided technical assistance and performed policy research for health and human services agencies, as well as courts. A national expert in child support enforcement, Williams has also worked with Courts on strategic planning and services for divorcing and unmarried parents.  He has conducted human service agency management studies and program effectiveness assessments, as well as directing large-scale program evaluations.  Williams holds M.P.A. and Ph.D degrees from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a B.A. from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Angela J. Lederach is a Research Associate with the CPPS Immigration Initiative. Prior to this Initiative, she worked with international reconciliation and transitional justice efforts in the Philippines, West Africa, and Latin America. Her writings about culture, peace building, and restorative justice have appeared in a variety of diverse publications. Angela holds a dual B.A. degree in Anthropology and International Peace Studies from the University of Notre Dame.

Jeffrey S. Yoder  is a Research Associate with the CPPS Immigration Initiative. Prior to working on the Immigration Initiative, he worked with the Mennonite Central Committee in Tucson, Arizona coordinating educational events to raise awareness about the issues facing border communities in both Mexico and the United States, and also worked with the Tucson Food Bank. Jeffrey is proficient in Spanish and holds a B.A. degree in Sociology from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

This wikipedia article is unusually friendly, but notes
:Dr. Williams was instrumental early on in establishing modern standardized child support collection. In particular, Congress enacted the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, requiring the states to strengthen their enforcement powers, and requiring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement to establish a national advisory panel on child support guidelines. Dr. Williams served as Chairman of the Advisory Panel.[5]

Currently, Williams is recognized as a national leader in child support enforcement, Williams has authored numerous articles on child support in professional journals and government reports, and has made dozens of presentations to state, regional, and national child support organizations, as well as judicial, bar, and legislative entities. He has actively participated in management studies of child support enforcement in nine states, and has provided testimony to Congressional committees on a diverse range of child support issues.[6]

 

 

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Happy Fatherhood Day — and where would “Fatherhood” be without the HHS?

with 6 comments

DISCLAIMER:

The tone of this post is going to be flippant and sometimes sarcastic.  This is NOT aimed at individual fathers, men, and all-round great people who have mentored, helped, befriended, or encouraged young men (and women) to be their best, or simply stood with them through tough times in life.  I am in this blog targeting the professional trainers, the professional know-it-alls, and their habit of demanding more and more public money to build more and more “resource centers” and run “institutes” with less and less proof of any results.  Although the word “evidence-based practice” is throughout the literature justifying why we should sponsor this habit as a public benefit.

Where’s the benefit?  At what point can we demand something besides anecdotal evidence traded in policy institutes run without public input far away from the “delivery of services” locations.  Have homicide, drug, femicide, rape etc. levels gone down AND can this be directly tied to any single, or any set of, training organizations?  The answer to that I’ll bet is simply N.O.

But it is necessary to “out” and mock, ridicule (and reduce) the baloney, the fallacies that simply are opening the door to more federal trainers eager to get access to (in particular) young boys, or adolescents — and again, I’m talking at the institutional levels.  Last post? I showed that one of the Fathers of the Fatherhood movement was a Seventh Day Adventist  (Dr. Charles Ballard), who writes on a page called “Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family”

God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side . . . .
Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.

Any time such a “servant/priest” (i.e. any man in a relationship with a woman, and especially with children) is served with a protection or restraining order, or is convicted of assault and battery upon an “intimate partner” someone indeed has come between him and his Eve.  Thank God!  In this mindset, that’s bad.

TAGGS — apparently a few different “Ballards” are very much into this:

The fifth column in (before CFDA number beginning in “93 _ _ _” is the year of the project.

ACF HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS UNIV OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN OK DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN POST ADOPTION SERVICES AND MARRIAGE EDUCATION 1 93652 SOCIAL SERVICES BALLARD FARILYN $ 250,000
ACF INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON DC ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (IDA) 1 93602 DEMONSTRATION  FRANCES BALLARD $ 1,000,000
ACF INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON DC EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93647 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) CHARLES A BALLARD $ 180,000
ACF INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON DC RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) 1 93647 DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A BALLARD $ 99,350
ACF INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON DC RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS 01 93647 DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A. BALLARD $ 170,000
ACF INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON DC UNSOLICITED/CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROGRAM ENCHANCEMENT OF PHILADELPHIA MODEL 1 93647 DEMONSTRATION FRANCES H BALLARD $ 500,000
ACF OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OKLAHOMA CITY OK HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 8 1 93086 DEMONSTRATION  FARILYN BALLARD $ 549,791
ACF OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OKLAHOMA CITY OK PROJECT TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGES 1 93608 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) FARILYN BALLARD $ 200,000
ACF Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative DALLAS TX COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 1 93009 DEMONSTRATION VALERIE BALLARD $ 50,000

So far, Texas, Oklahoma & DC.

This report didn’t show years, so here’s one that does, I’ve picked a few samples from a simple search, last name “Ballard”; out of 156 returns (Many were medical) these appear to relate to marriage/fatherhood components.

HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS UNIV OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN 90CO1029 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN POST ADOPTION SERVICES AND MARRIAGE EDUCATION 09/12/2006 93652 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT SOCIAL SERVICES BALLARD FARILYN $ 250,000
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON 90EI0127 ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (IDA) 09/10/2001 93602 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION FRANCES BALLARD $ 1,000,000
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON 90PR0003 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS 09/30/1995 93647 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A. BALLARD $ 85,000
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON 90PR0004 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS 09/30/1995 93647 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A. BALLARD $ 85,000
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON 90XP0014 EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 09/15/1999 93647 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) CHARLES A BALLARD $ 180,000
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON 90XP0024 UNSOLICITED/CAPACITY BUILDING AND PROGRAM ENCHANCEMENT OF PHILADELPHIA MODEL 07/27/2001 93647 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION FRANCES H BALLARD $ 500,000
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION WASHINGTON 90XP0043 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) 06/30/2003 93647 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A BALLARD
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OKLAHOMA CITY 90CW1115 PROJECT TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN MARRIAGES 09/29/2003 93608 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) FARILYN BALLARD $ 200,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OKLAHOMA CITY 90FE0030 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2006 93086 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION FARILYN BALLARD $ 549,791
TEEN FATHER PROGRAM: A FAMILY SERVICE CLEVELAND D67MP01550 THE AMERICAN MALE LEADERSHIP & EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM 02/15/1995 93910 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A. BALLARD $ 0
TEEN FATHER PROGRAM: A FAMILY SERVICE CLEVELAND D67MP01550 THE AMERICAN MALE LEADERSHIP & EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM 07/31/1995 93910 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION CHARLES A. BALLARD $ 0
Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative DALLAS 90IJ0623 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 09/24/2006 93009 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION VALERIE BALLARD $ 50,000

Frances Ballard (Mrs. Charles A. Ballard) is known to me from this organization, a recent one also on the HHS funds path:

WOMEN IN FATHERHOOD, INC.  (“WIFI” for short):

Frances Ballard

Petrice Sams-Abiodun

Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC. She has over 20 years experience working with fathers, families and healthcare.

(Notice — women & mothers — if they exist — are lumped in with children and do not exist as individuals.  The fathers, however, do.  Even “healthcare” has an identity.  This is totally in accord with the religious statements above — Eve was to be at all times by Adam’s side, even though I doubt this Executive Director has been to her husband.  However, I doubt that she’d veer from the primary policy — promoting fatherhood and ignoring mothers / women as individuals..  At least when describing the programs…)

er previous positions include 12 years serving as the Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization; Consultant to The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Making Connections Program; ** Director of Corporate Development and Clinical Manager-Ambulatory Care, Grace Hospital; and Nurse Consultant/Program Developer, The Institute For Responsible Fatherhood and Family Development. She holds a Masters of Science Degree in Nursing Administration, a B.A. in Social Work, an A.S. in Nursing, and numerous executive management certifications. She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood Movement and the mother of their three children, Jonathan, Lydia and Christopher.

**Annie E. Casey Foundation funds many fatherhood programs, and they are indeed a large foundation.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

FARILYN BALLARD I’ll deduce is not a relative, but on the same theme, and highly placed to run fatherhood programs, possibly similar on the inside:

A devout Christian who sings in her church’s choir, Ballard prays and reads the Bible daily and volunteers. She’s a wife and mother who loves her husband, Dan Ballard, her two grown daughters and crossword puz- zles. Whimsical items like Garden Divas adorn her office, and she’ll readily tell you about her two dogs, Molly and Bosco. . . .

Farilyn Ballard: 

Where Faith And Commitment Make A Difference

By Kevan Goff-Parker Inside OKDHS Editor  (OCT 2004 article):

The Many Sides of Farilyn Ballard

As chief operating officer, Fari- lyn Ballard’s well-known serious side is often seen at OKDHS as she dili- gently works long hours tackling the agency’s many challenges.   It’s a serious job, but Ballard enjoys the responsibility. She leads the daily operations of the state’s largest agency and 4,000 employees from Field Operations, Children and Family Services Division and Family Support Services Division.

Oklahoma had one of the largest (initially) Marriage Demonstration projects, I heard…    it is called “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative”  (“OMI”)

Ms. Ballard was there.

Oklahoma Marriage Initiative logo

Marriage Research – OMI

She has developed a middle range theory of the experience of expectant and newfatherhood in Research Advisory Group meetings include: Farilyn Ballard
http://www.okmarriage.org/Research/MarriageResearch.asp – Cached – Similar

This OMI is also a project of the Public Strategies, Inc. I mentioned with, I THINK (might be wrong…), ties to Center for Policy Research (I believe) -out of Denver.  The common personnel between the Denver-based Center for Policy Research and the (now international) “AFCC” is one of the co-founders, Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (as I understand matters), and the slant is definitely pro-Richard Gardner, Pro-Parental Alienation theory (“PAS”) throughout.  As opposed to, say, feminist — at all…..   For an idea of what “OMI” is (referring to structure, funding, purpose, and reach, etc.) read this:

Mary Myrick, APR – Public Strategies

Mary MyrickMs. Myrick is the President of Public Strategies, an Oklahoma-based firm, and Project Manager for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). The OMI is widely recognized as the country’s first statewide, comprehensive program model for changing a state’s divorce culture and creating/providing services to reflect a broad-based commitment to family formation and marriage. Under Myrick’s leadership the OMI has recruited a highly-distinguished Research Advisory Board consisting of state and national experts on marriage, divorce, and low-income families; has developed and implemented the first comprehensive statewide survey to assess marriage/divorce values and demographics**; is implementing a multi-sector strategy, collaborating with multiple state agencies, service providers, educators, religious institutions, businesses and the media; and has launched a statewide skills-based Marriage and Relationship Education Service Delivery System, utilizing the research-based PREP as its core curriculum. Myrick speaks nationally about the successful OMI model and has provided hours of technical assistance to several states and communities committed to implementing their own marriage initiatives.

**interesting.  Drawing on ALL marriage/divorce data?  Census?  That colloborating with “everyone” so reminds me of AFCC (although their range is not quite “everyone”) Pulling in MULTIPLE state agencies (for probably program funding and access to population) Service providers (access to population, and training the in the right way to provide service) Educators (naturally) Religious Institutions (OK, here we go  . . . . ) Businesses (funding, sponsorship, promotion, right?) and the media — sound like a monopoly yet? Are there any anti-trust even CONCEPTS at work here?

This can be done in part because in 1995, President Clinton issued an Executive Order about Fatherhood.  You should read it sometime (again).  This was like an ignition that blasted free all kinds of information and technology, and monetary flow — a virtual riverhood of father-promotion and education.  ….

ABOUT US:

about us
Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members…PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C.

The Denver office is walking distance to “Center for Policy Research” in Denver, their name is found on many HHS reports, and their personnel extremely influential, as I have blogged.  @

1121 Grant St # B
Denver, CO 80203-5402
(303) 830-0400
Public Strategies BEGAN as a Public Relations firm, but with this federal funding (at least) has morphed into much more (touch cursor to the URL for a summary box to display, which shows how it works) :

As a visionary leader in public-private partnerships, Ms. Myrick developed Public Strategies (PSI) from a public relations and event planning firm into a leader in business development, strategic planning, and project management. She manages and continues to add to the firm’s diverse partnerships and directs PSI’s portfolio of national, state and community youth and family programs.

Ms. Myrick also leads efforts to provide technical assistance to other agencies and organizations including the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) grantees, the Texas Healthy and Human Services Commission, and several policy research organizations. (incl. CPR?)

As we can see below (in the list) the bulk of the work is DIRECT US Government-related:

Other Projects:

Publications that Mary has contributed to:

That’s funny, Dr. Richard Warshak’s reunification program was trade-marked “Building Bridges,” which is “treatment” for the extremely alienated child &/or family.

Among the team is a “Director of Fatherhood Services”

Calvin WilliamsCalvin Williams
Director of Fatherhood Services.  He is the “thought leader” in PSI’s fatherhood programs:

As the thought leader for the development of promising practices in the areas of fatherhood for each of the programs that PSI manages, Calvin fills a critical role on the Public Strategies team.His expertise in the fatherhood is now being utilized in the PREP curriculum which he co-authored, “On My Shoulders.” In his new role, Calvin develops programs and interventions targeted to non-custodial parents that encourage cooperative parenting, and provide insight and guidance, as well as resources and tools that assist in providing high quality services to low income men and their families.Before joining PSI, Calvin worked as Program Director, Operations Director, and Acting Executive Director for Services United for Mothers and Adolescents (SUMA) Fatherhood Project in Cincinnati, Ohio

He develops programs targeted to the court system, and probably child support as well, wouldn’t you say?

2003 “Ohio Practitioners’ Network for Fathers and Family”

“In May of 2003 (it reads) the Center for Families and Children in Ohio hosted the first “Fathers Matter” conference in the State of Ohio…a diverse group of stakeholders and practitioners was brought together to discuss the importance of fatherhood and the barriers faced by practitioners. … most participants agreed that there was a need for a Fatherhood Practitioner network in Ohio.”

(to clarify, a “fatherhood practitioner” need not be male — or even a father.  A “Fatherhood Practitioner” is closer to a public relationship or program development function, from what I can tell.  I know that in order to play football, sooner or later one must actually practice football. Generally speaking, there are coaches, right?  These are the self-declared fatherhood coaches, and what they are speaking of is obtaining a platform to enact their policies (and funding, of course).   Whatever these policies be, the “label” is “FATHERHOOD.”   I suggest that all reasonably minded fathers (and mothers) who are unaware of the extent and network of this system consider the impact of it on their bottom line, i.e., their wallets.  Because I assure us, the field is everexpanding, alongside “domestic Violence Advocates” (what — do they ADVOCATE for domestic violence?  Or just research it).  Between the two of them, and the courts — what’s left of any public benefit $$ is going to go the other direction.  Because once in the house, these birds (and I DO mean also the “battered women’s” side of the policy as well) will ONLY continue to expand.

One advantage is that the US Congress, and I’d still bet most state Congresses, are primarily male, in fact white male.  SO the chances that programs of this theme are not going to speak to their gut level sense of masculinity and what’s “right” with the world is slim.

For example, in or about 2000, the good citizens of Ohio — or at least their elected representatives — voted in a ‘FATHERHOOD COMMISSION.”  to find it, simply type in “http://Ohio.fatherhood.gov”     I linked to the “funding” page which summarizes.  Don’t neglect to click on “More” under the first link, where you will see a column of cool graphics & logos, such as:

And shows an entire range in which “fatherhood” can be inculcated, from Early Head Start (basically before they stop nursing) through college, including county government (cf.  “Board of County Commissioners”) recover groups, community action groups, et.    THere is NO area of life and human practice which couldn’t use more fatherhood training and promotion.  Being a long-term noncustodial mother, in large part because of my ignorance of the impact of these grant programs at the on the courts, locally —  I think that every one in the US should fund more of these (yeah, right).

Ohio Commission on Fatherhood Funded Programs

Funded Fatherhood Programs
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood awards grants to exemplary fatherhood programs throughout the state of Ohio each biennium. The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood recently completed another round of fatherhood grants for 2010-2011. The Commission awarded grants to nine fatherhood programs located through out the state of Ohio in the amount of $1.5 million.  More>>
Fatherhood Regions
Fatherhood regions mirrors Ohio Department of Development regions. This map will reflect fatherhood programs, activities, fatherhood initiatives and resources within each region. More>>
Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative
On January 18th, the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood launched the Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative.   Eleven counties have been selected to participate in this pilot project.  The Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative is a six-month process during which county leaders identify specific needs in their county and develop a fatherhood action plan.  If your county would like to participate in a future training, submit the on-line form to be added to the waiting list.   More>>

Back to Public Strategies, Inc. (and its government-sponsored programs, such as how to collaborate with DV groups and make sure they aren’t too radical, such as actually advocating for complete separation where there has been ongoing criminal activity by one parent upon another, or the children — like ”

These “Bridges” have indeed been built between fatherhood and DV programs so that their practices (and in great part, philosophies) are indistinguishable any more.  BOTH support more and more supervised visitation, trainings, and continue to conference on “best practices.”  BOTH (also a Duluth Model concept) assert that “Coordinated Community Response” = best response.  I don’t agree.  At all.  All this does is build bridges between agencies and a wall of difference between service providers and those served — two different classes and two different outlook.  Client v. service provider, not Human-to-human.

This list of “PSI” clients are well known (at least by name) to anyone looking into the grants and funding of the HHS-sponsored Healthy Marriage Movement; that is basically what the clients are.  Without these clients, PSI would not have a business, or would be one PR firm among many.

http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2

Government Agencies

• Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Family Expectations, a program managed by Public Strategies was recently profiledby the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of Family Assistance as one of the most successful Healthy Marriage programs in the country.

• Oklahoma Department of Human Services ( OK DHS)
• Oklahoma Association of Youth Services
• Oklahoma Department of Health
• Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
• Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF)
• Louisiana Department of Social Services
• Texas Health and Human Services Commission (TX HHSC)

Research Organizations

• Texas Tech University (TTU) – College of Human Sciences
• MDRC  (SEARCH MY BLOG)
• Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR)
• National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV)
• Oklahoma State University (OSU) – Research and Graduate Studies

Nonprofit Organizations

• Annie E. Casey Foundation (AEC)
• Johnson Foundation
• The Dibble Institute
• It’s My Community Initiative (IMCI)
• Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians (OAFP)
• Harding School of Fine Arts

Corporate Clients

• Lewin
• ICF
• Pal Tech
• Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)
• Hill & Knowlton  (I read this client just bought PSI, one can check)

• Oklahoma State Medical Association (OSMA)

The “big guns” behind this firm, then, turn out to be either (a) federal funds or (b) foundations, primarily.  MDRC (I posted again recently on this one, under “will the real MPDI please stand up?”) — it’s huge…

So were these scholars, experts, and I suppose “practitioners” although the fastest way to practice “fatherhood” might just be to join the AFCC, and several I recognize.

OMI Research Advisory Group Members:

Paul Amato, PhD – Pennsylvania State University
Ronald B. Cox, Jr., PhD, CFLE – Oklahoma State University
Robin Dion, MS – Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.  (an organization that fulfils HHS, gov’t contracts and does research)
Kathryn Edin, PhD – Harvard University
David Fournier, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Norval Glenn, PhD – University of Texas
Sarah Halpern-Meekin, PhD – Bowling Green State [Ohio] University
Ron Haskins, PhD – Brookings Institution  {originator of the TItle IV-D / Access Visitation law which enables the research and demonstration element, and facilitates (increased, is the general idea) “noncustodial parent contact” through federal grants to the states.  1996ff.  These ARE “fatherhood” grants — they do not help mothers with visitation difficulties increase access, although the wording reads “parents.”  i.e., he is a central person in this mix…
Alan J. Hawkins, PhD- Pennsylvania State University
Pamela Jordan, PhD, RN, – University of Washington
Christine Johnson, PhD – Oklahoma State University
Howard Markman, PhD – University of Denver
Steve Nock, PhD – University of Virginia (Our colleague and friend passed away early in 2008)
Theodora Ooms, MSW – Center for Law and Social Policy
Galena K. Rhoades, PhD – University of Denver
Scott Stanley, PhD- University of Denver

OF THIS LIST, I’ll bet there is some AFCC, starting with Paul Amato

Paul Amato

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

Ms. DION, of Mathematica, Inc. — a group I remember well because their label shows up on so many fatherhood studies:


Robin Dion

Irwin  Garfinkel, PhD

Sara McLanahan     Ms. Dion (first of the 3 photos here) is a Research Psychologist at Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which has offices in Washington D.C. and Princeton, NJ. This widely respected research firm has conducted studies in health care, welfare, education, employment and nutrition. Robin is currently the Principal Investigator for a federally funded research project, Strengthening Families with a Child Born Out-of-Wedlock. The project grows out of the Fragile Families research project directed by Sara McLanahan (Princeton University, photo above) and Irwin Garfinkle (Columbia University).  [[who also, I believe, publish frequently with Ron Haskins, Ron Mincy, and others]]  “Sara McLanahan, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University, studies the relationship between family structure, income, and child outcomes.”

Note Dr. McLanahan’s study emphasis, in part:  “he is the author of many articles and books including Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement (1998); Social Policies for Children (1996); Growing Up with a Single Parent (1994); Child Support and Child Wellbeing (1994); Child Support Assurance: Design Issues, Expected Impacts, and Political Barriers, as Seen from Wisconsin (1992); and Single Mothers and Their Children: A New American Dilemma (1986).  Her degree in Sociology is from Univ of Texas at Austin….  She also has published, and will continue to, with Ron Haskins.  Get the general idea?  (research, sociology, behavioral sciences, economic policy, etc.)  She’s a researcher.

Dr. McLanahan currently directs the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a nationally-representative longitudinal birth cohort study of approximately 5,000 families, including 3,700 unmarried parents and their children. The study is designed to shed light on the health and development of low-income children, the impact of family relationships and dynamics on child wellbeing, and the impact of social policies on family relationships and child wellbeing.

Dr. McLanahan is also editor-in-chief of The Future of Children, a policy journal on children’s issues produced by Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The journal’s latest issue, “Fragile Families,” (Vol. 20, No. 2) is co-edited by Sara McLanahan, Irv Garfinkel, and Ronald Mincy. Upcoming issues include: “Immigrant Children (Vol. 21, No. 1) co-edited by Ron Haskins and Marta Tienda. (available in spring 2011), “Work and Family Balance,

Dr. Garfinkle (I recognize the name, but dont see it as much, somehow):

Irwin Garfinkel is the Mitchell I. Ginsberg Professor of Contemporary Urban Problems and co-director of the Columbia Population Research Center. A social worker and an economist by training, he has authored or co-authored over 150 scientific articles and eleven books **on poverty, income transfers, program evaluation, single parent families and child support, and the welfare state. His research on child support influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the US Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. He is currently the co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Well being Study and is completing a book entitled The American Welfare State: Laggard or Leader?. . . . . .

**this is, of course, what social worker/economist Ph.D.s can do.  They write.  A LOT.  Their writing sometimes becomes policy…

Columbia has both the Population Research (Center) and the “Fathers, Children, and Family” (Center for Research on…), run by colleague Dr. Ronald D. Mincy.

Here they are in Wisconsin (2009) running a conference at the “IRP” or “Institute for Research on Poverty.”  Poverty is a pressing issue, therefore RESEARCHING IT (which can be quite profitable and professionally advantageous) is of course important work.    The idea being of course, to stop it.  Notice that in the word “Population” (Garfinkle’s center) or the title of the “CRFCFW” — no noun representing any group of females even exists, not even the word “mother.”  Mothers are IN these groups (Population, Families, and alas even some girls definitely not legal adults, i.e., they are CHILDREN) — but not mentioned.  Father acknowledges the male gender.  No word in there acknowledges the female gender — yet females are at least half the population in the U.S. and a bit more, and worldwide, unless something unnatural (genocide, war, or infanticide of female babies in certain cultures) has come in.  How close is this to “Adam must always have Eve at his side” or disaster will result to the world?   . . . . . .

Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy

September 2009, University of Wisconsin–Madison

This conference brought together scholars and policymakers to examine strategies for reducing barriers to marriage and father involvement, designing child support and other public policies to encourage the involvement of fathers, and coping with fathers who have multiple child support responsibilities.** Representatives of the Obama Administration were in Madison to respond to the ideas put forth at the conference.

**It’s a little hard to keep promoting the theory that children MUST wake up with a biological father in the home, when these children live in different homes.  This ignores the fact that women, as well as men, actually do remarry, or have new partners.   Or that sometimes they do not, and their children still succeed.  One example I can think of is — in Wisconsin — a state Rep!   Congresswoman Gwen Moore.

IRP hosted this working conference in coordination with the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being and the Columbia Population Research Center, at Columbia University. Tim SmeedingRon Mincy, and Irv Garfinkelorganized the conference and co-edited a conference volume. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and EvaluationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is also providing financial support for this conference.

COnferences are definitely not free, and if we are to properly study Poverty by studying Fathers, the United States HHS might as well get involved and contribute.  The institutes that organized this have their own funders, of course (Foundational, and most likely government) but extra help was needed for this conference, obviously.

Conference papers are available in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 635 (May 2011): “Young Disadvantaged Men: Fathers, Families, Poverty, and Policy.” Special Editors Timothy M. Smeeding, Irwin Garfinkel, and Ronald E. Mincy.

Co-sponsoring contributors:
CRFCFW Logo

I BELIEVE THAT:

People who don’t appreciate the welfare state shouldn’t be living off it by promoting the practice of using welfare populations FOR that research, and conducting “demonstration” projects on them through institutions their poverty forces them to interact with, and which may have contributed to it.  One of the primary institutions that appears to have contributed to the wealth of some and the poverty of others is slavery.  While it was officially outlawed, it is obviously still practiced, a situation the US hasn’t come to terms with.  THe practice of slavery enabled many of the “founding fathers” to take time to write and research.  Others built their houses, cooked their food (bare their children) and tilled their fields.  Moreover, a middle range of management kept the field hands in place.

Probably this set of professionals can be viewed in these terms — they research and write upon the population and make sure that policy isn’t too radically different to enable more independence and more competition for commodities (food, work, materials, and sales, etc.). . . .  Some people mine the earth, or study the stars. Others mine DATA — and it takes time, money, and workers to collect, analyze and report on all that data.  MOreover it takes computers and an infrastructure where information can flow to and fro.  Hence, “Technical Assistance Grants” are so common.  In practice, except for the greater speed (and scope) perhaps it’s in many ways like farming. ….   First one gets access to the fields and somehow tills them (or SOME space where food can be grown).  Only problem — most of our population now (am I right?) is concentrated, and URBAN.  Hence the richest fields to mine are the urban poor, the urban violent, the urban oppressed (by . . . by what?). . and the urban don’t have access to clean water and food, or good schools.  It’s GREAT material to mine, and positioned right, one might end up at Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, or some Institute or Center of “higher” learning.

. . . continuing with Dr. Garfinkle’s research, and its impact:

 His research on child support influenced legislation in Wisconsin and other American states, the US Congress, Great Britain, Australia, and Sweden. He is currently the co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Well being Study and is completing a book entitled The American Welfare State: Laggard or Leader?

Dr. Charles Ballard, Ms. — or Mrs.? — Frances Ballard, nonrelative Farilyn Ballard of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, and here is another Ballard, “Valerie” — and this is the Northeast Texas Fatherhood Initiative (see Corporation Wiki link, there).  It shows only three people:    Valerie Ballard, Sheilah Tucker ,and Preston Mallone.

LinkedIn, Ms. Ballard (looks young!)

Valerie Ballard’s Experience

Valerie Ballard

Executive Director North Texas Fatherhood Initiative

Nonprofit Organization Management industry

July 2009 – Present (2 years)

Executive Director for the Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative (TexasHMRI) and North Texas Fatherhood Initiative (NTFI). Responsible for the strategic direction, leadership and capacity building; program development for TexasHMRI and NTFI. My role includes grant development and management, training and technical assistance and fiscal oversight to 50+ collaborative partners in the organization’s coalition.

Both of these are government-funded programs, through Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood (at a minimum):

TexasHMRI is a subcontractor for the Twogether in Texas Healthy Marriage Program under The Texas Health and Human Service Commission.

North Texas Fatherhood Initiative is funded by IMANI -The David Project a 2009 Compassion Capital Fund Grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families. (HHS/ACF — what else?)

Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative DALLAS United States of America COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 09/24/2006 93009 NEW VALERIE BALLARD $ 50,000 Abstract Not Available

(I found 80 in Texas under CFDA 93009 — most were small many were aimed at marriage, family & youth, such as:

Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages DALLAS United States of America COMPASSION CAPTIAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI 09/17/2005 93009 NEW CAROL BOWMAN $ 49,853 Abstract Not Available
Alta Vista Faith-Based Initiative Corporation Double Oak United States of America COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 09/23/2006 93009 NEW ROBERT CHAVEZ $ 50,000 Abstract Not

Once these take root (cf.  “Alliance for North Texas…”) they tend to get watered; this went straight to almost $1 million ($900K) the second year….

Grantee Name City County Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages** DALLAS DALLAS COMPASSION CAPTIAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRIAGE 09/17/2005 93009 NEW CAROL BOWMAN $ 49,853 Abstract Not Available
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages DALLAS DALLAS HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 09/24/2006 93086 NEW COSETTE BOWLES $ 903,425
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages DALLAS DALLAS HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 09/20/2007 93086 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ERIN KINCAID $ 903,425
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages DALLAS DALLAS HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 09/22/2008 93086 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ERIN KINCAID $ 903,425
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages DALLAS DALLAS HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 09/18/2009 93086 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ERIN KINCAID $ 903,425
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages DALLAS DALLAS HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 09/24/2010 93086 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION COSSETTE BOWLES $ 903,425

In case you wondered about the name, the acronym is ‘ANTHEM’ but apparently the actual nonprofit? name is “Strong Families”

Strong Families Dallas
Alliance for North Texas Healthy Effective Marriages (ANTHEM)
1201 Elm street
Dallas, TX 75270

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to deliver marriage education services to 8,360 married and engaged couples and persons interested in marriage, 5,910 non-married expectant parents and 3,445 high school students over the project period. ANTHEM will also launch a public awareness campaign to reach all Dallas-area residents.

(I tend to look up addresses; here it is all in one):

  1. Anthem Strong Families | Anthem Dallas

    Dallas Black Marriage Day. image. Anthem Strong Families. 12800 Hillcrest RoadSuite#A124 DallasTX 75230. Office: 214-426-0900. Fax: 214-426-0906 
    http://www.anthemnorthtexas.org/index.php?option=com…id=1… – Cached
  2. Providers in your area – Twogether in Texas  (another grants recipient)

    Alliance for North Texas Healthy Effective Marriages 12800 Hillcrest RoadSte A124 Dallas,TX 75230 214-426-0900 twogether@anthemnorthtexas.org 
    http://www.twogetherintexas.com/UI/RIAddresses.aspx – Cached – Similar
  3. Dallas TX computer system consultants | Find computer system 

    computer system consultants for Dallas TX, TX.  2.9 mi; View Phone (214) 426- 0900;12800 Hillcrest Rd Ste 124Dallas, TX 75230 map · more info | Enhance 
    directory.dallasnews.com/dallastx+tx/computer+system+consultants.zq.html – Cached
  4. AllPages.com – Mental Health Specialists, Dallas, Yellow Pages 

    Business Types: Mental Health Specialists. Bowles Cosette Psychothrpst 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 124DallasTX 75230-1560. Phone: (972) 490-1556 
    tx.allpages.com/dallas/health-medical/…/mental-health-specialists/ – Cached
  5. YiPpIe! – Dallas Marriage & Family Counselors – DallasTX

    Gadol Irwin PhD 12800 Hillcrest Road Suite 224. DallasTX 75230 ….. S MD,8330 Meadow Road Suite 124,Dallas,TX,75231,(214)369-9236 Prestonwood Counseling 
    1499.yippie.biz/tx/dallas/ – Cached

It has no links programs targeted to mothers (I guess welfare is supposed tohandle that).  Why SHOULD it?  after all 93.086 is Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood — not motherhood.  Responsible Fathers will know how to keep the Moms in line, right?  And here is the “Strong Fathers” rhetoric, which definitely targets (negatively) single mothers — if all these are laid at our feet for not keeping a man in the home:

Growing up in a fatherless home has a big price.  Children from a fatherless home are:

  • 5 times more likely to commit suicide
  • 32 times more likely to run away
  • 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
  • 14 times more likely to commit rape
  • 9 times more likely to drop out of school
  • 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
  • 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
  • 20 times more likely to end up in prison

BUT THEN AGAIN, they also might end up in the White House, USA< where they can start more Fatherhood.gov programs (and a video linking to one is on the site).  Or at Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, or elsewhere, running research on the importance of fathers, and being very well recognized for it…

THIS is funded by the US Goverment, “OFA” OpDiv:

Strong Families Dallas

Strong Families Dallas (SFD) is the 5 year project awarded to Anthem Strong Families by the Federal Office of Family Assistance and funded through the Administration for Children and Families. The purpose of SFD is to offer free 8-12 hour fun, interactive relationship skill workshops to the people of Dallas.

Here is a 2011 “webinar transcript” (obviously partial) talking about this “HEALTHY MARRIAGE OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTNER WITH THE COURTS”

A bit more on this “ANTHEM” — which I was able to find (same grant, I gather) in USAspending.gov.  This find confirms the grant was taken from welfare funds:

  • Total Dollars:$2,885,849
  • Transactions:1 – 5 of 5 (of the two recipients, both were taking TANF funding to promote marriage).

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 90FE0072: 0 (Grants)
Recipient: ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE (MARRIAGES)
333 N Washington , DALLAS, TEXAS
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.086 : Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants
Description:
HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2

Its  DUNS # is 360770486  (DUNS = “Dun & Bradstreet” trading#, used for groups contracting or getting grants from the US Gov’t as well; knowing this # can help search a single organization which goes under more than one name, a.k.a. FVPF, etc.)  It has no “State application ID” (SAI) # for what that’s worth.

The term “FE” on a grant — i.e., 90FE0072 seems to be code for “FATHERHOOD EDUCATION” (trust me, I’ve seen enough).   So whether or not it SAYS “marriage/family” on the front, the purpose is Fatherhood promotion.

this street address (googlemaps) is ? labeled opposite some “Institute of Metabolic Disease

The Initiative above is likely a grants program (HHS, I’d guess), and I’ll bet that one or both are receiving access visitation grants from the Attorney General’s Office..  This is Dallas Fort-Worth area….  The NTFI resides at a college “Business Incubation Center” according to a news bulletin, it operates out of a college.

BUSINESS INCUBATION CENTER BUSINESS PROFILES March 2011

Bill J. Priest Campus of El Centro College Dallas County Community College District

1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, TX 75215, (214) 860-5851

The Dallas County Community College District officially opened the Business Incubation Center June 4, 1990. An integral part of the Bill J. Priest Campus, 1402 Corinth Street, Dallas, Texas, the Business Incubation Center has just over 30,000 square feet of space available for businesses located on site. Designed as a corporate headquarters facility, the Incubation Center offers cost-shared equipment and services for up to 50 small business owners.

The following is a profile of the businesses that are associated with Business Incubation Center as of March 2011.  (And on the list):

NORTH TEXAS FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE, Valerie Ballard, SUITE 123, (214) 884-7020: A regional partnership of community and faith-based agencies promoting responsible fatherhood by providing for male children, teens and adults educational workshops, mentoring, job skills assessments and training, counseling, household products and clothing. They also provide career counseling & job training for ex-offenders, assists families become [i.e., “in becoming”]…homeowners, and computer technology training for jailed offenders.

Check out the tie to the National Fatherhood Initiative, and grants solicitation, underneath the marriage education.

“…When you donate $125 on behalf of a family member, friend or yourself, we will create a memorial fund in honor of the recipient. Anyone may contribute to the memorial fund, at any time…All donations are tax deductible under our 501(C)3 non-profit organization. ”  and “The Why Knot? program is designed to help men develop a positive view of marriage. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) developed Why Knot? to help men understand the benefits of marriage…”  etc.

Well, let’s see….. where is this North Texas Fatherhood Initiative nonprofit registered?

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/search.php

National Center for Charitable Statistics

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

Texas Secretary of State

Texas Secretary of State

Apparently in Texas (and DNK where else) one may form an “Unincorporated Nonprofit Organization,” meaning, no registered agent:

Nonprofit Corporations: Not all non-profit organizations are filed with the Secretary of State. Many, but not all, non-profit organizations chose to incorporate. A nonprofit corporation is created by filing a certificate of formation with the secretary of state in accordance with the Texas Business Organizations Code (“BOC”). “Nonprofit corporation” means a corporation no part of the income of which is distributable to members, directors, or officers [BOC, Section 22.001(5)]. A nonprofit corporation may be created for any lawful purpose, or purposes permitted by the BOC. Not all nonprofit corporations are entitled to exemption from state or federal taxes.

Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations: Section 252.001 of the BOC defines an unincorporated nonprofit association as an unincorporated organization consisting of three or more members joined by mutual consent for a common, nonprofit purpose. All unincorporated nonprofit associations, whether or not the entities are tax exempt, are subject to the provisions of the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, Chapter 252 of the BOC. The Act addresses a limited number of major issues relating to nonprofit associations; namely, the authority of the nonprofit association to acquire, hold and transfer property in its own name; the authority to sue and be sued as a separate legal entity; and the contract and tort liability of an association’s officers and its members. If you need further information regarding these provisions or how they might affect your association, you should contact your own legal counsel.

An unincorporated nonprofit association may, but is not required to, file with the secretary of state a statement appointing an agent authorized to receive service of process on behalf of the nonprofit association. The filing of the statement does not represent the creation of the nonprofit association; it simply provides a method for a nonprofit association to receive notice of any lawsuit brought against it.

(one can also look at the 990s through these sites).

EIN: 113774629
Name: Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative — Google
Location:  PO Box 764274
Dallas, TX 75376
County: Dallas County
Ruling Date: 2006   (Approximate year when founded)
IRS Type: 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations…
Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public
NTEE:  P50 – Personal Social Services
Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) 12/2009
Total Revenue $67,520
Total Assets: $9,811

For an idea just how popular the idea is of forming a corporation (profit or nonprofit) in the “healthy marriage” field, see this search:

(Corporation Wiki:  “Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative“) (it pulls up similar titles in many other states.  Click on any and get a simple diagram of the Board of Directors — whether current or not is not my issue…  Probably taken from searching Secretary of State or IRS information)….This one has 5 people, including Ms. Ballard, above….

Apparently (per “TAGGS.hhs.gov”) this group got only a single $50K grant in 2006, and were up and running?  If they received any more federal funding after that, I haven’t found it yet (however, my database skills aren’t professionally trained….)…

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90IJ0623  COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 1 0 ACF 09-24-2006 949423417 $ 50,000 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 50,000

To search USASPENDING.gov, one needs (or it’d help) a DUNS# which here, is 949423417

They are top-down (HHS) funded under healthy marriage.  Meanwhile, in TEXAS there is also a “Council on Family Violence” supposedly keeping some watch on the Healthy Marriage promotion so it doesn’t promote staying together for a healthy family and ending up in a homicide or other violence.   I imagine this ALSO is public funding, and it’s informative about the healthy marriage funding, too:   I notice, it reads:

Please note that Healthy Marriage programs do not provide intervention for couples undergoing serious marital or family problems and stresses, nor do these programs provide counseling. It could be potentially dangerous for an individual in an abusive relationship to participate in a healthy marriage program. The key is to do whatever is needed to ensure your safety and / or the safety of your children. There are services and resources available to assist with this issue. For help and information, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

The Board of Directors of THIS nonprofit (presumably) has a “Chief Executive Officer Emeritus” Sheryl Cates, who can be seen on the “Telling Amy’s Story” video referenced on the “Family Justice Center Alliance web pages, right underneath an interview with Casey Gwinn & Ellen Pence.  This video was produced from Penn State.  It’s a small world, I guess)

NOW THAT WE SEE AT LEAST IN TEXAS, COLORADO, OKLAHOMA AND WASHINGTON, A LOT OF “FATHERHOOD” IS “FEDERAL” THE QUESTION COMES UP — WHEN THE PROMOTION OF MARRIAGE & FATHERHOOD IS VOLUNTARY, HOW CAN PEOPLE BE PERSUADED TO CONSUME THE CLASSES, THEREBY CONTINUING TO JUSTIFY THE PROGRAMMING (WEBSITES, BOOTCAMPS, SEMINARS, BOOK SALES, ETC.)??

(I mean, after all, most healthy marriage program recipients are not judges, and so can’t just order it, like AFCC judges can.  And the research professionals are out researching and gathering the fatherhood data and running institutes and conferences (Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Brookings,Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, etc.) so they are busy…)

Well, in March 2011, here is a nice webinar to explain some of the basics:

NATIONAL HEALTH MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER

Opportunities to Partner with the Courts Webinar….

The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC) will host a webinar entitled, Healthy Marriage Programs: Opportunities to Partner with Courts on Thursday, March 31, 2011 from 1:00 – 2:30pm (E.S.T.).

Courts deal with a range of people who could benefit from relationship education—couples filing for divorce, parents involved in the child support system, and youth who are processed for misdemeanors as well as felonies are among them. Some Healthy Marriage programs have developed fruitful partnerships with court administrators and/or judges to facilitate referrals. Speakers at this webinar will discuss the potential benefits of such partnerships, how they can be established, and how court-referred participants are profiting from Healthy Marriage program participation.

Webinar Speakers

Alicia Davis, J.D., Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts, will discuss the types of cases that courts could refer to Healthy Marriage programs, how program managers can establish partnerships with the courts, and how approaches for forming these partnerships will vary by state.

Lynda Williams, Drug Court Coordinator, Dallas County, TX. will discuss the types of cases she refers to the ANTHEM Healthy Marriage program and why; how the referral process works; and the extent to which the Dallas County drug court finds this partnership beneficial.

Ann Bruce, Program Manager, Building Healthy Marriages, Weld County, CO., will discuss how her program’s partnership with the courts was formed, whether it is a significant referral source of participants, and the extent to which clients referred from the courts are a good match for the type of services that her program delivers.

Rich Batten, Program Manager, National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC), will moderate this session.

I’m figuring this is probably the same Alicia Davis, J.D. a member of the Court Improvement Project Program  here:

Ms. Alicia Davis, J.D. Family Unit Supervisor, SCAO Colorado State Court Administrator’s Office 1300 Pennsylvania Street Denver, CO 80203

and others, such as various judges, and

Ms. Susan L. Blumberg, Ph.D. Child and Family Program Specialist Administration for Children and Families, Region 8 1961 Stout St. 9th floor Denver, CO 80294  {{relates to welfare & foster care, this link.  }}

Alicia Davis

Alicia Davis, Principal Court Management Consultant, has expertise in court-community collaboration, program development, data-sharing, child, family and probate law, and alternative dispute resolution.  {ADR  or “mediation,” essentially — is an AFCC hallmark)

Her education includes a J.D. from the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, and a B.A. from the University of California at Santa Barbara in Spanish and English Literature.

Colorado State Courts (evidently) have an “OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION” (or “ODR”) — as follows:

The Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) exists to establish and make available dispute resolution programs and services within the Colorado Judicial Branch. Through its sixty-plus contract mediators and neutrals, ODR offers mediation and other services across the state. ODR also provides information about dispute resolution in Colorado and nationally, and coordinates training for judicial officers and court staff .

“Mediators and other ADR professionals are independent contractors for the Office of Dispute Resolution and not judicial employees.
All available positions will be advertised on the Colorado Judicial Department’s main website under Careers.” (Click, for an overview).

If these are “contract” mediators — their “contracts” as either professional fees (or if they are operating as a nonprofit, etc.) would show up under VENDOR payments to either city or county.  Their services are aimed at indigent /poor people, who are encouraged to settle out of court — and the fees, paid by one presumes probably by the local county.  OH — and of course, at times (depending on the situation) they might be receiving help from a subgrantee of the A/V fatherhood funds to states.

Simply — as with Parenting Coordination, one simply needs to connect the dots — and teach Marriage Program Recipients how to match up their programs with the courts and prisons.

Another funds recipient from Arizona (Dr. Leo Godzich) has an organization that was at one point connected with a kill-the-gays movement in Uganda — while taking federal marrriage (a.k.a. fatherhood) monies.   And belongs to a mega-church.  And wrote this book:

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men - Dr. Leo Godzich

Men and women are different. That probably doesn’t come as a surprise to you, but most couples are eventually surprised by it. To improve your relationship, you not only have to learn how to understand the differences between men and women, but how to enjoy discovering those differences on a daily basis for the rest of your lives.

((Let us teach you.  Buy the book!))

This is not a one-sided look at men or at women; it is a call to restore dignity in marriage by inspiring increased cooperation, a renewal in humility and personal responsibility while increasing joy and intimacy. Learn how to develop a vision for your marriage together, a mutual understanding of how magnificent it can be—and follow the practical steps you can take to make your marriage magnificent. Loaded with deep and engaging insights, these exciting explanations will help you realize how to turn resentment to rejoicing, tension to togetherness, confusion to commitment, and loneliness to loveliness.

This book is a sometimes stunning, always inspiring, and frequently funny examination of how men and women differ—and how to celebrate those differences to make a marriage that fulfills its purposes, and models a healthy marriage relationship to other

Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT PHOENIX 90FE0040 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 09/25/2006 93086 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION DR LEO GODZICH $ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT PHOENIX 90FE0040 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 09/21/2007 93086 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION DR LEO GODZICH $ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT PHOENIX 90FE0040 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 09/22/2008 93086 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION DR LEO GODZICH $ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT PHOENIX 90FE0040 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 09/17/2009 93086 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION DR LEO GODZICH $ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT PHOENIX 90FE0040 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 09/24/2010 93086 DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION DR LEO GODZICH $ 250,000
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT  PHOENIX AZ 85022 MARICOPA 362992336 $ 1,250,000

Yes, this was money taken from TANF, or welfare, as another database shows:

Recipient: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT
13422 NORTH CAVE CREEK RD , PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

This funding began in 2006.  FOr a comparison, in 2006, the same group contributed to opposing same-sex marriage in Arizona, under “NAME” — meaning it was taking from TANF for political activity:

PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA C-02-2006 (ANTI-GAY)
The National Association of Marriage Enhancement
13422 N Cave Creek Rd, Ste 3
Phoenix, AZ 85022
05/16/06 – $5,000.00 – Cash – Filed: 06/30/06
10/17/07 – $2,000.00 – Cash – Filed: 06/16/08

And in 2008, they helped organize a marriage conference in Uganda:

Sunday, 14th September, 2008
E-mail article E-mail article Print article Print article
By Joyce Namutebi

DR. Martin Ssempa, a pastor at Makerere Community Church, has received an award for his fight against homosexuality.

Ssempa and his wife Tracey received the plague from Apostle Alex Mitala, the overseer of the National Fellowship of Born Again Churches in Uganda.

This was during the “Great Marriage Celebration” organised by the National Association of Marriage Enhancement in conjunction with the National Fellowship of Born Again Pentecostal Churches in Uganda at Nakivubo Stadium over the weekend.

Mitala led hundreds of couples who converged at the stadium from various parts of the country into a prayer for Ssempa to continue being the torch-bearer in the fight against the vice in Uganda.

Just for the record, this organization was likely registered at all to received HHS Healthy Marriage Funds….  This is Ssempa supporting the infamous “kill-the-gays” legislation.

(ARTICLE IS FEB 2010; as far as I know, this bill is still “live” in Uganda….)  Since October of last year, Uganda has been the focus of international attention due to a proposal in their Parliament which would ban homosexual behavior of any kind via the death penalty for HIV people who engage in homosexual behavior and life in prison for others who attempt such behavior. One of the chief supporters of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been Martin Ssempa, a pastor in Uganda’s capital city of Kampala and well-known among Western evangelicals. Rev. Ssempa this week has called for a “million man march” which he hopes will bring large crowds out to support the harsh legislation. In addition, Ssempa has organized several news conferences in order to rally support among Ugandans for the bill.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 (click here for full text) would make any homosexual contact subject to life in prison, or even death if the participants are HIV positive. Those who know of homosexuals but do not report this information to the police could face fines and jail time. No exceptions are made for clergy or health care professionals.

 

So glad to know that HHS has discretion in WHO gets the marriage funding….NAME did.  In case you are wondering what they might be doing in Uganda, it seems that world wide travel on behalf of helping reduce the welfare caseload in the USA and help poor fatherless children HERE, this appears to be a conference schedule, UNDER this nonprofit organization, and for marriage education.  Wouldn’t you like to see the tax return?  Although it says “NATIONAL” clearly “INTERnational is meant…”

NAME - National Association of Marriage Enhancement

I clicked under “MEETINGS” and found quite the list of locales:

heck out some of the upcoming speaking engagements of Dr. Leo and Molly Godzich. If there is one in your area, we hope to see you there! If you would like to schedule a Together Forever Weekend or Pastor Leo for a sunday, please call our office 602-404-2600.

June 19
Bologna, Italy
La Parola Della Grazia

June 26
Torino, Italy
Chiesa Evangelica Internazionale

July 2-3
Alicante, Spain
Iglesia Rio de Vida

July 10
Paris, France
Charisma Eglise Chretienne

July 15-17
Irvine, Scotland
Bridge Church

August 19-20
Cincinnati, OH
Towne Worship Center

September 2-3
Harrison, OH
Church on Fire

September 6-10
Lima, Peru
Conferencia Salvemos a la Familia

September 22-24
Phoenix, AZ
International Marriage Conference

and back to Tennessee for September 28-October 1
Nashville, TN
AACC World Conference (that’s American Association of Christian Counselors).

THIS LINK (with youtube) ADVERTISES how there should be a NAME Center in your church — or community (i.e., advertising)

and apparently many churches said “Yes!” to Goodzich and joined the ‘war on divorce’ — such as at THIS link:

 

 

 

And they also rescue pastors:

image

(granted, this seems to be before the marriage funding began from HHS):  “In 2003, Pastor Leo and Molly Godzich started the Pastoral Rescue Center. It was founded on the idea: “how can pastors lead people when they cannot lead their own home.” Pastors’ marriages often go through struggling seasons like anyone else, but the predicament is they do not know who they can talk to. Where do they go for help? What will happen if members of the congregation find out that their home life is falling apart?

{{Not to worry.  Most congregations are still pre-occuppied with not noticing and not reporting or, in fact, doing anything to stop domestic violence and child abuse among the “saints.”  Keep the smiles on, keep the music playing, the tithes will keep coming}}

NAME responded to this thought by expanding its ministry (=expanded the scope of its business) to target pastors and church leaders. The pastoral rescue center has been able to restore so many marriages from divorce in complete confidentiality. The NAME headquarters is located in Phoenix, AZ so many pastors come and stay in a hotel while having secret counseling appointments, or they have call in appointements to the headquarter office

 

But the concept does rather bring one to the relationship between Pastor Leo and the disgraced (?) John Hagee.  It’s a bit hard to find information on this not laced with theology, but one blog notes (of Hagee) — in context, this is about Marriage Enhancement —

John Hagee was the leader of the charismatic {i.e., pentecostal} Trinity Church in 1975 and was the father of two children.

John Hagee had an adulterous affair with a woman and admitted to immorality in front of his church.

Pastor John Hagee then divorced the mother of his two children and married a younger woman (Diana Castro, now Diana Hagee) from that same congregation. Pastor John Hagee willfully abused his position of trust and power to take advantage of a younger gullible woman and cheat on his wife.

(not exactly something new under the son, however…..)

So what happened after John Hagee admitted to cheating and abusing his power? Did he repent and pursue becoming a better person and living a life based on Biblical principles? Did people stop following his ministry? The answers are very obvious. John Hagee married the woman he cheated on his wife with and immediately became the pastor of another congregation- the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas.

Pastor John Hagee went on to push his evangelical, speaking in tongues Cornerstone Church into becoming a megachurch that televises his weekly sermons. Nor did he do so for free.

If you visit the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas or watch Pastor John Hagee on his television show, you will see him perched on top of an enormous white and blue throne watching his massive choir or jazz band. When they finish, John Hagee will approach the pulpit for his favorite time of the week- tithe time! Pastor John Hagee has his congregation members raise their money towards the sky and repeat after him “Give and it shall be given.” He then instructs his audience that “When you give, it ualifies you to receive God’s abundance. If God gives to you before you give to him, God himself will becom a liar… If you’re not prospering it’s because you’re not GIVING!” Contained in those few sentences is everything that is unscriptural and wrong with the New-Age “Prosperity Message” pushed on gullible congregations by megachurch pastors nationwide.

KIND of sounds like people lining up to get more fatherhood funding — think of the fatherless children! — one reason I wrote this post…
Now you know perhaps where some of the fatherhood movement sponsors got their techniques from (i.e., the pulpits ,the missionary drives….
“Who is monitoring?” asks this (i’d guess, religious?) blogger — and I say the same about these nonprofits on the HHS dole…

Pastor John Hagee has grown into an enormously wealthy man. In the year 2001, his organization filed revenues of $18.3 million dollars with the IRS. What was John Hagee’s personal compensation package worth? More than $1.25 million dollars. His nonprofit organization, GETV, has a mission statement reading “Spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Somehow I think his nearly 8,000 acre Texas ranch does not help that mission. Not only does Pastor John and his wife Diana Hagee own that sprawling ranch, but they also have a 5,275 foot, 6 bedroom mansion in one of San Antonio’s most exclusive gated communities (The Dominion). The house is appraised at $700,000.

So who is monitoring Pastor John Hagee and his largesse? Who ensures that the millions of dollars that gullible grandmothers give him is spent to further spread the gospel of Jesus Christ? 3 of the 4 Directors who monitor the board of his nonprofit GETV foundation are his direct family members- his wife, Diana; his son, Matthew; and himself.

Forgot to mention, that along with support the kill-the-gays guy (which NAME did), Mr. Hagee blamed Katrina on the residents of New Orleans; they’d offended God:(same blog)

Pastor John Hagee – Cornerstone Church Ministry, Heresy, Divorce & Dirty Deeds

All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” – John Hagee

Of course that predates the male prostitute scandal.   “Haggard, 52, resigned as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and was fired from New Life Church amid allegations that he paid a male prostitute for sex and used methamphetamine. ….

As part of a severance package with his former church, Haggard agreed to leave Colorado Springs for a period and not speak publicly about the scandal, church officials said at the time. But he never really disappeared, making news when he relocated his family to Arizona and solicited financial support in an e-mail.

One restoration team member, H.B. London, said a return to vocational ministry in less than four or five years would be dangerous for Haggard, his family, former church and Colorado Springs.

“To sit on the sidelines for a person with that kind of personality {ego/greed/drive/lust, etc.) and gifting is probably like being paralyzed,” said London, who counsels pastors through a division of Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian group. “If Mr. Haggard and others like him feel like they have a call from God, they rationalize that their behavior does not change that call.”

Haggard, who declined to be interviewed, is not the first fallen evangelical figure to agree to oversight and then balk. In the late 1980s, televangelist Jimmy Swaggart confessed to liaisons with a prostitute, begged forgiveness and submitted to the Assemblies of God, his denomination. Swaggart was ordered not to preach for a year, but resumed broadcasts after a few weeks and was defrocked.

* * * *  Haggard’s support system includes Leo Godzich, who runs a Phoenix-based marriage ministry and said he met with Haggard at least once a week for more than a year. Godzich said Haggard remains committed to restoration, has paid a high price and still has much to offer. * * * *

“If all men are honest, all men are liars and deceivers,” Godzich said. “Once someone is gifted and called, that is something they generally cannot escape. They will be used in that regard again.”

Yes, this is definitely a type of religion  that believes in USING people — God uses people, and so do they.  SO what’s wrong with that, eh???

 

And NAME ave opened many marriage centers, particularly in churches.  THIS list (see site) is huge, and a bit disturbing only partial listing here:

United States
Alabama
Huntsville
The Rock Family Worship Center
2300 Memorial Pkwy SW
256-533-9292
http://www.the rockfwc.org
Alaska
Wasilla
Wasilla Assembly of God
PO Box 872010
907-376-5732
http://www.wasillaag.org
Arizona
Avondale
Cornerstone Christian Center
11301 W Indian School Rd
623-877-3220
http://www.cornerstoneaz.org
Arizona
Chino Valley
Word of Life Assembly
590 W. Road 1 North
928-636-4224
http://www.cvwola.com
Arizona
Flagstaff
Lamb of God Bible Church
2615 E 7th Ave
928-714-1170
http://www.logbc.org
Arizona
Gilbert
Mission Community Church
4450 E. Elliot Rd
(480) 892-5505
Arizona
Kingman
Kingman First Assembly of God
1850 Gates
928-753-3529
http://www.kfaonline.org

 

NOt the best post, but did I make my point about WHO is paying for Fatherhood Funds — and who knows what is being done with them?

 

Just remember that, and check the US Congress “House Ways and Means Committee” to track the next installments.

 

Happy Fatherhood Day; Be well and prosper ….

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 19, 2011 at 8:36 PM

AFCC Coordinates Parenting Coord (and the courts…); Democrats spearhead next Fatherhood Legislation HR 2193.

with 3 comments

Fathers, Parents — what’s the diff?

For the Democrats Spearheading the “My Fatherhood Package is bigger than your (Republican) package” legislation, see last post and remember how quickly dropped the burden of Democrat Rep. Weiner who’d been sexting about his “package” on-line while awaiting the birth of his firstborn, and then lied about it.

 

 

Now about how Parenting Coordination gets pushed through:

(It helps if one has a Supreme Court Judge also an AFCC member….)

COORDINATING PARENTING COORDINATION IN FLORIDA:

Any cause with such beautiful pictures associated with it must be a good cause.  Anyhow, here’s the page of links:

FLAFCC will continue its role as convener to encourage multi-disciplinary collaboration in the development of Parenting Coordination throughout the state. The Chapter will post information as it arises to keep those interested abreast of the progress in this area. From time to time, the information posted will include requests for comment for you to consider.

Members click here for Parenting Coordination Ethical Guidelines

For more information, please contact Linda Fieldstone, PC Taskforce Coordinator, atLFieldstone@jud11.flcourts.org.

MOST RECENT INFORMATION RELATED TO PARENTING COORDINATION IN
FLORIDA:

  • Section 2, Chapter 2009-180, Laws of Florida, formally establishes parenting coordination as a “child-focused alternative dispute resolution process.” Effective date of new legislation: October 1, 2009. Access legislation here (parenting coordination legislation begins on page 3).
  • The Family Law Rules Committee of The Florida Bar has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to adopt a proposed “fast-track” rule of procedure and form in order to implement the new parenting coordination legislation. The Court has assigned the petition Case Number SC09-1822. The initial petition can be accessed here. To view other documents related to the petition, go here (scroll down to SC09-1822 and click on the desired document).

ARCHIVED AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION RELATED TO PARENTING COORDINATION (CLICK ON DESIRED DOCUMENT:

FLAFCC PARENTING COORDINATION CLEARINGHOUSE
The FLAFCC Parenting Coordination Taskforce developed a Parenting Coordination Clearinghouse as a “One-Stop Shop” for all forms related to parenting coordination in those Judicial Circuits that have implemented parenting coordination in order to encourage collaboration among the parenting coordination programs throughout Florida. FLAFCC does not endorse any form or procedure included in this PC Clearinghouse and assumes no responsibility for the content of the downloadable materials in the Clearinghouse. It is the responsibility of each Florida Judicial Circuit/PC Clearinghouse participant to update any forms submitted to the Clearinghouse. To verify that the forms and information are accurate and current, FLAFCC recommends that interested individuals contact the Family Court Managers of their Judicial Circuits directly. FLAFCC continues to encourage the development of best practices in the utilization of parenting coordination in Florida.

Click here to enter the Clearinghouse.

From Chief Judge Barbara Parlente, reassuring us that Domestic Violence Advocates say Parenting Coordination (THIS version of the legislation) is OK:

MEMORANDUM

TO:  Chief Judges

FR:  Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente

WHEN   July 7, 2005

RE:  Use of Parenting Coordinators for High Conflict Cases

At the conclusion of the 2004 legislative session, Governor Jeb Bush vetoed a bill designed to provide guidance for the appointment and use of parenting coordinators to assist with high conflict dissolution cases where shared parenting schedules cannot be agreed upon by parents. This was due in part to concerns regarding the use of parenting coordinators when domestic violence is at issue in cases. In his veto message, he requested me to review the use of parenting coordinators to ensure that parents’ paramount rights are not compromised when this resource is accessed.

In response to the veto message, I created a workgroup to develop a model administrative order, a copy of which is attached. The administrative order was written by representatives from the following professions: judges, psychologists, certified mediators, domestic violence advocates and family lawyers. It has been reviewed by the Supreme Court Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, and they recommend that I send it to all chief judges. If your circuit presently uses parenting coordinators or is contemplating the use of them in the future, you are strongly urged to review this administrative order and adopt it to provide guidance to judges, family lawyers and parties who may benefit from the use of parenting coordinators.

OK, . . . . .   . . . . .

The word “high-conflict” means what?  Is there a legal meaning, outside the AFCC code-talk for “it wasn’t violent, it was just a dispute” and the habit of blaming BOTH parents without distinguishing when ONE parent might actually have something worth protesting — such as abuse, or habitual violation of court orders, etc.

This is reminiscent of (reminds me of) punishing an entire classroom for behavior of just a few….  And that’s probably a great connection, because the overall trend of this organization includes ongoing expansion and continually treating adults (ALL adults in a custody dispute) as if BOTH of them are parents.

Let me take that back — not quite BOTH parents when it comes down to actually writing the report (see handbook sample at PCANH.org — before they change it if they’ve yet noticed this post (which is why I posted segments)..  In that situation, the coaches are coached how to blame moms.   But in talking about them a little more of a public profile, it’s BOTH the parents that just can’t get along and thus have “high conflict.”

This might be a good place to remind us that the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce is clear on one thing:  among the lowest paid professions one can enter with an undergraduate degree in it is counseling-psychology ($29,000).  Petroleum-engineering:   $129,000.

“Counseling psychology was the only major for which bachelor’s-degree recipients had lower median earnings than high-school graduates. The report also considers, by major, the likelihood that a person will go on to earn a graduate degree, and how much, on average, that boosted their earnings. Seventy percent of those counseling-psychology majors go on to obtain a graduate degree, and it raises their earnings by 67 percent.

The report uncovered significant earnings differences by gender and race. Those differences were smaller in more-technical fields, Mr. Carnevale noted. Men outearn women in each group of majors, and nearly every individual major, in many cases significantly. For instance, men who majored in math earn a median of $75,000, while women earn a median of $54,000. Some of that can be explained by occupation, Mr. Carnevale said: Many of those women who major in math go on to be teachers. The only majors with which women earned more than men were visual and performing arts, physiology, and information sciences. (Some majors had sample sizes too small to analyze by gender.

The report also looks at earnings by race for groups by broad categories of majors. Whites outearned all the other groups in 10 of the 15 groups of majors, and tied with African Americans for the highest earnings in one category, education. Asians had the highest median earnings in the remaining groups of majors: biology and life sciences, health, law and public policy, and psychology and social work.

What’s it Worth?  The Economic Value of College Majors

I’ve noted recently how many Ph.D. psychiatrists and psychologists are leaders in AFCC, however, the definite emphasis of the association IS to incorporate psychologists.  It does not appear to me that the profession of lawyers alone needed  a lot of promotion, would you say?  This group pushes psychology, and has been very successful overall.  When this also branches out into sales and marketing (through the courts) the possibilities are endless, especially when it’s downloadable information (from a link to a pdf, or DVDs that can be drop-shipped while the author or expert is out running (and taping) the next set of seminars… Great business if you can get it.

Another review of this same Georgetown Study from The Root.com says:

The careers that paid the most for African Americans included computer networking and telecommunications ($54,000), architects ($55,000) and medical technologies technicians ($55,000).

What we found interesting was the disparity in pay between whites and blacks. For instance, while the average African-American architect makes $55,000, his white counterpart makes $65,000. While general engineering pays African Americans $60,000 per year, white Americans in that field average $76,000. African-American computer scientists earn $61,000, but white American computer scientists earn $80,000. Interesting

As for the disparity in pay in this so-called postracial society, perhaps the question should be, why is it that when blacksdo invest in education, they are paid less and more likely to be laid off than other groups?

Read more at Black Enterprise.

Well, perhaps the fact that a targeted clientele to keep in court-associated programs MAY play a factor also.  There is no question that many programs are definitely aimed at (and facilitated by) one or the other parent’s use of any Title IV-D funding, i.e., welfare.  This is partly where the marriage promotion funding lives, and works (that, plus the child support arena).

Anyhow ….

RE:  Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente — that’s of the Florida Supreme Court:

Petite powerhouse Barbara Pariente is used to being in control. It’s evident from her stellar trajectory from federal law clerk to Florida Supreme Court justice in two dozen years.

The Pariente & Hazouri Family

She’s a fighter (and married to another judge) and refused to even let cancer keep her down:

The shocking diagnosis brought Pariente to her knees—but only temporarily. She fought back by doing what she does best: going into full analytical mode.

Anything but a passive patient, she kept a fat notebook of all her medical records, files of research, and ques tioned leading authorities on breast cancer, seeing at least 15 doctors in all.

“She attacked cancer with the same type of meticulous preparation she has used throughout her legal and judicial career,” said husband Fred Hazouri, a Fourth District Court of Appeal judge.

Sister of a psychotherapist, and a stepmother:

Susanne Pariente, a psychotherapist, says what she loves most about her older sister is “her love of family and her sense of humor. She is fun to be around, really down to earth, with this great energy. She makes you feel special.” . . .

Barbara Pariente’s family is a happy blend, with a son from her first marriage and a son and daughter from Hazouri’s first marriage.

At her swearing-in ceremony July 2, 27-year-old Joshua Pariente Koehler said, “It’s the priority that she places on personal relationships that really makes her so special.” Turning to his mother, he said: “Mom, you are the very best person that I know.”

And David Hazouri, a Miami lawyer, said: “Barbara is as genuine a person as I have ever met. I have never had to read her or wonder what she was really thinking. Her intentions are unflaggingly filled with the hope of success for those she cares for. In a family that is the product of two second marriages, this quality has made us more than simply functional; it has made us whole.”

(It’s a very wonderful, and long, biography here…)  Well let’s talk business here:

AFCC connections. Of course this is an AFCC judge I’d assume:

The Florida Chapter of the Association of Family, Court, and Community {{HUH?? another ‘AFCC spinoff?  or the reporter got the name mixed up?}} Professionals is teaming up with the Florida Supreme Court Family Court Steering Committee to lead a symposium in early November called Enhancing Collaboration to Better Serve Children and Families.”

The FLAFCC is a statewide chapter of the international

AFCC and is dedicated to the constructive resolution of family disputes. Members of ‘FLAFCC include attorneys, judges, teachers, CPAs, social workers, and doctrs — professionals involved with developing and refining techniques to assist families in resolving their disputes.

Keynote Speaker Florida Supreme Court Justice

Barbara Pariente will discuss collaborative law at the inaugural conference of the FLAFCC,** and the two-day event will feature sessions such as “Collaboration and Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” “Innovations in Court Practice/Family Court Steering Committee Program and Projects,” and “Collaborative and Cooperative Lawyering.” 

**AFCC hasnt been in Florida as long as in some other states.  See their nonprofit filings if you want to compare…

The FLAFCC board of directors includes President elect Sheldon Finman, an attorney in Ft. Myers; Vice President and 20th Judicial Circuit Court Judge. Hugh Sharnes; and board members 11th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Judith Kreeger, and Joe Hood, a member of The Florida Bar Family Law Section executive council.

At the conference, the FLAFCC will add several people to its board, including Sharon Press, director of the Dispute Resolution Center; First Judicial Circuit Court Judge Kenneth L. Williams; and Ronald Alvarez, a general master in the 15th Judicial Circuit.

The event will take place at the Tampa International Airport  on Friday, November 9, and Saturday, November 10. Registration for the full conference before October 2& is $135, or $155 after. For more information about the symposium visit http://www.flafcc.org, or contact FLAFCC Secretary LindaFieldstone at (305)349-5575 or lfieldstone@jud11.flcourts.org.

COPYRIGHT 2001 Florida Bar  {See Fair Use notice on blog, here….}
Well, I guess AFCC (national) Board of Directors, Presidents and President-Elects have to live somewhere, and Ms. Fieldstone just happens to live in Florida. From the main website:
President Elect 
Linda B. Fieldstone, M.Ed.Miami, FLLinda Fieldstone is Supervisor of Family Court Services of the 11th Judicial Circuit and a Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator, working with high-conflict families within the Miami-Dade County Domestic Relations Division as a parenting coordinator.  Ms. Fieldstone has provided numerous trainings regarding intervention with high-conflict families and parenting coordination, nationally and throughout Florida. She served on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force to develop Guidelines for Parenting Coordination as well as on numerous taskgroups and Florida Supreme Court committees on the subject.  She is also a past president of the Florida Chapter of AFCC.

Degree — Educator.  Position — Supervises Family Court Services in 11th Distrit and is a mediator, AND a parenting coordinator….
If readers will kindly (and frequently!) review WHO the AFCC (national) boards of directors are, by profession, we see that there are some judges, some attorneys, some psychiatrists (notably Robin Deutch, Ph.D.) and some social workers, and some professional educators, such as Ms. Fieldstone & Ms. Midnick.
And it seems to me I already pointed out the Pruetts (dr. Marsha-Kline Pruett is obviously a woman, but no less fatherhood-centric than her husband Dr. Kyle Pruett at Yale Child Development Center.  Dr. Matt Sullivan runs a parenting coordinator business in California (when not doing reunification camp with other AFCC Board members on the East Coast):

Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., M.S.L
Northampton, MA

Marsha Kline Pruett is a licensed clinical psychologist and the Maconda Brown O’Connor Professor at Smith College School for Social Work. She is researcher, mediator, and consultant to couples, attorneys, and judges. Dr. Kline Pruett has a national reputation for the development, implementation, and evaluation of preventive interventions in courts and family-focused community agencies. She has written extensively for academic and lay audiences, coauthoring Your Divorce Advisor (2001) and Partnership Parenting(2009). She is a member of the board of editors of the Family Court Review. She was awarded the AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award in 2004. The California Supporting Fatherhood Involvement (SFI) project is currently a major focus of her intervention and research efforts.

Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Palo Alto, CA

Matthew Sullivan is a forensic family psychologist, practicing in Palo Alto, California. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University and his Doctor of Philosophy degree in clinical/community psychology from the University of Maryland. He is currently serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody. He has served on the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination and the American Psychological and American Bar Association working group on legal and psychological interventions with children and families. He is currently the co-chair of the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force.

The CEO (President) of AFCC is an attorney, but with these professional emphases:

President 
Robert M. Smith, JD
Windsor, CORobert Smith is an attorney and mediator with an emphasis on high-conflict family law cases, and regularly serves as a Child and Family Investigator, Child Legal Representative and Guardian ad Litem in judicial districts throughout Northern Colorado and the Denver Metro area. He received his Bachelor’s degree in English literature from Stanford University in 1961 and a Master of Divinity degree, with an emphasis in counseling, from San Francisco Theological Seminary in 1974. He earned his law degree from California Western School of Law in San Diego in 1995 and is licensed to practice law in Oregon and Colorado.

I would expect such an academic to be very literary :  English lit, 1961 (not much of a living in that except college professor?), M. Div/counseling 1974 (by this time AFCC was up and running, though possibly not under its current name) and JD in 1995.   A degree every 10 years or so, very impressive.  Somehow it’s less than assuring, however, that an organization with such influence is run  by an “M.Div.” although I’ve met some fine people who just got theirs….  He decides where kids do (or don’t) live, obviously, and whether or not they were (Well, I’ve read some colorado literature, from Dads, protesting that CF Investigator role).
We’d like to assure everyone that the Task Force on Parenting Coordination Guidelines was indeed “interdisciplinary” (though most likely ALL AFCC) (There IS no other group pushing parenting coordination, that I have found…..), and here they are:

The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin (NB:  ONTARIO, CANADA), AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.

I don’t think it might have occurred to this judge that as a JUDGE (presumably) he was sworn to uphold the Constitution of (his local state) and not Canada?  And that as a JUDGe he is to file a disclosure of financial interests — I wonder if he has disclosed “AFCC”?

Pardon me — mea culpa — he IS Canadian.  Well, United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, — what difference do national CONSTITUTIONS (or the US Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc.) make after all?  Surely we can through the courts completely coordinate our COUNTRIES as well.   All that’s necessary is to get the judges (and attorneys and of course psychologists and educators) together and lobby legislators and Governors to pass what we want passed, because after all this is Therapeutic Jurisprudence and we are all good people.  Yep…

The task force members are:

The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

I just underlined the only people who held JDs, excluding Christine Coates who has two degrees.
Judge appointing the task force (I do not know; googled) got a “bad” review in 1997 for actually validating sole custody to the mother, the Citizens Justice Review Panel complains about the ‘false allegations of sexual abuse.” …. (whatever….)
The main thing is to keep Pushing and Talking about Parenting Coordination, and then assure all involved that ethical guidelines will be adhered to, and write some.   Like here:
PARENTING COORDINATION CENTRAL (just seems to collate state by state progress)
Then advertised Trainings and Advanced Trainings (wonder if the expenses are deductible under professional continuing education yet…*.) such as:

Day One “Learning to Paddle Upstream:  Working with High-Conflict Impasse”

Day Two  “Navigating Alienation, Allegations and Ethical Dilemmas”**

During day two, participants learn to navigate the rapids associated with the impasses accompanying  Alienation & Other Allegations.  Alienation has and continues to be a source of controversy and concern for professionals in the field of divorce and family separation.  Participants will continue the dialogue and explore alienation within the context of attachment theory.  Professionals will be exposed to a broad yet comprehensive view of situations that arise that lead to children resisting contact with a parent.  Methods of identification and interventions suited to the work of a parenting coordinator will be highlighted.  Among these techniques, participants will explore alternative interventions including the use of alienation continuum, PA genograms and the use of an estrangement scale to document progress in the reunification process.

Notice they couldn’t actually “SAY” child sexual abuse or battery, kidnapping or death threats.   Notice how the Alienation is so real to the trainers, but the other (unnamed nouns) are all “Allegations.”   Well, “Alienation” is itself an allegation (and disproved psychological theory, but tell that to a psychologist!)

More to the point, these trainings are around $300 each.  That doesn’t count what it’s going to cost once Reunification is ordered; Lord help the couple that is going to get Warshak…  And yes, they are going to be (or already are) accepted in at least NASW:

Advanced Training Continuing Education Credits:

  • 12 CEUs
  • Approval Pending from NASW
  • Others Pending

 

Oregon Family Institute (which I have looked at often before, close connections to AFCC) has this banner:

 

 

Updated  1/20/11

OFI- TRAINED PARENT COORDINATORS 

Please look at the screen below to find listed PC’s we have trained  –

When there has been on-going high conflict that is not being resolved by mediation, evaluation or other methods, Parent Coordinators are often selected by the parents, but must be ordered by judges to provide PC services for the case.  The role of parent coordinator includes at least five functions:

  • Assessment
  • Education
  • Coordination and case management
  • Conflict Management
  • Decision-making when the parents can’t agree

 Parent Coordinators are often selected by agreement of the parents and their attorneys, but must be ordered by judges to provide PC services for the case.

Payment is made by the parents, or as ordered by the court (some jurisdictions have a way for low-income parents to receive this service paid by the court).  

 

Re:  the areas in red, the next steps (in this blog) will contain a little coaching in how to research the nonprofit status of any group that is seeking to function as a parenting coordination recipient of BUSINESS (parent-paid) sent it by courts (and that groups’ association with any existing judges).

 

Notice for low-income “a way can be found.”  This is a telltale indication that some county, state, or federal funding will be providing the payments. “By the court” means by a government entity — which the court IS.  The “Court” sometimes forgets (in fact, often forgets) who it owes its existence to — which is the willingness of the public at large to tolerate its help — or abuses — and continue working at tax-producing jobs to fund it.   Because there comes a time one cannot get blood out of a stone, and this time is coming pretty soon for the USA, based on our debt, and inflation, and instability of the $$.

I have found several nonprofits in the Florida area (in particular) with some very “odd” 990 filings — like NONE, or blank ones.  The membership, however, seems to see no problem with this and just goes out and forms another one.  One of these succeeded in crying about domestic violence to the right people, and got some more funding in 2011 to set up supervised visitation center (whether therapeutic or not, I didn’t check).  

THIS site is one way to look them up fairly quickly, and highly recommended.  not the purpose of OFI –which is to develop (more and more) PROGRAMS to help families, right?  Who are these going to benefit, long-term, and state by state?

this is a *.com site that may also help with lookups:   Type in “National Association of Parenting Coordinators” (and see if it has an EIN#) you’d be amazed how much pops up.  http://www.secstates.com

 

 

The one below, probably better, or you can simply figure it out in your state.

 

 

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 18, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Parent Coordination Promoters sure can be Pushy . . . . and the Practice is so Pervasive….

with one comment

Well this turned out to be an interesting post (see how it concludes).   Have a wonderful weekend and if it’s in your country, “Father’s Day.”

 

This Just Out from “GovTrack” on the House Ways and Means Committee (and predictably, Sponsored by Danny Davis, introduced 6/15/2011):

H.R. 2193:
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible…

H.R. 2193 To amend title IV of the Social Security Act

to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood

and strengthen low-income families,

and for other purposes.

“The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet….”

Democrat sponsors too, this time:

Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL7]hide cosponsors

I figure it will be similar to this one, from 2009):

06/17/2009 Davis, Bayh Introduce Legislation To Promote Healthy Families, Active Fatherhood

With one in three children in the United States living apart from their biological fathers, Representative Danny K. Davis and Senator Evan Bayh are renewing their efforts to promote healthy families and support American fathers who are trying to earn a livable wage and take a more active role in the lives of their children.

Rep. Davis along with Reps. André Carson and Artur Davis today introduced companion legislation in the House called the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 Act, in honor of Representative Julia Carson, the late Indianapolis congresswoman who championed fatherhood reform throughout her long career.

Bayh today introduced his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris, a bill cosponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama in the last Congress. Bayh’s bill is co-sponsored with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris.

“It is a sad and sobering fact that one out of every three kids in America will wake up this Father’s Day without their father present,” Bayh said. “Conceiving a child doesn’t make you a man, but raising one responsibly does. Unfortunately, absentee fathers have become a national epidemic. The result is that 24 million American children are more likely to struggle in school and have emotional and behavioral problems.”

 

Yeah, emotional and behavioral problems like sexting strange women while your pregnant wife is away at work  —  or (see recent posts — I can’t recall the name — of key Obama appointee starting a baby in May out of wedlock, and then marrying a newer, better woman the following December, while one’s job description includes the words “healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood” oversight.  I DNR exact details but you can see my 2011 posts, there are photos) —

If Obama’s own appointees can’t keep to the standard of responsible fatherhood, why should he inflict the programs on the rest of us, meanwhile constantly diminishing the work of very responsible mothers?

Bayh added, “Our government spends $100 billion a year to deal with the fallout of absent fathers.** The government can’t pass a law to make men good dads, but we can support local programs that specialize in job training, career counseling and financial literacy to help those men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids

What procedures are in place to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys? — To justify it, they say “men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids.”   However, even attorney General General Eric Holder has noted (finally, if only in QUICK passing) that in fact, custody is going to batterers.

Recently (6/22/2011) a rapper “Tone Loc” was arrested for felony (not misdemeanor) domestic violence with the mother of this child.  He posted $50,000 bail within 3 hours and was out. … (I hope she was able to relocate!).    The article sites, falsely, that violation of a restraining order in Calif. results in an arrest.  That is not true — if in theory, definitely not in practice:

d for Jennifer Morgan and Milena A. Abreu, Attorneys At Law,
Morgan Albite P.A., Miami & Coral Gables, Palm Beach & Vero Beach, Florida

Born Anthony Smith, rapper Tone Loc, arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence in Burbank, California over the weekend, is reportedly out on bail, having posted a bond of $50,000 three hours after being hauled into jail.

Known mostly for his rise to fame in the 1980’s with hits like “Wild Thing” and “Funky Cold Medina,” there is little information about exactly what occurred prior to Tone Loc’s arrest.

Police have only indicated that there was a “physical altercation” with the mother of his child.

If true, this situation does not bode well for Tone Loc, because, via the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, California has some of the harshest domestic violence laws in the country.

Whatever those laws are, or aren’t, the father can still get custody and generally also will get visitation too.

Felony domestic violence in California occurs when a person physically strikes their spouse, former spouse, a cohabitant, former cohabitant, a person with which they have or had a dating relationship, a blood relative, or the parent of his or her child.

The difference between felony and misdemeanor, as I read the (California) code is whether or not it causes serious injury.  You can check yourself.  Simply striking doesn’t constitute felony.  For Tone Loc to get this type of arrest, there probably was some injury showing.

No ongoing relationship is necessary, and penalties range from 2 to 4 years in jail and a $6,000 fine.

Additionally, restraining order violations automatically end in arrest.

That’s a bunch of baloney.  They only result in arrest of the local police or law enforcement decide to arrest them.  Many times they don’t.

California domestic violence law also impacts child custody by requiring judges to make the presumption that granting custody to a batterer is not in the best interest of the child.

SOURCE:  Criminal Law News Now.com, sponsored by Morgan Albite, P.A. – in Florida?

 

As the 2009 public statement from Rep. Davis says:

I am glad President Obama is starting a national conversation to draw public attention to the critical role that fathers play in raising responsible, healthy adults.”

Of course then-President Clinton (a prime example of marital fidelity, & “keep it zipped” Democrat, both before and during the US Presidency) already started that conversation in 1995, responding to Republican “Contract with America.”  Why do I start to feel sometimes like a bystander when Democrats & Republicans jockey (as our Congress) for supremacy in the  “MY fatherhood programs are bigger than YOURS!” and “Who’s your Daddy!” posturing — and spending?

 

((Here is Rep. Davis on Tax Day 4/15/2011 introducing “The Children’s Budget Act” and citing to Brookings Institute and The Urban Institute) talking about we need to spend more money on children.  For Brookings Institute, read Ron Haskins and others who produce “Fragile Family” and other “Strengthening the Family” reports indicating that marriage reduces poverty and is a great thing for children, which Deomcrat Rep. Anthony Weiner — who according to news “just out” (yesterday) — might be thinking about, about now — and I guess if he steps down at once, he won’t get to vote yes on more fatherhood funding — although he’s about to become one:**

(Thu Jun 16, 9:48 am ET Rep. Anthony Weiner stepping down

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Rep. Anthony Weiner plans to announce at a 2 p.m. press conference in Brooklyn, N.Y. Thursday that he has made the decision to resign from Congress amid a growing scandal over his lewd online communications.

Last week, Weiner admitted he had lied about his dealings {{“I was hacked”}} with women he had met online–but insisted he wouldn’t resign. On Saturday, his office announced he had entered “treatment,” after top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, publicly called on him to leave Congress.

Weiner had previously indicated that he wished to speak with *** his wife Huma Abedin, who is pregnant with the couple’s first child, before deciding on his political future. Abedin returned to Washington yesterday following a trip to Africa with her boss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

House Democrats today were scheduled to meet to discuss potential next steps to punish the New York congressman, including possibly stripping him of his committee assignments (he currently sits on the powerful House Energy and Commerce as well as the Judiciary committee), and expelling him from the Democratic caucus.

The scandal, which first broke three weeks ago, continued to deepen this week.

Just yesterday, porn star Ginger Lee held a press conference to announce that the congressman had asked her to lie about their online communications. “I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” Lee said.

Weiner was asked about his Twitter communications with Lee when the scandal broke; he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Lee probably received “pro-forma”  messages from his account and that was all.

Lee claims Weiner sent her specific messages about his “package.” She had previously shared her communications with Weiner with the site TMZ.

Lee hired celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred to make her case to a national audience and multiple news outlets report that an Atlanta strip club was already using the scandal to promote her appearance at their venue Wednesday night.

Ah well….Just kidding.  I know what time of month it is (this JUNE) and simply looked up the House Ways and Means Committee’s doings.  Rep. Davis will always have a warm position in my heart anyhow, for carrying that crown in the US Senate Building and placing it on the top of the royalty-robed Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church in front of plenty of spectators.   NOt that he hasn’t done plenty else, but would you buy a fatherhood program from someone who plays along with someone who wants — I mean REALLY wants — to rule the world and really seems to believe Jesus messed up, but He’s got a better idea?  (That’s exactly how this cult thinks and talks to, when not money-laundering etc.)

Just for the record, even Attorney General Eric Holder put in JUST a few words hinting there MIGHT be a problem with custody in the court:

Reported at NAFCJ.net:


From the “What Took Them So-Long” category, is this Department of Justice, June 2009 release of remarks by Attorney General Holder which include: “Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system? ” Remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder June 2009

From the horse’s mouth (i.e., DOJ source):

  »  Justice News
Justice News Banner
Attorney General Eric Holder via Video to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment
~ Tuesday, June 2, 2009

 Remarks as prepared for delivery. (I would love to hear a recorded transcript…..)

Good morning and welcome to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.

As you are gathered here in this beautiful location, I hope that you will forge new alliances and a collective leadership that will help identify solutions that will have a lasting impact on the lives of mothers and children traumatized by family violence. I ask that you consider ways the Department of Justice can renew and strengthen its efforts to address this problem. We want to draw upon lessons gleaned from your work in communities throughout the country. We also want to know what has been left undone.

(paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, and then):

Some of the topics that you will address may be more challenging than others. I hope you will especially discuss the most difficult issues I know many of you confront in your work:

  • Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system?
  • Why are children of color over-represented in the child protection system?
  • Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past? If so, what does that relationship look like?

I ask that you explore all of these things while always remembering that the needs of children who are exposed to violence are inextricably linked to the needs of mothers who are the victims of domestic violence.

Well, sorry to say, the fathers’ groups and promoters don’t see it that way…The sponsoring group (which I remember noticing at the time) was t he Office on Violence Against Women, in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCFCJ) and the Family Violence Prevention Fund [basically a fatherhood-funded group at this point.  I have written them off.  They are not going to confront the custody issues, at all..] has planned this meeting to continue a conversation that began almost a decade ago, at the first National Summit held here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming  If Philip Stahl (one of the largest PAS promoters around, and trains judges) is on the the faculty of NCFCJ, I doubt he is going to be too interested in the “problem” custody of children going to batterers.  His work enables that!   It’s one of the primary things he appears to write on — parental alienation!

Here he is in 2010 speaking to an Alliance of Concerned Men on fatherhood.  It’s a good speech, but pulls out that phrasing:

I’m glad to be in the company of so many fellow dads and local leaders who want to focus on, and talk about, fatherhood. In the course of this discussion, I hope we will be open and honest enough to ask ourselves tough questions – father to father, parent to parent – about what our communities, as well as the federal government, can do to strengthen our families and support those fathers who are trying to do the right thing.

The plain truth is that youth violence is far-too common. There’s no single cause and no simple solution. But we know one important contributor is the absence of a responsible, loving father. Here in D.C., where half of African-American households don’t include even one grown man, the implications of this fact could not be clearer.

If we are going to call ourselves “men” then we must act like men. We must nurture and care for those we bring into this world. That’s what a “man”

Attorney General Eric Holderdoes. We can’t leave this awesome responsibility only to the women in our lives who, nevertheless, do a superb job. And we can’t ask our communities to shoulder our obligations. This must end. Any man who can create a child must also help, in a meaningful way, to help raise that child.

I don’t pretend that this will be easy, especially for fathers who have been incarcerated…

 

 

 

 

And, Dec. 18, 2009 from “mainjustice.com” (AndrewRamonas)

Holden’s Fatherhood Speeches Part of Faith-Based Initiative:

 

(this page is apparently particular about not quoting excerpts and is immune from a partial “cut and paste” (see Fair use Copyright, below).  So, to read it, just click on the link.  The info right below here is from a link on the article.  POINT BEING– one brief sentence that mothers are losing custody to batterers, people of color disproportionately represented in child protective services, and so forth.  If this was a SErIOUS concern of our attorney general, then he would put someone on the job to find out why — and not just ask the local experts who love to train judges, what’s happening.  Perhaps we should take a look at some of that judicial training!
 
 
Policy Goals – Key Priorities for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships
In addition to its daily work, President Obama has asked the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to focus on four special priorities.  These priorities are:
  1. Strengthening the Role of Community Organizations in the Economic Recovery
  2. Reducing Unintended Pregnancies, Supporting Maternal and Child Health, and Reducing the Need for Abortion
  3. Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities
  4. Promoting Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation

Efforts associated with these key priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and the 11 Agency Centers for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, as well as the Strategic Advisor at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Gee, here they are up in NH promoting Fathers in education; this time, if fathers are there, it means academics improve.  Pretty soon mothers will become obsolete — or simply wombs to bring out kids that fathers can be involved in, thus justifying more initiatives (and grants, and trips, and conferences, and speeches, and publications and media press releases, and  . . . . and . . . . . .. . )

Today, as part of the continuing National Conversation on Fatherhood, Obama Administration officials made the second stop of a national initiative with a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire to focus on the importance of fathers in the education of their children. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, in cooperation with The U.S. Department of Education, conducted the event.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan participated in the day’s activities, which examined the ever growing importance of fathers in the education of their children. Increasing parent involvement, particularly the involvement of fathers, is key to improving struggling schools across the country. Research shows that children do better in school and are less likely to drop out when fathers are involved. More than 70 representatives of nonprofits, parent organizations, faith-based organizations, counseling agencies and university, business and government services from across New England participated in the discussion and provided feedback on engaging fathers in their children’s education

 

BACK TO PARENTAL COORDINATION.  Let’s keep the parenting “gender-neutral” and talk about the organizational aspects here:

How’d we get so many uncoordinated parents in the neighborhood, anyhow?  Why haven’t years upon years (like K-12) of being shown how to  sit down, stand up, wait in lines and go through lines on cue (bells), and stop whatever they were doing every XX minutes and to keep to their assigned places in the Bell Curves of Life gotten the place coordinated yet?

And yet we (meaning “y’all” from another perspective) need more and more coordinators to tell these people who have (most of them) already come through the US Public School system, somehow — to leave whoever they hooked up and then split up with (whether by marriage or “liaison” of some sort) — how to parent right…  How to be fair, UNbiased (see my last four posts) and above all trust authority.  And we need more social demonstration research to figure out where “we” (the experts?) failed.  Of course, as one generation grows up, it’s important to get to the next generation in time and engrave the latest dogma upon them — as expressed in the best “practices.”

Wikipedia for what it’s worth:

Parenting coordinator (PC) is a relatively new practice that is used to manage on-going issues in child custody and visitation cases by professional psychologist or a lawyer assigned by the Court.[1] There are 10 states as of May, 2011 that have passed legislation regarding parenting coordinators: Colorado (since 2005), Idaho (2002), Louisiana (2007), New Hampshire (2009), North Carolina (2005), Oklahoma (2001), Oregon (2002), Texas (2005), Massachusetts and Florida.[2]

I am not the only person opposed to “Parenting Coordination” and introducing yet another profession into the AFCC Palette:

The LIZ LIBRARY agrees with me, and gives a whole page of reasons, followed by a ***t (Boat)load of links to justify it.  However, the first one (I listed below) would be good enough:

Article on Parenting Coordination can be found at:
Parenting Coordination, a bad idea
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/parenting-coordination.html
Also see: Parenting Coordinator Practical Considerations
And: A “child-centered divorce”?


    • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function

Of course, I”m of the opinion (see my PCANH cites) that is precisely the point of it. . . . . .

Here’s what Florida Governor “Jeb” Bush wrote in 2004, explaining his VETO of a  certain bill promoting the Professionalization of Parental Coordination:

While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.

Actually, I believe it’s appropriate to reprint in full, here:

June 18, 2004

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

I applaud the dedicated efforts of many whose mission is to identify alternatives to assist families in conflict. I also recognize that some circuit courts are currently utilizing parenting coordinators without statutory authority, and I commend them for seeking legislative direction.

While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights.

Ms. Glenda E. Hood June 18, 2004 Page Two

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.

I will support a revised bill during the 2005 legislative session that makes the appointment and selection of a parenting coordinator subject to the consent of both parents. Also, I believe that we must limit the risk of “professionalization” of the parenting coordinator role by limiting it to volunteers. While I respect the Legislature’s policy choice to allow only licensed professionals, clergy or attorneys to qualify as parenting coordinators, I believe that any volunteer, especially any faith-based volunteer, who meets certain minimum criteria should be allowed to serve as a parenting coordinator.

Basic training and standards are important. I support language, some contained in the current bill, regarding domestic violence training, family-court procedures, and mediation.

I am committed to working with the sponsors of this legislation *** to create a program that can assist parents, preserve their rights, protect the best interests of the children involved, and address the concerns noted above.

Furthermore, by this letter, I respectfully request the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court and all chief circuit judges to consider revising these programs to ensure that parents’ paramount rights are not compromised, regardless of the well-intentioned motives of the program.

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth herein, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, and do hereby veto the same.

Sincerely,

Jeb Bush

** He’d just about HAVE to work with the sponsors of that legislation:  they are helping run the states’ family law system, and if he didn’t, there’d probably be a riot.  Nevertheless, as we approach June 18, 2011 (seven years later), I’d have to agree with the points he made.

Of course, these people don’t (I just picked one state, but one can find similar “reasoning” and resolve in all states.  More later, this is a quick post…..):

This is from Illinois.  I learned today that Cook County  (i.e., Chicagoland) Clerk of the Court handles $74 million and over 2 million cases per year.  It’s larger than some Fortune 500 companies.   They opened a $64 million building in 2005 to centralize Domestic Violence Court — all under an AFCC Judge of course — you didn’t think THAT would be changed….

Anyhow, AFCC doesn’t want “Children” in the Middle — they typically want THEMSELVES (including parenting coordinators) in the middle, and in charge.

I found this elegant site — very impressive  It’ graphics are a cut above for sure, and its membership are decorated and competent, and judges:

RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE

...to encourage effective & efficient use of court-related alternative dispute resolution - the RSI Mission

Resolutions Systems Institute and

Center for Conflict Resolution are out of the same street address and suite#:

RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE
11 EAST ADAMS STREET, SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603
312 922 6475 INFO@ABOUTRSI.ORG WWW.ABOUTRSI.ORG
 
and . . . . 
 
Center for Conflict Resolution
11 E. Adams, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: 312-922-6464
Fax: 312-922-6463

“Mission:

The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) is one of the nation’s premiere not-for-profit providers of mediation services and conflict management training. Our services are flexible and cost-effective, based on a track record of over 31,000 mediated cases and backed by the expertise of knowledgeable, dedicated volunteers and employees.

Every year we provide free mediation services in over 2,000 cases, train hundreds of new mediators, facilitate meetings and work with dozens of businesses, government agencies and organizations to create custom-designed dispute resolution systems and training programs.

It was started by the Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar:

History:

In 1979, the Young Lawyers Section of The Chicago Bar Association supported the creation of a not-for-profit corporation to aid the Chicago community in effectively handling disputes.

Originally known as the Neighborhood Justice of Chicago, the Center for Conflict Resolution opened in a storefront in Chicago’s Uptown Neighborhood to help people resolve their conflicts through mediation. In the early 1980’s, CCR began accepting a significant number of case referrals from the Circuit Court of Cook County. To reach the community more effectively and to enhance their new services, CCR moved its offices to Chicago’s downtown loop.

CCR continued its reach through programs developed in the Circuit Court of Cook County and in city and state institutions that continue today. From juvenile offenders and victims, landlord-tenant conflicts and small claims matters to employment discrimination and Chancery Court cases, CCR provides a successful option for the court and to the residents of the Chicago-land community.

In the 1990’s, having successfully trained hundreds of volunteers to mediate for the organization, CCR began offering mediation skills training to individuals along with custom-designed conflict management training programs for organizations.

Today the Center for Conflict Resolution is governed by a 20-member Board of Directors and relies on a full-time staff of eleven and approximately 120 active volunteer mediators who mediate 95% of CCR’s cases. In the past five years alone, CCR mediated over 10,000 cases and provided conflict management training to thousands of individuals.

Anyhow this is from its “NEWS AND UPDATES” (see sidebar to left, and scroll down):

ay 25, 2011 – AFCC Offers Chicago Trainings on Parenting Coordination and Working with Children in Separating/Divorcing Families

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is offering two trainings in June for dispute resolution professionals in Chicago. “Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies” is a “practice-based, case-oriented” training for experienced parenting coordinators that will discuss ways to improve the parenting coordination process and work with high-conflict clients. It will be held June 20-21. “Children and Divorce: The Voice of the Child and Interventions When Children Resist Parental Contact” is a training for professionals who work with separating or divorcing families – including mediators, evaluators, lawyers, judges, etc. – and will focus on how to integrate children’s voices into the dispute resolution process and work with parent-child contact problems. It will be held June 22-23.

TRAINING #1: You may recognize the Trainer from a recent post of mine, East Coast outfit, although he’s West Coast (AFCC).  WHat better place to meet than in a large MidWestern city with the “largest unified family court system in the world”?

Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies 
Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
June 20-21, 2011
Chicago, Illinois

Training Brochure (PDF)

About the Presenter

Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Palo Alto, California, specializing in forensic and clinical work in the family courts. His full-time private practice focuses almost exclusively on work with co-parents. He serves in a variety of court-related roles, including mediator, co-parent counselor, parenting coordinator and consultant. He has written numerous articles and book chapters, and presented at national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, parenting coordination, child alienation and mental health consultation in family law cases. He is currently serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody and serves on the

AFCC Board of Directors. He served on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for PC practice and was co-chair of the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for court- involved therapists. Please visit his website at http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com for more information.

Agenda

Yep, from the OVERCOMING BARRIERS CAMP.  As I spent several posts listing AFCC personnel, you may by now recognize a few names from this

Washington & Lee Law School Index of Periodicals, date, 2010:

(I searched on-line for Dr. Sullivan in company with Peggie Ward & Robin Deutch; this came up:)

Washington & Lee Law School
 Current Law Journal Content
an index to legal periodicals

  Family Court Review
Family and Conciliation Courts Review ( -v38(2000))
Volume 48, Number 1, January 2010
            other issues

  • Editorial Notes January 2010
    ANDREW SCHEPARD
    p.1                                                                                          +cite        
  • Special Guest Editors’ Editorial Notes
  • Guest Editors’ Introduction to Special Issue on Alienated Children in Divorce and Separation: Emerging Approaches for Families and Courts
    BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
    p.6                                                                                          +cite        
  • Articles
  • Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums
    BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
    p.10                                                                                        +cite        
  • Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK
    p.48                                                                                        +cite        
  • Commentary on “Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children” (Warshak, 2010)
    JOAN B. KELLY
    p.81                                                                                        +cite        
  • Helping Alienated Children with Family Bridges: Practice, Research, and the Pursuit of “Humbition”
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK AND MARK R. OTIS
    p.91                                                                                        +cite        
  • When a Child Rejects a Parent: Tailoring the Intervention to Fit the Problem
    STEVEN FRIEDLANDER AND MARJORIE GANS WALTERS
    p.98                                                                                        +cite        
  • Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children Who Resist Visitation: An Addendum to Friedlander and Walters (2010)
    JANET R. JOHNSTON AND JUDITH ROTH GOLDMAN
    p.112                                                                                      +cite        
  • Overcoming Barriers Family Camp: A Program for High-Conflict Divorced Families Where a Child is Resisting Contact with a Parent
    MATTHEW J. SULLIVAN, PEGGIE A. WARD, AND ROBIN M. DEUTSCH
    p.116                                                                                      +cite        
  • Early Identification and Prevention of Parent—Child Alienation: A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention
    PETER G. JAFFE, DAN ASHBOURNE, AND ALFRED A. MAMO
    p.136                                                                                      +cite        
  • Alienating Audiences from Innovation: The Perils of Polemics, Ideology, and Innuendo
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK
    p.153                                                                                      +cite        
  • Parental Alienation: Canadian Court Cases 1989-2008
    NICHOLAS BALA, SUZANNE HUNT, AND CAROLYN MCCARNEY
    p.164                                                                                      +cite        
  • One Case—One Specialized Judge: Why Courts Have an Obligation to Manage Alienation and Other High-Conflict Cases
    HON. DONNA J. MARTINSON
    p.180                                                                                      +cite        
  • Perspectives
  • A Response to Peter Salem’s Article “The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: Beginning of the End for Mandatory Mediation”
    HUGH MCISAAC
    p.190                                                                                      +cite        
  • A Reponse to Salem: Common Sense
    STEVE BARON
    p.195                                                                                      +cite        
  • A Distinction Without Much of a Difference: Response to Steve Baron and Hugh Mclsaac
    PETER SALEM
    p.201                                                                                      +cite        
  • Fine Tuning the Branding of Parenting Coordination: “…You May Get What You Need”
    ELAYNE E. GREENBERG
    p.206                                                                                      +cite        

Meanwhile, the RSI in Illinois and its Mediation-Pushing Center for Conflict Resolution

May 12, 2011 – RSI Accepting Applications for 2012-2014 Skadden Fellowship Candidates

RSI and the Center for Conflict Resolution, RSI’s affiliate organization, is now accepting applications from law students or law clerks who would like to be considered as candidates to be sponsored as RSI/CCR’s September 2012 Skadden Fellow. The Skadden Fellowship Foundation provides a two-year fellowship that offers the opportunity to develop and execute a legal project with a public interest host organization that serves underrepresented populations. RSI/CCR seeks to sponsor a Fellow to work on court ADR program development. Click here for more information about sponsorship criteria and how to apply.

...to encourage effective & efficient use of court-related alternative dispute resolution - the RSI Mission

JUSTICE IS A PROCESS.  Handing off authority to a single Mediator in a Family Law system when that mediator is on the County Payroll, and grants to the states called “Access and Visitation” (etc.) facilitate “increased noncustodial parenting time” (to the tune of $1 million/ year in California) and other Responsible Fatherhood ways to reduce poverty and violence and encourage child support enforcement ) — doesn’t strengthen Justice.  The AFCC is not interested in Justice, and has already spoken — it is into psychology and mental health / counseling services.

It has shown and it has told.  We have experienced, but how many  have really READ both the publications of AFCC (from conference materials), the Positioning its adherents have obtained, the Professions they have developed in self-interest in getting a counselor into everyone’s life, and the very profitable “Nonprofits” they have started (and believe me, i do check these out; if you don’t know what a “FRONT GROUP” is go read some EINs in this field,  look up who’s on them, and then listen to them crying about the violence in our communities when they apply for another Supervised Visitation grant, or mandate more parental educations, or Push Parental Coordination on us — because of “high-conflict” parents)

It takes TWO parents to have high conflict.  If they would, rather, allow (and just DEAL with it!) in principle (they already do, in practice…. because when you call in a Warshak, or a judge wanting to punish an “alienating” parent, that parent is going to be OUT of a kids’ life — unless there is some more money to be drained from the parent (or parent’s associates) into the courts.  If the parent has none, then there are federal grants which can also be utilized.  Either way .  . . . .).

It’s coming up on a very famous Sunday here.  So let me say:

Happy “Parent” Day!

In some of the next posts, I am going to address some of the Resource Centers taking major fatherhood funding from the HHS in order to stop violence against women.  IN other words, they have figured out how to consolidate two federal grant streams (fatherhood — which was anti-feminist to start with — and VAWA — which was to counter extreme patriarchal behavior which perpetuated hate crimes against women because they are women.  You’d think those two would have an adversarial relationship, right?  But fact is, they have worked out their differences QUITE well when it comes to the federal faucet.

There are some “resource centers” that seem to dominate the DV field — and ALL of them are on the take from fatherhood funding, but this is not obvious unless you look at their financing.  They have dominated the field, as have their expensive, NOT well-tracked, and ever-expanding practices, NONE of which have proven to reduce violence against women (on one part) OR make more responsible fathers (on the other).  These things are not only environmental in origin and cannot always be trained in or drummed out of a person by sitting through an institute — or having judges (etc.) sit through institutes.

It’s time the general public stopped learning to look the other way and keep pretending that this is in THEIR best interests, by supporting legislators who vote in more Kids Turns, and Family Justice Centers, and appropriate millions of $$ that really don’t know, what’s happening to them.  Is it “OK” to do this decade after decade, with a US debt in trillions, and the value of the US$$ rapidly losing face globally?

Well, I may have been a TEMPORARY burden for a while, but this is definitely my civic duty in blogging these things.

CORPORATION WIKI On “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” (a.k.a. “Family Violence Prevention Fund”).  Just see how many personnel are involved:  This is the organization I found around $33 million of funding for (USASpending.gov) — from both HHS & DOJ (at least) but what they are doing primarily is “EDUC” — they get grants to set up systems to train the professionals.  They also got a $250K grant to move and change their name and web pages.  However, it’s basically the same business, form what I can tell — a monopoly in the field, shared witha  few other organizations of similar practices and clout — just different names.

The link gives a visual.

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973

Just a fragment (see 2009) includes this Program Service Component:

4c (Code. )(Expenses$ 1,879,434.includinggrantsof$ )(Revenue$       )  PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

WAIT A MINUTE — wasn’t the National Fatherhood Initiative, doing this already?

Corporation Wiki brings up a pagefull of references, I”ll take one of them;  Here are a few”

Name Type City State
National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc Company Pittsburgh PA
National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc Company Austin TX
National Forum On Fatherhood Initiatives, Inc. (TRULY interesting when you look upan individual from these Corporation wiki’s:  in this case the flamboyant and religiousBishop King Louis H. Narcisse & successor Dr. Eddie C. Welbon**.Some also have a very active court record (as Plaintiff or defendant).

 

Company San Francisco CA
California Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. Company Sacramento CA
Central Texas Fatherhood Initiative Company Waco TX
Florida Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. Company Highland Beach FL
Global Fatherhood Initiative Company Dallas TX
Lonestar Fatherhood Initiative Company Austin TX
North Texas Fatherhood Initiative Company Dallas TX
Putting An End to Abuse Through Community Efforts Initiative (P.E.A.C.E. Initiative) Company San Antonio TX

** Corporations and CHurches — a note from the Bishop King tradition:

In about 1948, King Narcisse began to incorporate an ancient legally recognized ecclesial creature into the church kingdom and diocese structure to insure that the kingdom and its charitable properties were preserved in perpetuity. The ecclesial creature was the Sole Corporation. Likewise in other states, in California, Corporation Sole may be formed only by the bishop, chief priest of any religious denomination or Church for the purpose of administrating and managing the affairs, and properties of the Church. [17]  The management and control of Corporation Sole and it assets pass to the bishop or chief priest’s Church successor. [18]

In California, King Narcisse formed the Corporation of the President of Mt. Zion Spiritual Temple, A Sole Corporation, to administer and maintain ownership of the church’s charitable property and its vast real estate holdings,[19] which would turn out to be a truly prophetic and brilliant movement to preserve the church kingdom in perpetuity.

In California, King Narcisse had his sights on building a self sufficient farm based community with a 15 million dollar hospital, cemetery and old folk’s home in the Sacramento area

Hmmm…. browsing search “finds” on this flamboyant situation, I found another blog, which also deals with fathers, early trauma, and dissociation.  The adult man (2007) is recalling and piecing together information about his father who worked at the Oakland shipyards during times of Pearl Harbor.  He speculates as to whether some of his own early trauma relates to his father’s involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

I am going to finish reading this, if you would like to see the PRINCE RAY CHRONICLES (Dec. 2007), click HERE:  As you do, recall that one purpose of the $10million/year access visitation grants is promising projects as the Secretary of Health (HHS) shall assign; states must help. …   Including what “trainings” work better than others, and keeping the network open to subject parents and children to them, forcibly, targeting IV-D (welfare) families . . . . ???

AS WE CAN SEE< THERE ARE (&/OR WERE) QUITE A FEW “FATHERHOOD” ORGANIZATIONS IN THE GOLDEN STATE (CALIFORNIA):

Coalition for The Advancement and Protection of Fatherhood Company Riverside CA
Fatherhood 101 of Orange County, Inc. Company Santa Ana CA
Fatherhood Assistance, Lifestyle & Legal Service Company Tampa FL
Fatherhood Coalition Company Santa Barbara CA
Fatherhood Foundation of The Pikes Peak Region Company Colorado Springs CO
Fatherhood Institute Company Dublin CA
Fatherhood Ministries, Inc. Company Midland TX
Fatherhood Project – Next Generation (Fp-Ng) Company West Sacramento CA
Lancaster Fatherhood Project Company Lancaster SC
Marine City Fatherhood Program Company Sausalito CA
Project Fatherhood Development, Inc. Company Los Angeles CA
The DO-Right Fatherhood Program Company Sausalito CA
The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family RevitalizationLet’s look at this one, which links only to “Charles Ballard Company San Diego CA
The Urban Fatherhood Project Company Sacramento CA
The Urban Fatherhood Project Company Sacramento CA
Urban Fatherhood Network Foundation, Inc. Company Sacramento CA

“The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization”  website goes first to a web page in Washington, DC:

INTERCHANGE.org/romros/resource-12.html

Notice it’s targeted to welfare (TANF Recipient) Custodial and noncustodial fathers:

INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 
& FAMILY REVITALIZATION

3594 Hayes St. NE Ste. 102
Washington, DC 20019-7522
(202) 396-8320 Fax (202) 396-8326
EMAIL: bcjenkins@responsiblefatherhood.org
WEBSITE: http://www.responsiblefatherhood.org
Contact Person: Bruce & Cesalie Jenkins


Hours of Operation: 9:00a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Population Served: Custodial and non-custodial fathers, TANF Recipients
Area Served: Primary target area is Ward 7 in DC; also serve those who are referred by our collaborative partners


Volunteers Needed for:
Doing surveys | Support for community services


No. needed: 

“Turning the hearts of  fathers unto their children”
We are a 20 year old grass roots organization working with  fathers and mothers to enhance self-worth and communication skills to empower them a parent to take charge of their homes and familiesServices Offered:

  • Paternity establishment
  • Domestic violence Intervention
  • Father & mother parenting support sessions
  • Family Support Services
  • Job Readiness & Job Search Skills
  • Child Support Assistance

This web site is sponsored and maintained by vernard r gray of InterChange.org , a non-profit virtual corporation
dedicated to social change through the effective use of networked intelligence.

The Reach Our Men Reach Our Sons Coalition (ROMROS) is a community-based collective of concerned individuals and organizations whose purpose is to improve our community by developing recruitment strategies to get more African American men involved in those organizations that service our youth in the community.  Real Men Bond: significantly increase active community involvement, commitment, and participation of male members. Will strengthen family ties, improve conditions in the community and facilitate personal growth and development. Men with a Mission: By reviving and building on the success of the Million Man March the spirit of unity and atonement guides and empowers fathers, sons and brothers.

Of course Charles Ballard is very well known in the fatherhood movement, and one of the originals:

Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family

by Dr. Charles A. Ballard, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of The Institute of Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization

ON THAT BLESSED DAY, THAT VERY FIRST “PARENT’S DAY,” GOD SPOKE AND SAID: “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS AND LET THEM HAVE RULERSHIP OVER EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE AND GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN.”

Wow! What a beautiful sight that must have been – two human beings, a new order of creatures, the beginning of a new planet, a new world. Then God blessed them and spoke to them saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, have many children, fill the earth and master it.” God loves family. When he spoke and said, “Let Us,” He was speaking to other members of His God Family.

Adam and Eve were to fill the earth with other human beings who would look and act like them, for they were to be made in His image, after His likeness. Adam was to cleave to his wife, Eve, and Eve was to cling to her husband, Adam. They were one. He was assigned to her as secret service agents are assigned to protect the President of the United States. God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side. God gave them five wonderful gifts: a home, food, employment, a day of rest, and family. How much better could it get? Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.

And “Home” to this site links to 7th Day Adventists….I’m hoping these are not the ones promoting the “Marriage” book “Adam was From Dirt, Eve was from Adam.”

No, this was a DIFFERENT “REsponsible fatherhood” grantee receipient, Leo Godzich out of Arizona?  The organization that was over in Uganda promoting the kill-the-gay legislation (til it was out’ed).  Here’s the book:

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men

Dr. Leo Godzich of “nameonline.net

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men - Dr. Leo Godzich

of course, the other website is not so up-front that the CEO writes books like this; it’s got a little softer approach:

NAME - National Association of Marriage Enhancement

(When you get some time, search “Godzich” on my blog — I did report some of the federal funding (and political connections – can you say “Bush”? of this particular nonprofit, the “NAME”).

The official bio of Godzich:

  • Leo Godzich

  • Leo Godzich is the founder and president of NAME, the National Association Marriage Enhancement and the host of the International Marriage Conference as well as being a leading force behind the Covenant Marriage Movement. NAME is a network of churches and couples committed to biblical marriage ministry. Currently, NAME is developing counseling centers in the U.S., Canada, Africa and Australia. Mr. Godzich is Pastor of Special Projects at Phoenix First Assembly of God in Phoenix, Arizona, the sixth largest church in the country, according to Time Magazine. He and his wife oversee a local marriage ministry to hundreds of couples with amazing results in restoring broken marriages and building stronger marriages. The Godzichs conduct Together Forever Marriage Seminars at churches and hotels around the country. He is the author of Is God In Your Marriage? and Public Relations and the Church. He has appeared as a guest and host on the Trinity Broadcasting Network programs and has been featured on the 700 Club. He also preaches the gospel around the world from Europe and Israel to Africa. Prior to entering the ministry, Mr. Godzich was an award-winning journalist, with more than 300 articles published in variety of publications. Pastor Leo Godzich, his wife, Molly, and daughters, Emily, Bethany and Christy, live in Phoenix, Arizona.

(this temporarily disrupted my peace, here, considering 7th Day Adventists and megachurch Assemblies of God in light of the OFCBI and federal funding to further “help” Men made from Dirt  become GOOD Daddies who help women understand that they came from Men…. and of course were the worlds first sinner and brought forth the world’s first murderer, etc.. — …  Those two groups in particular are so controlling.  )

Back To Ballard:

  1. Women In Fatherhood Inc. » Frances Ballard

    She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood 
    womeninfatherhood.org/main/frances-ballard/ – Cached – Similar
  2. Princeton – News – Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address How to 

    Sep 11, 1997  Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, 
    http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q3/0911-ballard.html – Cached
  3. IAV | Book: The Fatherhood Movement: A Call to Action

    This book brings together many of the leading voices of the fatherhood movement.  such asCharles Ballard of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood in 
    http://www.americanvalues.org/…/bk-the_fatherhood_movement.html – Cached – Similar

This is the 1997 release of his speech at Princeton (Dr. Ballard’s, I mean):

News from
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Communications and Publications, Stanhope Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Tel 609/258-3601; Fax 609/258-1301
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Patricia Coen 609/258-5764
Date: September 11, 1997

Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address
How to Return Fathers to Families

Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, will speak on “The Status of Fatherhood in America: How Do We Return Fathers to Families?”** at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs on Tuesday, September 23, at 4:30 p.m. in Robertson Hall, Bowl 5.

**I neglected to provide the link to the photo of Dr. Ballard above:  here it is:  You’ll note the washington DC website I copied the contents to contains the phrase ““Turning the hearts of  fathers unto their children”   THis is taken from the Bible.  The original is an active tense verb, and the subject of that verb is God, not man:  For the areligious among us, take it from me (or this quote) that these people are both misquoting and taking out of context the original — which is talking about John the Baptist preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ.  Well, actually, that was how John the Baptist was interpreted, so lets’ start with the original (at least in the current canon compromising this KJV) — which is the last book of the Old Testament, and I heard 400 years before before the birth of Christ.  It’s been, by contrast, about two thousand years SINCE the birth of Christ, and while I”m at it, exactly 400 years (1611) since this King James Version.

MALACHI 4:

5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse..

(funny how the beginning AND the end of the quote is simply left out, and the middle is turned into a process that some religious person can market.

In fact, here’s that very short chapter:

1For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

4Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,with the statutes and judgments. 5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse

AND in the New Testament, “Luke” it is given as a prophecy (referring to Malachi no doubt) given over the miracle birth (by conception, but miraculous because Elizabeth, cousin to Mary, mother of Jesus, had been barren) about her baby who would be filled with the holy ghost from birth, making him great:

LUKE  1

15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord

and in its proper context:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were nowwell stricken in years.

8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, 9According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Now, I’m sticking this out here for the atheists and agnostics, and those who haven’t been exposed to a certain type of religious thinking.  This phrase is not addressed to everyone, it was specifically addressed to people that considered themselves God’s chosen.  And it was never something that individuals were supposed to do by governmental mandate or religious program — it was the EXACT opposite, and required holy spirit to communicate, and to do, i.e., prophecy.

GO FIGURE, someone smelled money and influence, and figured they might as well run with the phrase.  Now I have this question:  HOW MUCH influence (and cash) would you trust a group with that FORGOT the beginning, the end, and the context — and twisted and extended the middle of (changing a divine mission prophecied to come to ONE man (only) of the stature of Elijah (well known in OT for his miracles and many other things) — to apply it to ALL men, as coached by SOME men?     Does the original sound like a social program or spiritual renewal?

Also, this is sold as taking people off welfare and for the public good — as a FINANCIAL benefit to the entire United States (which has no official religion, we say).   And yet in context, it is prophesying a coming day of wrath — or (Malachi) that this had better happen or the earth will be smitten with a curse.  How much further off target — from their own scriptures! — could this possibly be.  And these are not obscure Scripture either — the book of Luke is read, religiously (at least chapter 2) every single “Christmas” season and has been for centuries, by Protestants and Catholics (Can’t say about these two sects, I’m not in them.  But they call themselves Christians, so go figure.)

Malachi read:  “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant” — yet this very set of faith-based social interventions and the fatherhood-based grants systems causes a real “forgetting” of the US law (supposedly based on those 10 commandments, they like to say, right?) — that talk about due process, and fair judgments.  These operate when it comes to “family court” as a literal set of bribes — which pervert the cause of justice based on facts & evidence, not therapy and influence!

That doesn’t mean Dr. Ballard is a bad guy — I just believe this whole system is completely out of whack, and unbelievably hypocritical.  If someone is going to do social reform — do social reform.  But don’t blame it on God, and don’t inflict your private visions of him on the rest of us, we do not all subscribe!  I would take Dr. Ballard over megachurch leader Dr. Godzich any day, but I object to paying for either of them through federal tax system collected by the IRS!  I have lived (as a woman) in urban areas, and my father had no father.  I did not come in with “both guns blazing” and try to force “motherhood programs” on poor people promising them this would reverse poverty and fix the community!  

By the way, nor did I tell other people how to raise their children, and try to get national laws passed to make sure it’s one size fits all, with a few cultural differences to make it sound more legitimate!

(BACK to that 1997 Princeton anouncement, then)

Founded by Ballard in 1982 in Cleveland as a local grassroots program, the institute is considered a model fathering program, “dedicated to encouraging fathers to become involved in the lives of their children in a loving, compassionate, and nurturing way.” With its home-based outreach program, the institute has restored more than 3,000 fathers to their families. Fathers who might otherwise join the ranks of “deadbeat dads” find role models among the institute’s outreach workers, from whom they learn the skills of modern-day fatherhood. “Most men are capable of responsible fatherhood,” Ballard has said. “All we need to do is lead them to it.” Now based in Washington, D.C., the nonprofit organization has opened centers in Milwaukee, San Diego, Nashville, Tenn., and Yonkers, N.Y.

Ballard’s own young adult life could have served as a case study for the institute. At age 17, he fathered a child but abandoned the boy and his mother, joining the armed forces to avoid his responsibilities. Drugs and alcohol followed, as well as prison time for a crime Ballard says he did not commit. While in prison, Ballard had plenty of time to think about his son and decided to care for the boy when he was released. Ballard eventually adopted his son, earned a high school diploma, an undergraduate degree, and then a master’s degree in social welfare. In 1976, while working at a hospital, he observed that numerous women were having babies out of wedlock, with the fathers nowhere to be found. He gathered the names of nearly 600 fathers who had abandoned their children, then visited and counseled the men. From that simple beginning, Ballard’s institute grew into a national organization.

Ballard’s talk is being sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School.

HEre are some more links (I searched “Family Justice Center Alliance” and obviously got more than are on the Casey Gwinn Circuit, but including some of these as well.  It’s a great little tool, as is your local Secretary of State’s listing of corporations and fictitious business names, combined withe any decent “990 lookup” or nonprofit finder (including the IRS’s own).

Type City State
National Family Justice Center Alliance Company San Diego CA
Alameda County Family Justice Center, Incorporated Company Oakland CA
Anaheim Family Justice Center Foundation Company Anaheim CA
Bexar County Family Justice Center Foundation Company San Antonio TX
Family Justice Center of Erie County Inc Company Buffalo NY
Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County Company Tampa FL
Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County, In Company Tampa FL
Friends of The Family Justice Center, Inc. Company San Marcos TX
Friends of The Riverside County Family Justice Center Foundation Company Riverside CA

Here’s Corporation Wiki for “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” (note:  doesn’t seem to be current, I understand the listed CEO is no longer).

Here’s one “Kids’ Turn” (SF — and not current, I know the President Steve Kinney just moved over for, I believe, a Greg Abel) .  “Kids Turn, Inc.” shows only Claire Barnes.    (These are obviously generated by computer searches, probably of Sec of States or IRS records… and simply pull up who’s on the Board, or was…)

Here’s Kids Turn San Diego (one person, listed)

Kid's Turn logo

Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.

Linda Brandes

Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.

Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.

“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

Remember the Brandes “$6 million isn’t enough” divorce?  This article says Linda’s gambling debt  is $30,000 — a month.  Their six homes were worth more than $40 million, and he has 10 Ferarri’s etc.  They don’t have children, I think.   They are themselves engaged in a lockdown fight over wealth — a lot of it.  But, of course it’s important to teach OTHER parents to keep their kids out of the high-conflict situation, and charge ’em to be (forcibly — court-ordered) taught, too.

Children in the Middle CoParenting Services and Kids in the Middle (same owner:  Bradley (S.) Craig):   It may seem small, but it’s web-based and government-laced, and court-ordered sometimes.   Believe I posted this, but here it is anyhow: – great logo, right?

Children in the Middle  (notice “PARENTING COORDINATION” links to the left….)

BRADLEY CRAIG, received his Master’s Degree in Social Work at UTA and is a Licensed Social Worker and Certified Family Life Educator. He is a noted co-parent educator in the North Texas area, and has developed a number of parent education programs for families raising children in two homes. He began specializing in working with families raising children between two homes in 1992 when he was hired by Tarrant County to conduct social study investigations and provide mediation sessions. He helped them design an orientation for litigating families offered by the county.

In 1997, he developed the Children in the Middle Co-parenting Education class. Brad left the County in 1997 to open up a program called Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc., a comprehensive agency designed to help adults raise children between two homes.In addition, he began offering consultation sessions where he would meet with couples and their significant others to develop a shared parenting plan. Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc. was closed in December of 2003 when Brad was hired to develop and maintain a co-parenting program with a social service organization. He is currently in private practice and contracts with organizations to provide services to families.

As a social worker and family life educator, Brad is a trained family law mediator and provides family law mediation training currently with other organizations. In addition, he offers training for other professionals to structure approaches to help these children being raised between two homes. He works with divorcing families and those with continuing custody/parenting time issue as a Family Mediator, Collaborative Law Allied Professional, Co-parenting Case Manager, Co-parenting Coach, Educator, Parenting Facilitator, and Parenting Coordinator.

Brad has written curriculum for co-parent education programs and has developed educational videos. He has been a guest speaker on many television and radio programs and is often asked to speak at local, state and national conferences on co-parenting issues. He hosted an ongoing cable television series “The Children in the Middle Show,” aimed at educating viewers about both the effects of parental conflict after a separation on children and the services available to help families through co-parenting issues.

Brad continues his education through the following organizations:

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)
Texas AFCC 
National Association of Social Workers
National Council on Family Relations

International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
Collaborative Lawyers of Arlington and Mansfield

Phi Kappa Phi
Tarrant and Dallas County Family Law Bar Associations

They (he?) also does parenting coordination, once the $450 (each) deposit from parents is on file, aloing with the court order.  Check it out…

  (top recommended reading for “Adults” is Warshak’s “Divorce Poison.”

Fathers are so under-represented and mistreated throughout the land, as a gender — and because of their gender.  What can we do about that?

Hire Warren Farrell to Coach some Boys into Men, or should we go with the Family Violence Prevention Fund/Futures without Violence version of Coaching boys into men?  Or should we go with the Pentecostal megachurch versions of Dr. Godzich, or the Dr. Ballard versions?  Do we have a choice, or is a  fatherhood program choice coordinator going to become necessary?

(just Kidding…..)

The CFDA Summary Report form will create a report of all grant dollars allocated by CFDA number by one or all Fiscal Years since 2005.

(note:  the program I’m talking about came into being 10 years before 2005):

CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Awards Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
93.086 ACF Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 237 1,277 $577,721,113
Page Total 237 1,277 $577,721,113
Report Total 237 1,277 $577,721,113

Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet].

with 9 comments

This post title with a “shortlink” attached is:

Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case &amp; “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-JR”. Note: for normal URLs (web addresses), upper or lower case alpha doesn’t seem to matter, but I’ve learned that within this domain (WordPress) and in such short-links, it does.

LGH UPDATE NOTE:  My current table of contents only goes back to Sept., 2012; this is a June 15, 2011 post (early on in this blogger’s learning curve!) so would only be found by search, some other link reference to it, or by Year/Month/Date through the “Archives” (by month) on this blog.  

I added some quick (not thorough) updates on Overcoming Barriers at the bottom in response to a comment submitted March, 2016…including tax returns, California corporate registration (Massachusetts could also be searched). 

For a December 2017 Update (which at first I thought might fit in here), see:

Revisiting Reunification Camps and Treatments, The good Clinical Psychologist Just Want to Help Traumatized People and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), the Good, Ole Court-Ordered (and of course (™)’d Service Model) Way. Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8cC” and this was written Dec. 16, 2017, starting as a post update to [another] one for which I wanted to cite to this older post on reunification camps for “estranged” families, but from different angle of approach, as that one explains in the first few paragraphs.  After that, on “Revisiting Reunification Camps,” above, I get into looking at what isn’t apparently a large operation, but one with connections in more than one state to the family court system.  It’s in draft, but will be a short post and out Dec. 16 or 17, 2017. [Published Dec. 21 + (additions/clarifications) 22nd] //LGH.
I expect to publish (shortly) a follow-up to the Reunification Camps post above, some information I came across recently which connects the AFCC-drenched providers of at least three camps (Two mentioned here, one featured in my recent post above], the new one trademarked only 2016 (described in the above post) whose lead psychologist apparently was on-call from the NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) who shortly after Jaycee Dugard (and the two children born to her 18-year-long kidnapper rapist and herself) were rescued, was put in touch with Dugard who then (2009/2010) got a $20M settlement from the State of California and set up the JayC Foundation (of very modest size, but it seems in part supporting the reunification camps used ALSO to force-feed alienated children back in to the parent’s life, particularly in cases where the alienation is connected to litigation around the issues of abuse/domestic violence by the “targeted” parent (the one the kids don’t want to see).
(TRANSITIONING FAMILIES, STABLE PATHS (Abigail M. Judge (“clinician”) Boston, S.Florida, with involvement from Transitioning Families clinician R. Bailey. who has a recent book out co-authored with one of the co-founders (mentioned below in THIS older post) of “Overcoming Barriers.”  In addition, in the context of a recent case (2015) of Judge Gorcya and 3 children aged 9-14 ordered into “juvie detention” for refusing to have lunch with their father then, at last check, attempts to get them for aftercare into some Reunification camp — the Detroit Free Press (now part of USA Today franchise) reporting said the Judge was hoping to get them into Warshak’s “Family Bridges” or one modeled on it — in Toronto, Canada!!, while Dr. Bailey was quoted in the context).  I’m taking bets (just kidding) on how long Gorcya has been (if she is) an AFCC member and how much of that county’s system the association controls. Michigan is also long home, at least by organization name, to a batterers’ intervention coalition (BISC-MI).  //LGH 12/22/2017.


I was just going to add a very short update (that comment, it seems, in March 2016), but instead added a section on renewed Parental Alienation discussions, and the socialist “re-education camps” in Viet Nam after South fell to the North, in 1975.  Similar in other countries.   Major quality and scope difference — but force is force, and at some levels, it’s also a form of psychological, personal violence. In my opinion.  So, the original (written/published in 2011) post begins in maroon font and below a double-line after the following paragraphs and a few quotes:

Speaking of how to continue keeping “Parental Alienation” conversation going — and ordering services to undo it through the family courts — I recently noticed that a “Dr. Craig Childress” (Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.) is resurrecting parental alienation under a different theory; I have some comments on it over at Red Herring Alert (a wordpress blog).  “Same old, same old” with new window dressing and tactics (Childress recommends pressuring providers who do NOT recommend IMMEDIATE, safety-for-the-child total separation from the alienating parent (i.e., “mom” typically) through their licensing board, if this could be categorized under some existing DSM-defined disorder.  

You cannot really argue with self-referencing, self-congratulating circles of experts on this matter which is why I recommend a more interesting angle of approach:  If they incorporate, find tax returns and corporate records; if they get contracts with the courts, or government grants to run “reunification camps” and similar therapy for parental alienation (in its old or new classifications), pay attention to the details!

The technique and ability to re-indoctrinate people in groups, as well as children, was also in common use in socialist countries; I believe the term used was “re-education camps,” referring to those in South Viet Nam after the fall of Saigon in 1975:   Search “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps: A Brief History” (that’s supplemental reading, from a man’s father’s oral history — he lived through such camps — from “Choices” program at Brown; see website) or  “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.”

The second link introduces and describes the various levels.  I wonder, in the USA, why the country is so heavily invested in a class of professionals whose purpose seems to be behavioral change and keeping up-to-date with tactics and strategies for re-indoctrinating children, women and men into their proper social relationships with each other and particularly after one or more of the same has spoken out about some prior injustice, or sought to escape being subjected to abuse by a family member.  These camps apparently went on from 1975 – 1986 until people still being held were allowed to emigrate to the US.

 “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.” Posted 4/17/2014 by “kubia”

Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, Vietnamese Communist government began to open hundreds of “re-education” camps throughout the country. Those camps, as Hanoi officially claimed, were places where individuals could “learn about the ways of the new government” through education and socially constructive labor.

In 1975, it was estimated that around 1 to 2.5 million people1, including former officers, religious leaders, intellectuals, merchants, employees of the old regime, and even some Communists, entered the camps in the hope that they could quickly reconcile with the new government and continued their peaceful life. However, their time in those camps did not last for ten days or two weeks as the government had claimed.

Re-education Camps Levels

The re-education camps were organized into five levels. The level-one camps which were called as study camps or day-study centers located mainly in major urban centers, often in public parks, and allowed attendees to return home each night. In those camps, some 500,000 people2 were instructed about socialism, new government policy in order to unlearn their old ways of thinking. The level-two camps had a similar purpose as the level-one, but attendees were not allowed to return home for three to six months. During the 1970s, at least 200,000 inmates entered more than three hundred level–two camps2.

The level-three re-education camps, known as the socialist-reform camps, could be found in almost every Southern Vietnam province containing at least 50,000 inmates2. Most of them were educated people and thus less susceptible to manipulation than most South Vietnamese in the level-one and two camps. Therefore, the inmates (or prisoners) in these camps had to suffer poorer living conditions, forced labor and daily communist indoctrination.

The last two types of camps were used to incarcerate more “dangerous” southern individuals – including writers, legislator teachers, supreme court judges, province chiefs – until the South was stable to permit their release. By separating members of certain social classes of the old regime, Hanoi wanted to prevent them from conducting joint resistances and forced them to conform to the new social norms. In 1987, at least 15,000 “dangerous” persons were still incarcerated level-four and level-five camps2.

Camp Conditions and Deaths

In most of the re-education camps, living conditions were inhumane. Prisoners were treated with little food, poor sanitation, and no medical care3. They were also assigned to do hard and risky work such as clearing the jungle, constructing barracks, digging wells, cutting trees and even mine field sweeping without necessary working equipments.

Although those hard work required a lot of energy, their provided food portions were extremely small. As a prisoner recall, the experience of hunger dominated every man in his camp. Food was the only thing they talked about. Even when they were quiet, food still haunted their thoughts, their sleep and their dreams. Worse still, various diseases such as malaria, beriberi and dysentery were widespread in some of the camps. As many prisoners were weakened by the lack of food, those diseases could now easily take away their lives.

Starvation diet, overwork, diseases and harshly punishment resulted in a high death rate of the prisoners. According to academic studies of American researchers, a total of 165,000 Vietnamese people died in those camps4.

The End of “Re-education” Period

Most of the re-education camps were operated until 1986 when Nguyen Van Linh became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He began to close the harsher camps and reformed the others5. Two year later, Washington and Hanoi reached an agreement that Vietnam would free all former soldiers and officials of the old regime who were still held in re-education camps across the country and allowed them to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). As of August 1995, around 405,000 Vietnamese prisoners and their families were resettled in the U.S6.

– See more at: thevietnamwar.info/vietnamese-re-education-camps/..

The forced “Reunification Camps” (far less harsh, but still forced, and still designed to produce an attitude change) have their professionals willing to engage in these practices.

I think it must take a certain kind of mentality, if not personality aberrancy, to believe in this and what’s more preach about it and take in business to engage in it.

For some reason, those “Re-education camps” remind me of, though lesser in degree, the same idea as, for example, “overcoming barriers.”  It’s still based on force — and who knows how many similar programs are operating around the country.  As I write this, the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens were reported (in 2016) to being re-indoctrinated to like their father (who they’d run away from as young teens), while the mother, until recently, was incarcerated for parental interference.  See my more recent 2016 posts).

Here’s a sample.  I see he’s from Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area).  To see it in better formatting (the “copy” function sometimes removes all spaces between words!) click on link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/165394444/Dr-Craig-Childress-DSM-5-Diagnosis-of-Parental-Alienation-Processes#scribd.

C. A. CHILDRESS, Psy.D.LICENSED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PSY 18857

 547 S. MARENGO DR., STE 105 • PASADENA, CA 91101 • (909) 821-5398
Page 1 of 10
DSM-5 Diagnosis of “ParentalAlienation”

Read the rest of this entry »