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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘History of Family Court’ Category

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, P