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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for the ‘Who’s Who (bio snapshots)’ Category

“TAGG” you’re It: CFDA 93.086 Grantees– Let Me Count The Ways (to distribute $121,077,648 on the same old theme, re-shrinkwrapped)…

with one comment

Reader Warning:

Format of these posts — I am simply researching (looking up) as I go, and posting what I find, with commentary.  There is a narrative.  If you want the list of the grants in question, scroll down to the bottom.

Topics in this post include:

  • Criticism of TAGGS database & data entry of these grants.  (misspelling of project names, in particular)
  • Simple instructions, however, on how to run basic reports from it.
  • Proof that USASpending.gov & TAGGS do not match, USASPending either omits real grants, or HHS fabricates (over-reports).   Any thorough look would require using both of them, checking the nonprofit registrations (on a nationwide databse if possible), checking state corporate & nonprofit registration, and comparing with what their websites say, particularly about the history of the company.  Lastly, who is on the board of directors (and what else have those people been up to / associations), and if you actually look at the 990, this tells where they are reporting the money flow.  In a very real sense, unless we have looked at a nonprofit’s 990 form, we really don’t know them.
  • I looked up one particular “Fatherpood” grant, and the umbrella D.C. organization that goes with it.
  • Extensive section discussing some leading personalities in the socialization of America:  Organizations  Children’s Defense Fund (Marian Wright Edelman), “Stand For Children Leadership Center” (DC nonprofit) including its leader Jonah Edelson, background of one corporation (Bright Horizons) and one or tow individuals (Jill Iscol) on the board, and Geoffrey Canada/Ron Mincy (who have worked on similar projects).
  • The background organization, really, behind HEAD START (Bank Street College of Education, basically).   This came up when looking at Jill Iscol’s background.
  • I point out, as the history shows, that if one is going to promote theories about how children learn and “early childhood education,” one needs children to test them on — this is one reason it’s so common to find a child care center near a “family studies institute” or (Cornell) “Family Development Center” — at the university level.
  • Historic figures behind this include Patty Smith Hall (unmarried, not a parent, and apparently not heterosexual); Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Harriet Johnston (I may be misspelling names  — they are below), and others characterized as a “bunch of intellectuals” out of Greenwich Village.
  • What I saw — and have been seeing for months/years in this process – is that the desire to control the training of young children, is indeed the desire to control and reform the world, and should be dealt with accordingly by people with enough humility and perspective to understand, this is not appropriate for anyone.  Particularly in the U.S..
  • What I would call some very unique, if very questionable, studies being done (now, through HHS system) on children in attempts to stop child abuse — and/or predict their “socio/emotional outcomes.”  Quite frankly, I’ve had enough of this; it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
  •  

    And finally, at the bottom, is another printout of a Grant Series.  The post is raggedy and scraggledy (with long incomplete expressive sentences, sometimes missing a predicate) — but I am going to post it anyhow.  I believe the information is interesting enough for someone of similar interests to grab part of it, and do his/her own lookups.

    Personally, I believe that untold numbers of the HHS grantees are simply front operations, that enable money laundering.  I say this because they cannot maintain a corporate name very long, have multiple people, for example, on a central (umbrella or founding) organization board — and then these people form splitoff nonprofits (sometimes also getting HHS grants) — under their names, and the various groups refer to each other (as if independence existed) to further boost their image.  That, FYI, is an AFCC pattern through and through.  One of the chief groups that led me to come right out and say this was the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (CHMC) — which hails to San Diego County, Southern California  + Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project?” – -hailing to Sacramento, Northern California.   These guys are absolutely unbelievable.  Check the street addresses and personnel.  San Diego & Sacramento (State Capitol).  Watch out!

    Over time, the chronological development of the groups — and their ever-changing rhetoric (exhibiting planning, as one phrase gets discredited, another is in the wings and in the works.  Right now, it’s “relationship skills” near the forefront, but Parenting Coordination appears to have been legislated in many states, which is bad news for good Moms, for sure.

     

    OK, HERE WE GO:

    The structure & contents of site “TAGGS” is a real window into what US policymakers think of the commoners, i.e., those who work for hourly wages with taxes deducted upfront to fund social science research — much of it “discretionary” “demonstration” and allegedly “new” grants.   Another commentary on what someone thinks of the “commoners” is how careless, incomplete, and inaccurate — that’s not including the intentionally obscure and deceptive facets also.   It is an appearance only of “transparency.”

    The 2011 Total of CFDA 93.086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) grants, per this site (run just now) is:

    CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Award theses Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
    93.086 ACF Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 164 178 $121,087,642

    I have been running searches (of all types) on this website for most of the time I’ve blogged here.  It should be telling details of how public money, allocated to the Health and Human Services Department, is being spent, and on whom.  So many of the marriage, fatherhood, AND “domestic violence prevention” organizations, when closely examined, are not even legitimate — their incorporation status is lost in one state, and they simply head off to another, networking through the usual court-related associations set up years ago.

    I believe a general overview of specific grant series  paint  a picture, even if one doesn’t study all the details (although groups local to you, I’d want to!).   For example, look at the project name of this first sample (the rest, below):

    (would display with the navy-blue header row, except I pasted, rather than “dragged” the info onto the blog.  Same source as above).

    Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0050 FATHERS COURT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 543,906 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 543,906

    WTHell is a “Fathers Court”?   Is there a Corresponding Mothers’ Court?   Should we then eliminate the concept of “Children’s Court”?   (that won’t happen — the word “children” in almost any combo is a huge grants draw….).   Can we separate  childless couples into a “Marriage Court”?   And, if so, why should all the unmarried and childless, (or they raised kids without going through family court hell, and are continuing to contribute to society, while this system allows, almost indiscriminately, group after religious or simply elitist group, to skim the profits, collected via the IRS and supplemented by large corporations or foundations (Ford, Annie E. Casey, etc.)?

    FK sounds like a new series.  For the record, here’s the nationwide total of the “FK” series a quick TAGGS run for 2011 only:  to run this (takes seconds, only) is easy:

    • Go to http:///TAGGS.hhs.gov
    • Click on the DropDown menu tab, “Search by AWARD keyword or  number.”   It should look about like this, or at least have these 3 fields:
    Fiscal Year:

    Select one or all from Fiscal Year. The current calendar year will be searched by default.

                       ALL               2012           2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006           2005           2004           2003           2002           2001           2000           1999           1998           1997           1996           1995

    Award Keyword:

    Enter a keyword in the Award Title. If left blank, all award titles will be searched. Special characters are not permitted.

    Award Number:

    Enter an Award Number. If left blank, all award numbers will be searched. Special characters and spaces are not permitted.

    • Select year – -and FYI, you can also type in a partial “Award#” — I do this all the time to get a feel what that grant series is.  In this case, I chose Award # “90FK” and year 2011, then hit “search.”  Searching by Award “keyword,” even if you typed in simply “Fatherhood” would miss  a number of $1 million+ grants, simply because (this seems an ingrained TAGGS data entry “tic” it’s so commonplace…..) the word “fatherhood” is often misspelled on this database!
    SEE?
    Recipient: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63158
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0052 FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD  1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,530,190 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,530,190
    Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0054 DC FATHERHPOOD EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,533,518 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,533,518

    Notice, both of those are $1.5 million grants, and from groups that have been around for a while.  Whoever, the 2nd one above (DC zip code) is, this is their total grants since 2006:

    Total of all award actions: $ 4,033,518


    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    They got $500K per year (2006,7,8,9,10) on a “90FR” grant, and this year, switched to receiving a “90FK,” with triple the amount and a fancier project name — misspelled.   Let’s hope that whoever is entering these names isn’t also entering information that involves a decimal point on accounts receivable or payable for our government.  More likely, someone is being pressured (too much) to help cover up the abuse & mis-use of these funds, by making them harder to track by names.  (recall that the last series of 90FM names had ALL the Principal Investigator last names omitted (the “FN” field was doubled).   Either this or there is NO proofreading or fact-checking in the Taggs submission process whatsoever — not too encouraging, considering the amount of money they are reporting on.

    I’ve done data entry (and AR/AP before) and had I messed up that many words (and obviously failed to spellcheck, or had spellcheck function consistently set to “off”), I’d lose my job.  As you can see, I haven’t been working in government.   (Disclaimer:  this blog is volunteer, and I do not spellcheck, or copyedit and have a post explaining this, and why).

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou  Washington DC 20001-4330 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 012901240 $ 1,533,518

    If I took this number over to USASPENDING.gov, no doubt we’d get a different total, even if selecting grants only & HHS only.  I do not know what result would com if (this would be another step) I went to Washington DC and checked their incorporation, or NCCSDataweb.org and looked for a nonprofit filing.  (not today…)

    Oh well — since you insisted — here’s the data:

    http://dccollaboratives.org/

    Read the description:  This is a 501(c)3 of 501(c)3’s. . .

    Our Mission

    The Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council (HFTCCC) brings together community leaders to create and sustain a District-wide network that empowers families and communities to improve their quality of life.

    Perhaps it would be wiser to figure out what “disempowered” families, including mothers, — confront it, and stop it.  As Washington, D.C. is one of the most powerful places on the planet (not including the centers of Finance…), in one of the formerly? most powerful countries in the world, one wonders how, when, and why it became filled with such disempowered families.  Apparently there was a power grab somewhere along the way.  Address that — and families will be more empowered.

    {{Judging by the HHS funding, the word “families” means “fathers” which is common usage among grantees.]]

    We are a 501(c) (3), organization that provides leadership, advocacy, resource development, technical assistance, and training to the six Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives. The six Collaboratives are independent nonprofit organizations that operate across the District of Columbia in communities facing intergenerational economic, social and safety challenges. Since the mid 1990s, the Collaboratives supported by the Collaborative Council, have joined with community members – residents and institutions alike – to re-weave the social fabric. Each community solution is tailored to the needs of the community with Collaboratives and their partners offering a range of unique services and supports to children and families.

    If they are being trained — and the purpose of most HM/FR grantees can be summarized in one word:  TRAINING — then they are not independent, but just have the appearance of it, any more than your local county child support agency is independent of the others, rather than connected also at the HHS/ACF/OCSE level and by welfare law….

    [[After describing a forum to report results, based on surveys…]]

    Attending the forum to respond to the data presented were Beatriz “BB” Otero, deputy mayor for Health and Human services; Deborah-Portia Usher, interim director,Child and Family Services Agency; HyeSook Chung, executive director, DC Action for Children; and Elizabeth Black, senior associate, Center for the Study of Social Policy.

    Deputy Mayor Otero said that city agencies and community-based organizations must do more to support at-risk families.

    The street address exactly matches the “DC Children’s Trust,” and, for example, a Parent Training center for adoptive & foster parents.  

    1112 11th Street, NW
    Suite B
    Washington, DC 20001

    The DC Children’s Trust’s mission is (per its Facebook summary).

    he mission of the D.C. Children’s Trust Fund is to foster the well-being of the District’s children and their families by leading the way toward the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The Trust serves as a catalyst for prevention efforts by leveraging private and governmental resources, providing resources and technical assistance to community-based organizations, schools, and churches to strengthen families and thereby reduce the risk of child abuse. A major objective of the Trust is to define and develop standards for primary prevention for the D.C. community at-large.

    Clearly, the standards emphasize getting promoting responsible fatherhood grants in order to teach groups how to prevent child abuse (cf.  Footloose in Tuscaloosa post).  This, FYI, is national policy, OCSE /Welfare policy and at some level, could be called HHS policy.  In order to prevent abuse of children by fathers & mothers, train fathers and get them back in the homes.  Period.  Children’s Trusts help direct funding, they are often public/private partnerships.  Under “products” ( a long list) I see “Parents Anonymous Grant,” which I recently blogged, right?  (cf.  “Circle of Parents” is basically a NFI mouthpiece; the work together).

    At the same address is:

    NOTICE — 1996 = established right after welfare reform made father-promotion grants available, block grants to the states (and presumably DC) to enable diversionary programs as a long-term solution to end poverty and child abuse.  

    History

    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, Inc. (ERFSC) was established in 1996 and is one of seven neighborhood based collaboratives in the District of Columbia participating in the Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council. This program, spearheaded by the DC Child and Family Services Agency, received its planning grant in April 1996 and its implementation grant in August 1997.

    ERFSC is also an expansion of the Child Welfare Working Group of the Rebuilding Communities Initiative (RCI) spearheaded by Marshall Heights Community Development Organization. RCI embodies a system reform agenda for which the central goal is the improved and sustained well being of children and families.

    . . . as defined by the same groups….

    ERFSC has operated as an independent stand-alone organization since October 2000. This organization evolved out of a seven (7) year old Child Welfare Initiative funded by the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency and the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1996. For the first five (5) years of its inception, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, Inc. (MHCDO) provided fiscal agency responsibilities. In October 2000, ERFSC received its 501©3 to serve as an independent non-profit agency.

    Where are the tax returns for the years 2002, 2003-4-5-6 & 7?

    Your query: ( Organization Name: east river family strengthening collaborative , State:“DC” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen ) 
    4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed) 

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2010 $572,817 990 22 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2009 $354,508 990 31 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2008 $435,198 990 25 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Inc. DC 2001 $208,439 990 14 52-2277915

    {There are many directors, and about 3 of them (per 2009 Tax Return) are working 40 hours a week — for nothing.  Only Mae H. Best is paid ($115K), so here is her bio — notice the Youngstown, OH connection:

    Contact ERFSC’s LEAD STAFF:

    Mae H. Best, LICSW (Executive Director) 

    Mae H. Best has served as the Executive Director of ERFSC since June 2001. 

    (Website says they became a separate 501(c)3 in 2000.  Looks like one of the first things that happened thereafter (or the Foundation 990 Finder is wrong) was to not file tax returns for several years.  I will check another source, and retract statement if they show such returns).

    Under her leadership the organization has grown from a budget of a little
    over $700,000 to $4,000,000 which includes contracts with city government agencies 
    as well as foundations. Mae’s previous work has included stints with Child and Family 
    Services Agency as Director of Resource Development and Director of Adoptions; 
    Director of Homes for Black Children at Family and Child Services Agency and Project 
    Coordinator with the National Council on Adoptable Children. Prior to relocating to Washington DC,
    she worked for the Mahoning County Children Services Board in Youngstown, Ohio.
    Mae received her Master’s in Social Work from the University of Illinois and her Bachelor’s
    in Social Services from North Carolina A&T State University. Mae has one son who is
    a Special Education Teacher in the District of Columbia and an R&B artist.

    This article (scroll down) has a paragraph identifying this neighborhood nonprofit as having grabbed some of the “Promise Neighborhoods” funding, which is described, and modeled ? after Geoffrey Canada’s “The Harlem Zone.”

    January 9, 2011 (published in ‘Circle of Philanthropy,’ by By Suzanne Perry)

    Against Tough Odds, a ‘Promise Neighborhood’ in D.C. Gears Up

    The Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhood is just a few miles from Capitol Hill, though it’s unlikely that many members of Congress have ever visited there.

    The neighborhood, tucked away in a far eastern corner of Washington, bears all of the hallmarks of poverty: high rates of crime, teenage pregnancy,single mothers, and unemployment—and low-performing schools.

    To be consistent, this should have been labeled “father absence” which is a cause of poverty, right.  SIngle mothers in different context might not be so poor; however when stuck in a poor enclave right next to Congressional Districts, than something ain’t right, obviously.   The only gender mentioned in association with this list of bad things is female, but I’m sure residents are both female and male….

    But community leaders have embarked on an ambitious project to turn the area around—with help from money that members of Congress approved last year.  Led by Irasema Salcido, an educator who was dismayed at the obstacles that hindered her students from learning, the project snatched one of 21 grants offered by a new federal program called Promise Neighborhoods.

    . . .

    The grants, totaling $10-million, went to communities that outlined plans for providing an array of academic, medical, and social services for children in troubled neighborhoods from “cradle to college”­—a model that was pioneered by Geoffrey Canada, founder of Harlem Children’s Zone, in New York.

    Mr. Canada’s approach has won widespread acclaim, most recently in the documentary film “Waiting for Superman,” and strong support from President Obama, who proposed the Promise Neighborhoods program while still on the campaign trail.

    This should be a separate post.  Mr. Canada — clearly an astounding person

    Geoffrey Canada (born January 13, 1952) is an African American social activist and educator. Since 1990, Canada has been president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone inHarlem, New York, an organization which states its goal is to increase high school and college graduation rates among students in Harlem.[1] He is a member of the Board of Directors of The After-School Corporation, a nonprofit organization which describes its aim as to expand educational opportunities for all students.

    His parents divorced when he was about 4, with 2 older and 1 younger sibling, and apparently didn’t support the family.  Nevertheless, being sent away to live with his Long Island grandparents in his teens, he went on to be recruited by (win an award from) the Fraternal Order of Masons, and get degrees in Psychology, Sociology, and finally Education, the last from Harvard.  Thank you Mom — I guess you did well! should be a comment, but this is not heard in the publications, is it?

    Born and raised by a divorced mother in the South Bronx, he is the third of four sons of McAlister and Mary Canada. His parents’ marriage ended in 1956, after which his father played little part in the children’s life and did not contribute financial support.[2] Canada was raised among the “abandoned houses, crime, violence and an all-encompassing sense of chaos and disorder,” and understood his life’s calling at an early age. His mother sent him to live with her parents in Freeport, Long Island, when Canada was in his mid-teens.[2] He attended Wyandanch Memorial High School, and won a scholarship from the Fraternal Order of Masons during his senior year of high school.[2] He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and sociology from Bowdoin College, where he graduated in 1974, and a Master’s degree in education  from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Canada has an honorary degree from Princeton University.[3]

    Role with the Harlem Children’s Zone

    Starting as president in 1990, Canada started working with the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Families which evolved into the Harlem Children’s Zone. Unsatisfied with the scope of Rheedlen, Canada transformed the organization’s makeup in the late 1990s into a center that would actively follow the academic careers of youths {{both genders??..}} in a 24-block area of Harlem. Due to the success of the new model, the area has grown to 97 blocks.

    (There’s a reason I took time to mention Geoffrey Canada, The Harlem Zone, which relates to another major nonprofit run by the son of Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, and which (one can see the trend here) is promoting charter schools hard, and has begun to take some serious flack in a few states by program personnel ramrodding their agenda through, over the voices of local, state-based parents and volunteer workers. ).   Like Ronald D. Mincy (also of Harvard, but in Economics) here is another prominent African-American male leader whose mother MIGHT have done something right (judging by the degrees, and their current position) — and yet their work — which is helping change society — shows an emotional obsession with the absent father, and an inability to properly credit a mother, or recognize that THEIR OWN SUCCESS comes through struggles but with a single mother.  In effect, their work — supported by major foundations which I’ll hazard a guess are not run by any minority whatsoever — (like the Ford Foundation) — has now scapegoated single mothers across the country, and made it not only almost impossible, but also socially unacceptable — and politicially incorrect — to succeed.  Children are being REMOVED from such mothers apparently by the thousands, even when after removal, disaster (death in foster care, or in a court-ordered exchange with the noncustodial parent) often happens.

    Mixing truths, but framing them according to their personal childhood experience, and buoyed up by federal funding and corporate funding — society is indeed being transformed — and what i see is the continued buoying up of the public education which has failed students according to their color, caste, and neighborhoods (which the unequal system will continue to do, although it also fails those in prosperous suburban enclaves in different ways).  We have become (not are becoming) a federally centralized country with a parallel set of government-by-administrative-agency.  This is essentially socialism and foreign to the purpose of the country and the Constitution, to which Presidents must swear an oath to uphold and defend, but don’t.   Any “Cradle to grave” solution focusing on TRAINING — is indeed socialism, and contrary to LIFE (which has more variety, and also a greater variety of personal goals), LIBERTY (consider the economic angle) and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.   People fork this over when they fail to protest, or even investigate where their own money is being spent.  I did this also — while working FT, raising children, and seeking to keep all of us alive from the imminent danger of, their father.   It took YEARS to get out (after deciding to get out) and then only to face systems putting us back in — and come to find they are based on childhood longing for the father, positioned in Harvard, MIT (see next) and other high places.

    Geoffrey Canada, father-absent resounding success & Harvard (Education) grad, created and expanded The Harlem Zone, and Ronald D. Mincy, father-absent, father-obsessed, Ph.D.’d Harvard (economics) Grad, and director of — well, Logo Below —  of whom this naturally reminded me– apparently conducted a vertical study of the Harlem Zone:

    Dr. Mincy is an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood; the National Fatherhood Leadership Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts; the Mac Arthur Network on Family and the Economy, and Governor Paterson’s Task Force on Juvenile Justice

    Dr. Mincy’s undergraduate and graduate training in economics were at Harvard and M.I.T. He and his wife, Flona Mincy, have been married for more than thirty years and live in Harlem, New York. They have two sons.  (Thank God.  Can you imagine daughters growing up around all that fatherhood policymaking?)

    “The Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being’s mission is to expand the knowledge base on the role of fathers (and father figures) in the lives of disadvantaged children and the processes by which nonresident fathers (and father figures) affect child development and family well-being.”

    Many people ask us about our logo. They wonder why we don’t portray a happy family. We would rather showcase the problem we are trying to solve.

    We wanted to show a strong mother, who believes she is capable of taking care of herself and her family. Whatever her beliefs, she often has no other option. Despite her best efforts, the literature shows that children who grow up in two-parent families are less likely than children in mother-only families to do poorly in school, engage in risky behavior, and exhibit anxiety, depression, and aggressive and withdrawn behavior problems. 

    We wanted to portray a father who is interested in his family but who is ill-prepared to help, unsure if his help is welcome, and unsure about he can be involved.** Although conventional wisdom holds that non-resident fathers are not involved in their children’s lives, the literature shows that at least half of non-resident fathers are involved with their children up to five years of age.

    Are there ways of helping these parents work together to meet their children’s needs?

    That is our question. That is our mission.”

    ** (portion in red) — was this Dr. Mincy’s father?  Is this is hope — that his Dad really wanted to be involved, but there were just too many obstacles to father-involvement?  Is all this really about certain men who ascended to (or were selected & placed, not that they didn’t earn every single degree, but are we allowed to mention the Fraternal Order of Masons (for Mr Canada), are we allowed to mention just how many foundations supported Dr. Mincy?) in VERY influential positions, as the figurehead of the successful black man, who is now — rather than confronting the system-concept which separated families to start with (FYI, it’s called slavery) — and is instead, working for the same TYPE of masters (if not some corporations that went back nearly as far) and doing the same thing to other famlies who share none of their Ph.D. characteristics, and may not even know this has been done to them, and by transforming the welfare system further and further to minimize and curtail “mother-involvement,” ensure that the child support system can be utilized by even mutli-millionaire fathers to separate children from their biological mothers, as well as diverting cash aid to single-mother households by defining success by the number of adult biologically related males in the home?

    Why are we allowing groups like Columbia School of Social Policy, or corporations & foundations — to change the forms of government to figure out HOW to produce desired social results?  This is nothing other than “Wealth-Makes-Right” and those on the top of society got their because God wanted them to, from which the position of “God” can be fulfilled through social design and planning how others will — or will not– live, bypassing the legal systems, for example, in particular, the criminal code.

    Fraternal Order of Masons – interesting…

    Freemasonry refers to the principles, institutions, and practices of the fraternal order of the Free and Accepted Masons. The largest worldwide society, Freemasonry is an organization of men based on the “fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” using builders’ tools as symbols to teach basic moral truths generally accepted by persons of good will. Their motto is “morality in which all men agree, that is, to be good men and true.” It is religious in that a belief in a Supreme Being and in the immortality of the soul are the two prime requirements for membership, but it is nonsectarian in that no religious test is used.1 The purpose of Freemasonry is to enable men to meet in harmony, to promote friendship, and to be charitable. Its basic ideals are that all persons are the children of one God, that all persons are related to each other, and that the best way to worship God is to be of service to people.  Masons have no national headquarters as such, but the largest regional is the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction (35 Southern states), which is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.

    Although only men (of at least 21 years of age) can be Masons, related organizations are available for their relatives — there is the Order of the Eastern Star for Master Masons and their wives; the Order of De Molay for boys; and the Order of Job’s Daughters and the Order of Rainbow for young girls. The Masonic Lodge has more than a hundred such fraternal organizations, including Daughters of the Nile, The Tall Cedars of Lebanon, The Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets Of The Enchanted Realm, The Knights Of The Red Cross Of Constantine, and The Blue Lodge.

    There’s more . . . .

    Many allegories and symbols are used in Masonry. The old English Constitution refers to an ancient definition of the ancient craft: “Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbol,” [Freemason’ symbols can be made to mean almost anything a person chooses to make them; Master Masons take an oath, “Ever to conceal, never to reveal.”2] It seeks to make good men better through the form of belief in “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the    immortality of the soul.”

    Masonry was originally a means by which people in the occult could practice their “craft” and still remain respectable citizens. The official publication of “The Supreme Council 33” of Scottish Rite Freemasonry is titled New Age. Some church denominations are also led by avowed Masons. For example, a 1991 survey by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board found that 14% of SBC pastors and 18% of SBC deacon board chairs were Masons; it is also estimated that SBC members comprise 37% of total U.S. lodge membership. (A 2000 updated SBC report found that over 1,000 SBC pastors are Masons.)

    Hardly surprising — we do remember, right, that former U.S. President severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention over their treatment — and view– of women.  While I may not agree with what he’s doing instead (joined a worldwide “Council of Elders” — give me a break!), this part is true:

    Jimmy Carter Severs Ties With Southern Baptist Convention: “Many Male Religious Leaders Help Subjugate Women

    Carter: Sexism exhibited by male leaders conflicts “with my belief — confirmed in the holy scriptures — that we are all equal in the eyes of God.”  Please read — because this is happening in the U.S. today.  (article concludes):

    The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

    It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices — as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

    Other commentary on the authoritarian (or you going to hell) manner of the SBC’s in re: the Carter’s decision.
    More on “The Elders,” first ref. from the article I quoted>

    • Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.

    Meet the Elders’: Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Muhammad Yunus and Many More  (Kate Snow, Johannesburg, July 18, 2007)

     Guess they’ll have to contend sooner or later with Sun Myung Moon, the True Parent, who I don’t think was on the list — probably he’s not reall good at sharing leadership .   This one was conceived by “British billionaire Richard Branson and Rock Star Peter Gabriel”  and talks about how, without such piddling matters as “political (i.e., laws), economic (i.e., costs) and geographic (national sovereignty, etc.) constraints” surely this assembly of starpower can fix the world:

    The structures we have to deal with these problems are often tied down by political, economic and geographic constraints,” Mandela said. The Elders, he argued, will face no such constraints. . . .Using their collective experience, their moral courage and their ability to rise above the parochial concerns of nations ? they can help make our planet a more peaceful, healthy and equitable place to live, ” Branson said. ” Let us call them ‘global elders,’ not because of their age but because of individual and collective wisdom.” Calling it “the most extraordinary day” of his life, Gabriel said, “The dream was there might still be a body of people in whom the world could place their trust.”

    Well, the world is fully of nutcase Messiahs, they are found amongst the homeless, and among the ultrarich.  Guess which group probably has done more harm, and been responsible for more human misery, wars, poverty, and genocides, in the long-term?

    A little more detail on Mr. Canda’s life, from “blackpast.org” an on-line encyclopedia.  His mother was a counselor.   He had no sisters…..

    Canada was born on January 13, 1952 to McAlister and Mary Canada in the South Bronx, New York City.  His mother was a substance abuse counselor and his father suffered from chronic alcoholism.  His mother raised him and his three brothers in the South Bronx after she divorced his father in 1956.

    Canada grew up in poverty yet his mother strongly instilled the value of education in him at an early age.  In his teens, Canada was sent to live with his grandparents, both ordained Baptist ministers, in Long Island, New York.  While living with his grandparents, Canada attended Wyandanch Memorial High School where he received the Fraternal Order of Masons scholarship his senior year.   {{SEE above}}

    Canada then enrolled in Bowdoin College in 1970, graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in psychology and sociology in 1974.  A year later he graduated with an M.A. in Education from Harvard Graduate School of Education.  His mother eventually earned her own Master’s degree from Harvard some years later.    

    In addition, Canada has published two books: Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun: A Personal History of Violence in America(1995) and Reaching Up for Manhood: Transforming the Lives of Boys in America (1998).In 1972, Canada married Joyce Henderson and had two children, Melina and Jerry.  They divorced and Canada married Yvonne Grant.  They also have two children, Bruce and Geoffrey, Jr.    [Contributor(s): Jackson, Joelle
    University of Washington, Seattle]
    Are the children from the first wife now fatherless and at risk?

    (VERY) BRIEFLY:  The EDELMANS & CHILDREn’s DEFENSE FUND (1992 interview with Marian Wright Edelman) speaks about her parent’s Baptist past
    ….”her childhood home in Bennettsville, S.C. That was the starting point for the self-assured black girl who would emerge from the segregated South to go to Yale University Law School, create the Children’s Defense Fund and propel herself onto the national scene as an impassioned and relentless champion of needy children and families…. It was in that spirit, to promote continuity, that Mrs. Edelman wrote a little book, a “spiritual and family dowry,” for her sons, Joshua, Jonah and Ezra. She has been married for 24 years to Peter Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University.

    The family values talk is just talk,” Mrs. Edelman said, her voice rising, her words accelerating. “People understand what is real and what is hypocritical. Family and moral values are so central to everything that I am.”

    The daughter of a Baptist minister, Mrs. Edelman writes in her book that “many of the seeds I am still struggling mightily to harvest for children and the poor were planted during my childhood.” Her father gave sermons, she said, “decrying the breakdown of family and community” and “insisting that poverty of things is no excuse for poverty of will and spirit.”

    Being a Baptist still plays an important role in her life. “If I don’t go Sunday morning, I’m not grounded for the week,” she said.

    I don’t know how much readership understands the role of the Children’s Defense Fund in policies around today, or how one of her 3 sons’ work intersects with Mr. Canada’s, at the nonprofit, charterschoolpromotion level.  I am wondering whether she would be OK with the impact of these social programs on real mothers, today:

    Mrs. Edelman met her husband in Mississippi, where she was the first black woman admitted to the bar. She was working as a civil rights lawyer, and Mr. Edelman was researching poverty and hunger for Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Mrs. Edelman and her husband, who is Jewish, raised their sons in the religious traditions of both sides of the family.

    In his introduction to his mother’s book, Jonah, who graduated from Yale last spring (1992) and is now a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, refers to himself as “a cultural mulatto . . . the sheltered bar mitzvah boy who has struggled with his blackness.” … The Edelmans’ eldest son, 23-year-old Joshua, is a Harvard University graduate who teaches history at the Milton Academy in Milton, Mass. Ezra, 18, is a freshman a Yale.

    . . .

    here have been rumors that Mrs. Edelman, who has worked for years with Hillary Clinton, the past chairwoman of the Children’s Defense Fund, might join the Cabinet if Gov. Bill Clinton becomes President. “I would not,” Mrs. Edelman said, adding that her black friends were urging her to go into Government to increase her power and influence.

    “That is not who I am,” she said. “I need to work outside Government, on my own. I love what I do, and I think I am making a difference.”

    The nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, is widely respected for its lobbying efforts. Its aim is to bring the needs of children to public attention and to encourage preventive efforts in areas like health care and teen-age pregnancy. The fund played an important role in the formulation of the child-care legislation that Congress passed in 1990

    OK — now I will link Jonah Edelman to Geoffrey Canada (finally), through Mr. Edelman’s Wikipedia — and hopefully you will see the connection with these inexorable training grants from HHS — there is an HHS connection in the family line:

    Jonah Martin Edelman (born 9 October 1970) is an Americanadvocate for public education.[1] He is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stand for Children, a national American education advocacy organization based in Portland, Oregon andWaltham, Massachusetts, with affiliates in nine states. He is the first Oregon resident to be awarded an Ashoka: Innovators for the Public fellowship.[2]

    STAND FOR CHILDREN is no ordinary nonprofit — it was set up to be nationwide from the very beginning and to force social transformation.  It is also very well endowed.  Currently, this group is facing off with teachers’ unions, (see “Illinois”) and Mr. Edelman was caught boasting about how he got these unions to give away their rights — although the cause is, “improving public schools” – — right? . . .

    Jonah Edelman is the second son of Marian Wright Edelman, former civil rights leader and aide to Martin Luther King, jr. and founder and president of the Children’s Defense Fund, and Peter Edelman, former aide to Senator Robert F. Kennedy, former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

    Edelman was born and raised in Washington, D.C, and received his B.A. in History with a concentration on African-American studies from Yale University in 1992. Edelman attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, earning his Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Politics in 1994 and 1995, respectively.

    He is, essentially, a blueblood acting like a blueblood, i.e., arrogant — taking charge — and rescuing poor people  by redesigning government policy— and insisting it be done “his way” or the highway.  When I say blueblood, we know Marian Wright Edelson’s personal background and commitment, discipline, and values.  Her husband/Jonah’s father qualifies as blueblood (See “Georgetown” and working for RFK), and former assistant Secretary to the DHHS — –    where the fatherhood programs now life — and it appears these were instrumental in some of their beginnings.  And may give a better clue to their actual purposes.

    Edelman cites tutoring a six-year-old bilingual child named Daniel Zayas in reading while volunteering at Dwight Elementary School during his first year at Yale as a turning point.[3] While still an undergraduate, he ran a teen pregnancy prevention speakers’ bureau, co-founded a mentorship program for African American middle school students, and served as an administrator of an enrichment program for children living in public housing-Leadership Education and Athletics in Partnership (LEAP).

    Stand for Children

    Edelman was a key organizer of Stand for Children Day, a June 1, 1996 rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. attended by 300,000 people.[4]   {{KEEP THE LINK…}} Among the speakers at this rally, the largest for children in U.S. history, were Geoffrey Canada, who later became Stand for Children’s first Board of Directors Chair, the editor of Parade Magazine, Walter Anderson, who came up with the name “Stand for Children Day,” and Marian Wright Edelman.

    On June 2, 1996, Edelman and Eliza Leighton founded Stand for Children as an ongoing advocacy organization to support rally participants when they returned home. Hundreds of follow up Stand for Children events and rallies took place across the country on June 1, 1997 and then June 1, 1998.

    Yes, about that rally:

    Education plus politics (about “stand for children’s” role in Denver School Board race) 

    Edelman, the son of Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, began Stand in an effort to marry child advocacy and grassroots organizing. “Stand didn’t start off working on public education at all,” he said, noting the 1996 Stand for Children rally from which it grew encompassed many issues.

    The rally, which Edelman worked on at his mother’s request, drew 300,000 people to D.C. for what was the largest rally for children in U.S. history. Stand’s first chapter was founded in Oregon in 1999.

    “It’s really evolved organizationally toward public education based on the fact public education is the most salient and fundamentally important issue of so many issues facing kids,” he said.  Stand’s grassroots approach is similar to those of two other parent groups in Denver, Padres Unidos and Metropolitan Organizations for People or MOP.  But Stand differs in that its members get directly involved in politics – something Padres and MOP, which are non-profit 501(c)3 organizations, can’t do – and it works at the local and statewide levels.

    “We don’t choose cities,” Edelman said when asked about coming to Denver, “we choose states.”

    WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE MOVEMENTS NOW GOING ON  IN HHS, where “CHILDREN & FAMILIES” precludes speech of individuals, and where leadership is to be followed, not questioned, when it comes to policy.   The intent is to transform the public schools, and if necessary, take on teacher’s unions.  I see an article boasting about how their legislators all one, and several “status quo” legislators lost.  Grassroots advocacy, organization, and funding, right?   Next, there is this one showing alliance / alignment with Mr. Canada.  As I have explained, that also = alignment with the fatherhood prominence, and getting more children into state care than Mom’s care, by combining early childhood education + public school (regular or charter) education, both federal projects, while endorsing — apparently — welfare-diversions (like the HTTC above) to transform certain communities:

    1.  Post-Election Message from Stand’s CEO, Jonah Edelman  (nov. 8, 2010)

    Friends and Colleagues:

    Tuesday’s election saw the emergence of Stand for Children as a multi-state electoral force for students.

    By reaching more than 55,000 targeted voters through grassroots volunteer outreach (five times more than in 2008) and strategically investing more than $1 million (15 times more than in 2008) in Colorado, Washington, Illinois, and Oregon, Stand helped protect an overwhelming majority of the legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, who stood tall for students earlier this year.

    And here’s something else that’s striking: while none of the legislators we backed lost because of their vote to improve educator effectiveness, Stand helped unseat several legislators who voted for the status quo.

    2.  Note from CEO, Jonah Edelman – Inpired by Geoffrey Canada

    November 24, 2010

    Last Thursday, some of you [Stand staff, Board members, Advisory Board members]  were able to join in a conference call where we received a mega-dose of inspiration from Geoffrey Canada, Stand’s first Board chair, founder and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone, and one of America’s most prominent education advocates.

    On the call, Geoff generously affirmed Stand’s incredible recent progress and he challenged us to seize this unique moment in time and work with even greater resolve, perspective, and discipline to save all of those “perfectly normal children,” as he described them, who are falling hopelessly behind in school.

    This is grassroots organizing from the top-down, not the bottom-up, and if anything, this organization is ORGANized and visionary; that also apparently runs in the family line, plus (see educations). . . . .   (did they attend local public schools, K-12?) . . . . .  Checking my Nonprofit status — and actually reading a tax return (great way to learn about a group — read their tax returns if possible) — there is a:

    • Stand for Children (oregon nonprofit)
    • Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. (Washington, D.C. nonprofit),

    and apparently (per that tax return) a 

    • Stand for Children, Inc. — for profit.

    The (2002) board of SFCLC (DC group) was:

    Stand for Children Leadership Center Board of Directors (from tax return)

    • Who We Are

      Founded in 1986, Bright Horizons Family Solutions is the world’s leading provider of employer-sponsored child care, early education, and work/life solutions. Conducting business in the United States, Europe, and Canada, we have created employer-sponsored child care and early education programs for more than 700 clients, including more than 90 of the Fortune 500.

       

    • CNN description (Money.cnn.com, 2008):  Average pay:  Directors, $54K, teachers, $25K…
    • Headquarters: Watertown, MA
      2006 revenue ($ millions): 698
      Website: www.brighthorizons.com

      Employees
      U.S. employees 14,660
      Employees outside U.S. 1,972

      This corporation (investing in its stock) helped make Tennessee Senator, Lamar Alexander, one of the Top 10 (richest) in 2007.  Below this list, I’ll show (I recognized this name.  Lamar Alexander also known because of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, private prison corporation)’s lobbying, and a move to privatize the entire state’s prisons, connected with this legislator.

    • Geoffrey Canada President, Harlem Children’s Zone
    • Sam Daley-Harris’ President, Results Educational Fund
    • Gun Denhart “s Founder & Chair, Hanna Andersson Corporation
    • MarianWright Edelman` Founder & President, Children’s Defense Fund
    • Daniel Grossman’ Founder & CEO, Wild Planet Toys
    • Jill Iscol” President , Jill Iscol & Associates  
    • Reverend/Dr. Eileen Lindner, Deputy General Secretary for Research & Planning, National Council of Churches, {{Excu UUse me???}}
    • Fred Senn Partner/GroupDirector, Fallon
    • Dorothy Stoneman Founder & President, YouthBuildUSA

    Every one of those corporations / organizations the board of directors sit on has a story, and most likely an interest in education reform.  Who are these people, and why have they taken on (with private, not public funding — on this tax return at least) organization to restructure the US Educational system according to their particular vision?   For example, because it’s simplest to illustrate, “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS” is top dog in employer-provided daycare.

    From the site:   INSIDERTRADING.PROCON.ORG

    Mr. Alexander was 10th richest, right after the 9th richest US Senator in 2007, namely, “9.  Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)  Avg. Net worth of household in 2006:   $30,691,003 — and I just love the description of her “Spouse Name and Title:”  Bill Clinton, 42nd US President.
    #10 – Lamar Alexander, Jr. Avg. Net Worth of Household in 2006:  $27,800,155.  Spouse name and title:   “Leslee “Honey” Alexander, Bord of Trustees, WETA; Member and Vice Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors,” 
    5 TOP STOCKS OWNED @ 12/31/2007– TOP STOCK:  “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTION” — $500,001 – $1,000,000.
    Senator Lamar Alexander Co-founded “Corporate Child Care Management, Inc.” (now “Bright Horizons Family Solutions).   His wife owns more than $1,000,000 stock in it. …  Committees he sits on that may present conflict of interest:  Health, Education, Labor, Pensions.
    For our leaders:  Investment income from holdings.  For those they set policy for:  Jobs, hopefully, child support – -possibly, welfare — likely at this pace — and parenting classes, and public schools.  Some design, others support (like, the workers at these various corporations) and if there is not too much civil discontent, all is well in the world. ….  While I am here, from the same site, on The (then-Senator) Obama’s household, notes a very lean portfolio, but investment in two speculative stocks he probably wouldn’t have known of except as a legislator — one dealing with mobile communications (and a satellite), i.e., SkyTerra (see also Wikipedia)– and the other AVI BioPharma.(“Advanced RNA-Based Therapeutic Platform)”    The commentary, here:   The second company has “strategic alliances” with the DoD, and includes biodefense in its projects; the first, apparently Boeing just helped put a satellite in space .
    We are in a Post-9/11 society, and throughout these TAGGS (marriage/Fatherhood) corporations, major grants involving telecommunications companies with roots in the Defense Industry keep showing up (Example:  ICF International Incorporated, LLC got a 2011 grant; it went public & international in 2006).   Here’s the “wiki” on AVI Biopharma — note they were going under til got a defense contract (during Obama presidency):

    History  (Wiki article)

    AVI BioPharma opened their own production laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, in February 2002.[2] The company made headlines in 2003 when it announced work on treatments for SARS and the West Nile Virus.[2][3] In July 2009, the company announced they would move their headquarters from Portland, Oregon, north to Bothell, Washington, near Seattle.[4] At that time the company led by president and CEO Leslie Hudson had 83 employees and quarterly revenues of $3.2 million.[4] AVI had yet to turn a profit nor developed any commercial products as of July 2009.[4] The company lost $19.7 million in the second quarter of 2009,[5] and then won a $11.5 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense‘s Defense Threat Reduction Agency in October 2009.[6] The company had completed its move to Bothell by this time, but retained their Corvallis facility.[4][6]

    SkyTerra is now “LightSquared” —
    SkyTerra - SkyTerra Communications

    “A new nationwide 4G wireless broadband network provider that will use a unique combination of satellite and terrestrial technology to revolutionize wireless communications in the United States.”  ”

    SkyTerra is North America’s leading developer and supplier of mobile satellite communications services (MSS). Since 1996 SkyTerra has been providing reliable wireless voice, two-way radio and data services for a wide range of customers across North America, northern South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Hawaii via its two existing MSAT satellites.   Satellite service is the perfect communications solution for remote locations lacking terrestrial coverage and when man made or natural disasters strike. Current customers cover a broad spectrum including public safety, security, broadcasting, natural resources, fleet management and asset tracking.   {{AND/Or SPYING….}}

    LIGHTSQUARED:  The idea behind this is providing (4G at least) “Wholesale broadband access” to the entire country.  In Nov. 2010, they launched a satellite from Kazakhstan, and the site mentions:

     ““The U.S. stimulus plan announced by President Obama has acknowledged the need for the federal government to step in to ensure that the digital divide is filled, thereby ending the denial of broadband access due to where people live… 2010 will be the year that many governments will recognize that broadband connectivity is essential for economic competitiveness, the delivery of public services, and an inclusive society, and they will step up to the plate to close the digital divide.”

    It is waiting? for FCC approval of its service; there’s claims it would jam GPS.  Fascinating reading — and here’s an article on the debate between FCC (Congressional favorite) this new one — only slightly technical.   Recommended read– it plays into the job market, digital divide.

    SkyTerra Wikipedia

    The new company has operations in both America and Canada, providing service to both countries and the Caribbean. MSV changed its name to SkyTerra in December 2008. The company was traded Over-the-Counter and was listed on the OTCBB: SKYT. SkyTerra (formerly ‘Mobile Satellite Ventures’) [4] was the first company to receive a Federal Communications Commission license to deploy Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) technology.[5]

    In 2005, SkyTerra purchased 50% of Hughes Network Solutions, a subsidiary of the News Corp.-owned DirecTV Group, for $157.4 million, which SkyTerra held under its subsidiary Hughes Communications.[6][7] In January 2006, DirecTV sold its remaining 50% share in Hughes Network Solutions to SkyTerra for $100 million.[8] Hughes Communications was spun off as a separate company in February 2006, with SkyTerra divesting its entire stake in the company to its shareholders.[9]

    TerreStar Corporation, formerly Motient Corporation, was the controlling shareholder of TerreStar Networks Inc. and TerreStar Global Ltd., and a shareholder of SkyTerra Communications.[10]

    SkyTerra was acquired by Harbinger Capital Partners in March 2010 and became part of LightSquared in July 2010.[11  

    MSV satellite telephony

    Most of current products and services are aimed at emergency services, law enforcement, and companies that specialize in transportation. However, MSV and Boeing are developing a satellite telephony network for consumers.

    The use of Boeing’s GeoMobile platform will allow for coverage of the entire United States with a single satellite. This new approach to satellite telephony has already been validated with the Thuraya network. MSV’s satellite will use an even bigger antenna than the Thuraya spacecraft (at 22 meters in diameter, it will be the largest commercial reflector dish ever used in space)[12], allowing it to communicate with phones no larger than modern cell phones thanks to the fact that the large antenna gain allows the handset to operate at a power output comparable to regular cell phones. This is now possible since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed satellite operators to create terrestrial cellular networks using spectrum previously restricted to satellite use.[13][14][15]

    The Satellite road aboard a Russian Satellite, launched last November, per the Nasa article:   !!!

    LIVE: ILS Proton-M launches with SkyTerra 1 satellite

    November 14th, 2010 by Chris BerginInternational Launch Services (ILS) have launched the SkyTerra 1 telecommunications satellite via their veteran Proton-M launch vehicle and Breeze-M upper stage on Sunday. Lift-off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was on schedule at 17:29 GMT, ahead of over nine hours of flight until the spacecraft was placed into orbit.

     . . .The 5,400 kg Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems built 702HP satellite is designed for geomobile services, which will be a “major step in LightSquared’s creation of its next-generation, nationwide network that will be among the world’s first to combine satellite and terrestrial technologies,” according to the customer.“The Light-Squared network will enable the company to offer 4G speed, value, and reliability which enables universal wireless connectivity throughout the United States.

    “The company’s next-generation satellite system allows users within the United States to use standard handsets or other devices, equipped with the LightSquared chipset, to access the satellite system with high link availability and long battery lifetimes, with devices that have the same form-factor and functionality as conventional handsets and devices.

    “Further, the combination of the LightSquared satellite system and the LightSquared 4G terrestrial network provides an unprecedented level of coverage throughout the United States.”

    Proton Launch:

    (Somehow this isn’t as comforting as it is probably supposed to be….)

    The Iscol Family (apparently husband made his money in mobile communications…)

    <>STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP, JILL ISCOL

    It’s hard to know where, on the web, to start.  Cornell, Yale, New York City?  The portion of Cornell University this husband/wife pair is currently funding / running?    Their connections with Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Well, while we’re on the topic, how about article from “CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY.”

    Jill Iscol

    In this summary (it’s the entire web page) you can see the policy-making influence with Gores, Family Strengthening projects, and the ability to somehow raise incredible finances for whatever project her heart desires.  This is what Yale Graduates do, and the Columbia background also includes a penchant the teaching.  Does this look like someone who would be taking input from the lower ranks of society, or dishing it out, according to the personal vision determined with the social & political set she runs in, and they do?    Or taking feedback on the impact of these programs on the working class, (or, welfare recipients) which might be at odds from program purposes?

    President, IF Hummingbird Foundation

    Jill W Iscol, Ed.D, is a social activist, an educator, and a philanthropist.

    She serves on the Board of Advisors of City Year New York of which she was a Founding Co-Chair (2002-2009).  She is a Trustee of Vital Voices Global Partnership and is currently chairing its newly launched New York Leadership Council. She is on the Board of the Acumen Fund, a global philanthropic organization. She was recently appointed to the New York State Commission on National and Community Service, is a Trustee of Horizons National, and on the Advisory Board of the Center for New American Security in Washington, DC.

    She serves on the President’s Council of Teachers College (from 1974-1977, she was Co-Director of its Preservice Program in Childhood Education), and on the Advisory Boards of the Iscol Family Program for Leadership Development  {{that’s Cornell, and link tells more about Jill & Ken, after profusely thanking them for generous funding…}} and the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University. Until 2009 she served on the Boards of Facing History and Ourselves, and Bank Street College of Education (where she was a faculty member from 1973-1974).

    Sorry — I have to point this out  Bank Street College of Education began with a single person’s idea in 1916, and a humanist (as oppose to, say, Deist) idea to study children and figure out what produces the best results, according to humanist definitions and in the process of creating a better world.  This intense obsession — and it IS an obsession — with getting children away from their natural parents (while preaching marriage and family throughout) — didn’t start yesterday.   Particularly one sees the institutes throughout the country wishing to “study” children in order to do a better job than previous generations.  This is reflected to date in Obama Administration’s expansion of Head Start, Early Head Start, and push to get mothers out of the home and back to work, and kids into daycare centers where HHS will pay for “Child Development Scholars” to take notes, etc. etc.     Consider — this was before women got the vote!

    • Bank Street: A Brief History

    In 1916, educator Lucy Sprague Mitchell and her colleagues, influenced by revolutionary educator John Dewey and other humanists, concluded that building a new kind of educational system was essential to building a better, more rational, humane world.

    Beginnings: The Bureau Years

    1916: The Bureau of Educational Experiments (BEE) is founded in New York City by Lucy Sprague Mitchell, together with her husband Wesley Mitchell and colleague Harriet Johnson. Their purpose is to combine expanding psychological awareness with democratic conceptions of education. With a staff of researchers and teachers, the Bureau sets out to study children–to find out what kind of environment is best suited to their learning and growth, to create that environment, and to train adults to maintain it.

    1919: The Bureau of Educational Experiments establishes a Nursery School.

    (The next three bullets, quotes from a “Harvard Educational Review” very laborious review of a book on the development of Preschool in America)

    • Patty Smith Hill, progressive kindergartner of Louisville, Kentucky, studied the works of John Dewey and Francis W. Parker and then challenged the strict kindergarten pedagogy based on Froebel’s theories.  {{German, childless??, Pedagogue, 1782-1852!}} Hill taught at Columbia Teachers College and co-founded the Institute of Child Welfare Research there in 1924.5 Caroline Pratt, who founded the innovative Play School in Greenwich Village, and her life partner, Helen Marot, were a part of a Greenwich Village group of intellectuals.6 Pratt collaborated with Lucy Sprague Mitchell and Harriet Johnson in New York City in the 1910s, “where they developed a radical preschool pedagogy designed to counteract what they saw as the psychologically and politically oppressive environment of the private family” (p. 135). “
    •  A stark contrast to kindergartners’ encouragement of parental involvement is the practice of early-twentieth-century progressive educator Caroline Pratt, who “saw parents as obstacles to their children’s education, not as partners (p. 139). Though Pratt may have been an anomaly among early childhood educators, her stance represents one of the many ways parents were treated and perceived by educators who often were not parents themselves.
    • Her history is a chronicle of preschool-aged children’s access to education in the United States since the early nineteenth century, starting with the advent of infant schools, schools designed for lower-class children whose parents were considered unfit to teach them at home.

    Your basic “Children as lab rats” concept, but of course for a noble purpose.  A Tulane University “Child Development Center” history page describes the Patty Smith Hill Influence, in fact, mentioning the 1969 Chicago University “Lab School.”:

    Newcomb Children’s Center originally started as a nursery school for Tulane faculty and staff when Edith Rosenwald Stern, a young parent and community activist, spearheaded a group of six mothers in the endeavor to establish the preschool in 1926, a time when these were not commonplace in the United States. She was the daughter of Julius Rosenwald, founder of Sears Roebuck and Company, and had attended the University of Chicago Lab School, where a preschool had been initiated in 1916.  (daughter of successful businessman….)

    Stern became acquainted with Patty Smith Hill, a leader of the American Kindergarten and Nursery School Movement, during a visit to Columbia University’s Institute for Child Welfare in New York.  This relationship led to a broad scope of beneficial effects on Stern in terms of its philosophy and methods of teaching.  From its inception, the School has encouraged hands-on learning by the children with guidance from a caring staff of teachers and active parents.

    newcombstrip

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell (from a 2006 “Education Update” site), in short, another blueblood (Radcliffe, UCBerkeley Dean of Women) gets together with others to change the world, starting with studying how to produce a better child:

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell came of age at a time of great changes in the United States. The country was becoming increasingly industrialized and urbanized; waves of immigrants were arriving, and poverty—especially urban poverty—was on the rise. These changing conditions inspired an intense period of social and educational reform between 1890 and 1920, led by pioneers, many of them women, who believed that the world could be changed. An age of often appalling social conditions was also an age of great optimism for people who wanted to remake the society America had built.

    A graduate of Radcliffe, and the first Dean of Women at the University of California at Berkeley, Lucy Sprague Mitchell knew that she wanted to be a force for change, and shared the optimism of the reformers that change was possible. She herself saw in education the best possibility for a more just and humane world.

    With several like-minded women, she established the Bureau of Educational Experiments to determine how children grow and learn by carefully studying and recording their behavior, their language, and their interactions with each other and with their environment.

    (I continued looking — got that “childlike curiosity” still, I guess) — this person who never had a formal education til she was 16, was into early education for the purposes of studying how children learn . . .  she had a domineering father . . . . this Bureau of Educational Systems was subsidized by a cousin’s inheritance . . . and the methods included:

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell’s impact on the educational system in America is all the more surprising considering that she herself did not receive a formal education at school until she was sixteen years old. Lucy’s progressive-some might even say radical-approach to reforming education might be less surprising. Although she grew up with a domineering father in a repressive atmosphere, she also benefited greatly from her father’s own interest in education reform. As a result, young Lucy was not only exposed to the reformist ideas of such philosophical heavyweights as John Dewey and Jane Addams, she actually met them! . . .

    . . .what was radical then is now thought “essential to knowing how to teach” children. The interdisciplinary approach to classroom management, the study of student behavior, psychological profiles recorded and updated, family background and environment checks: all of these were incorporated by Sprague Mitchell into how educating children was conducted at the Bureau.

    Wikipedia on Bank Street College of Education directly ties this group to Head Start.  (Bank Street was simply the Greenwich Village location of the Bureau of Educational Experiments when it started):

    Bank Street was founded in 1916 by Lucy Sprague Mitchell as the “Bureau of Educational Experiments”. (Mitchell was the first Dean of Women at the University of California, Berkeley). Its original focus was the study of child development and education, but, after two years, it was clear that actual living subjects, i.e. children, were needed, so in 1918 a nursery school was opened. This nursery school is the direct predecessor of today’s School for Children. It wasn’t until the 1930s that Bank Street began to formally train teachers, the start of today’s Bank Street College of Education.

    The little kids are brought in to test theory on, but the place started with theory.  Of course, little kids in nursery schools is something of a controlled situation, and in fact, studying a young child in isolation from its parents makes next to no sense to me.  See my post “monkeying with mothers.”  Same mentality!

    In 1965, Bank Street developed the “Bank Street Readers” line of books, which were unique due to their featuring of racial diversity and urban people of contemporary culture. Also in the 1960s, the Bank Street faculty played an important role in the creation of the federal Head Start program.

    Some things never change.  I found a grant (from another organization currently, I think, associated with a group attempting to eradicate no-fault divorce in Ohio, National Council of Family Relations, in cooperation with Utah State University.  Or, at least in the same grant series.  Some ideas just refuse to die, including that the best people to change society are those at the top — although typically it’s those who are starting wars, and sending the masses of lower class youth to go die in them, not to mention locking them up the disproportionately to the white-collar criminals…. and then (Lamar Alexander) getting rich by buying stock in the private prisons that oppress them — which they do, resulting in lawsuits for sexual assault and more. (CCA).

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2011 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT 90YR0035 DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS LORI ROGGMAN $ 0

     

    Notice the nature of this grant, that it’s at a University, and that it’s funded under “Head Start.”   This year, 2011, there were 26 “90YR” projects — ALL at Universities, across the country — and $4.78 million worth — testing, measuring, responding, and attempting to predict human behavior according to certain variables.  I really should post them.   For example, UCLA Board of Regents wants to get better at predicting children’s behavior (good luck with that one!):

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, BOARD OF REGENTS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90095

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90YR0062 PREDICTING INFANT/TODDLER SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL OUTCOMES FROM INTRAPERSONAL CAREGIVER CHARACTERISTICS AND CHILD CARE PROCESS 1 93.600 ACF 09-13-2011   $ 25,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 25,000

     

    And Utah State has its

    Early Intervention Research Institute

    And Ms. Roggman’s Background:

    Lori Roggman

    Picture of Lori RoggmanLori Roggman
    Staff Biography  Education

    Ph.D., 1988, University of Texas (Developmental Psychology)
    M.S., 1981, Utah State University (Family & Human Development)
    B.S., 1972, Utah State University (Psychology) 
    Teaching
    Undergraduate: Parenting/ChildGuidance, Infancy/Early Childhood
    Graduate: Human Development Theories (6060), Frontiers of Human Development (7060), Topical Seminars on Language Development, Attachment, Play, Fathers.

    – – – – Ah Well  . . . . .

    Since its creation in 1989, Ms. Iscol has been President of IF Hummingbird Foundation, a family foundation which supports efforts to strengthen democracy and to reduce the social injustice, economic and educational inequities that would threaten it.

    From 1997-2001, Jill served as the Chairperson of the Annual Family Re-Union Conference, moderated by then-Vice President Gore and Mrs. Gore, for which she planned and coordinated three annual conferences and raised significant funding for ongoing policy development process aimed at formulating better ways to strengthen family life.

    Jill planned and participated in the White House Conference on Partnerships and Philanthropy in 2000. She was Co-Chair for Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate’s New York Finance Committee, which raised a record 29 million dollars.  She was Vice-Chair of Senator Clinton’s New York and National Finance Committees in 2006 and a National Vice-Chair of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President’s 2008 Finance Committee.

    Ms. Iscol received a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from University of Pittsburgh (1967), a doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University (1976), and a Master of Philosophy in Sociology from Yale (1990).

    This is part of the “FAMILY LIFE DEVELOPMENT CENTER” at Cornell….  (NOTE:  the “HTTC” far above — the DC-based Collaborative I found on the TAGGS list — has a curious link to “Family Development Institute” and is taking personal information for anyone wanting to get credentialed as one:   Guess you can learn how to raise (“develop”) a family, if you get credentialed for it here; wonder who pays how much for the training.   SAME CONCEPT AT CORNELL — in fact overall, this is the concept.  I call it “Designer Families,” although what often seems to result is family breakup, for a better, state-approved “design,” from my experience (and I’m well networked with similar cases….)  (I also did a search on ‘Fatherhood” then “motherhood” at the School of Human Ecology with the usual results: fatherhood 15 to motherhood 8.  Several of the faculty appear to have come from Fragile Families studies, and some prior HHS connection.  The last reference to “fatherhood” was an article by (AFCC professional?) Robert E. Emery, and discussing Custody Evaluations.  Others of course discussed child support….)

    Welcome

    Since 2001, the College of Human Ecology {{at Cornell…}} has been very pleased to be the home of the Iscol Family Program for Leadership Development in Public Service. Established with the generosity and foresight of Jill and Ken Iscol, this program is intended to give undergraduate students inspiration and direction in translating their knowledge, idealism, and optimism into concrete action to build better communities for families and children.

    . . .The Iscol Family Program serves the entire university and for the last 3 years has collaborated with the Entrepreneurship at Cornell program.

    THIS is now, East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Executive Director, as quoted in the “promising neighborhoods” article at “Circle of Philanthropy”

    When we get the little ones in pre-kindergarten, they come to us not even knowing how to hold a pencil or pen.”

    And even when the children are getting the proper instruction in school, the neighborhood’s poverty affects their ability to learn, says Mae H. Best, executive director of the East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, a social-services group in the neighborhood that is participating in the Promise Neighborhood project. Poverty steals children’s attention from the classroom, she says. They may not be eating at home, they may be worried that they are going to be evicted, they may hear their parents complaining about lack of work. * * *

    **omitted — they may hear or witness their parents fighting, or one being assaulted….

    “Everything is generally related to financial resources­—the lack thereof,” she says.

    {Annie E. Casey Foundation is one of the major funders of fatherhood studies; I have been studying this for over 2 eyars.  They show up EVERYwhere, including in groups allegedly preventing family violence, and providing “resource centers,” (Websites, and the paid-for studies that can be downloaded there, and training opportunities), such as “Family Violence Prevention Fund.”  Excuse me, I forgot their recent federally-assisted web facelift, physical move (to the SF Praesidio) AND name change.  How, instead of the grandiose promise of preventing Family VIolence (which I see no evidence they are), they are expanding the scope:  “Futures Without Violence.”  AS I recall (you can check), Annie E. Casey funds this, and probably the “fragile families” study as well.

    I like that they state their timeline and incorporation history.  That’s good.  Notice the “letter to the community” starts with “father absence.”

    Letter to The Community

    Help Us Make Ward 7 Stronger.

    Dear Friend of ERFSC:Imagine a family situation where the father is absent, the mother is unemployed and the children are barely making it in school due to lack of attention and necessary resources. Now consider the stress and embarrassment of not having the “right clothes” to wear to school, a healthy lunch to edify the children’s minds, and a single parent who is so busy trying to make ends meet, that she involuntarily neglects her children. Surely you can see how a family situation like this can negatively affect the mother’s mental health and the children’s self esteem and impact their ability to learn. Surely you can envision how this situation can get worse and result in children who fall into the juvenile system or worse!

    I imagine there is not a single person on this board, or among the families served, who is completely and totally unaware that:

    • Some fathers are absent because of domestic violence, and might have done some jail time for this.
    • African-Americans are over-represented in the jail populations across the U.S., and probably here, too.  

    To rephrase Daddy’s in jail as putting him back with his family (without addressing the “why” of incarceration, which could range from violent criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to drug-related criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to racism, to the fact that there’s a huge corporate lobbying industry behind expanding the prison system (search CCA on my site, “Corrections Corporation of America” – -to possibly even child support arrearages, if combined with other things . . .at what point is it NOT good to reunite that family, and instead allow the female-headed household to be strengthened without letting an abuser back in?

    “With your generous donation, we can open up many windows of opportunity and give our residents a life beyond their limited boundaries along with the tools, the hope and the desire to strive for empowerment. By making a donation, you will not only be contributing directly to the success of these families, but will also be playing an active role in the overall sustainability of ERFSC.

    You may donate right here on our Web site or send your donation check to our office”

    Look who is funding the individual agency, and the umbrella agency here — and below, it’s clear the money (a) comes from welfare that might otherwise actually REACH the household in question, instead of being DIVERTED to fund non-taxpaying entities which set up  slick and donations-collecting websites so they can take credit for any social services provided. . . .   Moreover, between TAGGS & HHS — it’s clear one is under-reporting or the other is OVER-reporting.  Think about that before you donate, because this is common practice in the field:

    USASPENDING has reported (per this DUNS# — which is not always specific only to one organization, i understand — but at least an identifier) only 3 of the 6 grants, or about half of their total.  No data pre-dating 2009 exists.   We can also see that this money is most DEFINITELy coming out of TANF, or “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families”

    I.e., someone’s food and cash aid.   It is more important to have healthy, stable marriages — or try to — than for children to eat and be clothed if not living with their biological Daddies. . . ..

    • Total Dollars:$2,533,518
    • Transactions:1 – 3 of 3


    Transaction Number # 1

    Federal Award ID: 90FK0054: 00 (Grants)
    Date Signed:
    September 28 , 2011 

    Obligation Amount: 
    $1,533,518

    to search D.C. corporations, apparently you have to create a user account.  I don’t want to do this, so let’s check out just the umbrella nonprofit, and this one:

    HTTC:  Unlike most households, their assets are steadily increasing.  View a tax return, and subtract $500K per year (minimum) from the “government grants” and see if it is a well-run organization that could stand on its own, and note the ration of grants to program service income, and the executive pay, etc.  That’s what I do when viewing tax returns.   Notice — they got $500K in 2006.  Where is the 2006 tax return?

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2007 $972,730 990 23 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2010 $634,384 990 23 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2009 $830,758 990 21 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2008 $1,209,182 990 23 52-2250839

    TOTAL of “90FK” awards for 2011:

    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 51,125,462
    Total of 55 Award Actions for 55 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 54,151,962

      

    TOTAL of “90FM” awards for 2011:

     

    Why Think when you can Hyperlink?

    The heart of the “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” grantee system is an attempt to get the entire nation (at its expense) in front of trainers and facilitators to — for the sake of our country — submit to indoctrination in what, and how, to speak (i.e., think) about themselves, their children, their neighbors, poverty, work, and their place in this world.

    The “CIRCLE OF IDEAS” circulating through this system is getting smaller and smaller, while the ripples from having thrown this stone into the pond of plurality are still spreading. Ig pushed in t is intentional domination and restriction of a nation’s vocabulary — for profit — to subdue and restrict its thinking about cause & effect, particularly so as NOT to connect this type of corruption with incidents of murder/suicide, kidnapping, child molestation, threats, stalking, or ongoing, chronic stress and work attrition — even when the connection is open, upfront, and obviously in the custody context.

    In Liberia, women of different faiths united (risking their lives) to “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” and changed the course of the country’s history.  They did not want any more excuses for terrorism and attempted genocide.  I do believe that in the USA we are going to have to do this too, ladies and men of conscience.  Not through Occupying Wall Street — but through sitting one’s behind down on some paperwork (or accounting) of this travesty — and THEN boycott something that is profiting from this enterprise at our children’s futures’ expense.

    Recent events in California include:  a little girl not returned on visitation;  Daddy kills herself and himself.  This mother had her child at age approximately 44?  (Samaan/Fay).   8 people killed in Seal Beach, California hair salon, one man in the salon, and one outside it, who was sitting in a car — the rest were women.  And recently in Richmond, California, a brawl broke out in City Hall, surrounding the “Office of Neighborhood Safety.”  Gang members were being paid to attend classes.

    I have not blogged this yet, but as I am networked with “Parents” (mothers and grandmothers) across the country who are tired of THIS war, I became aware of an incident in Trumbull County Ohio which totally baffles the mind — until one explores the funding stream, and the organizaing element of “Fatherhood” at the state level.  Yes, you danged well bet there is a connection!   And I am tired of this propaganda, and excuse-making.  I am tired of, when the closer I look, the more questions come up — WHERE is this entity incorporated?  Why, when the web page is so fancy, and obviously well-funded — can one so many times not find the nonprofit’s EIN# and tax return — and why when those ARE found, they tend to fall into two categories:

    1.   The organization would not exist without HHS (and/or DOJ) funding, and is being propped up by them.

    2.   The organization disappeared (took the money and ran) and no one has caught up with it after an initial, small grant.

    3.   The organization is itself a FOR-PROFIT and HHS has chosen its (fatherhood promoting, family-strengthening) curriculum as one of about a dozen favored solutions to produce world peace (stop abuse, elmiinate poverty, or make irresponsible men responsible through bribes, or a system of bribes/extortion, etc. — i.e., “training” — and the HHS has helped this organization get all set up, create its private market niche or brand, and then certify or license “train the trainer” seminars (tax deductible) to spread it all over the place. . . . .  And is doing this through the already present systems of social welfare, such as TANF, Child Support, Child Abuse Prevention, you name it.  For example “Boot Camp for New Dads” is pushed to hospitals where children are being born.  And the PR firm “Public Strategies, Inc.” in Oklahoma – which as basically “made” by the Healthy Marriage Initiative (it seems to have almost no other clients) actually got another GRANT?

    This, friends, is not what government is for — this is a “Metastasized” government which is eating away the substance of the people that are sustaining it in money, in time, and in labor — and by consuming products it declares we need, when we don’t.  Has anyone ever calculated the huge profits made simply to detox people from chronic stress, and the illnesses that that state produces in a human body?

    Those who buy into this program will likely have income, including potential retirement income; those who do not will be subjected to it, with the exception of those who designed the curricula, who are probably laughing their way between an offshore bank to the next product idea, or (like ICF International Inc., LLC) buying out lesser companies and figuring out how to expand from their Billion-$$ Business with the US Government, one of the largest spenders (and debtors) in the world.

    HERE IS THE SYSTEM:

    Middle class pays for it, and if entangled in it, pays (for example, in the courts).  Many of the middle class have jobs working in the institutions that market these trainings and are used to SELL curricula to fix poverty (etc — create utopia, basically).

    People who have slipped out of or were never out of the lower economic sector — who cannot directly pay for classes — will be forced to take them anyhow, and the implicit “bargain” with the middle classes (from policymakers) is that by forcing the poor rabble into them (through extortion) they will be therefore off the streets and not on YOUR doorstep, so continue to produce wages and taxes that will be distributed to the fatherhood and marriage promoters nationwide, i.e., those who step to our tune.

    The HHS GRANTS PROVIDES THE HYPERLINK ADVANTAGE, AND PRE-FAB ASSOCIATIONS:

    Most resource centers, examined, are primarily on-line database storage.

    The Hyperlink advantage — Federal Help to set up Resources, Visually Engaging Websites, with Official-sounding LInks to the “upline,” and cute new Acronyms for the latest way to market the same material, for example, “FRIENDS” (see last post or so) with the radical concept that Parents might actually know something about their own families.  This fact sheet from a Florida group cites Fatherhood grantees “Circle of Parents”(tr) and “Parents Anonymous(tr)” and declares that we are all in this together, and those who have taken control of our families, and are paid to do so, now wish to “collaborate” and “Share leadership” with the actual parents.  This being a totally foreign concept to social workers and social scientists in general, SOMEONE had to copyright the concept and run trainings on how to let parents back into the decisionmaking process about their kids and their lives.  Get this, from “Factsheet #13” (address to whom?)

    Principles of Shared Leadership

    ␣ Parents and staff members are equal partners

    ␣ No one person has all of the solutions; it depends on how people act together to make sense of the situations that face them

    ␣ Mutual respect, trust and open-mindedness ␣ Collectiveactionbaseduponsharedvision,ownership

    and accountability ␣ Consensus building instead of a democratic process

    Or, here is a “PARENT LEADERSHIP AMBASSADOR FACILITATOR GUIDE” by Circle of Parents & “Friends” — actually by YOU (i.e, USA working citizens), as it cites an HHS grant.  Or names a month after its copyrighted concept self:   Did you know that

    February was designated as National Parent Leadership Month® by Parents Anonymous®, Inc.”

    (which I found out on a site from an organization that my colleagues, family, and friends’ taxes paid to set up and propagate, also trademarked:  “Circle of Parents(tr)”  Get the picture yet?  Here’s the portion of what was taken away from Parents which this proclamation (modeled after the Declaration of Independence, but entirely foreign to it in purpose and process):

    Preamble:

    National Parent Leadership Month® – 2011

    Parents across the nation are working in partnership with practitioners and policymakers to create positive changes in their lives, the lives of their children and the lives of other families. They are doing this quietly and effectively and it is important to honor these parents.

    How sweet — PPP — Parents, Practitioners and Policymakers.  Maybe you can register the trademark “P3” (get a triangle, to imply that we are somehow equal participants, and this is not, instead a basic pyramid scheme run with IRS help….).   No thank you — give me back the wasted HHS funds, and keep your gold stars; we are not in gradeschool any more.    

    I notice, despite all the “fatherhood” words flying around (although not in this PR piece), there’s still no mention of “mother” on it.  And as I believe I HAVE established, “Circle of Parents” has been bought out by HHS/NFI-elements, and is walking, talking, and publicizing like them:

    About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

    FATHERHOOD.GOV
    Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
    Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
    August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

    In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert.

    Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

    Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.

    PACT I believe stands for PARENTS (meaning Dads) & CHILDREN TOGETHER — PACT.  I could be wrong, but check this out:

    (this link leads right to the Hawai’i DHS)
    Hawai‘i State Commission on Fatherhood
    (etc., etc.)

    The last several posts, I attempted to correlate the ACF announcement with actual grantees, and find out WTF (the “W” standing for ‘WHO’) they were. As it turned out, most of the grants were the “90FM” series.  I found that most of the top half of the ACF Press Release correlated to the 90FM grant series.  That “find” was the result of familiarity with the TAGGS database combined with hunch.  Then I compared my printout with the ACF press release.  The printout was alpha by grantee institution and the ACF Press Release alpha by state.  Complicating it was the name changes of the grantee institutions, but I did check them off, one by one.

    There are, however, in 2011 (as of today) $121,077,648 of distributions on the TAGGS database, under a single “CFDA” — 93.086.

    There’s been major talk between HHS and, say, the Fathers and Families Coalition of America, or even in the recent 2010 law, about making things more fair to fathers (i.e., pleasing the FR movement leadership) by altering the “FATHER”-related portion of money stolen from TANF & OCSE from one-third to one-half.  Accordingly, the HHS/ACF Press announcement of october 3 makes it look well balanced between two themes:  Top half, MARRIAGE ($59-odd million) and bottom half, FATHERHOOD ($59-odd million).

    In practice, the top half having gone primarily to “FM” which sure looks like faith-based groups, is in effect giving it to fatherhood-propagation anyhow; that’s pretty much what faith-based groups do.  IF they weren’t so inclined, they would be just secular social service groups, and as such deal with their difficulties with feminism, women having the vote, women controlling reproduction or contraception, married women having a say in household finances, married women actually reporting what their (likewise married, obviously) spouses were doing to them, or their children in the home, and in general opting out of marriage because of that.  They also would line up with the rest of the United States that is NOT “faith-based” or practicing a private cult that disagrees with basic laws (such as cultlike beliefs as, you cannot–really- divorce, or beating up someone to dominate the relationship is normal behavior if it’s done to preserve the “father-leader/mother-breeder” status quo).

    Yet this next printout shows an increasing variety of grant streams:  FM, FR, FK, FN, & FO are among the new ones. FE (Fatherhood Education) is getting “old,” obviously. From what I can tell, FN is for Native American; FK seems to deal with incarcerated populations, and I haven’t figured out FO yet. Notice not a single of these begins with the word “M” for “Marriage.”  Perhaps that letter might be mistakenly associated with “MOTHERS” about which this movement has little to do, except in making sure they are not going to be sole physical custodians, and certainly not sole physical and legal ones, for long, if HHS has anything to do with it.

    In this listing, you will also see a number of organizations with grants listed as $0, which I gather means either they’re not getting one this year, or they haven’t yet.  CIRCLE OF PARENTS, that I landed pretty hard on last post (today’s revision) is among the $0 ones.

    THESE CHARTS ARE FOR SCROLLING, BUT THE LINKS ARE ACTIVE — CLICK TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANY GROUP OR GRANT.  TAKE A LOOK AT THE TITLES — of the PROJECTS and of the GRANTEES.  Compare with the $$.  Ask:  WTF are they doing? and perhaps look locally, and demand some explanation, or trace the funding in your area.

    AGAIN — for comparison — here’s the official announcement:

    Administration for Children and Families

    Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood 2011 Grantees = $59,997,077 + $59,396,652 = $119,393,729.

    As of October 22, 2011 evening, I searched the code “93.086” which represents this category of grants — and got $121,077,648.

    A difference of $1,643,919 in just a few weeks (could be legit) — but take a look.

    At the bottom I talk some about a Community Action Group in Ohio (WSOS).  Research is incomplete on this, and I may not have all the facts straight, but readers can fact-check themselves as well.  I am trying to answer the larger question about the relationship between “Community Action Programs” in this state and their fundings.

    In general, perhaps without my narrative of any guidance, readers might get a general idea of what titles programs are getting how much money, and where.  This listing is not by state, but alpha by Grantee — which gets interesting as we already know Grantees have creative name-changing habits already, plus TAGGS has opted some creative spellings of existing names.  I figure this is just part of the game.  Here we go:

    This report ran “AWARD SEARCH” “YEAR 2011″ CFDA 93086” from dropdown list and comes out in 4 segments:   50 entries per page, plus the last few:

    Showing: 1 – 50 of 178 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »



    Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0050 FATHERS COURT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 543,906 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 543,906

    Recipient: ADVOCAP, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54936-1108

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0056 FATHER AND FAMILY STABILITY PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 776,994 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 776,994

    Recipient: AL ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36104

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0042 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD ALABAMA 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (ONAP)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99559-0219

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0011 TANF HEALTHY FAMILIES PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36849

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0006 ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,489,548 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,489,548

    Recipient: AVANCE, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77092

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0041 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
    Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0018 ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,514,359 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,514,359

    Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services
    Recipient ZIP Code: 81147

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0046 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD IN ARCHULETA COUNTY, COLORADO 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 442,291 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 442,291

    Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
    Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0030 BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 634,536 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 634,536

    Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0029 BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0011 BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,996 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,996

    Recipient: Brighter Beginnings
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94601

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0099 PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM 3 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0099 PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM 4 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0034 MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 570,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 570,000

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

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0042 PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,445,587 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,445,587

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES INC ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD
    Recipient ZIP Code: 06105-1901

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0044 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 800,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 800,000

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
    Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0016 EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 555,300 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 555,300

    Recipient: CENTERFORCE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94901-5516

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0004 HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CHAUTAUQUA OPPORTUNITIES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 14048-2754

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0024 CHAUTAUQUA RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 618,031 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 618,031

    Recipient: CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60604

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 175,000 
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 68,402 
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 117,496 
    Award Actions Count: 3 Award Actions Subtotal: $- 360,898

    Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 02903-4011

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0008 DADS MAKING A DIFFERENCE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 735,527 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 735,527

    Recipient: CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES-SCH OF PHYSICAL THER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90027

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0034 RESPONSIBLE YOUNG FATHERS PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 784,521 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 784,521

    Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0118 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 8 
    2011 90FM0003 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 354,714 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 354,722

    Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90005

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0028 PROJECT FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    2011 90FR0076 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 4 93.086 ACF 12-01-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 59521

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0013 CHIPPEWA CREE TANF AND CHILD WELFARE COORDINATION INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60611-3777

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0098 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM 5 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 80203

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0085 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM 4 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: COEUR DALENE TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 83851-0408

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0014 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATION OF TRIBAL TANF AND CHILD WELFARE SERVICES TO TRIBAL FAMILIES AT RISK OF CHILD ABU 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0044 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 787,665 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 787,665

    Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 59855-0278

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0003 PASSAGES FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,440,131 
    2011 90FN0015 CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES FAMILIES FIRST PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    2011 90FR0006 PASSAGES 5 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 3 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,590,131

    Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97380

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0016 SILETZ ADVOCATES FOR HEALING PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99503

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0006 FATHER’S JOURNEY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 800,000 
    2011 90FN0017 LUQU KENU – EVERYONE IS FAMILY 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 175,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 975,000

    Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40204-1743

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0009 JEFFERSON COUNTY REENTRY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 549,673 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 06-23-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 4 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 549,673

    Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 85004

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0021 TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 359,796 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 359,796

    Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0104 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 4 93.086 ACF 11-22-2010   $ 0 
    2011 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 53211

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0043 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,779,393 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,779,393

    Recipient: Child family Services of Eastern Virginia
    Recipient ZIP Code: 23517

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0039 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 471,156 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 471,156

    Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0005 SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 30,667,231
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    NEXT!  – PAGE 2 of 4

    Recipient: Connections To Success
    Recipient ZIP Code: 633012634

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0015 PROVIDE RESPONSIBLE PARENTING, HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY TO LOW-INCOME ADULTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 702,553 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 702,553

    Recipient: County of Montrose
    Recipient ZIP Code: 81401

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0030 MONTROSE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES–RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 574,524 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 574,524

    Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20032

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0087 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: DOUGLAS CHEROKEE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37816-1218

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0004 JOBS FOR DADS: PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD FOR LOW-INCOME FATHERS IN RURAL SOUTHEASTERN APPALACHIA 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 416,063 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 416,063

    Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90022-5147

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0056 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 222 
    2011 90FK0019 FUTURO NOW FAMILY STRENGTHENING INITIATIVE: FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 800,221

    Recipient: EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CENTER OF LONG ISLAND, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 11550

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0031 PARENTS FIRST IS A PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY, HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING ON LONG ISLAND, NY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 533,040 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 533,040

    Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 79930

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0045 HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,945 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,945

    Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45405

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0046 MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster
    Recipient ZIP Code: 18503

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0018 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, MARKETED IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA AS “EOTC’S HEALTHY FATHERS AND FAMILIES INITIATIVE.” 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 379,755 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 379,755

    Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 74120-4429

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0007 F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0007 F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98122

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0032 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0032 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0048 CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,070,834 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,070,834

    Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54520-0396

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0018 THE FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY’S COORDINATION OF FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER WITH TRIBAL TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10031-7116

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0021 FORTUNE SOCIETY PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 725,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

    Recipient: FRESNO COUNTY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 93721

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0027 PROVING OUR PARENTING SKILLS PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 782,002 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 782,002

    Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0047 TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,163,684 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,163,684

    Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 725,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

    Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77006

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0017 HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 698,102 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 698,102

    Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
    Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0027 STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,780,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,780,000

    Recipient: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63158

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0052 FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,530,190 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,530,190

    Recipient: Friends Outside in Los Angeles County, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 91101-1632

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0053 “DADS BACK!” IS A COMPREHENSIVE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM WHICH WILL SERVICE THE REENTRY POPULATION AND THEIR FAMILIES THROUGH CO-LOCATED SERVICES AT 3 FAMIL 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 518,067 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 518,067

    Recipient: Future Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0013 REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,000

    Recipient: GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 41472

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0014 GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 55104-1708

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0016 G/ESM FATHER PROJECT’S PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 1,772,546 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,772,546

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AUSTIN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78703

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0005 THE FATHERHOOD WORKS PROGRAM OFFERS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 623,965 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 623,965

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 15203-2102

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0011 THE AFFECT PROJECT (ADVANCING FATHERS AND FAMILY ENRICHMENT COLLABORATIVE) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,952 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,952

    Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 22182

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0024 FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,599 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,599

    Recipient: HAYMARKET CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60607

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0041 MCDERMOTT CENTER DBA HAYMARKET CENTER RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 796,393 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 796,393

    Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95546

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0019 PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SUCCESS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0054 DC FATHERHPOOD EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,533,518 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,533,518

    Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0020 JUST THE FACTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 681,956 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 681,956

    Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0049 STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 535,082 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 535,082

    Recipient: Horizon Outreach
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77386

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0045 THE HORIZON EAGLE PROGRAM PROVIDES MALE COMBAT VETERAN FATHERS SUFFERING FROM PTSD WITH STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF PTSD ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, PARENTING ABILITIES AND EMPLOYABILITY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 480,732 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 480,732

    Recipient: I C F, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 22031-6050

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FH0002 NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,500,000

    Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97220

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0015 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 492,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 492,000

    Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0001 PROJECT PADRES 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 798,928 
    2011 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,597,928

    Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 72761

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0023 HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 724,428 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 724,428

    Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
    Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0057 HEALTHY FATHERS/HEALTHY FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,984 
    2011 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,993 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,599,977

    Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 96819

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0012 KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,752 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,752

    Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 25064-1433

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0029 WEST VIRGINIA PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,351,675 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,351,675

    Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0050 KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45206-1780

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0005 LIGHTHOUSE SKILLS FOR YOUNG FATHERS PROGRAM 5 93.086 ACF 11-16-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    Recipient ZIP Code: 57105-6048

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0002 FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,229,141 
    2011 90FR0097 FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES: INSIDE & OUT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,229,141

    Recipient: Lexington Leadership Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40504-3154

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0017 FAYETTE COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 449,113 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 449,113
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 37,025,735
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    NEXT! — PAGE 3 of 4

    Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0004 THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,380 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,380

    Recipient: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 21201

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0091 STRONG FATHERS STRONG FAMILIES PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0092 WINNING FATHERS PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: MEMPHIS & SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 38105-5041

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0037 PROJECT MOTIVATED OFFENDERS SUCCEEDING TOMORROW (MOST) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 797,809 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 797,809

    Recipient: MID-IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 50158

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0022 MICA’S STRONG PARENTS – STRONG CHILDREN PROJECT WILL SERVE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, PRIMARILY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS IN THE COUNTIES OF MARSHALL, POWESHIEK, AND TAMA IN CENTRAL IOWA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 765,433 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 765,433

    Recipient: MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 53226

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0049 MILWAUKEE COUNTY PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,806,892 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,806,892

    Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40066

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0036 MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 344,904 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 344,904

    Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60187-4579

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0051 MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92116-4557

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0016 SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0016 SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice
    Recipient ZIP Code: 55415-1200

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0028 FAMILY STRENGTHENING PROJECT 4 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: Mission West Virginia, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 25526

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0052 N/A 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 683,935 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 683,935

    Recipient: More Than Conquerors Inc
    Recipient ZIP Code: 300835318

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0053 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,798 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,798

    Recipient: NASHVILLE METROPOLITIAN BORDEAUX HOSPITAL
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37218

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0035 THE NEW LIFE PROJECT IS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE LIFE OF HIGH RISK CHILDREN BY PROVIDING THE SKILLS, EDUCATION AND RESOURCES MEN NEED TO EFFECTIVELY PARENT THEIR CHILDREN. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,589,107 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,589,107

    Recipient: NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90746

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0055 NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,308 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,308

    Recipient: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20009-4422

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0043 CONCERNED BLACK MEN FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 88003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0037 NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: NJ ST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 08625

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0004 ENGAGING THE FAMILY IN THE RECOVERY PROCESS FOR THE MAX-OUT OFFENDER: A COMMUNITY-CENTERED APPROACH 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,039,049 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,039,049

    Recipient: NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98244-0157

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0020 NOOKSACK HEALTHY FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    2011 90FN0020 NOOKSACK HEALTHY FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97213-2933

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 1,395,000 
    2011 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,395,000

    Recipient: NW Marriage Institute
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98682-2328

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0051 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 747,281 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 747,281

    Recipient: New York Youth At Risk, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10038

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0093 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0093 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 48056

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0036 THE FATHER FACTOR PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 432,251 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 432,251

    Recipient: OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ
    Recipient ZIP Code: 43215

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 73125

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0032 THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 776,304 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 776,304

    Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 44087-1654

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0056 MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,054 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,054

    Recipient: PARENTS PLUS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54952-0452

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0113 WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTHY MARRIAGE 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 89 
    2011 90FE0113 WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTHY MARRIAGE 5 93.086 ACF 11-16-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 89

    Recipient: PEANUT BUTTER & JELLY PRESCHOOL
    Recipient ZIP Code: 87105

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0003 IMPACT! NEW MEXICO’S PARENT REENTRY PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,476,500 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,476,500

    Recipient: PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 19130-2202

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0025 PROJECT DEVELOPING ACTIVE DADS (DAD) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 648,273 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 648,273

    Recipient: PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10023

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0025 PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 618,768 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 618,768

    Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 32216-6241

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0033 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 672,703 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 672,703

    Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 73116-7909

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0026 FAMILY EXPECTATIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Parenting Center (The)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 76107

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0031 EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 797,093 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 797,093

    Recipient: QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98350

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0022 YOUTH AND FAMILY INTERVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 33157-5372

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0028 RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,230 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,230

    Recipient: RIDGE Project, Inc
    Recipient ZIP Code: 43512-2575

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0026 KEEPING FAITH (FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    2011 90FO0005 KEEPING FAITH – KEEPING FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 4,000,000

    Recipient: Retreat, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 11937

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0047 SUFFOLK COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 786,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 786,000

    Recipient: SOCIAL ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH (SAY), SAN DIEGO, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92123

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0020 PROJECT COMPASS (CREATING OPTIONS FOR MEN TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY, SAFELY, AND SUPPORTIVELY) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 790,927 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 790,927

    Recipient: SOUTH PUGET INTERTRIBAL PLANNING AGENCY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98584

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0023 SPIPA TANF ICW WRAP-AROUND COLLABORATIONS PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78704

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0033 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM IN SAN ANTONIO AND BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS: PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTSHHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FK-0194 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,594 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,594

    Recipient: SPRINGFIELD URBAN LEAGUE, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 62703-1002

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0038 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD IN MACON, MORGAN, AND SANGAMON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,387,327 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,387,327

    Recipient: STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 39759-2803

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0035 BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 699,874 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 699,874

    Recipient: SUQUAMISH & KLALLAM HEALTH PLAN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98346

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0021 PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM TRIBE ADVOCATING FOR STRONG KIDS (ASK) PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-23-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95821

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,825 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,825

    Recipient: Scholarship and Guidance Association
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60609-4231

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0038 FAMILY LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 794,180 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 794,180
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 35,677,886
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    And FINALLY:

    Fiscal Year = 2011

    Showing: 151 – 178 of 178 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

    Recipient: Shalom Task Force
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10274-0137

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0008 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN NYC AREA 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 541,633 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 541,633

    Recipient: St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63108-3302

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0133 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 37 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 37

    Recipient: Structured Employment Econ Dev Corp (SEEDCO)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10010

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0040 SEEDCO’S PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Supportive Integrated Services
    Recipient ZIP Code: 71101

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0023 FAITH IN FATHERS CADDO PARISH 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 537,537 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 537,537

    Recipient: TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99701-4871

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0024 ATHABASCAN FAMILY SUPPORT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: TARRANT COUNTY WORKFORCE BOARD
    Recipient ZIP Code: 76103

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0032 PROJECT, “FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER.”: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO PROMOTE AND FOSTER RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, ECONOMIC STABILITY, AND HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS IN TARRANT COUNTY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,106,804 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,106,804

    Recipient: TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78666

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0007 STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS/STRENGTHENING FAMILIES (SR/SF) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 617,280 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 617,280

    Recipient: THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94707-0881

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0010 BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 794,846 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 794,846

    Recipient: THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36303-1997

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0093 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION PRIORITY AREA 3 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 0 
    2011 90FE0093 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION PRIORITY AREA 3 2 93.086 ACF 02-08-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: TLINGIT & HAIDA TRIBES CENTRAL COUNCIL
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99801

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0012 ICW TANF COLLABORATIVE CASE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 436201735

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0040 KEEPING IT TOGETHER 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 24001-2868

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0010 TAP-TVW’S FATHERS FIRST 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 766,515 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 766,515

    Recipient: The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families
    Recipient ZIP Code: 29204-2413

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0021 STRENGTHENING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME, NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS 5 93.086 ACF 09-15-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: UNITED WAY OF JACKSON COUNTY, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 49201-1223

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0138 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 4 93.086 ACF 11-16-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10467-2401

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0057 UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES MARRIAGE & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 72205-7101

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0041 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
    Recipient ZIP Code: 32826

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0039 PROJECT TOGETHER 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 2,184,508 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,184,508

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37916

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0022 RELATIONSHIP RX: INTEGRATING A COUPLES INTERVENTION PROGRAM INTO A PRIMARY CARE SETTING 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 723,508 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 723,508

    Recipient: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 84322

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 785,612 
    2011 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 785,612

    Recipient: Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 55408-2410

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0007 MINNEAPOLIS PROJECT PROMOTING FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 709,385 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 709,385

    Recipient: VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 05405-3401

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0013 DAPPPER DADS — DADS AS PARENTS, PARTNERS AND PROVIDERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 390,600 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 390,600

    Recipient: WAIT Training
    Recipient ZIP Code: 80237

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0054 THE COLORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,605,705 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,605,705

    Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 43420-3021

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0012 “FATHER CONNECTIONS” PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 560,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 560,000

    Recipient: YOUTH & FAMILY ALLAIANCE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78704-7046

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0002 LIFEWORKS YOUNG FATHER’S PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 600,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 600,000

    Recipient: YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 73036

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0058 SAFE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 338,367 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 338,367

    Recipient: YWCA OF SAN ANTONIO
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78240-1480

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0127 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 54,455 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 54,455
    Page Award Actions Count: 28 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 17,716,790
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    Showing: 151 – 178 of 178 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »


    Comment re:

    Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 43420-3021

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0012 “FATHER CONNECTIONS” PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 560,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 560,000

    This is the ONLY agency where an HHS grant (apparently) goes directly to a certain OHIO County where a recent child-rape in a supervised visitation center has been making headline news.  In exploring the situation — and the institution — it turns out that the institution where it happens was 75% government funded, with HALF the funding being a special “Children’s Levy” to the state, and the other 22% “Federal Funding.”

    OHIO — like a few states — has an actual “FATHERHOOD COMMISSION” which does what Fatherhood Commissions do, primarily directing grants towards saving families by keeping Dads involved.  Part of the streamlined funding (or, “Flexible Funding” as it’s called), enabling them to get the money FAST to serve children and families — like this 13 month old girl that was raped and molested by her biological mother and father, who got access too her (despite Daddy already being a registered juvenile sex offender) by taking “parenting classes,” and like her older sister — removed from Mom the day she was born, put in foster care, and there bludgeoned to death by a foster care mother, now in prison I gather, before she turned two.  In addition to the funding to provide supervised visitation access centers where by abusers can REALLY bond with their offspring, the state of Ohio now has to pay for jail space for mother and father, and public defenders, as the outrage is normally wanting the couple to go to jail for life.

    I looked at the docket for the father and mother, and find out that while the father’s attorney has been REAL pro-active (insanity plea, etc.) — and that it’s $27.00 per action — the mother’s, if any, appears to be doing nothing.  I have YET to locate a single tax return for the outfit that failed to supervise here, but we hear (so far) that the citizens attempting to get into the Board meeting for the public-funded organization were turned away at the door.  To date, in looking at the “FCFC” setup (hard to understand unless you explore Ohio’s “FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FIRST” site), there are precious few FCFC’s (out of 88 counties in the state) which actually filed — with the state of ohio — as one, resulting in a public-access tax return stating how much money they got, WHAT THEIR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS ARE PAID — and where it went.

    This organization’s primary business is HEAD START — HANDICAPPED TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FULL AND HALF DAY, with occasional RURAL FACILITIES and just a tad of ‘PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”

    Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC
    Address: 109 SOUTH FRONT ST, PO BOX 590
    FREMONT, OH 43420-3021
    Country Name: United States of America
    County Name: SANDUSKY
    HHS Region: 5
    Type: Community Action Organization
    Class: Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations
    {{SINCE 1995  – NOW}} Total of award actions for this page: $ 7,104,079
    Total of all award actions: $ 95,486,805

      

    This group must’ve given money to some non-TRumbull County recipients, judging by the results searching awards by LOCATION, and choosing Trumbull County.  Be patient, I’ll explain.  This is selecting no year:  I already know all awards to this county (directly from HHS) were ACF awards, from the same basic Location Search / Group by Agency:

    County = TRUMBULL
    State = OHIO
    Summary = Recipient

    Showing: 1 – 7 of 7 Recipients

    Recipient Number of
    Award Actions
    Number of
    Awards
    Amount
    COUNTY OF TRUMBULL LIFELINES 9 2 $ 691,593
    Children`s Rehabilitation Center 1 1 $ 124,000
    City of Warren, Ohio 1 1 $ 248,690
    Forum Health Trumbull Memorial Hospital 1 1 $ 169,290
    Hopewell Inn/DBA Hopewell 2 1 $ 383,822
    NORTHEAST OHIO ADOPTION SERVICE 26 5 $ 4,006,797
    TRUMBULL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM 64 2 $ 69,574,990
    Report Total: 104 13 $ 75,199,182


    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    TRUMBULL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM  WARREN OH 44485-3730 TRUMBULL 044729874 $ 69,574,990

      

    S

    These awards (if you click on it) are in the exact same category and project name as the WSOS ones, above:

    Trumbull Community Action program is labeled as a nonprofit PRIVATE org. under TAGGS, for what it’s worth (WSOS as nonprofit PUBLIC,e tc.)

    Recipient: TRUMBULL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM
    Address: 1230 PALMYRA ROAD, SW
    WARREN, OH 44485-3730
    Country Name: United States of America
    County Name: TRUMBULL
    HHS Region: 5
    Type: Other Social Services Organization
    Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

    AWARD ACTIONS

    Showing: 1 – 50 of 64 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 Next »

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2012 05CH4005  HEAD START: FULL YEAR PART DAY HANDICAPPED TRAINING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 46 0 ACF 10-14-2011 044729874 $ 2,323,475 
    Fiscal Year 2012 Total: $ 2,323,475
    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC  FREMONT OH 43420-3021 SANDUSKY 077573533 $ 95,486,805

    Their website explains Community Action Programs as part of the 1960s War on Poverty, generally; explains that in 2002, they got Head STart funding, and in essence, they are a middle-man contracting with the government to provide services.  the WSOS apparently represents 4 Ohio Counties (out of 88 available). I”m not quite sure how ‘TRUMBULL” county fits in there, but WSOS grants are apparently going there.

    The program under which “HELP ME GROW” classes appear to take place includes the place where the child was raped during a scheduled visitation.  (Cell phone images were found, so whether or not it took place is not in question).

    2002  

    • Literacy – PRC Ottawa County
    • Skills for Life Ottawa County
    • Help Me Grow

    2003  

    • Help Me Grow Ottawa County
    • WSOS secures funding for Early Head Start program

    WSOS Logo

    Billboard

    Apparently the WSOS stands for 4 different Ohio Counties:   Odd there is no “T” in that acronym, seeing as Trumbull is getting the bulk of their HHS monies:

    Heading - Our History

    1965

    Officers of the Seneca, Sandusky, and Ottawa County Community Action committees meet in Fremont and draft a joint constitution that created SOS Community Action Commission.

    2002

    • Literacy – PRC Ottawa County
    • Skills for Life Ottawa County
    • Help Me Grow

    2003

    • Help Me Grow Ottawa County
    • WSOS secures funding for Early Head Start program

    Funding sought to help unemployed fathers in nine Ohio counties 

     If a $560,000 proposal to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance is funded, 200 families in Wood, Sandusky, Ottawa, Seneca, Hancock, Crawford, Marion, Richland and Morrow counties will receive assistance to help them achieve economic stability during the next three years.

    The Board of Directors of the WSOS Community Action granted approval to submit the proposal along with four other new proposals.

    The grant, called the Responsible Fatherhood grant, will provide access to employment, education, training, intensive family-centered case management as well as a range of other support services customized to each family – all with the goal of helping the family achieve economic stability.

    WSOS will also apply on behalf of the Sandusky County Homeless Coalition for $2,550 from the Sandusky County Community Foundation. The funds will be used to provide 60 needy county residents to secure driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and state identification cards necessary for them to obtain or retain employment.

    The two other proposals will be made by the Community Development Department to assist Ohio communities. One proposal will seek $105,000 from the Governor’s Office of Appalachia that will be used to provide leadership training to small community water and sewer personnel for one year. The Ohio Water District Association (OWDA) will provide matching funds up to $45,000. Another proposal for $250,000 to the same office will provide technical assistance to small communities for GPS data collection and GIS mapping. OWDA will again provide matching funds of $38,000 while the participating communities will contribute another $247,194.

    “ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…[First Published Oct. 20, 2011]

    with 3 comments

    ….

    “ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense… First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words

    BLOGGER’s UPDATE MESSAGE Aug. 15, 2018: First published Oct. 20, 2011, not updated since except to add post title w/short-link label (a more recent admin. habit) and change the background color to white (necessitated when blog upgrade retroactively changed the default background color to “yuck pale green”), add a post border line and my now standard font: fairly routine changes.

    Otherwise I’m not attempting to improve its curb appeal, not even for quotes (now I often add boxes around them), missing or expired images to logos (now I often take screenshots to avoid that happening), and especially not trying to correct TAGGS.HHS.Gov margins; TAGGs itself has had a major restructure since them).  My purpose is for quoting on Twitter.  I think the message is still relevant, still “missed” by too many, and worth repeating.

    Some terms, individual and nonprofit or program names now much more mainstream as specific public policy models, I was questioning this far back; just over two years after the entire apparatus was cracked open on comprehending the basic concepts behind “Federal incentives to States” under Welfare Reform (two specific funding streams) + where groups like Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ cult-like, court-connected, nonprofit-spawning  group behaviors style=”(it being a membership association primarily of judges, family lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, and such — people MOST likely to make a FINE living from family court referrals, if not already public civil servants in that capacity!) fit in.

    Not including this message and above label, the post is still About 21,000 words (note: that includes all words within all TAGGS tables too)..


    “ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

    First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words, by LGH (“LetUsGetHonest”)

    (Today [Oct. 2011], I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in Colorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.

    The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members.  This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.

    I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.

    I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous).  Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced.  O Mi God . . . ..

    I am publishing without apologies:  Read at your own risk!

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Oct. 21, 2011 update:

    Concern #1:

    March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – –

    The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

    [article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  

    (If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

    Concern #2:

    A Wikipedia article (flagged by Wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT.  What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor…..  And its habit of acquiring company after company….  Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    We are still on this topic:  Who are the groups that got these grants?

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    Monday, October 3, 2011
    Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
    (202) 401-9215

    ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

    HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.

    As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.”  Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts.  Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them.  It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.

    It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.

    “A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”

    The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and four Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.

    THE PRESS RELEASE LIST OF GRANTEES:

    After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.

    My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

    I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.

    I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post).  Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate:  ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.

    Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:

    NATIONAL

    RESOURCE CENTER

    for

    STRATEGIES

    to

    PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE

    = NRCSPHM, “obviously”

    How grandiose.

    Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Intiative, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?

    Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

    Just for the record, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family.  And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t account for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.

    We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductible, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws.  If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions.  That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.

    There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:

    OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.

    I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.

    Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”??  Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:

    ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
    VA
    $1,500,000
    Award Title Sum of Actions
    2011 ACF I C F, INC NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE $ 1,500,000

    Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name.  OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    I C F, INC  FAIRFAX VA 22031-6050 FAIRFAX 072648579 $ 2,477,256

    The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below).  But 

    under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg  (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:

    ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract
    02/1/2011

    Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.

    ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract
    12/25/2010

    ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.

    ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract
    09/30/2010

    ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  [“ARRA”]

    Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:

    Recipient: I C F, INC
    Address: 9300 LEE HIGHWAY
    FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050
    Country Name: United States of America
    County Name: FAIRFAX
    HHS Region: 3
    Type: Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment )
    Class: City Government

    AWARD ACTIONS

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2011 90FH0002  NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE 1 00 ACF 09-28-2011 072648579 $ 1,500,000 
    2011 90PD0271  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-27-2011 072648579 $ 977,256 
    Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 2,477,256

     

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2010 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 2 0 ACF 09-17-2010 072648579 $ 500,000 
    Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 500,000

     

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number @@##Amount This Action
    2009 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 2 ACF 06-15-2009 072648579 $- 702,966 
    2009 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-18-2009 072648579 $ 500,000 
    {{LGH:  See FOOTNOTES}} Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $-202,966
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2007 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 0 ACF 09-21-2007 072648579 $ 882,080 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 882,080

     

    Total of all award actions: $ 3,656,370

    {{{FOOTNOTES:  These comments appeared in FY2009 Total “Amount” column.  Unclear whether they’re HHS’ or mine.  Probably mine, from 2011 post..quoting from ICF International website at that time}}

    Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]

    In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.[6]

    In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC


    This is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology.   (read up from its site).  It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share and is danged impressive!

    This is the “SHORT” description.  AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth.  Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006

    ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.

    CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS in Fairfax, VA

     

    Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview).  They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…

    ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.

    Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.

    ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.

    We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including:  (See site for the list):

    … CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

    • Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
      • Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

    The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from.  I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization.  (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)

    PLEASE NOTE:  the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”  That is the program link.

    http://www.icfi.com/markets/families-and-communities/responsible-fatherhood#tab-2-projects

    {{Sev’l expired-link logos from 2011 were removed during 2018 quick-edit update//LGH}}

     

    Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.

    ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.

    Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.

    (notice its name shows different here, too).

    USASPENDING.GOV:

    • Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
    • Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935

    For example, this grant:

    Transaction Number # 5

    PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)
    Recipient: ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.
    9300 LEE HWY , FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)
    Product/Service Code: R408 : Program Management/Support Services
    Description:
    CHILDREN’S BUREAU CLEARINGHOUSE SERVICES
    Date Signed:
    September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount: 
    $9,481,719

    (NOTICE the other database {{USASPENDING.gov}} doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)

    From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.

    Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.

    • Total Dollars:$32,702,456
    • Transactions:1 – 25 of 84

    NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);

    I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million:   The last reward does not show yet.  (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently.  I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field:  Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )

    • Total Dollars:$2,156,370
    • Transactions:1 – 5 of 5

    COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

    OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

    OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.

    The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.

    USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.

    Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.

    Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

    House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

    March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

    On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.

    Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars Clearspending logoin misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.

    Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu

    You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted

    SUNDAY, JANUARY 13. 2008 AT 01:32 PM | BY COBY LOGEN IN BREAKIN’ THE LAW

    I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
    Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.

    dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.

    and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:

    WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.  {link has moved since….}

    GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT for this NRCSPHM:

    National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage 
    HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207

    Summary

    Funding Opportunity Title: National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage
    Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207
    Program Office: Office of Family Assistance
    Funding Type: Discretionary
    Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement  (WITH WHOM??)
    Announcement Type: Initial
    CFDA#: 93.086
    Post Date: 06/28/2011
    Application Due Date: 07/28/2011

    Description

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.  The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services.

    WHAT”S NEW?  Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE:  Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:

    This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation!  Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures.  It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so.  Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.

    Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.

    Apr 28, 1999 AT-99-007 Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

    The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
    Administration for Children & Families
    Office of Child Support Enforcement

    AT-99-07

    ISSUED: April 28, 1999

    TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

    SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

    BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

    ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.

    REGULATORY REFERENCE: 45 CFR Parts 303.109

    DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

    INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

    __________________________
    David Gray Ross
    Commissioner
    Office of Child Support Enforcement

    . . .

    SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

    In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .

    To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption Incentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

    All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings.  I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST.  The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically.  I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!

    Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:

    AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

    History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

    The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.

    Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process.  You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone.  What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order?  I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose.  Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong.  We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics.  Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).

    The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

    In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).

    Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.

    As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??))  So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decide ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.

    Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

    This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases.  Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order.  Bad idea!   But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay.

    Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues.  Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:

    Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.

    In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children.  However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial:  Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange.  Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home:  Hans & Nina Reiser case.   DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does):  see (February 2011 post)

    175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USAAn update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.

    “This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”
    This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count.  Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010.  There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants  enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder.  It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.
     Why?  Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.
    Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide.  GUESS WHAT:  THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay).  If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?
    IF they do persuade/encourage/facilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their children in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —
    ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

    Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.

    No they don’t.  Not really.  I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues.  If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:

    Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.

    CAN?  It already had been; the wording should have been “has led.”  And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.

    But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.

    It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.

    “Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..

    In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.

    Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.

    Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.

    Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.

    EVALUATION OF CHILD ACCESS PROJECTS 

    This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read.  Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children.  This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable.  Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:

    Purpose

    As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.

    Background

    Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.

    Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.

    Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant.  Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order.  Same for visitation.

    There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.

    In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there.  No mention of this seems real odd.

    Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.

    Of course there are!  The Children’s Rights Council (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo.  Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs”  — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.

    A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here).  This report was done by

    Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.

    In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide.  (etc.   . . . You can read it. . .. )

    CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION:  PROMISING PROCEDURES

    This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit:  Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).

    Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies.  I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.”  I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.”  Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one.  THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:

    The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”

    SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

    “To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”

    “serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal.  Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct.  There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:

    INTRODUCTION

    Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.

    It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.

    Translation:  This is a “Catch-22.”  If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . .  NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up.  The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”

    I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:

    ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”

    SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

    INTRODUCTION

    More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

    • Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
    • Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access
    • Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
    • Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
    • Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
    • ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
    • ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

    (**aka, do not rape, etc.)

    A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence?  (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)

    the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times.   The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.

    I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012.  I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down  . . .

    David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:

    Multiple Initiatives Grant

    Notice the authors.  (Thoennes is also CPR).   In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:

    Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

    David Price, Ph.D.

    Policy Studies Inc.

    999 18th Street, Suite 1000

    Denver, CO 80202

    (303) 863-0900

    (on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)

    Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555

    However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start?  Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”

    Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate

    jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

    Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

    So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had.  This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know.  Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s.   ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:

    Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
    # Name Address Type Count
    1 PRICE, DAVID A. 930 ACOMA ST., #415, DENVER, CO
    80204, US
    Registered Agent 1
    2 PRICE, DAVID A. 200 GRAND AVE STE 315, GRAND
    JUNCTION, CO 81501, US
    Registered Agent 1

    The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.

    Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
    # ID # Click here to sort in ascending order. Entity Name Entity Type Date Filed Entity Status
    1 19871583603  CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Nonprofit Corporation 08/15/1984 GOOD

    I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:

    Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
    # Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Address Type Count
    1 POLICY STUDIES INC. 1515 WYNKOOP ST STE. 400, DENVER,
    CO 80202, US
    Trade name Registrant 12 
    [Next 2>]
    Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
    # ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
    2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
    5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
    10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

    and the last two:

    Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
    # ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
    12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM

    The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).

    The El Paso County Child Support Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:

    This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks.  However the URL is clearly  a *.com:

    http://www.elpasocountycss.com/services.html

    By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm)  Notice, central to the site:

    Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

    Fatherhood Program 

    Learning to be the best dads we can be!

    The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families.  These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills.  Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities.  The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.
    Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated.  The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

    The  ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:

    “The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.”  (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National).  “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).”  Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page?  We do exist, even as the silent minority!)

    SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet?  LInks to, for example:

    WEBSITES

    www.coloradodads.org
    www.familiesfirstcolorado.org

    . . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:

    Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.

    http://www.circleofparents.org/about_us/fatherhood.html

     

    “Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”

    Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . .  It’s how the cookie crumbles:

    About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

    FATHERHOOD.GOV
    Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
    Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
    August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

    In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **  

     CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period.  The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000.   Here it is, all = award 90FR0098.  (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results).  This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.

    Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    CIRCLE OF PARENTS  CHICAGO IL 60611-3777 COOK 623444994 $ 4,800,000

    The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved.  (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).

    Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K.  Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.

    Revenue (that year):

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Circle of Parents IL 2010 $65,404 990 31 80-0106957
    Circle of Parents IL 2009 $68,336 990 25 80-0106957
    Circle of Parents IL 2008 $52,969 990 28 80-0106957
    Circle of Parents IL 2007 $26,843 990 25 80-0106957
    Circle of Parents IL 2006 $83,638 990 24 80-0106957
    Circle of Parents IL 2005 $16,914 990 18 80-0106957
    Circle of Parents IL 2004 $3,803 990 25 80-0106957

    Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):

    http://issuu.com/dadsofdouglascounty/docs/dadsgroupflyers

    it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”

    NOTE:  KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently:  Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack.  I kid you not:

    Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.  Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.

     For a perspective, Google “Claudine Dombrowski” on my site — I have posted some of her court docket on there, and related the time when she was arrested for not bleeding after a severe assault, in the right county.  Actually she wasn’t reporting, simply seeking treatment at the time.  One of the assaults involved a crowbar, and this particular case has made it (along with Jessica Gonzales Lenahan) to the IACHR, as human rights violation perpetrated by the United States on its citizens.  The handling of this type of violence throughout the land has been resulting in — eventually, and in many, many cases — simply switching custody to the offender and letting the victim go repeatedly to court to fight for contact, while trying to stay sane in knowledge of who is caring for her kids, and (sometimes unsuccessfully) alive.   Another article on this topic.    NOTE:   TOPEKA IS THE CAPITAL OF KANSAS.  NOTE #2 — the head of the HHS department came from Kansas.
    {{An acquaintance of mine forwarded the article (which I knew about), and said she’d submitted a comment, responding to a petition on this matter, that funding be found to allow the Women and Children of the state of Kansas to leave the state, for their own safety.}}

    This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute.  The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers.  It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!

    [Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.

    After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

    Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):

    PARTNERS FOR KIDS:  GETTING FATHER-READY

    Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:

    In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA.  She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.”  HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs  farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”

    Provided the opportunity?  Translation:  We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers…..  LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization.  (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.

    NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.

    One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.

    is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too.  It’s disgusting!   The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.”   The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering.  This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.

    Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.

    Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.

    Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS.  (Wade Horn, to my recall).

    The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group.  Membership dues one year, $13,000.  That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it.   $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations.  Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . .  $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but  $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program.  Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..    

    Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well.  Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.

    990 reads:  “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return).   “

    Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”

    AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . .  Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ).     990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.

    Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.

    The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

    What is Smart Start?

    Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”

    Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..

    CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr)

       USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:

    • Total Dollars:$3,900,000
    • Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
     However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.
    The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)
    ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.

    Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

    FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.

    FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.

    How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

    FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.

    SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

    What is CBCAP?

    CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

    What legislation supports CBCAP?

    The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

    Why were CBCAP programs created?

    CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.

     

     

     ** For “expert” read “heat shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

    A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

     Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

    Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

    WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

    I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them.  It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.

    FYI — we can speak.  Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak.  most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation.  They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost.  Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level.  They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).

    (NORTH CAROLINA:  Years, All   CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series).  Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . …  ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .

    Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/21/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
    ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
    ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/17/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
    ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
    ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 405,528
    ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/26/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 525,161
    ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 490,465
    ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 06/06/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 0
    ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 530,482
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0001NCSAVP SAVP 2000 08/22/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0101NCSAVP SAVP 2001 08/23/2001 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 08/06/2002 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 23,880
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/11/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 30,070
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0401NCSAVP 2004 SAVP 09/15/2004 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0501NCSAVP 2005 SAVP 09/14/2005 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0601NCSAVP 2006 SAVP 09/19/2006 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 268,587
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0701NCSAVP 2007 SAVP 07/20/2007 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 278,157
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0801NCSAVP 2008 SAVP 01/30/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 271,792
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0901NCSAVP FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 12/23/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,258
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1001NCSAVP FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 11/25/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 279,933
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1101NCSAVP FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 10/08/2010 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 286,100
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 05/31/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 12/02/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 216,494
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 01/04/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 205
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 09/01/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 02/24/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 233,772
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 08/16/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
    OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 02/25/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 132,019
    OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
    OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 08/24/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
    OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE SURFACE $ 245,296
    OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/25/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
    OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
    OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA HARRIS $ 550,000
    OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR LINDA ROBINSON $ 514,308
    OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 519,625
    OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ELIZABETH CARROLL $ 548,181
    OFA Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. Other Social Services Organization 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 09/27/2011 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
    OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 375,685
    OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/16/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 538,524
    OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 550,000
    Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

    (THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state). 

     

    “PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one:  There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . .  Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme.  When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them!  An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.”  Builders are not the house, they are outside the house!   The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan.  However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections.  The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural).  Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above  . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).  

    This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr).  Contact your local affiliate to buy it:

    Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”


    with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

     (It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest  funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):  

    Parent Trust for Washington Children 9/10/2010 $15,000.00 support general operating expenses. 

    EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least):  recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  SEATTLE WA 98101 KING $ 50,000

    (“Mutual Support” programs?  How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    1998 90CA1648  DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 0 ACF 09-14-1998 $ 50,000 

    There are thousands of “90CA” awards.  To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards.  Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name:  Here we go, from TAGGS:

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    1998  CB  CAL ST LA UNIV AUXILIARY SERVICES, INC CA 90CA1589 PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – FIELD INITIATED RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW MITCHELL EISEN, PH.D. $ 9,750
    1998 CB CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION & FAMILY SUPPORT DC 90CA1614 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOYCE N THOMAS $ 100,000
    1998 CB D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND DC 90CA1645 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW CAROLYN S ABDULLAH $ 50,000
    1998 CB EDGEWOOD THE SF PROTESTANT ORPHANAGE CA 90CA1599 PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFARE SYSTEM 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION LILLIAN JOHNSON $ 199,464
    1998 CB FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC CA 90CA1608 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ASCENCION HERNANDEZ $ 100,000
    1998 CB FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY AREA CA 90CA1587 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PATRICIA CHAMBERS, PH.D $ 150,000
    1998 CB KITSAP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WA 90CA1609 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ELIZABETH S BOSCH $ 100,000
    1998 CB LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPT OF CHILDREN’S SRVS CA 90CA1594 PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFAR 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION SHARYN L LOGAN $ 200,000
    1998 CB MARY’S CENTER OF MATERNAL & CHILD CARE DC 90CA1586 PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – HEALTHY FAMILIES DC 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOAN YENGO $ 150,000
    1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS  CA 90CA1592 PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – NATIONAL NETWORK OF MUTUAL SUPPORT/SELF HELP PROGRAMS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TERESA RAFAEL $ 350,000
    1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS CA 90CA1646 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW LISA PION-BERLIN $ 50,000
    1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  WA 90CA1648 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW SYLVIA MEYER $ 50,000
    1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW TANYA PHAM $ 100,000
    1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TANYA PHAM $ 100,000
    1998 CB SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, FOUNDATION CA 90CA1566 PRIORITY AREA 1.02R – CONSOR- TIUM FOR LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PROJECTS 4 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ALAN LITROWNIK $ 250,000
    1998 CB STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CA 90CA1601 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW HAROLD R DEARMOND $ 54,725
    1998 CB WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WA 90CA1590 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW SHERRY C BRUMMEL $ 197,471
    1998 CB WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WA 90CA1590 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION SHERRY C BRUMMEL $ 195,092

    I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations?  Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much?  Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2) CLAREMONT CA 91711 LOS ANGELES 090749326 $ 2,828,196
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS   (THIS GRANT IS 2010….) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA 119833135 $ 792,550
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (THIS GRANT, 1999) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA $ 50,000
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF BUFFALO & ERIE COUNTY  BUFFALO NY 14206 ERIE $ 750,000
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.  PRINCETON NJ 08540 MERCER $ 50,000
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF PENNSYLVANIA  HARRISBURG PA 17102 DAUPHIN $ 50,000
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.  CHARLESTON SC 29416 CHARLESTON $ 50,000
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS ORG. OF MASS., INC.  BOSTON MA 02116 SUFFOLK $ 50,000
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  SEATTLE WA 98101 KING $ 50,000

     

    Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

    TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:

    • Total Dollars:$697,225
    • Transactions:1 – 2 of 2
    One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group  leader???) – 2010
    and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:
    Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
    675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities
    Description:
    NATIONAL PARENT HELPLINE
    Date Signed:
    August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount: 
    $500,000
    and

    Transaction Number # 2

    Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)
    Date Signed:
    July 02 , 2007 

    Obligation Amount: 
    $197,225

    “parents anonymousa inc.”??  This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:

    Obligation / Action Date  07/02/2007
    Starting Date  09/30/2006
    Ending Date  09/29/2008
    R

    BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:

    • Total Dollars:$18,936,970
    • Transactions:1 – 25 of 25

    This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess).  There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:

    Transaction Number # 1

    Federal Award ID: 98JSFX0001: 03 (Grants)
    Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
    CLAREMONT
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source:
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
    Description:
    STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
    Date Signed:
    August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount: 
    $3,000,000

    Transaction Number # 2

    Federal Award ID: 98JSFX000104 (Grants)
    Recipient: PARENT ANONYMOUS
    CLAREMONT
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source:
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
    Description:
    STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
    Date Signed:
    September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount: 
    $2,993,400

    They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).

    In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program:  they got $2.7 million

    cfda 16;541 comes under ”

    CFDA Program Title  JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION_SPECIAL EMPHASIS AND T/A

    (OK, I finally looked up the project title).   The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs!  This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!

    Here they are seeking donations:  Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000).  They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . ..    Contact “Meryl Levine.”  I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing).  The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)

    DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?

    CALSWEC Standing Committee

    Return to Home  

    Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:

    Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.

    CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).

    Ms. Levine is on the “CHILD WELFARE STANDING COMMITTEE” (representing PARENTS ANONYMOUS(tr):
    Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.
     
    Committee Chair
    Charlene Reid, Director
    Division of Social Services
    Tehama County Department of Social Services
    Staff
    Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC
    Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development
    Parents Anonymous Inc.
    Viola W. Lindsey
    Department of Social Work and Social Ecology
    Loma Linda University
    Kristina Lavato-Hermann
    School of Social Welfare
    San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
    F&E Steering Committee
    California Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney
    Center for Families, Children & the Courts

    Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of California
    Mark Miller, Training Director
    Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
    Department of Social Work
    California State University, Northridge
    SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE ASSOCIATING WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO GET CHOSEN FOR MAJOR GRANTS . . . . 

    U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Seal and Site Header

    http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm

    Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California

    Report No. GR-90-04-013
    August 2004
    Office of the Inspector General


    Executive Summary
    The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.

    (WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):

    Sort by date/ Sort by relevance

    DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
     At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
    Incorporated, Audit Report GR9004013, August 2004. 
    http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

    Audit Report
     Claremont, California. Report No. GR9004013 August 2004 Office of
    the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office 
    http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached

    Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.

    AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material.  There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization:  . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.

    Note:  California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent.  Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program.  It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.

    In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.”  The top Ten Recipients included:  #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”

    Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002

    2. DARE AMERICA$2,475,000

    Do their state registrations show?

    AZ as charity,- yes:

    ID NAME DBA
    12810 *PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ARIZONA, INC

    (at the same street address, as a “dba” also)

    ID NAME DBA
    24105 CPLC SOUTHWEST, INC. PARENTING ARIZONA

    in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name:  “PARENTING ARIZONA:  SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).

    Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.

    CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF:  Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C1239568 02/22/1984 DISSOLVED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY CARRIE PUGH
    C0896252 08/30/1978 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY
    C1023786 04/13/1981 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. PETER A BUCK
    C1259155 10/18/1984 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. BARBARA RAYNARD
    C0606551 09/03/1970 ACTIVE PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. LISA PION BERLIN
    C0816640 05/27/1977 DISSOLVED PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST SHELLY TAYLOR

    Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area:  Every other term is trademarkeed…

    http://www.parentsanonymous.org/pahtml/pressExpert.html

    Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).

    Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing

    The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.

    With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.    

    (in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)

    (Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse.  In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..)  The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved.  This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:

    Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders

    Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.   

    In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.  

    Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.

    OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant.  TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding…  The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address:   ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center

    I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin  teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver 

     

     

    Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother.  IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.

    Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily

    Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.

    I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.

    (OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website.  I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).

    “The Shared Leadership”  plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good.  But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way.   Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.  

    As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow.  They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help.  The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side.  Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.

    Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups.  Only the main one survives, as we can see:

     

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY 056591 Charity Dissolved SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Charity Not Registered MISSION VIEJO CA Charity Registration Charity
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. 057939 Charity Inactive REDDING CA Charity Registration Charity
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. 015477 Charity Current CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity
    PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST Charity Not Registered CULVER CITY CA Charity Registration Charity
    As1

     

    AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad:  EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here  

    Fiscal Begin:
    Fiscal End: 30-SEP-01
    Total Assets: $502,908.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $4,312,507.00
    RRF Received: 21-FEB-02
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached:
    Status: Accepted

    2009:

    Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
    Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
    Total Assets: $1,775,724.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $1,584,661.00
    RRF Received: 12-AUG-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted

     As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity).  Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half.  (2009:  $

    667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.”  (which their tax form will explain).  The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc.  (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).

    • “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”

    Got this business model yet?   . .. by our accredited network organizations.    What do they do?

    • Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families.  Expenses $1,302,041

    This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and  another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.

    Other earnings (revenue)  660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees.   No royalties show up …. 

     

    And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):

    • Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
    • VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
    • Sec  Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
    • Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
    • Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
    • Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
    • Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
    • Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
    • Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
    • Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201

     In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)

    If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.

    Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.

    THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.

     Some of the incorporators:  Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately: 

    Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor

    Obituaries | PASSINGS

    April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

    Judge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.

    Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division.  Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.

    {{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc.  “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}

    She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness.   She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.

     

     THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of:  “

    • The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
    • To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
    • • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.

     By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”   

    (Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.) 

    Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

    Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.
    www.thefamilytree.org
    www.proudtoparent.org
    www.uptoparents.org

    For additional information, on this program choose an option below.

    What services we offer!View our classes! Contacts!Your resources!Find out what you need to know!

    However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO

    Parent Opportunity Program

    In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.

    (the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)

    POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.

    To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.

    Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.

    (An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county.  An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:

    El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State

    COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…

    Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.

    Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.

    That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.

    “We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.

    ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants.  In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department.   Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project

    The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”

    They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:

    Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)

    Submitted to:  Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*

    Submitted by:  Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org

    (the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)

     

    September 2007

    [Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

    CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.

    Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).

    Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.

    Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):

    This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).

    Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Address Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    OCSE CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1575 SHERMAN STREET Welfare Department 90FD0096 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 125,000

    I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….

    Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for.  Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits):   Interesting!  At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was:   “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program”   If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently!    Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….

    (I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored.  I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).

    Executive Summary

    The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:

    ␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;

    ␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and

    ␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

    I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide.  Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50).  I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010.  There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?

    Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0004 PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 1 09/16/1997 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 72,500 Abstract Not Available
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0028 NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES  1 09/14/1999 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 75,000
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0069 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 1 09/15/2002 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 100,000 Abstract Not Available
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0080 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 1 09/10/2003 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 55,023 Abstract Not Available
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0096 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1 09/14/2004 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 125,000 Abstract Not Available
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0111 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PA 2 1 07/12/2005 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 114,741
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0126 AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 1 09/20/2008 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 99,815
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0132 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 1 09/20/2008 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 30,000
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0166 PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS 1 09/27/2010 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY OTHER NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 52,443
    CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0168 TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS 1 09/25/2010 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY OTHER NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 84,783
    CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 90FD0033 COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS 1 09/14/1999 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 80,000 Abstract Not Available
    Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

    Abstracts include:

    Grant 90FD0111:  “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)

    In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities.   Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.

    JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.

    I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe:  They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:

    History

    The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.

    The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.

    Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.

    In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.

    In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

    And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:

    Thank You, Vendors

    Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.


    LabCorp

    Orchid Cellmark

    PSI

    Systems & Methods Inc

    WICSEC

    (upper right).  (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).

    IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Colorado Family Support Council CO 2010 $44,401 990EZ 8 84-1180995

     

    This post could go on indefinitely.  I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:

    My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):

    Organizations/COrporations:

    • ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC.  — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others).  The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.
    • Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
    • Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me?  Who are they, really?
    • where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
    • This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
    • PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County.  Again, $18 million is a lot of business.  Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
    • CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System.  This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
    • (though I knew this already)  REMEMBER TO CHECK  — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at.  Example:  PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR.  Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .
    •  
    •  
    • ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND EXAMINE A TAX RETURN OR TWO, SEARCH THE STREET ADDRESS, AND WHERE LIKELY TO BE PRODUCTIVE, SEARCH THE CEOs or other Board of Directors’ associates and affiliates.
    •  
    • LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate.  I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.
    Prior to looking at this last ground of grantees, and a bit more at the CHMC, I would’ve been less prone to saying this, but the evidence is accumulating quickly.  I believe its possible that the entire programming is designed simply around high-emotion terminology (families, Dads, Kids) to enable hiding federal funds disbursed to, for lack of a better word, cronies.  This is not “taxation with representation” but taxation without it.

    70 New Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood Grantees for 2011, series “90FM” (And Why Let’s Get Honest is NOT amused….)

    with 2 comments

     

    After an exhausting, bloodhound-trail-following attempt to get the “REAL” California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (complete with whoever is running it) to Please Stand Up (on-line, in the form of a historically coherent, traceable set of incorporations, nonprofit registrations, and if I”m lucky, even 990s filed on-line), I determined to post the entire list, and talk about some of them.  Which is below.  I am also starting a new Page here to start profiling these BUSINESSES, AGENCIES or DEPARTMENTS (see grantee types) one by one.  I disclaim all responsibility for any actions readers may take on what’s below before fact-checking themselves; I think the dizzying re-incarnations of a certain two (basic) California groups may have resulted in cross-referencing one with the other at times,

    For my birthday, I would also like to see the articles of incorporation of EVERY SINGLE one of the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood Grantees, so the public can know which of them used to be (or still are) working for:

    (1) The Department of HHS/ACF (who it seems would be approving the grants), &/or :

    (2) Local Court system or other County Public Employment, with potential influence on who steers the contracts that these nonprofits are going to take advantage other, in the booming business of “parent education” “marriage education” ‘Fatherhood promotion” and what’s apparently another one, “RELATIONSHIP SKILLS DEVELOPMENT.”

    I also would like a chart (it’d need to be 3D at this point) cross-referencing Board of Directors in common.  As most normal people are not this anal-retentive, or “could care less,” I’ll likely produce that birthday gift myself.

    Any of those terms can be used to suck money out of the Title IV-A (welfare) and Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement) funds, plus some others, like child welfare, which is synonymous with a child going to sleep with a biological father in the home, apparently (judging by some of the programs being promoted around the term “child welfare.”

    Moreover, when scrutinized, the financial — business – profit is actually going to any company that has developed a marketable curriculum.  This is not only in the form of money, but also in the form of reputation, and anything that would help them keep their place in line for more federally-sponsored business promotion.  Meanwhile, one or both of the parties being forced or induced to consume their material — or divorce in front of judges who believe they should, and have some stake in some of those nonprofits or for-profits — are most likely losing finances and reputation.

    In that regard, these guys put AFCC to shame. AFCC markets quit a bit of its own material, including the usual Conference CDS, DVDs) including BOOKS — and does this through mandated participation via family law system.  But I think they have to work a little harder at keeping it going — in other words, it takes a court order to force someone in front of a parent educator, parent coordinator (unless they can be induced to do so voluntarily under duress) and into a parent education classes aimed at a 5th grade mentality and taking up one’s dwindling resource of TIME.

    But it does NOT take a court order for the manufacturers of a marriage curriculum to get their local pastors, priests, and the occasional rabbi or imam,* to (1) form a corporation with profits anticipated and grants to set it up and (2) set up a website soliciting business, after they understand of course that step one is to join a coalition and then buy into being trained to market membership in the same corporation.  Brilliant.  Of course, AFCC’s preparatory work in wearing down couples and pushing for legislation, and forming associations to endorse each other’s policies while pretending independence, is going to be helpful overall publicity….

    (no relation, but interesting reference:  I.M.A.M. organization, incl points 1& 2 out of 5:)

    1. To be a central resource for the Shia Muslims in North America and their religious and spiritual leadership (Marja’iyyah) in all that pertains to matters of their religion and beliefs away from any political or party influence.
    2. To organize matters of the Shia Muslims in North America in relevant areas such as worship, marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, or other religious legal matters.

    No, if we want to eradicate poverty in this country we should teach someone to set up a corporation selling healthy marriage curriculum, and trying to persuade teenagers not to have sex.  We are not likely to run out of sexually active teens (or for that matter, mature adults) and I don’t think divorce is going anywhere — so there is definitely a market niche.  Too bad some us didn’t get in on it in the 1980s, but judging by the 1990s and 2000s, there’s hope for newcomers if they buy in, imitate the business model, and don’t rock the boat.

    Ideally, this curriculum should be completely self-promoting and self-executing by internet download.  That way, more is left over from the grants gotten to promote it — not including whatever is lost in the black hole of “No accountability,” several of which are showing up, the closer one looks.

    The names of this curriculum tend to run in cutesy-sounding acronyms, one summary of which shows up here:

    MML, LoveU2(tr), PREP, PREPARE/ENRICH, “PAIRS” (and so forth), plus a whole variety of BootCamps

    MML — “Mastering the Mysteries of Love”; PAIRS – “Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, PREP – “Prevention and Relation Education Program

    (link shows that PREP is hoping to adapt a version for Muslim Couples, working with a group in Qatar).

    Some of these hearken back to University Institutes and research/demonstration grants previously funded by the US Government. One of these days, if they get enough TANF participants (and others) forced through these classes, they may come up with the right formula to create the perfect human relationship.  Alternately, they can continue working on producing the perfect human being through Early Headstart, the K-12 public education system, and whatever other sources are around.

    Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number
    EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614
    EISENBERG, SETH D 411-KIDS, INC. N04000002485
    EISENBERG, SETH D UST INTERNATIONAL, INC. P96000094023
    EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614

     

      Award Number = 90FM

    Showing: 1 – 50 of 70 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 Next »

    Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36849

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0006 ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,489,548 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,489,548

    Recipient: AVANCE, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77092

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0041 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
    Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0018 ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,514,359 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,514,359

    Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
    Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0030 BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 634,536 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 634,536

    Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0029 BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0011 BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,996 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,996

    Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0034 MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 570,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 570,000

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0042 PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,445,587 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,445,587

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
    Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0016 EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 555,300 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 555,300

    Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0003 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 354,714 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 354,714

    Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0044 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 787,665 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 787,665

    Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 85004

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0021 TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 359,796 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 359,796

    Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

      LGH notes on this group:   (Needs to be a separate post, but here’s a teaser):

    SEARCHED THIS GROUP BY ITS EIN# (Simple “Recipient” search on TAGGS”) — there are two series, note DUNS#s….

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 003664535 $ 7,883,475
    California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 361795151 $ 7,142,080

    The heading (when you click on the title, above) shows the street address.  Note:  LEUCADIA, and in SAN DIEGO area.     

    Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
    Address: 1045 PASSIFLORA AVE
    LEUCADIA, CA 92024-2215
    Country Name: United States of America
    County Name: SAN DIEGO
    HHS Region: 9
    Type: Other Social Services Organization
    Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

     

    However, from the official HHS/ACF Grantee award announcement, HERE, there is no entry for “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.”  How could there be, in 2011, as the outfit no longer exists.  Instead, it’s called (latest corporate name incarnation I could find, may not be the most current):

    (From the ACF site, not TAGGS:  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html.  As TAGGS information is supplied by the agency in question (see description on the site) the information should match, and public should be able to sort by an identification number.  That’s basic common sense — IF the intent was transparency).

    Healthy Relationships California Leucadia
    CA
    $2,500,000

    What on TAGGS (and on the public website) is “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” is now called, “Healthy Relationships California.”

    This is why the TAGGS database, which possesses EIN# and DUNS#, could easily have put that field in any report generated, but chose to omit EIN (would probably show up a lot of grantees who never bothered to get one) so we could follow the career & grants-allocations track of a nonprofit that keeps changing its corporate name, something that only checking at the State (not federal) level would otherwise show.    And Healthy Marriage Grantees are notoriously (when examined) shape-shifters.

    So I check out this nonprofit name on the Charitable Trusts registration, California STate Office of Attorney General:

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

     

     This is the detail.  For some reason no “Address Line1” is entered (matching the Secretary of State entry for this name)
    Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
    You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.
    Registrant Information
    Full Name: HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA FEIN: 680606790
    Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2746528
    Registration Number: CT0149740
    Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
    Issue Date: 3/3/2009 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2011
    Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 3/17/2011
    Date of Last Renewal: 3/17/2011
    Address Information
    Address Line 1: (SAME AS ABOVE) Phone:
    Address Line 2:
    Address Line 3:
    Address Line 4: LEUCADIA CA 92024
    Annual Renewal Information
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-05
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-05
    Total Assets: $48,225.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $60,606.00
    RRF Received: 23-MAR-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted

    NOTE:  The $48,225.00 was probably a “Compassion Capacity-Building Grant” to start with.   Google “990 finder” and search by EIN to get the Federal Fillings:

    Here, the amount $48,225 shows under “CHMC.”

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    California Healthy Marriages Coal CA 2005 $48,225 990EZ 10 68-0606790
    California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA 2008 $328,871 990 24 68-0606790
    California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA 2007 $340,894 990 19 68-0606790
    California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA 2006 $148,062 990 21 68-0606790
    California Healty Marriages Coaltion CA 2009 $334,155 990 22 68-0606790

    Looking at the 2005 EIN, one reads purpose:  “CHMC has begun (in 2005) a 17-month federally-funded project

    to offer training and technical assistance

    to marriage-support organizations (including coalitions) throughout California.”  EXPENSES:   $41,709.

    Two Directors (only) are listed:  Dennis Stoica (at a PO Box in Cerritos, CA), and Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D., at a street address in Sacramento.  Remember the names;

    they will show up in several other related organizations / associations, including with another name-changing organization (getting millions) in Colorado.

    Modest salaries are only $10K (Stoica) and $7K (Curtis).   Curtis seems to have better luck staying incorporated than STOICA:

    (Secretary of State)

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE  ((Oakland addresss) CHRIS GRIER
    C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
    C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
    C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
    C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
    C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
    C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
    C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
    C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
    C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS

    “ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION” (Stoica, see above) never bothered to register with the Attorney General as a Nonprofit:

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

    which may have something to do with why it got suspended.  Alas, because that makes the EIN# harder to get at.  Mr. Stoica flew off (at least via internet) to Florida

    and has started (as of 2010) an association of Marriage Educators, nevertheless, called “NARME.”  Moreover, for how many people refer to the Orange County Marriage group, one would think it’s still legitimate.  But I’m focusing on the other ones, today.

    2011 News Release, announcement by Calif. Congressman Doris Matsui features Dr. Curtis and the “Relationship Skills Center,” from Matsui.house.gov:

    Congresswoman Matsui Announces Nearly $800,000 for Local Family Development Services

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-5) announced that the Relationship Skills Center, a Sacramento-based relationship education non-profit, has been awarded $798,825 through the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide relationship and family stability educational services.

    Awarded through the Administration for Children and Families-Healthy Marriage Initiative, this funding will be used by the Relationship Skills Center to provide evidence based relationship education classes and case management services to help families improve their marriage and relationship skills, achieve career and economic stability, and connect families with a variety of community resources.

    “We are thrilled to receive this grant.  In the last five years we have helped 735 couples form healthy, stable, safe families,” said Carolyn CurtisHISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

    The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. She discovered that communities across the nation were organizing and reducing their divorce rate by up to 50%. After a successful career as a therapist helping one couple at a time, Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region. HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund

    Ph.D., Executive Director of the Relationship Skills Center.

    The “Relationship Skills Center” (per Curtis’ LinkedIn profile) was “Formerly Healthy Marriage Project” and Dr. Curtis has worked there since 2004, “7 years 8 months”   OK….  Looking at the list of ACF grantees, this organization name does not appear.  However it has the same street address as “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project,” including the suite#.

    RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PAGE “CONTACT  US,”  URL:  “http://www.skills4us.org/Contact%20Us

    Address
    9719 Lincoln Village Drive, Suite 205
    Sacramento, CA 95827

    CHARITABLE TRUSTS:  “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT.”

    Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
    You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
    Full Name: SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT FEIN: 134280316
    Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2650745
    Registration Number: 130981
    Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
    Issue Date: 12/31/2005 Renewal Due Date: 2/15/2011
    Registration Status: Current Date This Status:
    Date of Last Renewal: 8/10/2010
    Address Information
    Address Line 1: 9719 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR, SUITE 205 Phone:
    Address Line 2:
    Address Line 3:
    Address Line 4: SACRAMENTO CA 95827
    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT 130981 Charity Current SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

    Moreover, if one looks at the details, it’s clear that “EIN# 134280316” has been a going concern (both assets and income) from Day 1 (2005-06 year), but has not provided the annual required RRF forms, or iRS reports, regularly, as required by law.  Finally in 2010, they got a slap on the wrist from the Attorney General:

    (in the chart here, below the words “Fee Notice” are several entries indicating professional fundraising for the organization by “EXPRESSIONS.”  Professional Fundraisers also are required to register, and hand over evidence that their profits were received by an officer of the nonprofit they are raising funds for….  I’ll quote from the Fee Notice, which is a red flag for the public of something out of order for a nonprofit).

    Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-08
    Fiscal End: 30-SEP-09
    Total Assets: $37,781.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $670,305.00
    RRF Received: 20-JUL-10
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
    Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
    Total Assets: $64,938.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $598,785.00
    RRF Received: 08-AUG-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Rejected
    Related Documents
    1045737 RRF-1 2008
    1045738 IRS Form 990 2008
    59107 RRF-1 2009
    59108 IRS Form 990-EZ 2009
    130981441796 Fee Notice
    Prerequisite Information  {{LINES BELOW HERE REFER TO FUNDRAISING EVENTS..}} {{EXPRESSIONS is the PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISER}}
    Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity
    Registrant: EXPRESSIONS
    Registration No: E0005532 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete
    Date Established: 6/30/2009 Association Date: 6/22/2009 Expiration Date: 7/31/2009
    Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity
    Registrant: EXPRESSIONS
    Registration No: E0007825 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete
    Date Established: 5/12/2010 Association Date: 4/24/2010 Expiration Date: 12/31/2010
    Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity
    Registrant: EXPRESSIONS
    Registration No: E0011403 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete
    Date Established: 7/13/2011 Association Date: 6/30/2011 Expiration Date: 7/31/2011

    The FEE NOTICE, dated Sept. 20, 2011, “NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT,  reads,

    1. Explanation/Information not provided for “YES” answer to Part B , Question No. 6.

    Part B of an RRF is “PART B – STATEMENTS REGARDING ORGANIZATION DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS REPORT” and question 6 is:  

    During this reporting period, did the organization receive any governmental funding? If so, provide an attachment listing the name of the agency, mailing address, contact person, and telephone number.  Incidentally, question 2 is:  During this reporting period, was there any theft, embezzlement, diversion or misuse of the organization’s charitable property or funds?  Question 5, for which (on the 2009 RRF, available to see on-line), “During this reporting period, were the services of a commercial fundraiser or fundraising counsel for charitable purposes used? If “yes,” provide an attachment listing the name, address, and telephone number of the service provider.

    was checked “No,” and (right around Father’s Day 2009) they were using a commercial fundraiser, a sole proprietorship called “EXPRESSIONS.”

    And (on 9/20/2011) the group was also reminded:

    2. The $75 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

    In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

    I look forward to finding out by October 20th whether this nonprofit which exists primarily as a recipient of a Federal Grants program directing funds from welfare and child support enforcement (as I understand it) into marriage education classes, will get its act together.  I’d also really like to read the articles of incorporation, which it would make sense to post, and some groups actually do, on-line.

    On this ‘RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER” (boasted about recently by Congressman Doris Matsui), we clearly have a SACRAMENTO emphasis, and address — yet, given that Carolyn Curtis shows as one of two incorporators of not the SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE but “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGE” (corporate registration showing a SAN DIEGO area, not SACRAMENT) (now called “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” on the charitable site . . )  it appears that Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Relationships — which IS “California Healthy Marriages” but shares a street address & jurisdiction with the Sacramento Healthy Marriage….) sees itself as the original organization, per its “About Us/ History Page”:

    HISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

    The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. … Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region.

    …HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund,   …

    In 2006, HMP applied for and was awarded $2.5 million from the Administration for Children and Families to provide relationship skills classes to low income pregnant unwed couples or couples with an infant. The resulting Flourishing Families Program, now in its fourth year, has served over 500 families, and its success has been nationally recognized. In 2009 HMP was chosen as one of three from a total of 120 healthy marriage demonstration grantees to provide peer to peer training. HMP was selected to lead four workshops at the National Healthy Marriage – Responsible Fatherhood Grantee Conference.

    OK, here are the 2 relevant ACF Grantees again, for 2011, per the Oct 3 news release. interesting that October is also “Domestic Violence Awareness Month”:

    .Healthy Marriage Grantees (top of two charts; the bottom, of almost equal amount (total) is “Fatherhood.”

    Legal Name Organization City
    State
    Award Amount
    Healthy Relationships California Leucadia
    CA
    $2,500,000

    Secretary of State shows Incorporator Patty Howell (and if one clicks, the Leucadia Address)   SOS site does not allow EXACT search, so we got others, too (it really is an inferior search site, and very unwieldy)

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
    C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
    C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS DARRYL HARRISON
    C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH
    Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Sacramento
    CA
    $798,825

    Secretary of State Registration shows it’s still active:

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS

    The EIN# 680606790 (federal level — posted above) belongs to “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION” (per IRS 990s) which “IS” “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as to (state-level) Charitable Registrations.  Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D. (along with Stoica) was indeed apparently a founder — at least an incorporator.  Somehwere, CHMC became “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” — however (inexplicably) that corporation was also formed in 2005 by another person, Patty Howell.  Adding to the confusion,

    The EIN# 134280316 belongs to “CHMC” — which is Leucadia (=San Diego Area).  KEY that EIN# into the OAG site and you’ll get a listing called

    “Sacramento Healthy Marriages Project “

    ONE is in Southern CA — the other in Northern CA, and we’re a very lengthy state.
    Try it now (takes a few seconds) — Please!   Then, from “foundationfinder” look at their 2006 IRS 990 form:  Executive Director Carolyn Curtis drew a moderate salary of $32,731,”  plus obviously also the $7K she got with Mr. Stoica under the other group.    
    {{I believe this link shows clearly the HHS connection, or at least one of them, to STOICA and HHS:  Bill Coffin promoting a Stoica Webinar on how to get ACF grants.  Bill self-describes as “
    • Bill Coffin
    • Working with NARME and CA Healthy Marriages Coalition on a part-time basis.
      Was Exec Dir of IDEALS (Jan-Aug 2011) [[Has links to these groups, too, based in PA & Kentucky]]
    • From 2002-10 I was the Special Assistant for Marriage Education at ACF/HHS
    BILL also, in “MARRIAGE.GOV” summarizes the Healthy Marriage Movement with glowing descriptions of Wade Horn & George Bush
    It should hardly surprise us that Mr. Coffin is also found presenting at AFCC (Washington, D.C.) in 2007:

    14. Marriage Skills Education and the Courts

    Saving marriages was once a goal of family courts, but was de- emphasized amid all the other problems courts address. Recent developments in relationship skills education offer new hope for improving marriages. Meanwhile, there are increasing demands to do something to reduce the damage to parents and children in fam- ily separation. Can courts not just mitigate the effects of family breakdown, but also help reduce it? First, they must study what works, and carefully adapt programs to the people they serve and to other real-world constraints.

    Bill Coffin M.Ed., Special Assistant for Marriage Education, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, D.C.

    John Crouch, J.D., Arlington, VA Fred J. DeJong, Ph.D., Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI

    Dennis Stoica teaching a webinar on ACF grant announcements June 17 for NARME members

    On Friday June 17 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm (ET), NARME Board Member Dennis Stoica (President of California Healthy Marriages Coalition) will conduct a 90-minute webinar – for NARME Members only – comparing and contrasting the six different grant announcements which are scheduled to be released earlier that week.

    GOOD GRIEF:  This is Fathers Day, 2011, and STOICA is, despite website, I’d lay a bet, NOT President of “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,” however if he by some stretch of the imagination still is involved with Patty Howell’s “Healthy Relationships California” group (which now owns the CHMC Fictitious Business Name), THAT group appears to be evading taxes.  They didn’t even send in $75 with their last registration, and failed to report contact information for which government grants they were getting!”   This 2011 announcement indicates that someone who claims to have been working for ACF from 2002-2010 is using (inside information?) to help this faith-based group get a headsup on grants applications before they are announced.
    the group NARME was formed in Florida (under STOICA) only in 2010; it is a membership group rejoicing at the diversion of TANF funds for abstinence education, etc.
     
    Hundreds of organizations participated in a similar teleconference that Dennis conducted back in 2006 when the original Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants were released; and many of those participants attributed their subsequent success in being awarded grants to a combination of that teleconference and the subsequent grant-writing tele-trainings that Dennis conducted during that year’s grant-writing period.  Since this webinar will only be offered to NARME members, if you have not yet joined NARME you should do that right away by going tohttp://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=881238.
    ANOTHER WEBSITE (don’t start bringing out the tomatoes to throw!  Just tell me why this site lists Stoica as “co-founder” of “EPISCOPAL CHURCH-OUR SAVIOR” (in Placerville, CA) and the employees just happen to match the CHMC employees!:  From SPOKE.com

    Dennis Stoica

    Title and Company:

    Company Address:

    Po Box 447
    PlacervilleCa 96114

    Carolyn Curtis

    Director

    Presenter

    Ralph Jones

    Master Trainer of…

    Dennis Stoica

    Co-Founder

    K Krafsky

    Community Mobiliz…

    Bento Leal

    Implementation Sp…

    Kerri Norbut

    Special Projects …

    Alison Doucette

    Special Projects …

    Jakki Penn

    GOOD GRIEF!

    The “Church OF Our Savior” at this address, is Episcopal, and is a historic landmark (it was not founded by Stoica!), around since the 1800s.

    Church of Our Saviour, “Serving God for over 150 years

    2979 Coloma St. // PO Box 447

    Placerville, CA 95667-0447
    office@oursaviourpv.org

     

      However, among the many ministries it operates IS, indeed, a MARRIAGE EDUCATION ministry:    

    Marriage Education Fr. Craig Kuehn Our Saviour offers several, research based, courses designed to enhance relationships, generically called marriage education. Every couple can benefit by attending at least one marriage education program per year. For more inforamtion, see www.edhealthymarriages.org.

    Coalition history

    We began under the intiation of the California Healthy Marriages Coalition and we received our initial funding from them (www.camarriage.com). Fr. Craig Kuehn of the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour, Placerville and Meredith Koch of Marshall Hospital, Placerville attended a workshop about grant opportunities promoting healthy marriages. Ever since then, the project snowballed into a coalition of faith-based and community-based organizations interested in and offering marriage and related programs to the people of El Dorado County, California.

    We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service.

    YES THEY ARE — and one of the few who seems to have kept it up, better than their leaders.  As such they are helping market classes and products put out by

    some truly conservative groups, who are doing QUITE well and remain close to the government faucet.  how nice to know that religious organizations can profit from this also. They can collect their tithes AND their grants, from people who pay taxes towards the grants also, no doubt.   SEE THE LINKS LIST: including one I definitely recognize as being marketed through the welfare system, too:   PREPARE/ENRICH (a  research project out of Minnesota, FOR-profit formed in 1980); “SMARTMARRIAGES.COM” (a FOR-profit) organized by Diane Sollee, with this logo:

    SmartMarriages

    (ALSO quite well-informed about the marriage grants system, while shamelessly marketing classes, DVDs, train-the trainers, certifications, and holding conferences to keep this up),

    and “Institute for American Values,” PResident, David Blankenhorn (also of National Fatherhood Initiative)

    WIKIPEDIA on Blankenhorn confirms this and highlights his “expert-witness” testimony against Prop 8 (anti-Gay, California) as heard in the Supreme Court:

    Blankenhorn founded the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank whose stated mission is to “study and strengthen key American values”, in 1987.[1][3] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.[4][2][5]Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.[1][2][6] As of 2007, Blankenhorn has written “scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two.”[1] Blankenhorn identifies as a liberal Democrat.[7][1]   “In his decision filed on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Blankenhorn was not qualified as an expert witness, and that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”[10]

    BLANKENHORN is a Harvard Grad, (BA Social Studies 1977), and a masters in Comparative Social Science from a British University. He was raised Presbyterian in Mississippi.

    ANYHOW, as we can see, Fr. (or “Rev.”) KUEHN, above, Incorporated in time to get the grants, and has stayed incorporated:

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2856112 03/03/2006 ACTIVE EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION CRAIG KUEHN
    … if not current on the Charitable Registration, for “EIN# 204384330
    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION 130730 Charity Delinquent PLACERVILLE CA Charity Registration Charity
    1
    The annual report was filed ONCE, and it appears that no IRS forms were provided  to notate who gave it the gov’t grants.  TAGGS search on this EIN
    comes up:

    RECIPIENT SEARCH RESULTS

    Recipient EIN = 204384330 No matching awards found.

    Obviously the corporation is operating right out of the church building:
    Entity Name: EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION
    Entity Number: C2856112
    Date Filed: 03/03/2006
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: PO BOX 447
    Entity City, State, Zip: PLACERVILLE CA 95667
    Agent for Service of Process: CRAIG KUEHN
    Agent Address: 2979 COLOMA ST
    Agent City, State, Zip: PLACERVILLE CA 95667
    But without government funding, it actually went into the hole:
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
    Total Assets: $1,248.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: ($583.00)
    RRF Received: 12-JAN-10
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: N
    Status: Accepted
    And finally it appears that it filed income taxes ONCE — in 2006 only — as here:

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    El Dorado Healthy Marriages Coal CA 2006 $2,476 990EZ 10 20-4384330

    (This form has no signature on Tax Preparers’ line).  Line 1 -Revenue — Gifts, contributions, grants — shows $20,500.  Salaries, other comp & employee benefits come to $7,428:   $3,384 for Pres:  Rev. Kuehn + $2,006 for VP: Meredith Koch = $5,390.

    By my basic math, $7,428-$5,390 = $1,038 in some form of “comp” (no benefits listed) which I don’t see on the form.

    However, we do see $11,144 in “Conference fees & travel, supplies, & organization fees.”   There’s likely a membership going to CHMC, they buy material to vend? and they get tax-deductive travel & conference times.  Think AmWay….     The tax-exempt purpose is:  “PROMOTE AND TEACH MARRIAGE PROGRAMS.”

    Somehow, $20,655 (of $20,500 received) was spent to:

    Start-up and organizational expenses, capacity building to include six faith-based and community-based organizations teaching marriaged (sic) education.  This included training as (“at”) the Smart Marriages Conference and from California Healthy Marriages Coalition, 64 couples received marriage education.  (that’s a pretty high overhead….  How much did the marriage education for those couples cost?)

    Meredith Koch (retired nurse in the area) is found also teaching “PAIRS” classes.  PAIRS Foundation ends up being Federally Funded, too, in South Florida:

    Large, Multi-Year, Federally-Funded Study
    Finds Enduring Impact of Marriage Education

    Findings from a large, federally funded, multi-year study of South Florida couples participating in nine hours of marriage and relationship education found statistically significant improvements in consensus, satisfaction, affection, and cohesion for both distressed and non-distressed participants…

    Another way of seeing this — PAIRS is another nonprofit out of Florida helping the US Government run a multi-level marketing setup.  It could’ve been cars, toys, or

    any other service which would come under Consumer Protection laws; but it just instead happens to be relationship education.  One can Be a “Leader,” a “CPAIRS” (Christian — Perhaps later, Jews Muslims, Buddhists, Ba’hai, Hindi, etc. might make it on the radar — but so for those populations haven’t really caught the “marriage education is free money” bug yet, to the extent these religious Christian (churches) have.)   One can also be a PTP, MT, or TRAINER.  Buy into the system.  Might as well – -your taxes have already paid for it, and others like it.  See “UNDERSTANDING PAIRS LEVELS” at the site, telling title, “consumer.PAIRS.COM

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    PAIRS FOUNDATION  Weston FL 33331-3642 BROWARD 839942422 $ 4,950,000

    (that’s roughly $1 million/year from 2006-2010)

    (SIGH.  As usual, a combo of for-profit, and not-for-profits under similar names show up.   Seth D. Eisenberg of Florida — or is it Virginia? — has got it together now,

    and the PAIRS FOUNDATION (Inc.), which merged with PAIRS, Ltd. (his corp from VA) are now in business under EIN# 650629670.  With these cohorts, which are visualized (and listed) in CORPORATIONWIKI.Com.  This time, the FOR-PROFIT LLC is “Partnership Skills, LLC”

    As of March, 2011, a list of (mostly churches) with “COURSE PROVIDER” column mostly blank, included Seth & PAIRS International, LLC,” right after “Okeechobee Missionary Baptist Church” and listed these potential under “COUNSELOR” column:   ”  I notice the URL shows the Clerk of Records for the local Circuit court for Okeechobee County.

    EISENBERG, SETH KOSS, PHYLLIS FARBER, AURORA MINZER- BRYANT,SHARON FARBER, RHETT PARKER, DANA GARFIELD, ANNIE SALYERS, JANET GORDON, LORI SPINOSA, WILLIAM HERRINGTON, PEGGY VALDEZ, SCOTT.  

    The merger was in May, 2006, and possibly helped getting this, which I am sure also helped: (fromTAGGS).

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2006 90FE0029  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS: PRIORITY AREA 2 1 0 ACF 09-24-2006 839942422 $ 990,000 
    Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 990,000

    If I go to USASPENDING.gov and type in the DUNS# and check “GRANTS” only (not “Contracts, Loans,” etc.), and check the tab “TIMELINE” it’s very clear that the above 2006 grant was NOT reported to usaspending.gov, although 2007, 08, 09 & 10 were.  In other words, usaspending.gov ain’t reliable.

    Also clear (looking at details) from this is that the CFDA is 93086 (marriage/fatherhood ) AND that the source is “75-

    Also, (I took the DUNS# and went to “USASPENDING.gov” Prime Award, checked every category except grants, and got 15 transactions:

    • Total Dollars:$227,754
    • Transactions:1 – 15 of 15

    Recommended to do (est. time — 4 minutes max) — well over $100K of this is contracts from 2011 only.  The map above (interactive) shows that half its business (contracts) are from California & Indiana (strong fatherhood state) combined, but also Georgia, Virginia, NOrth Carolina and Florida.  Not bad, eh?

    And (same search, showing “Timeline” of increase in contracts (by graph/bars) shows about a 5-fold increase from 2009.  If you’re IN, you’re IN, in this field.

    Nonprofit + related For-PRofit means wider coverage and probably more profits.  Simply design a product to match the HHS Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood grants stream!   THere’s also a “4-1-1 Kids, Inc.” with his name on it.  Seth appears to be 2nd Generation “MARRIAGE EDUCATION” — as it says on “FATHERHOODCHANNEL.com“:

    Seth Eisenberg, the youngest son of PAIRS Founder Lori Heyman Gordon grew up with a front row seat to the birth of marriage and relationship education. He joined PAIRS Foundation in 1995 to help improve business and organizational systems, began teaching classes in 1999, training instructors in 2000, and was elected President/CEO in 2008. Over the past 12 years, Seth spearheaded development of PAIRS’ evidence-based, brief, multi-lingual courses and technologies to make marriage and relationship education widely accessibile to diverse communities worldwide. He has taught classes to thousands of young people, adults and trained more than 1,000 PAIRS instructors who deliver services to tens of thousands. In 2006, Seth’s “PAIRS Relationship Skills for Strong South Florida Families,” proposal was awarded a multi-year, multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The grant program has allowed thousands of people throughout South Florida to participate in free classes, including many low-income, formerly homeless, recovering addicts, special needs populations, immigrants, and veterans who could not have otherwise benefited, while also conducting extensive, rigorous research activities to better understand and validate the impact of marriage and relationship education.

    It is “free” to low-income because most likely it was taken from more direct social services to these populations, such as food, housing help, cash aid, or child support enforcement where applicable.  Reminder:  The Florida “PAIRS” first started (out of several incorporations) as for-profit, and it started in 1994.

    I look it up at http://www.sunbiz.org, which is where FL corporations go to register.  California needs a site like this.

    Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number
    EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614
    EISENBERG, SETH D 411-KIDS, INC. N04000002485
    EISENBERG, SETH D UST INTERNATIONAL, INC. P96000094023
    EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614

    From the (top) filing I get an EIN#  521327867

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    PAIRS Foundation FL 2009 $313,681 990 25 52-1327867
    PAIRS Foundation FL 2008 $353,339 990 26 52-1327867
    PAIRS Foundation FL 2007 $0 990R 2 52-1327867
    PAIRS Foundation FL 2007 $414,952 990 17 52-1327867
    Pairs Foundation Ltd FL 2006 $252,096 990 22 52-1327867
    Pairs Foundation Ltd VA 2005 $306,643 990 16 52-1327867
    Pairs Foundation Ltd FL 2004 $300,853 990 14 52-1327867
    Pairs Foundation Ltd VA 2003 $242,249 990 15 52-1327867
    Pairs Foundation Ltd VA 2002 $63,906 990 14 52-1327867

    EIN Watchdog.net describes it as having begun in 1984 c/o “Lori H. Gordon” (which matches his description, above) and last filed in 2007, and with a street address of 2771 Executive Park, #1 Weston, FL.  This worries me, because that’s one of the operating addresses of this organization (per USAspending.gov) and was also found in a SEC complaint on REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FRAUD (but no overlap of persons involved that I can see, just the street address).  To be clerar, this is a criminal complaint, date-stamped Nov. 15, 2007, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Southern District vs. (various redevelopment agencies)

    (COMPLAINT):

    SUMMARY

    1. Since at least 2002, Webb, individually and through certain entities he owns and controls, -has defrauded numerous investors through a real estate-based investment scheme. During the relevant period, the Defendants have raised at least $8.4 million from more than 80 investors by offering and selling securities in the form of investment contracts to investors in several states, including Florida, California and North Carolina.

    (PAIRS had contracts in those states, plus Georgia, Virginia? & Indiana).

    The PAIRS Foundation, Ltd. (per watchdog.net) address figures in paragraphs 15 & 30

    15. CitiRise NC is a North Carolina limited liability company with its original principal office at 901 Barmouth Ct., Raleigh, North Carolina 27614. At least by November 2005, Citifise NC was reporting on its North Carolina State filings’that its principal office address was at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-3643, the same address used by CitiRise FL

    30. Webb and the Webb Companies solicited investment offers in various ways, including through word-of-mouth generated by other investors and through Webb’s personal contact with local church groups, including meeting with local.pastors of such churches. In addition, Webb supervised the preparation of promotional materials advertising alliances with faith-based groups, such as a “partnership” between CitiRise and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Webb and the Webb Companies also, on occasion, used independent sales associates who solicited investors through their personal or professional contacts in exchange for commissions. Webb and the Webb Companies also manufactured publicity in other ways, including favorable newspaper profiles in The Triangle Tribune and Triangle

    Business Journal in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina and an appearance by Webb on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes program in December 2005. In addition, one of Webb’s entities, CitiRise, maintained a website (at http://www.citirise.com) fiom at least 2005 to approximately October 2007 that described Webb’s professional biography, the CitiRise business “model,” and reflected theCitiRise “Corporate Headquarters” address at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-an address CitiRise no longer occupied from around the Summer of 2006

     PAIRS FOUNDATION, Inc. changed FROM that address (per FL filings) on 1/20/2009, to 1675 Market Street #207, Weston, FL, but didn’t report this until 9/20/2010.  In other words, 5 days after filing the 2009 report, it moved.  09/20/2010 — ADDRESS CHANGE

    USAspending.gov contracts (15 records from 2009 forward) reflect for some reason both addresses.

    • She didn’t provide original signatures, or addresses (although did mail a check).
    • The term “Ltd.” is not acceptable.   
    • They apparently then fixed this and changed it to “inc.”

      I thought it was common knowledge that “Ltd.” was not a USA corporate suffix; Corporation or “Inc.” (etc.) are.  I guess not.    The purpose of the nonprofit

    “Research, development and training of relationship skills for youth and families and communities.  Development of materials and programs to reduce anger, conflict and violence.”

    Here is Lori Gordon giving a rave review to (Helping sell)  a book by D. Stosney, called “Love without Hurt” in which he explains how abused women can help their men stop abusing them.   Rave reviewers also included Dianne Sollee of “Smartmarriages.com”

    This is an important book for everyone in every stage of a relationship, to heal and make whole the love we begin with. Give it as a wedding gift, birthday present, parenting gift. This is knowledge and understanding we all need to be able to heal ourselves and preserve our most cherished relationships. — Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D. founder of PAIRS.

    (Here’s the book, described):   Reviews of Love without HurtTurn Your Resentful, Angry, or Emotionally Abusive Relationship into a Compassionate, Loving One

    Library Journal

    Stosny has put into words the techniques used in his successful Compassion-Power and Boot Camp programs, which help women who have been subjected to criticism, put-downs, or cold shoulders from their husbands or boyfriends. Complete with checklists, case studies, and well-researched information, his program not only shows the damage that verbally and emotionally abusive relationships do to spouses and children but also demonstrates how to change them, with guidance for both parties. For their part, women are directed to practice self-healing skills. Clear, timely, and on the mark; recommended for all libraries. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.

    (Usually verbally and emotionally abusive are on their way to physically abusive which, unchecked, goes all the way to “lethal” unless stopped, although not all go the full range.  Somehow this is being missed. …  And it absolutely the church theme, for the most part, that women are to stop the abuse, somehow, by changing themselves.  That’s another reason I protest these programs….)

    Looking up “Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D.” I found (yet another) Christian Marriage Association, as they advertised PAIRS training.

    Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills(PAIRS)

    2771 Executive Park Drive Suite #1
    Weston, FL 33331
    USA
    Website: http://www.pairs.com/
    Contact(s)
    Seth Eisenberg
    Phone: 877-PAIRS-4U
    Fax: 954-337-2981
    Purpose
    Sustain healthy relationships
    Description
    The PAIRS programs, developed by Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D., provide a comprehensive system to enhance self-knowledge and to develop the ability to sustain pleasurable intimate relationships. PAIRS is located in Reston, Virginia but is a nationally known program

    “The Association of Marriage & Family Ministries” ( photo to right appears to be its founders, out of Scottsdale, AZ) reveals that marriage education is a great  tool for church growth.  So I suppose there’s no harm in having non-believers fund church growth because, what’s good for the Kingdom is surely good for the rest of America?

    The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (AMFM) and its members are committed to you, the local Church, the pastor and all those called to this vital area of ministry. There has never been a greater time in history to show the love of Christ than today in serving those marriages and families that God has given us.

    Today, there is no greater growth tool for the church than to have strong marriages and healthy families walking out of the church on Sunday (when ever you worship) and walking into the culture on Monday. What a great opportunity to impact our culture for the Kingdom.

    Blessings,

    Eric and Jennifer Garcia
    Co-Founders

    (Sunday worship post-dated Jesus Christ by a few centuries, last I heard.  See Emperor Constantine    🙂    )

     

     LIKe NCADV,NARME, and AFCC, there is a sliding scale of membership.  THe more you can afford, the more you will pay.

    “Resource Vendors” pay the highest:

    Student Membership – $35

    Individual Membership – $75

    Church Organization Membership – $125 – $450

    Resource Membership (Vendors) – $225 – $550

    (I.E. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR SPECIAL PAYMENTS )

     

     FORGIVE ME FOR NOT RESISTING THE TEMPTATION TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND RECOMMENDS THE OPPOSITE:

    BY CONTRAST, THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HAVING “RESPECT OF PERSONS” AND DECLARE THAT GOD DOESN’T.

    JAMES 2:

    My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

    NOT TO MENTION (WHILE I”M IN “JAMES”) A SCATHING COMMENTARY ON RICH MEN, AND FAWNING OVER THEM IN THE CHURCHES:

    26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”


     INSTEAD, THESE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY FROM THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOWS, BY TAKING TANF FUNDS TO PROMOTE MARRIAGE EDUCATION TO HELP EXPAND THEIR CHURCHES! . . .    IF THEY WERE PREACHING RIGHT TO START WITH, WOULDN’T THEIR MARRIAGES BE IN BETTER SHAPE?  SEEMS TO ME THERE’S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE BIBLE ON LOVING ONE ANOTHER, AND A GOOD BIT ON MARRIAGE ALSO (I COR 13, EPHESIANS – – IT’S THROUGHOUT).

     

    SOMEBODY HAD TO DO THIS — why not me? — I looked up their corporate status in Scottsdale.   For one, someone from Scottsdale is following my site:

     

     

    Click on ID number to see the full detail.
    ID Type Name
    12163487 CORPORATION THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.

    ©Copyright 2000 by Arizona Secretary of State – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

     

     

     

     

    Here we go:  (date — today, 10/11/11)

     

    Corporate Status Inquiry
    File Number:  -1216348-7
    Corp. Name: THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.
    This Corporation is NOT in Good Standing for the following reasons:
    DELINQUENT ANNUAL REPORT 09/13/2011
    2011 ANNUAL REPORT WAS DUE ON 05/19/2011

     

    Next Annual Report Due: 05/19/2011

     Surprise, surprise, lots of Delinquent Reports, and two Dissolved/Reinstated.  I can’t paste too much from the AZ corporations site; it positions funny.

     

    Somehow, being delinquent, or even suspended status rarely seems to slow down these groups.  I recently ran across another one (with California links) called “ABOVE THE LINE”  — they run retreats, and marriage enrichment seminars, and (as I recall) the Tonkins were proud of their association with Dr. Phil.

    There is “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.” at the same (residential) address the Garcia’s (of AMFM), which ALSO appears to be not filing, but not yet IRS_suspended.  Here are the 990 reports:

    EIN# 460496745 

     

     

    ID Type Name
    10418500 CORPORATION ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.


      It got warnings about dissolution in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  It WAS dissolved the year after it formed — 2003, and reinstated.  What a mess — and these people are teaching us how NOT to get divorced?

    On 9/27/2005, they provided (finally!  Forms are available in a single click on-line, too!) the “Annual Report” for years 2003, 2004 & 2005, and were reinstated.

    By 12/11/2006, their status was pending again, but they managed to file a report by the following April, for the year 2006.  Three months later, they are again “status pending” and apparently didn’t respond.  Another 12 months, another notice, and still they didn’t respond.  So in 9/2008 they were dissolved – but got reinstated two months later (11/17/2008) probably by forking over the annual reports for 2007 and 2008.

    Is that the type of behavior (even for tiny grants) we want of an organization getting $103,000 of help/grants from the Government?

    Administrative Dissolution Date Administrative Dissolution Reason Reinstatement Date
    AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R  
    AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R 11/17/2008
    AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R 09/27/2005

    (But as of 7/2005, the same couple had already formed AMFM, above).

    Your query: ( Organization Name: None Chosen , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: 460496745 , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
    4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed) 

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2007 $5,464 990EZ 15 46-0496745
    Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2006 $2,498 990EZ 12 46-0496745
    Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2005 $800 990 17 46-0496745
    Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2002 $0 990 12 46-0496745

     

     And their 2005 filing explains WHY it pays to look at the IRS 990 filings!

    Government Grant (doesn’t show under this EIN via TAGGS) — $103,500

    Program Expenses:    (neat, eh?)  $102,845.

    Eric and Jennifer Garcia (husband/wife) are the unpaid directors of “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION INC.”

    “Part II line 43” expenses are explained, among other things as (statement 3):

    STATEMENT 3 SCHEDULE A, PART II,LINE 2 TRANSACTIONS WITH TRUSTEES ,DIRECTORS, ETC.

    THE ORGANIZATION PAID $100,000 TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GARCIA-TOOKER LLC, WHICH IS OWNED BY ERIC AND JENNIFER GARCIA. THE PAYMENT WAS FOR THE SPONSORSHIP OF TWO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONFERENCES DURING THE YEAR 2005.    

    I find the multiple corporate names in a few short years, and the shoddy incorporation history to be a little suspicious.  Where did the initial $103K come from and why is it not listed in TAGGS that I can see (I tried the EIN#)?

    Roughly translated, they paid themselves $100K (which is “Expenses”) to sponsor two marriage conferences (not named).  Because this is not a major amount, who is about to look it up, or go request the information?  But multiply this by how many such organizations are lining up to do exactly the same thing, and there goes our social services funding, nationwide, poured down the gullet of religious tax evaders and delinquent filers.

    Garcia-Tooker LLC DID exist, possibly in order to shift money to or from Above the Line  . . . and/or AMFM (the 2005forward version).  While I think Rev. Craig Kuehn of El Dorado Healthy Marriage (duration, one tax filing in 2006) simply wasn’t up to the corporate filings (he’s a Rev!) — this looks like more deliberate planning to move names and money around — and less honest.

    I looked this up.  From what I can tell, “GARCIA-TOOKER LLC” (these two) INCORPORATED  in JAN. 2004. One month later they changed their name to ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & MARRIAGE MINISTRIES, LLC.”  (may load microfilm image)….  In other words, by the time they’d published their incorporation, it was under a different name.  8 months later an agent resigned:  

     

     THIS LINKS TO THE GRAPHICS OF “ABOVE THE LINE” — what they are selling:  “http://marriagehelpcenters.com”  (see “Dr. Phil” connection).

    Their lnks are familiar by now — and some we know federally funded:  (photo is “Ron & Tina Konkin”)

     

     Ron & Tina Konkin

     Throughout the years that we’ve been providing our seminar and bootcamp services, we’ve aligned ourselves with many organizations and partners who share our commitment to helping people just like you. The following are just some of our affiliations, partnerships, and camaraderie.

     Among other things being sold is an “Exclusive Couples Retreat” (only $4,995) where one can learn to play games designed by Dr. Phil….Intensive Relationship Boot Camp is only $1,225. . (not including hotel, ca $109 group rate). . . . Don’t miss two upcoming in California . . . . . 

     

     

    GUIDESTAR regarding “Above the Line, Inc.,” a red-font alert to left of the listing, writes:  “This organization does not appear in the IRS’s most recent list of tax-exempt organizations. IRS records do not, however, indicate that the organization’s tax-exempt status has been revoked. Contact the organization for more information.”

     

     THERE”S MORE TO THIS MAZE:

     Apparently, Patty Howell (of “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS as incorporated in 2005) noticed that the “California Healthy Marriage” name was vacant, and registered as the owner of what is now a Fictitious Business name.  Or, they were working together, and notified each other, I don’t know.  I would never have found this without having gotten irritated enough to continue looking at the county level, where this is registered:  

       

     

    THESE CHANGES happened in 2009 & 2011:  http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca/us/services/fbn/search.aspx if the image doesn’t show below:
    San Diego “Fictitious Business” registration shows 3 trademarks of this group:
    But they want to sell me further details (forget it!)
    Records 1 – 3 of 3
    Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date
      …  Certified  Non-Certified 2009-019747 CALIFONIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 7/7/2009
      …  Certified  Non-Certified 2008-033480 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 10/22/2008
      …  Certified  Non-Certified 2009-019745 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROJECT CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 7/7/2009
    Notice that the “Coalition” is the “OWNER NAME.”  However, I happen to know that in the OAG site, it has a different name.  SEarching that, I found (notice dates),
    Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date
      …  Certified  Non-Certified 2011-002009 CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA STATEMENT 1/21/2011
    TO SUMMARiZE:  “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as a BUSINESS was incorporated by Patty Howell in 2005.  Think location “SAN DIEGO” (Leucadia).
       
    But as to being a (delinquent) charity, “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” actually resides in SACRAMENTO and is associated with (and credit is taken for it) by Carolyn Curtis.
         
    Yet the HHS/ACF appears to think that it’s still in Leucadia when reporting the 2011 grantees as “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” and “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (associated with Curtis) – as a separate group.       
       
    And I haven’t even gotten into “WorldClassMarriage.com” which is also Howell-Jones (who appear together on I forget which Board of Directors…..).
       
        
    Carolyn Curtis’ LinkedIn profile, however, relates Healthy Relationships (San Diego) with “Relationship Skills Center” (Sacramento), which is getting good press right now.
       
       (FROM LINKEDIN  page)
       

    Carolyn Curtis

    Executive Director and Founder, Healthy Marriage Project

    Sacramento, California Area 
    Nonprofit Organization Management
    Current
    Past
    Education
    • Alliant University
    • California State University-Sacramento
    • University of California, Davis
    Connections

    437 connections

    Websites
    • Personal Website
         
         
     
     
     
    Looking further at this detail, towards the bottom, its clear this organization is prosperous — both assets and revenues are increasing.  However, it is not filing RRFs or IRS forms with the
    Office of Attorney General, and FINALLY gets a mild slap on the wrist, dated April 2010 (Four years after it was awarded, and boasted that it was awarded, the largest EVER
    Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Grant.  I blogged it, too!    See this post (scroll down past the large chart):    
     
    LETS HAVE FUN ANALYZING THE ANALYSTS” and learn that the largest-ever grant went to a faith-based organization collaborating with 23 other faith-based organizations.
    In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.  Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California (from http://www.camarriage.com/about/index.ashx?nv=3)
    Their team includes (per website), Dennis Stoica, Patty Howell, and Ralph Jones, among others, such as Bento Leal (LinkedIN lists only this organization) despite college degree in 1973;
    Oh dear, it looks (see this) like he may have some connection with the Unification Church (see URL)?
    http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Leal/leal-marriage.htm
    “Bento Leal is the California Regional Coordinator of the American Leadership Conference, a project of the American Constitution Committee.”
     OH DEAR, YES.    Interrupting our “regularly scheduled program material,” let me speak to my (money trail / family court reform / blogging mothers) who don’t want to touch this
    topic with a 10-foot pole — that the incredible push for forcing marriage education on us DOES have a strong Unification Church origin (see also the CRC history page, website CRCKids.org, which actknowledges involvement).  THe phrase TRUE PARENTS” — refers to Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife.  I am sorry people don’t wish to touch this with at 10-foot pole, but I wish to nail it to that pole.  Does this perhaps answer why so many of these grantees smack of money-laundering traits, like it’s known the UC does?  ??
     
    this 2001 Excerpt from Bento Leal (never heard of the guy before) shows how they are going after inner city urban churches.  FOr more, go see Rick Ross sites, or others:   
       
    UNIFICATION TRAINER IN CHMC . . ..  

    Today Was A Very Special Day In California

    Bento Leal
    November 30, 2001

    Today was a very special day in California:

    Tonight (Thursday, Nov. 29) 800 people heard True Mother speak at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Oakland, CA.

    Program: Delicious dinner, songs by the Redeemed Convicts for Christ, then Rev. Jenkins greeted everyone, later he introduced Arhbishop Stallings who gave an uplifting introduction of True Mother, who read her speech with warmth and grace. Afterwards flowers and plaques were given to Mother. Mother then presented 3 of the gold watches to leading ministers and she also presented 8 framed Ambassador for Peace certificates to selected leaders. The program went very well and the audience was very appreciative of the entire event. Afterward, there was a lively victory celebration with hookup to True Father at East Garden for singing and testimony.

    Earlier in the day was an afternoon ILC that featured 70 people (40 guests and 30 UC members). Several Ambassadors for Peace attended the ILC. Northern California has awarded 90 Ambassadors for Peace representing clergy, educators, community organization leaders, journalists, and others. Dr. Frank Kaufman presented the IIFWP material very eloquently and professionally and was followed by Imam Qasmi of the Muslim community of Sacramento who strongly praised TPs for their work to promote strong marriages and families, and bring unity among the faiths. Though he is fasting for Ramadan, he drove the 2 hours from Sacramento just to present his 15 minute talk to our group. He immediately drove back to officiate services in his mosque.

    We then had a presentation by our local WFWP chairwoman. After the break, a sister read the HDH material on Marriage for our AFC session, which was followed by Rev. Lawrence Van Hook speaking strongly about the importance of a God-centered marriage.

    One special feature of the day was a visit by Archbishop Stallings and a few of us with Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland. We presented him with a nicely framed Ambassador for Peace certificate in his office. He was impressed with our work and has fond memories of working with us over the years. He asked us to help him with tutors for struggling students in a military academy for 7th graders that he set up in Oakland. We said that we would help him.

    Archbishop Stallings was also able to bring Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland. Rev. Smith is a foremost leader among the clergy in Oakland. This was the first time he had attended a speech with TPs, {{TRUE PARENTS, get it?}} so this was a HUGE breakthrough. Mother presented him with a watch for all of the wonderful work he is doing for the city of Oakland. The door is now open for us to work more closely with him.

    CHMC site describes Bento Leal’s background including working with a different set of federal grants in SF:  HERE IT IS:

    Bento Leal
    Implementation Specialist
    Bento@CaMarriage.com
    510.333.3478

    Bento has worked in the field of marriage- and family-strengthening for the past 20 years. Before joining CHMC staff, he worked with Federal grants in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area to provide life skills mentoring to ex-offenders and to help build family-strengthening capacity of small or emerging faith-based and community organizations.  Bento is a trainer in several Marriage Education curricula, including Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML).  Bento’s primary assignments with CHMC are to teach MML leadership workshops and provide technical assistance to newly-trained MML facilitators so they are successful in organizing and conducting MML classes.  Bento and his wife, Kimiko, have been married for 25 years.

      
    Fiscal Begin:
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
    Total Assets: $334,155.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $3,232,190.00
    RRF Received: 15-MAR-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: N
    Status: Accepted
    Related Documents
    00000550 CT-550  **{{THIS IS THE LETTER OF DELINQUENCY.  CHECK IT OUT!}}
    1056740 IRS Form 990 2008
    1056741 RRF-1 2007
    57272 RRF-1 2008
    Prerequisite Information
    No Prerequisite Information
    IRS Return Data
    This letter, citing the same CTFILE# you see above, is dated APRIL 2010, and says only, Please, if you would, pay the $150 annual fee (and is silent about the missing material from 2006-2010)

    CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION

    1045 PASSIFLORA AVE. ENCINITAS CA 92024

    RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

    April 5, 2010

    The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

    1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

    In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587

    WHY was there no interest in the previous year’s filings?   Hmmmm??
    Regarding Dennis Stoica (first listed as CHMC staff), here is the corporate business search results on “California Healthy Marriage” (singular):
    I realize the “Agent” column may not display and suggest readers do their own search at http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx
    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CHRIS GRIER
    C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
    C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
    C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
    C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
    C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
    C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
    C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
    C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
    C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS
    NOW — understanding that “CHMC” doesn’t exist (as an entity, at least), and HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS does, although not legally, here’s the
    business search on “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS.”  Keeping it straight:  for incorporation — go to secretary of state site.  For Charitable Registry (nonprofits) —
    go to the Attorney General’s (OAG) site.  Because Californians deserve to know whether people knocking at their doors, soliciting by email, through their churches,
    or the YMCA, or anywhere else, when claiming to be a charitable organization, actually are, and are not just ‘take the money and run” outfits.
    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
    C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
    C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS DARRYL HARRISON
    C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH
    Notice the dates (also, the Oakland Berkeley Initiative is not current on its charitable registration, I think).
    Patty Howell is listed as staff at CHMC (nonexistant).  The address for “healthy relationships california” is listed — actually NOT listed if you mean street address also, and matches what the US, TAGGS database calls “California Healthy Marriage Coalition.”
    Entity Name: HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA
    Entity Number: C2746528
    Date Filed: 05/13/2005
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: (SAME AS ABOVE)
    Entity City, State, Zip: LEUCADIA CA 92024
    Agent for Service of Process: PATTY HOWELL
    Agent Address: 1045 PASSIFLORA AVE
    Agent City, State, Zip: LEUCADIA CA 92024
    Let’s move on.  I hope you are sufficiently alarmed by now, but if not, “I’ll be back!”

       Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 53211

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0043 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,779,393 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,779,393

    Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0005 SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 79930

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0045 HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,945 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,945

    Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45405

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0046 MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    {{NOTE:  I look at this one below, simply because $2.5 million is a definite vote of confidence from HHS.  For the record, the total HHS grants recorded for this group show as: $17 million.  It’s pulling in Abstinence Funding, and is the lead agency in the multi-county “Marriage Works!” above.  Something tells me our HHS doesn’t want too much fertility among the TANF recipients; it will starve them out I guess by diverting funds into

    get-rich-quick grants on anyone producing abstinence is best curricula.}}

     

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER  DAYTON OH 45405 MONTGOMERY 101653447 $ 17,272,584



     

               Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0048 CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,070,834 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,070,834

    Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0047 TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,163,684 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,163,684

    Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 725,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

    Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77006

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0017 HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 698,102 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 698,102

    Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
    Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0027 STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,780,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,780,000

    Recipient: Future Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0013 REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,000

    Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 22182

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0024 FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,599 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,599

    Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0020 JUST THE FACTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 681,956 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 681,956

    Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0049 STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 535,082 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 535,082

    Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97220

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0015 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 492,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 492,000

    Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,000

    Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 72761

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0023 HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 724,428 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 724,428

    Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
    Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,993 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,993

    Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 96819

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0012 KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,752 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,752

    Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0050 KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0004 THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,380 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,380

    Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40066

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0036 MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 344,904 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 344,904

    Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60187-4579

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0051 MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Mission West Virginia, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 25526

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0052 N/A 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 683,935 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 683,935

    Recipient: More Than Conquerors Inc
    Recipient ZIP Code: 300835318

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0053 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,798 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,798

    Recipient: NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90746

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0055 NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,308 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,308

    Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 88003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0037 NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97213-2933

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 1,395,000 
    2011 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,395,000

    Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 73125

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0032 THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 776,304 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 776,304

    Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 44087-1654

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0056 MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,054 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,054

    Recipient: PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10023

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0025 PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 618,768 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 618,768

    Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 32216-6241

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0033 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 672,703 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 672,703

    Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 73116-7909

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0026 FAMILY EXPECTATIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Parenting Center (The)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 76107

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0031 EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 797,093 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 797,093

    Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 33157-5372

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0028 RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,230 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,230

    Recipient: STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 39759-2803

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0035 BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 699,874 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 699,874

    Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95821

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,825 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,825
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 48,511,440
    Total of 70 Award Actions for 60 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 60,296,527

    (NEXT PAGE of the SAME SERIES):

    Unfortunately, the next page will not display on this simple search allowing me to find the remaining 10 grantees.  I managed to get 68 awards to show

    under “Advanced Search,” keying in nothing but the same “90FM” under awards — and got basically the rest, but without the HTML links.  Here are those 68, and I’ll highlight where the above listing.  I”m glad I did — because notice that the Principal INvestigator field has a strange showing, i.e., someone possibly didn’t type in the {Principal Investigator’s) last name — but the first name twice, meaning if you searched the database by that field, you’d miss the Public Strategies, Inc. $2.5 million (new) grant, and several others.  There is a LOT of this type of inexplicable typo or other screwup activity (like failing to enter a DUNS# where there is one) in TAGGS, sometimes I wonder why:

    Note that “DIBBLE FUND” here shows up alpha under “The” (such a database, eh?) towards the end.  I am going to publish this post, and take a personal Time Out” to cool off, after having learned more than the public was intended to know about, for example, the California Healthy Marriages Act” and how it’s apparently gone through a few incorporations and name changes.  Or how there is one person on three of the grantees’ boards below, and the website (she) is listed as “founding” is under about a fourth business name ,not shown below and whose corporation status, trademark registration, or listing of “we changed the company name” I haven’t caught up with.  One address (including suite#) seems to match two of the organizations below.     Notice also that the Colorado-based “WAIT Training” (near bottom of the list) — which appears to be its legitimate corporate name, although its website claims to have said the “new” name is Center for Relationship Education (but no namechange was filed) shows up under the ACF/HHS listing of “2011 grantees” not under “WAIT training” but instead under “Center for Relationship Education.”

    All in all, it seems that many obstacles are in place to non-federal grantee recipients, like a person actually just wanting to know!, in tracking single organizations.

    I have already mocked the grandiose schemes and language of both this California Healthy Marriage Coalition (and warned us about it) before, along with the Dibble Fund, whose goal is to educate EVERYONE over the age of 14 who has, may have, or is in some other way potentially fertile male or female — existed in the State of California, and educate them (at public expense) on marriage.  Search “Leucadia” on my blog to find it.

    They are connected at the hip with WAIT Training (or at least Joneen MacKenzie) which is basically a religious — VERY religious — abstinence education group out of Colorado.  And a brand-new association (that they’re advertising) called “NARME” which I looked up, it’s in Tallahassee, Florida, and on the board are some of the groups below.    I’m getting tired of all this nonsense, as well as alarmed at what appears to be overt tolerance of federal grantees that form shell front groups, take the money, and either pull a chameleon or simply disappear (and I have one of those to show, also — not on this list, because they disappeared back in 2006).

    ///

    ADVANCED SEARCH RESULTS

    Results 1 to 68 of 68 matches.
    Excel Icon
    Page 1 of 1
      
    Grantee Name State County Award Number Award Title Budget Year Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    AUBURN UNIVERSITY AL LEE 90FM0006 ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) 1 NEW FRANCESCA M FRANCESCA $ 2,489,548
    AVANCE, INC TX HARRIS 90FM0041 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 NEW MARTHA MARTHA $ 799,999
    Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages TX DALLAS 90FM0018 ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. 1 NEW COSETTE COSETTE $ 1,514,359
    Arizona Youth Partnership AZ PIMA 90FM0030 BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. 1 NEW DANIEL DANIEL $ 634,536
    BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER OH HAMILTON 90FM0029 BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS 1 NEW NATHANIEL NATHANIEL $ 799,999
    BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES MI KENT 90FM0011 BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) 1 NEW NONYEM A NONYEM $ 799,996
    CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC CA LOS ANGELES 90FM0034 MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT 1 NEW KIMTHAI KIMTHAI $ 570,000
    CATHOLIC CHARITIES KS SEDGWICK 90FM0042 PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 NEW MARTHA L MARTHA $ 1,445,587
    CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON NJ MERCER 90FM0016 EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 NEW RONALD RONALD $ 555,300
    CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY PA CLEARFIELD 90FM0003 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) 1 NEW BONNIE BONNIE $ 354,714
    COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY PA BERKS 90FM0044 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW CHERYL CHERYL $ 787,665
    CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER AZ MARICOPA 90FM0021 TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ 1 NEW GUILLE GUILLE $ 359,796
    California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA SAN DIEGO 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW PATTY PATTY{{probably Patty Howell”}} $ 2,500,000
    Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc. WI MILWAUKEE 90FM0043 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED 1 NEW JEANETTE JEANETTE $ 1,779,393
    Community Marriage Builders, Inc. IN VANDERBURGH 90FM0005 SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. 1 NEW JOHN JOHN $ 799,999
    EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN TX EL PASO 90FM0045 HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT 1 NEW LEONARD LEONARD $ 799,945
    ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER{{Abortion Alternatives}}** OH MONTGOMERY 90FM0046 MARRIAGE WORKS!OHIO COLLABORATIVE{{known fatherhood collaboration: see below 1 NEW GREG GREG $ 2,500,000
    FIRST THINGS FIRST TN HAMILTON 90FM0048 CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY 1 NEW DEBORAH DEBORAH $ 1,070,834
    Family Guidance, Inc.{{evangelistic– see 10/9/2011 post}} PA ALLEGHENY 90FM0047 TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH**PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION(**LLP formed in 2009 to do this) 1 NEW ROBERT L ROBERT $ 1,163,684 
    Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. NC WAKE 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 1 NEW KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
    Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County TX HARRIS 90FM0017 HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 NEW TIM TIM $ 698,102
    Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center  IN MARION 90FM0027 STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS  1 NEW ROBERT ROBERT $ 1,780,000
    Future Foundation GA FULTON 90FM0013 REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS 1 NEW QAADIRAH QAADIRAH $ 685,000
    GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES VA FAIRFAX 90FM0024 FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS 1 NEW LAURA A LAURA $ 799,599
    Healthy You, Inc. AL HOUSTON 90FM0020 JUST THE FACTS 1 NEW MARY A MARY $ 681,956
    High Country Consulting LLC WY LARAMIE 90FM0049 STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 NEW KATHLEEN KATHLEEN $ 535,082
    IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION OR MULTNOMAH 90FM0015 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT 1 NEW LEE P LEE $ 492,000
    Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program CA IMPERIAL 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 NEW MARY MARY $ 799,000
    JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY AR BENTON 90FM0023 HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 NEW APRIL APRIL $ 724,428
    Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, FL SARASOTA 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 NEW ROSE ROSE $ 799,993
    KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC. HI HONOLULU 90FM0012 KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES 1 NEW MOMI MOMI $ 798,752
    Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. KY MADISON 90FM0050 KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW VICKI VICKI $ 799,999
    MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY  OH CLARK 90FM0004 THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 1 NEW RONDA M RONDA $ 798,380
    MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC KY SHELBY 90FM0036 MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM 1 NEW PAT PAT $ 344,904
    Meier Clinics Foundation IL DU PAGE 90FM0051 MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE 1 NEW NANCY NANCY $ 2,500,000
    Mission West Virginia, Inc. WV PUTNAM 90FM0052 N/A 1 NEW TORRI TORRI $ 683,935
    More Than Conquerors Inc GA DE KALB 90FM0053 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 NEW PHILLIPIA PHILLIPIA $ 798,798
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 1 NEW MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 899,694
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 2 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 200,000
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 2 EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $- 962,992
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 2 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 699,755
    NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH  2 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 450,000
    NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS CA LOS ANGELES 90FM0055 NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW JUNE JUNE $ 685,308
    NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY NM DONA ANA 90FM0037 NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW ESTHER ESTHER $ 799,999
    NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES OR MULTNOMAH 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) ROSE ROSE $ 0
    NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES OR MULTNOMAH 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 NEW ROSE ROSE $ 1,395,000
    OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OK OKLAHOMA 90FM0032 THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS 1 NEW MARY JO MARY JO $ 776,304
    OPERATION KEEPSAKE OH SUMMIT 90FM0056 MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS 1 NEW PEGGY S PEGGY $ 798,054
    PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC NY NEW YORK 90FM0025 PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS 1 NEW NAOMI NAOMI $ 618,768
    PROJECT S.O.S., INC. FL DUVAL 90FM0033 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 NEW PAM PAM $ 672,703
    PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC  OK OKLAHOMA 90FM0026 FAMILY EXPECTATIONS 1 NEW SAMMYE SAMMYE $ 2,500,000 
    Parenting Center (The) TX TARRANT 90FM0031 EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT 1 NEW JENNIFER JENNIFER $ 797,093
    RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC. FL 90FM0028 RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. 1 NEW JACQUELINE JACQUELINE $ 799,230
    STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT MS OKTIBBEHA 90FM0035 BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES 1 NEW JOAN JOAN $ 699,874
    Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  CA SACRAMENTO 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 NEW CAROLYN CAROLYN $ 798,825
    Scholarship and Guidance Association IL COOK 90FM0038 FAMILY LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM 1 NEW MARTHA MARTHA $ 794,180
    Shalom Task Force NY NEW YORK 90FM0008 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN NYC AREA 1 NEW DANIEL DANIEL $ 541,633
    TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS TX HAYS 90FM0007 STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS/STRENGTHENING FAMILIES (SR/SF) 1 NEW W. SCOTT W. SCOTT $ 617,280
    TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY TX LUBBOCK 90FM0002 NATIONAL HEALTHLY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER  1 NEW JAMES D MITCHELL $ 512,993
    THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  CA ALAMEDA 90FM0010 BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES 1 NEW CATHERINE M CATHERINE $ 794,846
    TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES OH LUCAS 90FM0040 KEEPING IT TOGETHER 1 NEW DONNA DONNA $ 799,999
    UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES NY BRONX 90FM0057 UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES MARRIAGE & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAM 1 NEW SCOTT SCOTT $ 799,999
    UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA  FL ORANGE 90FM0039 PROJECT TOGETHER  1 NEW ANDREW ANDREW $ 2,184,508
    UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE TN KNOX 90FM0022 RELATIONSHIP RX: INTEGRATING A COUPLES INTERVENTION PROGRAM INTO A PRIMARY CARE SETTING 1 NEW DEBBIE DEBBIE $ 723,508
    UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT CACHE 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) BRAIN J BRAIN $ 0
    UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT CACHE 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH 1 NEW BRAIN J BRAIN $ 785,612
    WAIT Training  CO DENVER  90FM0054 THE COLORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT  1 NEW JONEEN JONEEN $ 1,605,705
    YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC OK CANADIAN 90FM0058 SAFE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH 1 NEW TRACY TRACY $ 338,367

    **”Elizabeth’s New Life Center has a logo:  the Elizabeth in question was the mother of John the Baptist, (per Bible), the cousin of Jesus and prophet heralding his coming.  Another overtly Christian group, million$$ grant.  This one looks pretty Roman Catholic….

    http://www.elizabethnewlife.org/

    In 1989, Steve and Vivian Koob, along with their church, founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center (ENLC) as a compassionate response and option to the abortion clinic operating in their neighborhood. ENLC opened its first office in the Five Oaks neighborhood of the city of Dayton to serve pregnant women facing unexpected pregnancies.

    I am glad that Steve and Vivian Koob founded an organization to follow their vision (I suppose).  However, according to the State of Ohio, it was founded as a nonprofit, at least, in 1992, not 1989.  The evidence is here: (because of “paste” function, business name doesn’t display.  LINK to search is here; remember to include the “S” in “ELIZABETHS”)   [Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State Business Name Search]

    832233 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 11/30/1992 11/01/2012 Active DAYTON MONTGOMERY OHIO

    ELIZABETH’s NEW LIFE CENTER BUSINESS FILING — see dates.

    1994-1NorthMain_web

    In 1994, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased a vacant building beside the abortion clinic and renovated it into a women’s center with medical capabilities. The following year ENLC opened its first Mother and Baby Boutique to provide needy clients with material assistance to establish family life, and in 1999 began providing abstinence education services to schools in an effort to expand efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.

    Not mentioned:  Abstinence education not proven to reduce teen pregnancies, in fact it’s been an abysmal failure from what I hear.

    About that same time, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased and renovated a medical building on Forest Avenue in front of Grandview Hospital’s emergency room. That facility currently houses administrative offices, Women’s Center-Dayton, Holy Family Prenatal Care, classrooms, a nutrition center, and a chapel accessible to both clients and staff.

    ENLC continued its growth as the youth development department was awarded highly competitive federal grants to provide abstinence education to area schools in 2002, 2005, and 2008. In 2006, Elizabeth’s New Life Center also was awarded one of the largest federal healthy marriage demonstration grants in the country to establish Marriage Works! Ohio and offer marriage education across Southwestern Ohio.

    COngress shall make no law establishing a religion.  They don’t have to any more.  All that’s needed is to fund corporations that did.  No Thank You, George Bush!)

    Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”

    The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued two executive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.”[1]

    Government by Executive Order, it’s definitely problemmatic.  We’re in it. 

    I should get this ebook, published 2008, in anticipation of Presidential Election:  The Court and the Cross, by Frederick Lane

    Front Cover

    Today Elizabeth’s New Life Center operates from six women’s centers, three in Dayton and ones in Warren, Hamilton, and Shelby counties. The Dayton boutique (??) continues to operate from the Five Oaks building, and Marriage Works! Ohio operates from a facility on Main Street in Dayton.

    TO CLARIFY MY POSITION:  My viewpoint on abortion changed considerably after (1) I became a mother, and (2) I had to deal with a jealous relative who’d opted for abortion, then went after my kids.   Before then I was far more liberal and neutral.  However I STILL do not think we should allow religious groups to take government funding for abstinence education.  Then again I don’t think the Federal Government should be in so deep into education either– first of all, because their model is antiquated and based on authoritarianism and designed to slow down children from learning, and to keep the lower castes in place.  YES, I believe that.  A lot more arts (etc.) education would go further to dealing with literacy and math (not to mention probably violence) issues in the schools, but as fate? would have it, the opposite approach is taken.  I see the schools as a caste-sorter, by economics and race, and so do statistics.  Be that as it may, this organization has prospered because of then-President George Bush, and his decision to break down church/state.

    This organization has several trade names, had a merger or so, and the original incorporator (registered agent) was from a law firm out of “10 Courthouse Plaza” in Dayton.  I can’t upload the articles of incorporation (at this point).   And I don’t see they are filing in my 990-finder, an E perhaps TAGGS will give me a nice DUNS#, but usually duns# only show on TAGGS if you can search by EIN, which I (haven’t found yet).  THey are most definitely soliciting donations on the web. The board of 12 has 3 women on it (only) one of who is the Warren County (OH) Prosecutor  Another board member is the County Auditor.

    Vivian Koob (one of the two founders) has a bio also showing a connection with State Government (and pro-life activism):

    Vivian Koob
    Executive Director

    Vivian Koob founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center with her husband Steve in 1989. Vivian holds a Master of Education degree as well as a Master in Rehabilitative Counseling. Before founding Elizabeth’s New Life Center she taught high school and spent 12 years working for the State of Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. She also spent years as a stay-at-home mom for her large family of natural, adopted and foster children. The Koobs’ blended family includes 12 living children and 16 grandchildren.

    One of their programs listed, “Marriage Works!” (a trade name of this group, its Ohio SOS records say) includes “FE grants,” i.e. clear Fatherhood emphasis:

    Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant:  90FE0035.  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Participation in all Marriage Works! Ohio programs is voluntary.

    View Our Privacy Notice
    Copyright 2008, Marriage Works! Ohio.  

    While MARRIAGE WORKS! is a collaboration, This ELIZABETH NEW LIFE center is the “Lead Agency,” according to the website, which is soliciting donations.  WHO HOLDS THE EIN#?

    Marriage Works! Ohio - About Us

    Marriage Works! Ohio is a collaborative effort of diverse organizations united to help build healthy families and healthy communities throughout the Miami Valley of Ohio by providing marriage and relationship education for couples.   


    SIX Counties are involved in “Marriage Works!”  Among the other agencies is a “Family Violence Prevention Center.”

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

    Family Violence Prevention Center of Greene County

    The focus will be on family preservation through treatment, and stopping battering through training the batterer.  People get killed that way, but this is how the field of DV has been altered (a sea-change) to accommodate the Marriage/Fatherhood agenda.  And as I will be showing NEXT post, the groups doing this are many times chronically dishonest, and sometimes crooks, when characterizing WHO THEY ARE as an organization.

    • DIVERT:  Xenia and County DIVERT crisis response in collaborative partnerships with law enforcement jurisdictions throughout Greene County to offer home and community based services to families experiencing domestic disputes or domestic violence
      Jackie Weckesser, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 26
      Jennifer Henderson, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 27
    • Domestic Violence Intervention Program: (DVIP) , therapeutic and educational group counseling for batterers working to prevent future cycles of violence. Fee for service
      Cherie Dixon, DV Intervention Counselor, 937-376-8526 ext. 31

    At the bottom of this “DIVERT” page are the links showing possibly origins or technical support in setting up the web.  I notice NCADV is one.  Upcoming post on them, too:

    Privacy Policy | Donate | Contact | Apply for a Job | Apply to Volunteer
    NCADV.org | NRCDV.org | NDVH.org | ODVN.org

    This brochure shows how one organization, when it added considerable funding, became more and more entrenched in the County Government, got a spanking new building in 2000, named after the donor (what takes place in it, who knows) and probably have not YET told any women coming for help, or totally traumatized that in the same approximate year, the Ohio Legislature created a “Fatherhood Commission” and required that it targeted counties with a lot of single-mother households (probably to get access to the TANF funds that go with them).

    It began as a shelter, before VAWA and probably many laws against domestic violence had even been passed.

    The Greene County Domestic Violence Project began as a two-bedroom apartment in Yellow Springs in 1979 as a project of the Greene County Welfare Department. In 1980, the agency incorporated as a private, not for profit corporation and the shelter moved to its first house in Xenia, which had one staff and several students. The project relocated twice more until 1984 when it settled into its long-term site in a large Victorian House in the Water Street District of Xenia where it remained until 2001.

    It morphed into a mental health agency and a new facility:

    And, in 1995 the Xenia Police Division and GCDVP collaborated to form a nationally recognized program entitled DIVERT that partners law enforcement with domestic violence crisis workers for home based follow-up. Today, DIVERT services are being made available throughout Greene County and the agency has been able to operate satellite educational programs in Fairborn.

    Violence Free Futures….

    In 1997 the agency began to set a goal to secure a new facility and requested the help of the community. Seventeen community leaders formed the Shelter Facility Task Force and began to search for a site for the new facility. The Board decided to mortgage the aging property and invest the loan to begin a capital campaign which would require that the agency hire a Development Officer. The Shelter Facility Task force located a potential site, the Xenia Grace Chapel which was up for sale

    (“Violence-Free Futures” is echoes of the wording from one of the major resource centers, formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund, now “Futures without Violence.”  As such, it focuses on prevention through education [[which has NOT been shown to work]] — which of course it will help provide.)

    (reading this brochure, and recognizing what it represents, I am feeling a little sick….)

    Or that there was an Ohio Task Force on “Changing the Culture of Custody” which was basically AFCC-central, and even flew membership out to Arizona to take input from such membership, including prominent “Parental Alienation” promoter (and published author marketing books through the courts also), Philip Stahl Ph.D.

    It was named after one of the County Commissioners, in fact the President of the County Commissioners:

    The Greene County Commissioners The Hon. Kathryn K. Hagler, Pres. 61 Greene Street Xenia, Ohio 45385 (name at bottom of link having been served of a certain notice on a civic project):

    Hon. Hagler has been involved with the Governor’s Child Support Task Force.  As Child Support — at this point — has been re-tooled and adjusted to accommodate “Fatherhood” (see Clinton 1995 Executive Memo, etc.) — and child support offices throughout the nation, it seems (Indiana comes esp. to mind) to solicit participation in fatherhood programs (see above grantees) under — extortion, at times — in exchange for participating in prolonged custody battles they may not even want — etc. – – – – – This would seem to me a mild conflict of interest, at a minimum.

    Here’s the blurb on the woman the building is named after:

    KATHRYN K. HAGLER 

    Kathryn K. Hagler began her 19th year (third year of a fifth term) as a Greene County Commissioner with the start of the year 2001. Prior to her service to Greene County, Mrs. Hagler was a school teacher for 35 years. In 1982, she began a new phase in her life when she became Greene County’s first female County Commissioner. During her time as a Commissioner, Mrs. Hagler helped initiate a program in which retired teachers volunteer their time to assist Greene County jail inmates work toward their general (high school) equivalency diplomas. Awards and recognitions Mrs. Hagler has received include: the Paula J. Macilwaine Award (for her GED program), the Ervin J. Nutter Award (for her service to the community), the Senior Citizen of the Year Award from the Golden Age Senior Citizens Center, and recognition from the Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and the Women’s Hall of Fame. Over the years she has been involved with Greene County United Way, American Business Women’s Association, the Governor’s Child Support Task Force, the Altrusa Club, and Greene County Domestic Violence. Mrs. Hagler is very committed to families and children of domestic violence. Because of that commitment, Mrs. Hagler and her family were the largest donors to the capital campaign for victims of domestic violence. On June 1, 2000, the Greene County Domestic Violence Project named their new facility after Mrs. Hagler for her commitment. The Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Prevention Center is scheduled to officially open on June 12, 2001.

    Fathers and Families is very active in Ohio, it says here, and rejoices about advances it has won in the Child Support arena.  The article following this one rejoices at a nonpaying mother being thrown in jail for nonpayment, as it encourages the opposite for fathers:

    F & F’s Hubin Praises Ohio Child Support Changes in Columbus Dispatch

    Monday, September 26th, 2011 by FAF Staff

    columbus-dispatch-icon

    Donald Hubin, Ph.D., Chairman of Fathers and Families of Ohio’s Executive Committee, was quoted in Child- support changes arrive: New provisions give struggling parents leniency(9/25/11) in the Columbus Dispatch, a 200,000 circulation newspaper in Ohio’s capital.

    Under the new Ohio policies, for which Fathers and Families has advocated and supports, child support enforcement agencies will not be able to seize the driver’s licenses or professional licenses of any obligors who are paying at least half of their child support obligations. Given the terrible economy, and the fact that many obligors’ obligations are not being modified downward to accommodate for their lower wages and/or job losses, this is an important measure.

    Kimberly C. Newsom, executive director of the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agencies Directors’ Association, (OCDA) said the laws have been flexible and enforcement efforts have changed as the sinking economy made it harder for many parents to pay support.

    “As Ohio started going into an economic recession, counties weren’t suspending licenses as much. They were working with parents and trying to assist them with employment or getting them into work programs to try and get them employed,” Newsom said.

    In Franklin County, parents are often referred to job training or co-parenting classes, said Susan Brown, director of the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency.

    I’ll bet they ARE being referred to co-parenting classes which will definitely help feed hungry children and increase the income in whoever is raising them. (sure, yeah).  I’m sure a single mother whose Dad is behind in child support would rather have a co-parenting class (mothers are solicited to attend too, you know!) than the child support.  Particularly if there was domestic violence in the marriage or partnership previously.    .

    My Prior Post with some research on Franklin County, OPNFF, OHIO fatherhood initiative, and more of these matters  (Scroll down).

    Link at “Columbus Urban League” — A.A.M.I. (African-American Males Initiative) shows some of the partners and funders — and referrers to classes.  This is Franklin County:

    Father 2 Father

    Columbus Urban League
    African-American Male Initiatives

    Black Father

    Mission
    To assist men in becoming the instinctive, responsible, & nurturing fathers they desire to be. While also, educating the general public on the unique, important, & essential role that Fathers play in the development of their children.

    Scope of Services
    Provide a classroom curriculum that develops the attitudes and skills needed for responsible fatherhood and helping men discover and cultivate their nurturing potential. Assistance with issues regarding child support, visitation, and family law matters, ultimately advocating for policy change/implementation that make these very areas more father friendly.

    Partners
    Columbus Urban League’s (CUL) – African-American Male Initiatives (A.A.M.I.)
    Columbus Urban League’s Head Start
    Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OFC)
    Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCSEA)
    Ohio Practitioners Network of Fathers & Families (OPNFF)
    Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Family & Volunteer Services)

    Target Audience
    Class Curriculum – ‘Nurturing Father’
    African-American fathers between the ages of 16-35 referred by CUL Head Start, Franklin County Child Enforcement Agency & Juvenile Court System. There will be a dual class format (One AM – One PM) on 3 month cycles. Each class will consist of 12-15 fathers giving us the ability to serve 100 fathers per calendar year.

    Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Center, or No Family Violence Center — GREENE COUNTY is highly involved (and vice versa) with the “National Fatherhood Initiative” (NFI started in 1994 with a cronyism-based grant from Wade Horn before he quit HHS, like JUST before), with the Greene County Child SUpport system, and with Green County Commissioners.

    Here’s a recent link to their 2011 goings-on, which was apparently prepared in part with another PR firm who has made it big by going with the Fatherhood Flow:  “PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.” (see my post on PSI in Denver vs. PSI in Denver), which runs (I think) the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, in large part.

    A Rapid Ethnographic Assessment of Programs & Services (REAPS)

    for Fathers in Greene County, Ohio

    Prepared By:

    With Contributions From:

    Public Strategies, Inc. Ohio State University Extension—Greene County

    An Initiative of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood

    April 2011

    In part, it reads:

    Introduction

    The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OCF) has partnered with National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) in 2011 to assist 12 Ohio counties mobilize around responsible fatherhood. Greene County was one of the 12 counties selected to participate in this Community Mobilization Initiative.

    Of course, this is going to start out with the usual blather blaming society’s ills (by omission, by deduction) on single mother households.  Not being honest enough to call it this — they call it “father absence”  Women exist, as nouns, in this dialogue, implicitly, primarily as the brood mares.

    Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.1

    As of April 2011, and based on my reading of what these grants are doing (and how they have changed the courts) that poverty could be attributable about as much to the war on single mothers which this rhetoric has waged, as much as  not having a Daddy in the home, per se.  Some Daddys need to get OUT of the home, because they are violent; others refuse to work while they are living WITH their kids, preferring instead to let mothers do it.  There are varieties of families and varieties of Daddy-in-the-home scenarios, as well as a huge variety of Daddy NOT in the home scenarios.

    None of this centralization and collaboration (taxation WITHOUT appropriate representation, or informed public consent) accounts for OR allows the true diversity of ways there are to earn a living, raise (and educate) a child, or escape poverty WITHOUT being forced into high-stakes, high-conflict custody litigation, and paying heavily into the system that — by its own words, and I can see plainly by state on-line databases — doesn’t even account for money it takes from children, while diverting child support enforcement monies (that pesky $4 billion) away from actually distributing child support they have collected.  I truly do believe that our country would be better off — ENTIRELY — without this whole agency, based on its track record.

    If I as an employer had a track record that lousy, I’d definitely be fired.  Instead, I was taken repeatedly out of paying jobs where my work was needed and appreciated (as a single mother) to answer frivolous lawsuits in a process where no cause of action was ever proved, let alone most of the time even alleged.

    Children who grow up without their fathers are at greatest risk for child abuse. In fact, the presence of a child’s father in the home lowers the likelihood that a child will be abused. Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.9 There were 1,436 new allegations of child abuse/neglect in Greene County in 2009.1

    Any allegation is OK when it comest o justifying more county-absed or state-based “interventions” in private lives.  The fact is, Dads do abuse children — where in this statement is such an acknowledgment?  And where, in the group of “single-parent home” where child abuse was alleged — is the separation of ten these into cases where the child abuse was by the custodial mother (or her boyfriend) — versus the child abuse and/or MURDER (after which child abuse ceases because the child is dead, sometimes along with the father/abuser)   — and those where the child abuse happened on a court-ordered weekend enabled by the access/visitation (or other father-involvement) program.  Although these children were “living” in single-parent homes, the abuse happened from ONE parent, and the other one complying with court orders — again, at times.

    I have been talking here about a Marriage/Fatherhood County grantee — they got $2.5 million in 2011 alone — based in Warren County OHIO, who turns out to e a pro-life, Catholic-based group (adamantly so) that has targeted abortion clinics and hospitals to get their message out.  IT turns out that two on the board of this organization work for Warren County, and then the Executive Director has worked for the state.  I think that any group getting $2.5 million (or over $1 million) in this economic climate should not only be watched but scrutinized — because that amount indicates the Secretary of HHS and public policy has another “brainstorm” of some idea, and is throwing money behind it.

    While this one appears to have stayed legitimate and above-board, many (on the list above here, the TAGGS chart) absolutely have not.  We have GOT to stop this ongoing trotting out of fatherhood rhetoric to enable more grants — which are not tracked.  EVERY SINGLE EIN# should be posted and public be enabled to find out whether their websites are telling the truth about an organization.  FAILURE TO FILE is a red flag  I can’t talk about this group yet, until I see an IRS form (even if they have been a church to start with, as an organization taking federal grants, they should have an EIN — and they really should also have a DUNS#, enabling us to look for contracts, too, and outside the HHS).

    This one also appears to be heavily networked with a group that believes domestic violence can be stopped through marriage and relationship education (that’s the model).  This education is often going to happen through the web, therefore once set up, it will be having a low overhead, and turn profits for someone.  We deserve to know WHO, as they go about solving the problems of poor people!

    For the record, then, and in light of “Elizabeth’s New Life Center” (Inc. 1992, not 1989, and having several registered trade names also) being the lead agency of “Marriage Works!” a multi-county collaborative, and every single one of their websites (almost) soliciting donations, here is who in Greene County Ohio (where a Commissioner got a building named after her, by donating so much to it), was ALSO collaborating to RAPIDLY MOBILIZE more fatherhood STUFF:

    Greene County Leader Focus Group Results

    The Greene County focus group on fatherhood was attended by nineteen individuals representing a diverse cross section of the community and included representatives from the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.

    The following community sectors/organizations/individuals participated in the discussion (Note: some organizations had more than one representative and some people represented several sectors).

    Adult Probation Anderson Williamson Insurance Child Support Children’s Service Board County Commissioner Drug & Alcohol Initiative Family and Children First Council Fairborn City Schools Greene County Career Center Greene County Combined Health District Greene County Community Foundation Greene County Fatherhood Initiative Grant Greene County Public Transit System Greene Leaf Therapeutic Community Program Juvenile Court Parent Education and Support Xenia Association of Churches & Ministries

    No one representing the mothers, or custodial parents’ interests when there has been violence — was probably even aware of this meeting, much less present.

    The ideas they came up with were predictable, and please note that FATHERHOOD PROGRAMMING was to be incorporated into the FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER (named after a County Commissioner).  Also marriage promotion….

    When asked what assets or resources existed in Greene County that could be mobilized, expanded or used to promote responsible fatherhood the following were mentioned:

    24/7 Dad Breakfast for Dads Churches – particularly if they opened their gyms and facilities for activities Daddy and Me Carnival (Early Childhood Collaborative Coalition) Family Violence Prevention Center programming Graduation Reality and Dual Role Skills – Family & Consumer Science program for pregnant and parenting teens Green County College Success Program The Marriage Resource Center Money Management Classes Urban Light Ministries – InsideOut Dad and other programs, Visitation Center.

    The link is here, notice that “fatherhood” is a *.gov proposition:

    http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxKCPn6VuPA%3d&tabid=93

    This action plan — and the meeting involving it — was straight out of the mouth of the National Fatherhood Initiative;  It is a marketing plan.  If you do not understand THIS GROUP (and its origins) — you do not understand why $119 million is needed for programming and how that is just to set up an infrastructure to transfer a lot MORE money from child support to programs that reduce, compromise or eliminate child support for our kids — and direct monies instead to those who support and design programs.

    MARRIAGE PROMOTION = FATHERHOOD PROMOTION = USUALLY PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

    EXAMPLE:  PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.  (a PR Firm in Oklahoma).

    I have JUST now showed you that Public Strategies is working directly with National Fatherhood Initiative to “Rapidly MObilize” more fatherhood (stuff & programs).  See the “REAPS” link, the “Fatherhod.ohio.gov” link — right above here.  Now, I probably know Public Strategies a little better than you do, unless you study this topic, live in Oklahoma, or work for them.  You can also see them, bolded in maroon font, in the chart above, of grantees of the new “90FM” grant series to promote — what else, marriage and fatherhood.

    In fact, they just got another $2.5 million, alongside Elizabeth’s New Life Center, alongside also California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which I am going to flat-out SAY I believe is a fraud (a front group), so I will now have to prove this in subsequent post).

    But here is the “OKMARRIAGE.COM” link telling the origins of this Oklahoma Marriage Project (from top-down, Governor, and Department of HHS), choosing the PR Firm Public Strategies Inc. (WHY might be  a very good question) and explaining an intention to bypass Commissions to Study, and passing Legislation, but through a “multi-sector” approach to (Ramrod it through).  which, as you can see, they are also recommending in Ohio.  When the word “mobilize” is used, the idea is obviously that an emergency exists.  It is a MILITARY term, that’s what it calls to mind.  The intention is to bypass the slower (but more due-process, and more public-input-wanted!) processes designed into state and federal constitutions and instead, get the thing going FAST.

    Here’s what they say about their origins and how they GRABBED $10 Million of TANF funding (intended for welfare:  Food stamps, cash aid, helping poor families) to set up the infrastructure to funnel more grants to anyone who was of the same belief system (as to the causes of poverty and child abuse), and away from those who didn’t, including families on welfare that probably needed the help.  Moreover, the double-whammy is, money is ALSO diverted from Child Support Enforcement at times for similar purposes. Here we go:

    Oklahoma Marriage Initiative logo

    OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE “ABOUT US

    OMI History

    In 1998, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University economists produced a joint study on what Oklahoma needed to do to become a more prosperous state.

    And  someone probably funded that joint project.  Coincidentally, in 1998, the US Congress was passing Fatherhood Resolutions (as in 1999), Welfare Reform had just happened, and nationwide a condition of receiving welfare funding to states mandated that every state create a centralized state distribution unit (SDU), or forfeit their TANF funding.  TANF was the welfare reform that changed program funding to block grants to states….It figures in here. Maybe that was coincidental, but I doubt it.

    National Fatherhood Initative DOES have congressional and senate contacts / “Task Forces” and has from shortly after its (1994) founding.  As it says, here:

    (NFI’s) TASK FORCES ON RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

    Shortly after its founding, NFI formed Task Forces in the U.S. House and Senate to identify elected leaders who were supportive of the goals of the responsible fatherhood movement. 15 years later, the Task Forces continue to serve as a vehicle to mobilize support for NFI events on Capitol Hill and to generate support for legislation that impacts responsible fatherhood.

    (Back to the OMI About us Page)

    Their conclusions included the usual economic analysis relating to tax issues and regulatory reform issues, as well as some surprising results. The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

    As evidence of his serious commitment to this [DIvorce leads to poverty and child abuse] issue, [Governor] Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts {{GEE — I wonder which ones! }}  advised various aspects of the Initiative. This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. Instead, they decided on a multi-sector approach with both a secular track and a faith-based track. The OMI was to be a public/private partnership, guided by high-level leadership and strong operational, day-to-day management. Its major focus at this initial stage was delivering education services to the public, conducting research, and working with the faith sector to develop marriage-strengthening services.

    I would have to characterize this as a State Governor (who is head of the State EXECUTIVE branch) intentionally overstepping his bounds, deliberately avoiding the legislative branch, to push through his own plan, using federal funds that WERE supplied to the state of Oklahoma through legislation.  Intentionally NOT having a commission study the issues is suspect.   Now read the next part carefully

    Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

    FORMERLY, AFDC (pre-1996) would have made sure this was to low-income families.  But the sea-change to TANF BLOCK_GRANTS TO STATES intentionally freed up the possibility of states doing more creative things with these funds.  This was great if you’re into promoting marriage and fatherhood, and probably no accident.  Look at who was pushing the 1996 reform, and you have a lot of answers….

    Right there you can see it was not restricted to low-income population, but efforts should be made to let poor people know their option to take marriage education (etc.) classes, for their own good, of course.

    I just saw on-line an advertisement for a psychologist at Public Strategies firm (Glassdoor.com)  The pay was $72K.

    Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today. The OMI has made sound decisions-by both policy and political standards-to build on the best [paid-for] research available, to invest in research to learn about marriage and divorce in Oklahoma, and to assess, to the extent possible, the effects of its activities and programs.

    From “http://www.okmarriage.org/ProgramHighlights/MarriageProblems.asp” = the “OMI – ABOUT US page”

    PUBLIC STRATEGIES” started in 1990 (site says):

    Clients are primarily HHS/ACF and other corporations.  Listed under “Corporate” clients is “PREP” which is itself a company that feeds off marriage education policy.  Two professors from Denver (also on the advisory board to Public Strategies) co-founded a Colorado Business to produce/sell this product, itself clearly focusing off Marriage Education grants  See “PREPinc.com.”  Nonprofit clients include The Dibble FUnd (itself also a corporation feeding off Healthy Marriage education policy.

    about us
    Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members with a client base that included the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team. In a matter of years, PSI became the only firm in the United States to develop and maintain a state-run healthy marriage initiative, which has since become the longest-running and most in-depth endeavor of its kind in the country.PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C. We have a solid success record of client-centered project management and strategic planning services for a variety of clients in the public and private sectors.

    Public Strategies is committed to helping organizations and individuals reach their full potential while maximizing their impact on the public good. Our clients represent the impact that PSI has had on an array of fields including education, business, faith, criminal justice, child welfare and human services.

    http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2

    WELL, enough for one day, eh?

    ////

    ///


    The amazing Suspended, Dissolved, Terminated, Forfeited, Delinquent, perchance Active-Status (re)Incarnations Family Court Stakeholders (Phew!)

    with one comment

    Well, I’m breathless keeping up with them.  Someone very, very tech-savvy should design a 3D chart.

    The X-axis could be years, the Y axis perhaps States of incorporation.  A 3rd dimension could be either $$, or Board of Directors Personnel in common Profit/Nonprofit or perhaps %/# of public law & court-related employees among incorporating personnel.

    Actually no matter how I look at it, the human mind can’t keep up with such level of detail, and I don’t see any databases that are, although there are plenty of databases that track almost every other level of detail, including books signed out from local public libraries by users.

    My cursor / fingers are so trained they can get on auto-pilot, or otherwise just about effortlessly over to the state (usually my state’s) “Business Corporations” search page, and then the “Registry of Charitable Trusts” search page – in approximately 5 seconds or less, without bookmarks.  The computer is trained to go there also.

    Business Entities (BE)

    To spice it up a bit, I took a little detour to the link underneath “Business Search” — and to “Disclosures.”  (California Secretary of State link)

    No, this isn’t the judges’ statements about their financial holdings (Form 700s in my state — what about in yours?) — but Public Traded Stock corporations doing business in (my state).   This is another angle of the child support enforcement (and other) businesses we tend to overlook.

    There are shareholders – not just employees — invested, literally, in the success (profit) of for-profit organizations whose business is to put liens on your assets and garnish your wages if you’re a delinquent in support payments person.  Or, sometimes, when you aren’t.  Or sometimes, as it comes to certain groups, when you don’t even have a minor child by the name they are putting into the system.  Or paid already (and so forth).

    So, before posting Maximus’s disclosures (speaking of which) my Secretary of State site very helpfully posts the relevant business codes for anyone – meaning any foreign (out of state) corporation doing business “intra” (within) the state.  These are for the protection of the stockholders, and us.

    For example:

    2105. (a) A foreign corporation shall not transact intrastate business without having first obtained from the Secretary of State a certificate of qualification. To obtain that certificate it shall file, on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, a statement and designation signed by a corporate officer stating:
    (1) Its name and the state or place of its incorporation or organization.
    (2) The address of its principal executive office.
    (3) The address of its principal office within this state, if any.
    (4) The name of an agent upon whom process directed to the corporation may be served within this state. The designation shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 1502.
    (5) (A) Its irrevocable consent to service of process directed to it upon the agent designated and to service of process on the Secretary of State if the agent so designated or the agent’s successor is no longer authorized to act or cannot be found at the address given.
    (B) Consent under this paragraph extends to service of process directed to the foreign corporation’s agent in California for a search warrant issued pursuant to Section 1524.2 of the Penal Code, or for any other validly issued and properly served search warrant, for records or documents that are in the possession of the foreign corporation and are located inside or outside of this state. This subparagraph shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a party or a nonparty to the matter for which the search warrant is sought. For purposes of this subparagraph, “properly served” means delivered by hand, or in a manner reasonably allowing for proof of delivery if delivered by United States mail, overnight delivery service, or facsimile to a person or entity listed in Section 2110 of the Corporations Code.
    (6) {{[(a)??}} If it is a corporation which will be subject to the Insurance Code as an insurer, it shall so state that fact. (b) Annexed to that statement and designation shall be a certificate by an authorized public official of the state or place of incorporation of the corporation to the effect that the corporation is an existing corporation in good standing in that state or place or, in the case of an association, an officers’ certificate stating that it is a validly organized and existing business association under the laws of a specified foreign jurisdiction. (c) Before it may be designated by any foreign corporation as its agent for service of process, any corporate agent must comply with Section 1505.
     

    This is going to become VERY interesting when it comes to nonprofits with the word “COURT” anywhere in their name.  The ethereal re-incarnations and multi-state addresses are really hard to keep up with.

    But, thankfully, MAXIMUS was forthcoming and disclosed, twice, in California (remind me to check EVERY state):

    Corporation Number
    Corporation Name
    Disclosure Filing Date
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 07/17/2006
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 03/05/2004

    Sorry to give it that ugly format, but the more picturesque versions (which drag an image) tend to not show in different browers.  So you get the warhorse version, with live links (I hope).

    I then went right back to the “Business Search” (as in yesterday’s post) and typed in “C1618100” (easier than the whole name), remembering to check “Entity#” and got this:

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C1618100 06/30/1988 ACTIVE MAXIMUS, INC. CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

    Well perhaps THAT’s why we can’t keep up with all these stakeholders in the mediation (etc) and businesses of law — they have a faster than light incorporating service. . . . . .

    CSC LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

    8040 EXCELSIOR DR, STE 400
    MADISON,  WI  53717-2915

    Also at that address:

    VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, 8040 EXCELSIOR DRMADISONWisconsin 

     VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC. 8040 EXCELSIOR DRSTE 400MADISONWI 53717-2915 
    Maximus (see narrow bar, above) has been doing in business in california since before welfare reform, and was in fact involved in it.  I think that a contract with Los Angeles was one of the earliest one’s in the company’s history in this business.

    Benefit from our Child Support Expertise

    MAXIMUS professionals manage 40 percent of the privatized child support caseload in the United States and Canada today. 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. Our more than 660 CSE specialists have a shared passion and dedication for helping children and families obtain the resources they need.

    As the local IV-D directors also (through fatherhood grants, etc.) have some say in child CUSTODY matters, this can get fairly interesting . . . ..

    Child Welfare

    MAXIMUS is committed to improving the welfare of the nation’s most vulnerable children by providing SSI Advocacy Services for children in foster care and providing Title IV-E, TANF, and Adoption Assistance Eligibility services for our government partners.

    We partner with government clients and tailor our services to meet child welfare program goals. We are passionate about advocating for vulnerable populations, and our team brings a unique blend of knowledge, skills, and experience, which is unmatched by any other firm.

    And partnerships with various regional nonprofit child support directors associations (see my recent posts for who is paying for that . . . . . )

    Extending our reach through our valued partners (Affiliated Associations)

    As a corporate member of several civic associations across the nation, MAXIMUS is dedicated to the business areas and communities in which we operate.

    Child Support

    Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association   (ERICSA)
    National Child Support Enforcement Association   (NCSEA)
    Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council  (WICSEC) (active in California also, although our state one is “CSDA”)

    About that 1988 incorporation date in California:

    From wikipedia (just a reminder), Maximus started in 1975, in a garage in McLean Virginia:

    History

    MAXIMUS was founded by David Mastran, a Vietnam veteran and former government worker, in 1975 and was first incorporated as a privately held company in 1975. Mastran founded the company from his garage in McLean, Virginia.[10]The company eventually went public on June 13, 1997.

    So, it incorporated in California probably in order to do this:

    Employment services

    MAXIMUS began providing welfare-to-work services in 1988 with Los Angeles County’s decision to award the first welfare-to-work privatization contract in the nation. Today[when?]MAXIMUS operates TANF programs in Los Angeles County; Alaska; San Diego; Orange County, California; Wisconsin; Maricopa County, Arizona; Nashville, Tennessee; and Cleveland, Ohio.

    The company also runs One Stop Employment Centers, Veterans Employment Programs, and WIA Summer Youth Programs.[14]\


    Public obviously meaning it trades its stock, “MMS,” openly, and not just restricted to shareholders.  Right now, that’s worth about . . . .

    Last Price $37.69  Day Change (up) 0.89|2.42 %  that’s literally 8/23/2011 1:19pm, thank you “Quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=MMS

    (. . No, I don’t know stocks either, just looking)

    However, in 2007, it apparently was doing better, until it had to pay that $30 million in settling a whistleblower lawsuit from one of its own employees.  This is a whistleblower law blog:

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

    “Helping the Government serve the People” is the tagline of Virginia based Maximus, 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. Last September, at the end of their fiscal year the company reported earning $700 million in revenueand predicted a rosy forecast for 2007. Today the Maximus stock closed at $42.05, only down a slight 5% from earlier trading.  I wonder, how they will project next year’s forecast, in wake of this scandal.  It is a scandal, because the good name of this organization has been tarnished due to a few “greedy” and “unscrupulous” workers.

    Thanks to the brave whistleblower, Benjamin Turner, a former division manager at Maximus, the acts and deeds of the corporate wrongdoers, did not go unpunished. In recognition for his efforts, Mr. Turner will receive $4.93 million as a result of filing a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit under the provisions of the False Claims Act. There are times when a whistleblower gets compensated for his brave actions. And there are times when the whistleblower gets nothing, even after going to the Supreme Court, as in the case of Rockwell v. United States, as mentioned here previously on the Whistleblower Law Blog.

    I’m just putting that in for reference, before posting this Disclosure from my state.  I was talking about what it takes (financially, salaries) to run the SF Superior court a post or so ago.  Well, here are some of the profits — including in both salary and “options” (that’s stock options, which have higher leverage and potential profits than plain stocks) for the executive directors.

    California Secretary of State site shows:

    Corporation Number
    Corporation Name
    Disclosure Filing Date
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 07/17/2006
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 03/05/2004

    The first filing showed one set of Executive Directors:

    CORPORATION
    Corporation Name: MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC.
    Corporation Number: C1618100
    Document Number: 0990969
    Disclosure Filing Date: 07/17/2006
    Bankruptcy: NO
    Legal Proceedings: Material pending legal proceeding(s) – YES
    Legally liable in any material legal proceeding(s) – NO
    INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
    Prepared most recent auditor’s report: ERNST & YOUNG
    Employed by the corporation as of the date of the statement: ERNST & YOUNG
    DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
    Name Title Compensation Shares Options Bankruptcy Fraud
    BELIVEAU, RUSSELL A. DIRECTOR $ 37,500.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
    HALEY, JOHN J. DIRECTOR $ 45,000.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
    LEDERER, PAUL R. DIRECTOR $ 55,500.00 0.00 1,823.00 NO NO
    MONTONI, RICHARD A. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    POND, PETER B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 12,570.00 NO NO
    RUDDY, RAYMOND B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 8,519.00 NO NO
    SEYMANN, MARILYN R. DIRECTOR $ 56,500.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
    THOMPSON, JAMES R. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 4,954.00 NO NO
    WEBB, WELLINGTON E. DIRECTOR $ 43,500.00 0.00 2,141.00 NO NO
    FRANCIS, DAVID R. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 425,120.00 2,413.00 80,000.00 NO NO
    MONTONI, RICHARD A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 565,000.00 6,500.00 15,000.00 NO NO
    WALKER, DAVID N. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 218,500.00 0.00 280.00 NO NO
    LOANS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
    Name: NONE

    and the next filing, a bit earlier, a different set, with the exception of Mr. Montoni is still there, showing the increase in salary in just a few years.

    CORPORATION
    Corporation Name: MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC.
    Corporation Number: C1618100
    Document Number: 0655844
    Disclosure Filing Date: 03/05/2004
    Bankruptcy: NO
    Legal Proceedings: Federal security law violations – NO
    INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
    Prepared most recent auditor’s report: ERNST & YOUNG
    Date of last report: 12/16/2003
    DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
    Name Title Compensation Shares Options Bankruptcy Fraud
    BELIVEAU, RUSSELL A. DIRECTOR $ 101,612.00 0.00 15,000.00 NO NO
    DAVENPORT, LYNN P. DIRECTOR $ 426,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 NO NO
    HALEY, JOHN J. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 3,899.00 NO NO
    LEDERER, PAUL R. DIRECTOR $ 30,000.00 0.00 5,656.00 NO NO
    MASTRAN, DAVID V. DIRECTOR $ 395,155.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    POND, PETER B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 9,083.00 NO NO
    SEYMANN, MARILYN R. DIRECTOR $ 30,000.00 0.00 2,068.00 NO NO
    THOMPSON, JAMES R. JR DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 3,475.00 NO NO
    WEBB, WELLINGTON E. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    BOYER, JOHN F. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 350,000.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    FALLON, ROBERT J. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 390,000.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    GRISSEN, THOMAS A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 414,500.00 0.00 5,000.00 NO NO
    JOHNSON, DAVID M. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 511,523.00 0.00 100,000.00 NO NO
    MONTONI, RICHARD A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 374,333.00 0.00 15,000.00 NO NO
    LOANS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
    Name: NONE

    I may have posted this before, but a brief bio of Mr. Montani is here from people.forbes.com

    Richard A. Montoni

    Chief Executive Officer, President and Director

    Maximus, Inc.

    Reston ,  VA

    Sector: SERVICES  /  Business Services

    Officer since March 2002
    59 Years Old
    Richard A. Montoni has served as Chief Executive Officer, President and a director of MAXIMUS since 2006. Previously, Mr. Montoni served as our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Montoni served as Chief Financial Officer for Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, during April 2006 before rejoining MAXIMUS and his appointment as Chief Executive Officer and President. Before his employment with MAXIMUS, he served as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President for Managed Storage International, Inc. in Broomfield, Colorado from 2000 to 2001. From 1996 to 2000, he was Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President for CIBER, Inc., a NYSE-listed company in Englewood, Colorado where he also served as a director until 2002. Before joining CIBER, he was an audit partner with KPMG, LLP, where he worked for nearly 20 years. Mr. Montoni holds a Masters Degree in Accounting from Northeastern University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from Boston University.
    (notice, steadily increasing, and the stock awards also.)
    Salary $700,000.00
    Bonus $0.00
    Restricted stock awards $1,800,000.00
    All other compensation $58,409.00
    Option awards $ $0.00
    Non-equity incentive plan compensation $700,000.00
    Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $0.00
    Total Compensation $3,258,409.00
    Just for a point of reference.

    Faster than thought:  AFCC, in Illinois, Los Angeles, and Colorado (simultaneously):

    NOW IT’S A LITTLE LATE IN THE DAY, BUT JUST FOR REFERENCE:  At the end of the last post, I was re-posting some comments about what (the heck) is going on at 111 Hill Street in Los Angeles, and what has been — regarding the history of the AFCC.
    If someone would like some proof or what is said at “Beware AFCC” (google it) and that Jessica Pearson, of Center for Policy Research, has organizational connections to the AFCC, which itself has direct connections of SOME sort, to the Los Angeles County Courthouse (at least the one at 111 Hill Street), I’ll give you this one:
    Entity Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS 
    Entity Number: C1091990
    Date Filed: 10/01/1981
    Status: SURRENDER
    Jurisdiction: ILLINOIS
    Entity Address: 1720 EMERSON ST
    Entity City, State, Zip: DENVER CO 80218
    Agent for Service of Process: MARGARET LITTLE
    Agent Address: 111 N HILL ST
    Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012
    Margaret Little (Ph.D.) in 2006 shows up on a Judicial Council Task force report (about abuses in probate conservatorships!) as this title:

    Dr. Margaret Little

    Family Law and Probate Administrator Superior Court of California,

    County of Los Angeles

    Topic of the report (which I just linked to), dated 9/18/2007 about how the courts responded to  not internal controls, or complaints from litigants, but an expository (series?) from the Los Angeles Times!  May there be a similar one on these topics in my lifetime!  . . .   Notice how “lack of resources” (rather than, say, corruption and inappropriate alliances between probate judges and public guardians) is cited as a cause of the troubles.  I hope that by quoting this you don’t lose sight of the tri-state corporate identity of (AFCC), above, or its significance:

    Final Report of the Probate Conservatorship Task Force (Action Required)

    Issue Statement

    The administration and management of probate conservatorship cases in the state of California was recently placed under scrutiny through a series of Los Angeles Times articles that raised concerns that some conservatees were being subjected to abusive practices. Of particular concern were the inappropriate granting of temporary conservatorships on ex parte petitions, lack of proper oversight of accountings, abusive practices of private professional conservators including improper billings, lack of sufficient notice to conservatees and their families, and inadequate protections of the rights of conservatees. Although there are courts and counties with exemplary programs, many others do not appear to be able to provide the services and oversight necessary to ensure that conservatees are protected and receive proper care and treatment. This inability is often due to a lack of resources and, in some cases, gaps in existing statutes, rules, and guidelines.

    Recognizing these challenges, in January 2006 the Chief Justice established the Probate Conservatorship Task Force and charged it with conducting a top-to- bottom review of the probate conservatorship system in California

    Dr. Margaret Little is involved in Family and Probate Courts, and was the registered agent (if anyone had started a lawsuit, she’d have received the paperwork) for ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS with ILLINOIS jurisdiction and DENVER place of business, probably while back then also on the public payroll for the County of Los Angeles.   Makes you think, huh?  Since then (2010) she was a member of the “Elkins Family Law Task Force” as Senior Administrator (in the same area), and was cited by a 2001-licensed Child Forensic Psychologist (Marlene Valter, Psy.D.) as having conducted the following training (it’s a “vita,” I searched for “Margaret Little”).  Note the following seminar listed, same year and who sponsored it!:

    2003 Domestic Violence Training for Child Custody Evaluators and Mediators; Los Angeles, CA; January 23; Coordinator: Margaret Little, Ph.D.; Sponsored by Los Angeles County Family Court Services. (4 hours)

    2003 Managing Parent-child Reunification in Alienation and Abduction Cases. Burbank, CA; September 25; presenters: various; Sponsored by Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts. (3 hours)

    If we look at this Pepperdine-trained person, it’s clear a lot of her work life has been in the los Angeles County System, not to mention around AFCC, heavily so:

    CHILD CUSTODY FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING:

    2008 AFCC-CA Annual Conference: Abduction, Risk, and Response; Ethical and

    Effective Coaching of One Parent During a Child Custody Evaluation; Domestic Violence;

    MARLENE W. VALTER, PSY.D.

    PAGE 2Private Life, Public Parenting-Is a Parent’s Sexual Behavior Relevant?; The Impact of Celebrity

    on the lives of Children; Therapeutic Interventions. Santa Monica, CA; Sponsored by AFCC and Los Angeles County Superior Court. (12 hours)

    2008 Domestic Violence Training for Child Custody Evaluators; Santa Monica, CA; In collaboration with AFCC/CA Chapter. (4 hours)

    2007 Annual Update for Custody Evaluators: The Steve Frankel Group, June 19. Online Presenter: Philip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP. (8 hours)

    (Philip Stahl is straight PAS-promoter, and quite AFCC, currently in Arizona…)
    As far back also as 1991, here is an article by Margaret A. Little, funded in part (it says) by a grant from the “California Judicial Council” (too bad the TAGGS.hhs.gov database doesn’t go  back that far), published in the “FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW.”  Other than giving a background history of Hofstra University in NY which helps publish this with AFCC, I don’t know how much more plainly I could point to who is running the family court services basically around the country..
    The Impact of the Custody Plan on a Family:   A Five-Year Follow-up
    (for what Trish Wilson has to say on this, in 2002 (the 11-year followup?) see HERE at “The Liz Library” it appears to be commenting on the same article, in re: joint custody.)
    1991 – 5 = 1986 – 5  = when the above-listed California “foreign” corporation, predecessor of AFCC, had to surrender its business license.  I imagine these people know exactly what they are doing corporately in moving fro in-state to out of state.  I can’t say the same for every young proselyte that graduates into the system, whether through Fuller Theological Seminary,** in the area, or Pepperdine, also in the general area (Malibu) or wherever
    (** this mini-section added 8/25, and I am posting some material on Fuller today as well.  Both are Christian-oriented groups who have really pushed into the business realm surrounding the courts, through graduate psychology, marital studies, and as to Pepperdine University School of Law’s emphasis on Dispute Resolution, churning out professionals at a high rate that my research keeps running into as I chase down nonprofits, delinquent and active both).
    Think of the ramifications if AFCC is indeed the shape-shifting, tax-evading, court-controlling group it certainly appears to be!

    SO WHEN MARV BRYER RAVED ABOUT AFCC’S ROAMING INCORPORATION HISTORY . . .

    So when Marv Bryer, raving almost, states “incredulous” things (like, over a decade ago) like this (quoted from Liz Richards NAFCJ site this time) . . . .

    In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

    . . . He’s not nuts.  I just showed you.

    Also, looks like they had to give it up.
    NB:  i showed you the Los Angeles County Judges’ Association last post.  Wasn’t it still out of 111 Hill?
    Jurisdiction, Illinois (OK . . . . . )
    1. Endnotes – The Future of Children –

      futureofchildren.org › Home › Publications › Journals – Cached

      by JR Johnston – 1994 – Related articles
      May 17, 2011 –  is presently under research in a multisite national study (J. Pearson, Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson St., DenverCO 90218). 

    2. Colorado Model Office Project EVALUATION OF COLORADO’S DRIVER’S 

      ancpr.com/myth.htm

      Center for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street DenverColorado 80218 303/837- 1555. Quotes from this study indicate clearly that so called “Deadbeat Dads” 

    3. Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases – Google Books Result

      books.google.com/books?isbn=0471167525John E. B. Myers – 1997 – Family & Relationships – 600 pages
      Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson StreetDenverCO 80218. Phone: (303) 837-1555) [hereinafter Tjaden & Anhalt]. 332 Tjaden & Anhalt at 1. 
    4. 2309 Emerson StDenverCO 80205 Directions, Location and Map 

      http://www.mapquest.com/maps?…2309%20Emerson%20St…DenverC – Cached

      Our interactive map lets you view, print, or send to your phone directions to and from 2309 Emerson StDenverCO 80205, and view the location as a 

    5. CHILD SUPPORT IN THE UNITED STATES: THE EXPERIENCE IN COLORADO 

      lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/321.abstract

      by J PEARSON – 1992 – Cited by 2 – Related articles
      Center for Policy Research1720 Emerson StreetDenverColorado 80218, USA. The research reported in this article was developed under grants from Hunt 

    6. Child Support Improvement Project: Paternity Establishment; Final 

      by J Pearson – 1995
      Sponsoring Agency: Colorado Dept of Social Services United States. Sale: Ctr for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street DenverCO 80218. United States 

    Of course it’s now moved — and shows up at 1570 Emerson Street:
    Center For Policy Research
    1570 Emerson Street  (google maps view)
    Denver, CO  80218
    Phone: 303-837-1555
    Fax: 303-837-1557
    And legally registered as a trade name and nonprofit at http://www.SOS.state.CO.us:
    Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
    # Name Address Type Count
    1 PEARSON, JESSICA 1570 EMERSON, DENVER, CO
    80218-1450, US
    Trade name Registrant 1
    2 PEARSON, JESSICA S. 1570 EMERSON, DENVER, CO 80218, US Registered Agent 1
    Also in Denver, NCADV Main Headquarters (the other office listed being in Washington, D.C.) which apparently just moved here, no kidding, on April 1, 2011:
    NCADV’s Main Office (as of April 1, 2011)
    One Broadway, Suite B210
    Denver, CO 80203
    and

    1899 Wynkoop Street # 300

    Denver, CO 80202-1092 map

    (personnel in common, and often publishes under HHS grants with CPR).
    Also (note address):

    COLORADO CHILD HEALTH PLAN PLUS-ANTHEM

    1899 Wynkoop #300
    Denver, CO 80202
    (800) 234-5147
    Company Website: www.chpplusproviders.com

    In fact, trade names for PSI, I should probably just list here — there are plenty for this 1984-incorporated organization, several of which relate to this blog:
    Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
    # ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
    2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
    5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
    10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM
    and the last two, Parent Opportunity Programs, you “know” are going to show up fatherhood-hhs-sponsored:
    Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
    # ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
    12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
    From fatherhood.hhs.gov, the descriptions:

    Colorado

    Noncustodial Parent Programs

    • Boulder County Parent Opportunity Program (POP) Policy Studies Inc. has operated a Welfare-To-Work (WtW) program for non-custodial parents (NCP) in Boulder County since 2002. The program helps NCPs who are unemployed, underemployed, or having trouble meeting their child support obligations. The POP helps these parents overcome barriers to employment by linking them with services in the community or through allowable WtW funds. The program has been instrumental in helping clients increase their wages, child support payments, and visitation with their children. Primary Contact: John Mahaney, .
    • El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP) This program is in its seventh year of operation. During the first three years, it operated under a federal grant to develop an innovative approach to create a strong community effort serving noncustodial parents who lacked the means to support their children. The POP now operates as a partnership between the El Paso County Department of Social Services, Policy Studies Inc. (PSI), the Center on Fathering and Goodwill Industries. These partners work in coordination with other community agencies to provide services including employment and training, mediation, parent education, child support assistance and community referrals to unemployed and under-employed non-custodial parents and their families. Recently, POP has partnered with the Pikes Peak Workforce Center to help them serve noncustodial parents eligible for WtW services. An evaluation of the first three years of the program is available upon request. Primary contact:Chad Eddinger, Project lead, El Paso Department of Human Services .
    Guess who was probably paying (now that I’m on that web page, which comes generally speaking under HHS == tax distribution agent of the U.S. Government) for these:

    Faith-Based and Community Organization Activities

    • On October 1st and 2nd, 2004, The Colorado Collaborative for FatherHood and Families, and the Fatherhood Coalition of Metro Denver co-sponsored a kick-off training conference called Journey to Manhood, attended by nearly 30 local fatherhood providers and fathers interested in training. Presenters included James Rodriguez of the Arizona Fatherhood Collaborative and ACF staff. This was the opening session of a one-year certificate program in Fatherhood to be offered by Red Rocks Community College.
    • Also on October 1st, 2004, the Fatherhood Steering Committee of the Colorado Department of Human Services, with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, held a Stakeholders Forum. Many excellent presentations were offered by local fatherhood experts on how to make organizations more father-friendly, and how to address barriers that keep fathers from full participation in child welfare organizations.
    • The 14th Annual Expanding the Visions Conference was held on March 20, 2004. This event, sponsored by the Denver African-American Leadership Conference, was attended by approximately 1,000 boys and their dads. Several hundred packets of ACF-related information were distributed to attendees. This information focused on how to be a great dad and strategies for avoiding divorce.
    • Colorado Springs, Colorado: Approximately 200 dads and daughters participate annually in the Father-Daughter Purity Ball. The centerpiece of this evening of formal dinner and dancing is always the reading of a pledge by the dads to model purity and integrity for their daughters and to do all they can to protect their purity.
    • In Douglas County, Colorado, Extension Agent Rich Batten has established a monthly e-mail letter for those interested in fatherhood advocacy and committed to increasing the probability of every child being intimately connected to an involved, responsible and loving father or father figure.
    • The Denver Indian Family Resource Center has begun a Young Men’s Sweat Lodge project, which includes fathers and male mentors. Seven sweats have been held so far.

    For a REAL eye-opener, go to the SOS Colorado business search page, click on “Advanced Search” and then type in “Fatherhood”!

    Sorry, this post was less about the title’s Suspended, etc. — but bet it was informative.  Namely, the appearance of detachment and belonging to separate entities (when one awards and compliments the other) dissipates when the connections between associations are traced at the corporate level.
    Since then, AFCC has straighted up and incorporated in a California Chapter.  At least the “incorporated in California Chapter” part I can vouch for:
    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C1587819 05/15/1987 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER LULU L WONG
    C1091990 10/01/1981 SURRENDER ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS MARGARET LITTLE
    Entity Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER
    Entity Number: C1587819
    Date Filed: 05/15/1987
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 1336 N MOORPARK RD #185
    Entity City, State, Zip: THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360
    Agent for Service of Process: LULU L WONG
    Agent Address: 1303 JEFFERSON ST STE 710B
    Agent City, State, Zip: NAPA CA 94559
    NAPA is wine country, just north of San Francisco.  Remember Karen Anderson’s grants money was used to host an art & wine seminar up there? (see johnnypumphandle’s account, I DNR exact details…..).
    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 068671 Charity Current THOUSAND OAKS CA Charity Registration Charity
    1
    Too bad I wasn’t checking here in 2010 and earlier; looks like they got their 2011 warning letter too!  if it doesn’t show here, go to the site and read it, bottom document under “first delinquency notice.”     Cute!

    It got slapped up on the site crooked.  Looks like someone was in a hurry!
    Just a reminder:  They are addressing an organization comprised of judges and attorneys, etc.  Isn’t that sweet, reminding them of the law?
    You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
    Full Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER FEIN: 770238347
    Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1587819
    Registration Number: 068671
    Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
    Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2012
    Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 2/7/2011
    Date of Last Renewal: 3/3/2011
    Address Information
    Address Line 1: 1336 N MOORPARK RD #185 Phone:
    Address Line 2:
    Address Line 3:
    Address Line 4: THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360
    Annual Renewal Information
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-04
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-04
    Total Assets: $23,332.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $59,598.00
    RRF Received: 01-FEB-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-05
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-05
    Total Assets: $28,259.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $62,923.00
    RRF Received: 10-FEB-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-06
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-06
    Total Assets: $25,101.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $66,748.00
    RRF Received: 10-FEB-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-07
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-07
    Total Assets: $31,241.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $106,426.00
    RRF Received: 16-MAY-08
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-08
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-08
    Total Assets: $76,048.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $135,317.00
    RRF Received: 13-MAY-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
    Total Assets: $73,765.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $120,592.00
    RRF Received: 26-FEB-10
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
    Total Assets: $80,200.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $103,725.00
    RRF Received: 11-FEB-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Related Documents
    00003B29 Founding Documents
    00003B2A RRF-1 2009
    00003B2B IRS Form 990 2009
    00003B2C RRF-1 2008
    00003B2D IRS Form 990 2008
    00003B2E RRF-1 2007
    00003B2F IRS Form 990 2007
    00003B30 RRF-1 2006
    00003B31 IRS Form 990 2006
    00003B32 RRF-1 2005
    00003B33 IRS Form 990 2005
    15310 1st Delinquency Notice
    Prerequisite Information
    No Prerequisite Information
    IRS Return Data
    Founding documents, 1987 (AFCC began apparently in Los Angeles somewhere around 1962?) are full of love and appreciation for children and conciliation, etc.
    Notice the inclusion of “BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS.”   Got to get them in there.
    Notice (below) the span of the state (in fact, west coast) represented in directors, starting with a LA County Judge at 111 Hill Street, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and up north, our beloved San Francisco:
    \

    HAVE A SWEET DAY….

    Evaluate, Coordinate and Call Mom “Alienator!” — Pt. 3, in which 3 AFCC Ph.D.’s (Benjamin Garber, Peggie Ward & David Medoff) in a NH PAS case get a PAS-based reversal, plus some Warshak Talk

    leave a comment »

    PARENTING COORDINATION:  This post is going to show how the people crying that Moms are Coaching their kids actually coach each other to say this in reports to the courts.  This is the AFCC-sponsored, engendered, promoted, and if they have their way, exclusively controlled field of “Parenting Coordination.”

    (I’m also going to split this post — some of the people mentioned above may not show up til the next one….)

    Another place to find wording like (see end of last post) is in your basic “parenting coordination” manual.  It’s AFCC.    And it’s sick — which is probably why it isn’t posted in public at the “self-help” “Family Center” resource centers:  You are going to face a “HAPC” (hostile-aggressive-parenting coordinator) talking about your hostility in protesting or even reporting, aggression.

    Why also are we not informed of how AFCC practitioners and their “ilk” are genuinely attempting to change family law into Therapy — and are brazen about it.  This is essentially what the “Center for Families & Children in the Courts” are.  They are venues where parents can be discussed, in third person as a foreign population, and how the far wiser and more noble practicing professionals can plot and plan to deal with their flawed, parental selves.

    Might as well show it right now:

    NEW HAMPSHIRE  PARENTING COORDINATOR ASSOCIATION LIST — AT LEAST THE AFCC-TRAINED ONES:

    Footnote 1, Footnote 2 (and the entire list, this one at least, all have a footnote, or some, 2) stands for:

    1Practicing parenting coordinator.

    2Completed Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) prescribed training program.

    A quick look (the list is only 2 pages) shows that these are either attorney, psychologist, or therapists.  If I were in New Hampshire with an open custody case, I’d memorize the list and be prepared….

    Now for that training, a sample page from a sample report, on the association home page:

    Notice (on home page) the “high-conflict” phrase, all over the place:

    Welcome to Parenting Coordinators Association

    The Parenting Coordinators Association of New Hampshire (PCANH) is a non-profit interdisciplinary organization dedicated to fostering the understanding and use of parenting coordination and to supporting professionals who serve as parenting coordinators. Our membership includes attorneys, mental health providers, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in New Hampshire by managing and reducing inter-parental conflict and creating healthier outcomes for children of divorce and separation. The purposes of PCANH are to promote the highest level of practice by parenting coordinators through networking and continuing education, and to educate the judicial branch, legal community, and the general public about the use of this dispute resolution process in high conflict parenting cases.

    Their membership includes (most likely, just is) the same fields of practice that AFCC membership covers, with possible exception of the judges themselves.  They are going to educate EVERYone (see last sentence) and of course promote it to the general public as well.   They are excellence-minded, and are going to promote the HIGHEST level of (unbiased?) practice, etc.  They will teach the judges (the judges in AFCC already know this stuff — they attend conferences!  So is this going to trade some training funds around, or go proselytize to the non-AFCC judges?)

    This is a very basic (not links- heavy) site, but one of the links is to AFCC.

    I can’t drag the picture of a pretty little (Caucasian) girl, with a ribbon in her hair, and a yellow butterfly on her shoulder.  Oh how gentle and sensitive.

    Now, (by contrast) for the SAMPLE from the Handbook, and what they really think about ADULT women with children, separating:

    I notice, up front, the comment the Indiana Parenting Coordinators group (INDIANA just also happens to be a state in which Family Justice Center has been established; it also on its child support page contains a direct link to Fathers and Families soliciting (from Fathers & Families) grant applications.  They are unbelievably networked…..

    The Parenting Coordinators Association of New Hampshire deeply appreciates Families Moving Forward, Inc. of Indiana for granting permission to the Association to incorporate material from the Indiana Parenting Coordination Guide in preparing this document.1

    …..

    Furthermore, parenting coordination can help heal damaged family relationships and establish the communication, cooperation, conflict resolution, and general coping skills necessary for effective co-parenting so as to enable children to remain psychologically healthy following the divorce or separation of their parents.

    John D. Cameron, Esq. Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D. Co-Chairpersons, Parenting Coordinators Association of New Hampshire April 2008

    ….

    As the manager of the treatment team, the parenting coordinator coordinates the needed services and has the authority to select different services and different service providers, and to replace service providers when necessary, to ensure that the needs of the family are met for the sake of the children. ***  This role would typically be applied in cases where the parents are deadlocked about treatment options for their children, and in cases where mental health problems, parental alienation tactics, or other problematic family dynamics may threaten the parenting coordination process, the safety of the children, or the relationships of the children with one or both parents.

    **This basically is putting in place permission for a parenting coordinator to replace a NON-AFCC provider who might be a little more neutral with one more friendly to their particular philosophy, as demonstrated, below in the sample report (p. 28 of handbook).  Notice, “mental health problems, parental alienation tactics,” and of course an assumption that there ar elikely to be “treatment” for children.  Moreover, the material shows parenting coordinators are going to seek to have access to what would be otherwise very privileged information about the parents and children in a particular case:

    5. Access to Information.

    In carrying out responsibilities the parenting coordinator will have access to non- parties and privileged information as may be required, including school officials, physicians, mental health providers, guardians ad litem, and other professionals involved with the family. The parenting coordinator will also have access to related court records.

    Judges have to file with the secretary of state or . . . . . officially, a DIsclosure form, so litigants know there is no “conflict of interest” and can require (or attempt to) a judge to recuse him/herself if there IS one, and the judge hasn’t done so voluntarily up front.  Do Parenting Coordinators have to reveal which AFCC (etc.) conferences they have attended, or which nonprofits they run, with each other, J.D. & Ph.D.?  This is NOT good…..

    Of course, parenting coordination is hard work and takes time (so does fighting frivolous causes of action in a family law scenario– are the parents paid for this?), so about FEES:

    Fees:

    Fees of the parenting coordinator are set by the particular professional and would typically, but not necessarily, depend on the qualifications of the parenting coordinator. {{Hence, run more trainings}} Fees can be expected to apply to all parenting coordination services, including but not necessarily limited to: interview time, meeting time, investigation time (of court, school, or other records), collateral time (conferring with attorneys and other professionals), home visits, travel expenses and travel time, preparation of reports or agreements, and court appearances.

    Can they set a minimum level of parental wealth before engaging a parent coordinator?  Oh — I forgot, usually who has the money is sought close to the beginning of any divorce/separation case, so the court knows whether to high-track it, or to low-ball it through mediation (20 minute hearing following 45 minute medication, goodbye children..)

    WHO GETS parenting coordination.  In a set of amazingly “clear” reasoning, they say, not parents with high conflict or a history of disobeying court orders.  (well, if not, then what is a coordinator needed for?  Because parents DO keep court orders and can figure out their own business?)

    Parenting coordination works best when both parents are willing to accept the parenting coordination process. That is why parenting coordination in New Hampshire typically requires the agreement of both parents for the appointment of a parenting coordinator.** Parenting coordination may be least effective in cases where one or both parents have never accepted the court’s authority and repeatedly violated court orders. Such parents will likely dispute or defy the parenting coordinator’s decisions as well.

    **Just wait.  Sooner or later this will be flagged and mandated up front. Probably Indiana will get to this before NH….

    After another section establishing their retainer and billing procedures in some detail, we get the assurance that the parenting coordinators are VERY, very, very concerned about impartiality

    9. Impartiality.

    The parents understand that parenting coordination will be furnished on an impartial basis and that the parenting coordinator will not provide psychological counseling or legal advice to either parent.

    . . . . i.e., “just trust us.”  You are in a high-stakes struggle for your civil rights and sometimes safety for children, there is a lot of money at stake, and you are going to pay a parenting coordinator, even if child support is in arrears and you are transitioning from stay at home status as a parent.   So, as with all legal proceedings, be encouraged to take the professionals impartiatlity at face value, although you will of course have to pay a retainer to get their impartial services.  Now, about that lack of gender bias in this profession, which has a gender-neutral title, “Parent” coordination:  SAMPLE REPORT: (in diff’t format in original, see pdf)

    THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    ROCKINGHAM, SS FAMILY DIVISION AT

    In the Matter of Father and Mother Case #2008-M-0000

    PARENTING COORDINATOR REPORT

    NOW COMES the Parenting Coordinator and submits the following report for the information and assistance of the Court and the parents:

    Parenting coordination was ordered by the court in Month 20XX. The role of the parenting coordinator has been helping both parents manage and resolve conflicts and attend to the needs of their children within the scope of the Final Custody and Parenting Schedule Agreement. Every effort was made to encourage them to resolve disputes themselves; however, information was obtained from third parties when necessary to understand the issues, i.e., children’s pediatrician, teachers, and pastors of the respective churches.


    (Guess no Jews or Muslims, or atheists, are likely to cross the PC’s paths…  Guess Christian pastors are likely to be gender-neutral, too:  Use of the word “pastor” indicates Protestant, but FYI, here’s the Catholic version of gender-equality, from a random search on “church, fatherhood”)

    MISSING FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

    The Feminization of the Church & the Need for Christian Fatherhood

    byLeon J. Podles

    You may have noticed that, in general, men are not as interested in religion as women are. There are usually more women than men at Sunday mass, and there are far more women than men at devotions, retreats, and prayer groups. The men who do come are often there because wives or girlfriends have put pressure on them to attend. . . . . “In my book,The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity,I examine the lack of men in the Western churches, which only the unobservant doubt, and I look at the possible causes and results of the lack of men. My thought has continued to develop, and I have slightly revised my thesis. In what follows I will first summarize my thesis that men stay away from the Church because they regard it as a threat to their hard-won masculinity. Second, I will explore how the Church has become identified with femininity. Third, I will consider how this feminization has undermined fatherhood, and how the Church can reach men and help them to be Christians and Christian fathers.

    (Unbelievably, this is copyright 2011).  Is it better with the non-Catholics, this panick about feminizing or rendering men impotent through church involvement?

    Here’s an attorney’s writing:  ”

    Tips for Restoring the Biblical Role of Fatherhood in the Church  Scott Brown. (note:first quote is from an attorney);

    “To know the true state of a nation, look at the state of the Church. To know the true state of the Church, look at the families who populate her pews. To know the state of her families, look to the fathers who lead them. Destroy the vision of the father, and you render impotent the family, thus creating a chain reaction that spreads throughout civilization” Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.

    If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? -I Timothy 3:5

    How does a church begin to restore the role of fathers to the pattern prescribed in scripture? First of all, she must deal with PMS (Passive Male Syndrome). This is accomplished by focusing the energies of the church toward men and challenging them to carry out their Biblically defined roles.

    Well, here’s someone else’s “Public Notice Calling for the Repentance of Douglas W. Phillips” (probably the same guy, judging by content):

    2. As a self-appointed, unordained, sole elder of Boerne Christian Assembly, Mr. Phillips pronounced an “excommunication” on a member family of his church in 2005. 2 The “excommunication” was vindictive and appears to have been motivated over a difference in political views. 3 The “trial” was conducted without any due process in what can only be described as a Kangaroo Court. The accused were tried in absentia. No witnesses were called. No defense was afforded the accused. No specific, detailed list of charges was made. No evidence was provided. Any actual valid excommunicable sins had already been repented from, including a pre-conversion sin that had been repented of fifteen years prior. 4 A prominent Pastor has since described the excommunication as “the Salem Witch Trials.” The family has attempted ever since to be reconciled with Mr. Phillips, but he has refused all offers to meet with them, thus confirming his vindictiveness.

    3. After being “excommunicated,” the entire family was shunned, including the family’s children. The children were never charged with any sins. Yet they, too, were punished. One of the daughters had received an award as a runner-up in a Vision Forum writing contest, but Mr. Phillips ordered her name be removed from the Vision Forum web site.

    4. Doug Phillips is known as a leader in what is known as the “Patriarchy” movement. However, his conduct as a pastor makes it apparent that he is more of a misogynist than a Patriarch. “Let the women keep silent” (1 Cor. 13:34) is taken to such an extreme at BCA that women cannot make prayer requests or even introduce their guests. Women aren’t even permitted to get the elements of the Lord’s Supper for themselves. If their husbands aren’t present, they must be served by another man, or one of her sons, even if that son is too young to take the Lord’s supper himself.Mr. Phillips’ treatment of women is degrading and demeaning, and he does not treat them as fellow heirs of Christ Jesus. 5

    Be assured the people who tend to talk like this can meanwhile be treating their women (and/or, previously, slaves) like second-class animals. This same person expounding on evolutionary versus revelation concepts of law, starting with Oliver Wendell Holmes..

    A millennium of Christian legal tradition came to an end in 1870. In that year, Christopher Columbus Langdell, newly appointed Dean of Harvard Law School, began a revolutionary approach to legal education which specifically discarded the Genesis foundation of law in favor of a philosophy rooted in Darwinism.

    Langdell abandoned the historic method of teaching Christian principles of the common law in favor of the new “case-book method” which directed the student to discover law through the constantly evolving opinion of judges. Langdell described the relationship between science, law, and uniformitarianism in the preface to the first “case-book” ever published, his Cases on Contracts:

    While it’s clear AFCC is in favor of evolutionary legal language (in fact, moving towards therapy and away from law, just USING the courts to dispense the therapeutic assignments to court cronies, if I may be so sarcastic (and accurate) – – – Be assured that among the people coming before the courts will be women attempting to exit the dominate-the-woman lifestyle of one, or more, religions, and that sometimes they are risking their lives for doing so.

    One more — since the Parenting Coordinators of New Hampshire feel it appropriate to consult “Pastors” for “information” on the children and parents.  Pastors are mandated reporters of child abuse (and have been caught as perpetrators, also, or covering up for perpetrators).

    For this reason (or at least so He stated), former US President Jimmy Carter LEFT the Southern Baptist Convention, stating as a reason its treatment of women:

    Via Feministing, the former president called the decision “unavoidable” after church leaders prohibited women from being ordained and insisted women be “subservient to their husbands.” Said Carter in an essay in The Age:

    At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

    And, later:

    The truth is that male religious leaders have had — and still have — an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.

    The article here is July, 2009. Contrast with the position of former U.S. President Bush, in 2001 (OFCBI), or in 2003 (heart of the Family Justice Center Alliance — see my post — cites an interest in keeping the “faith” component involved in helping people escape violence, abuse including sexual abuse of children, human trafficking and wife-beating.   And in 2008, the PCANH, in a casual reference, figures that they’ll go get some more data from the pastors…. Yeah, right.. Meanwhile, to clean up its racist act the conservatives targeted urban innercity black MEN to sell them on Fatherhood initiatives, when they were already en route to civil rights….

    There’s still over?compensation and a church attempt to solicit men (women are expected to show up and serve, what else have they got to do?) in the form of (date:  2010) a “MANLY MEN conference” which appears to have a Responsible Fatherhood/Marriage Connection:

    Celebrate Being a Man!No singing. No crying. No holding of hands.

    Take some time to explore the website to learn more about each part of this life-changing weekend. Space is limited and the event is expected to sell out, so take advantage of early bird pricing and get registered today! Bring a friend, bring your sons, but make sure you join us in celebrating MEN!

    What beats hanging out with 1,000 men for a weekend?Roasting our own pigs.

    Pig Roast

    This summer, The Manly Man Conference returns to Green Bay with an all new event, Manly Man III: Time to Man Up. MMIII is a weekend for men, by men. From the food to the speakers and the music, everything is planned with YOU in mind.

    This year we’re going hog wild with the pig roast. We’ve purchased a few pigs to raise at a farm in Wisconsin and are forming plans to roast them ourselves. Why? Because we’re men!

    Yes, this has a religious and “Focus on the Family” theme.  Do I sense a fear of the feminine somewhere? The key speaker is a pastor, and probably on the CFDA 93.086 circuit too, as he is marketing marriage seminars…

    As such, I find the parenting coordinator comment  a bit of a “red flag” (or just ignorant of the influence of religion here…..).

    But, after they have assembled all the relevant information (and obtained retainers) then it’s time to write a report.  Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D. (mental health leadership of PCANH.org) and John D. Cameron, Esq. (legal leadership of PCANH.org) suggest a report as follows:

    (After very brief info, this is the first substantive paragraph, attacking Mother.  Again, this is a standard, or sample report.  No contrasting one is suggested to validate any concerns a mother might have about a father.  Catch the tone — this is a PC association coaching PCs how to Coach the Judge to say the Mom Coached the Children.  And you wondered where that idea came from, eh?

    There was evidence in the meetings with the children that they were caught in a loyalty bind by mother (i.e., feeling pressure to choose their mother as right or good and their father as wrong or bad). The children shared that their mother asked many questions about their father and his household. They acknowledged that they did not always tell their mother the truth. Sometimes they lied to stop their mother from questioning them intensively after visits with their father. Other times they lied in an effort to please their mother, or because their mother had confused them.

    Often, the children complained about their father or his household. For example, “I don’t feel I’m safe at Daddy’s” or “I’m scared of Daddy.” However, when these issues were explored, it was learned that in some cases they were totally without foundation and in other cases they were related only to an incident two years earlier when their father grabbed an arm and directed one of the children to time-out in the garage.

    a.k.a., how to discredit any assaults…..

    The children also brought up issues and requests which parroted their mother….

    “Mom says our clothes don’t fit” and “I want to talk with Mommy more than just the Sunday ” With discussion it was revealed that their mother raised the issues and then directed the children to discuss them in the meetings. In addition, it appears that the mother has made statements that have caused the children to doubt the parenting coordinator. For example, the children said to the parenting coordinator: “Mom told us that you took Daddy’s side and didn’t stay neutral and on the kids’ side.”

    a.k.a. how to counter with allegations Mommy is coaching, AND she doesn’t trust the PC authority, either!  (As it seems, with good reason, if this is typical of the bias!)

    Father showed improvement in raising only important issues instead of trivial concerns in the joint meetings.

    a.k.a. how to win points for Daddy’s patience and forbearance with hysterical mother.

    Subsequent paragraphs are no better, and continue to castigate bad Mommy and patient Daddy, and then psychoanalyze the Mother:

    Mother displayed a distorted view of the father, seeing him as without redeeming qualities and specifically as abusive to the children. She constantly scanned the world for evidence of his harm to them. She viewed trivial events as having great significance; she interpreted inconsequential remarks by the children as indicative of major problems; and she exaggerated the anxious remarks of the children and accepted their complaints about the father as facts. For example, when the children complained about normal disciplinary (end p. 29) consequences from their father, the mother concluded the father was being abusive.

    Similarly, despite evidence to the contrary, the mother alleged that the father’s church did not adhere at all to the Scriptures, and she believed that the father never dressed the children properly.

    The mother exhibited rigid or black-white thinking. She had difficulty taking in information, considering it and viewing it objectively. Instead, she integrated it into her unrealistically negative belief system about father She rejected evidence, explanations and interpretations that were inconsistent with her beliefs.

    The mother seems to use the children as a narcissistic extension of herself. She is unable to separate her own needs and emotions from those of the children. She attempts to undermine the children’s relationships with their father. The effect on the children is confusion and anxiety. The children vigilantly look for information to fit their mother’s perception of their father. As a result, the children are not learning to trust their own observations and judgments, and they are at great risk of becoming alienated from their father.

    Mother’s distorted view and lack of trust in the father does not lend itself to building an effective co-parenting relationship and is destructive to the children. She lacks introspection and sees herself as virtuous and without fault. Mother viewed the parenting coordinator’s attempts to point out these dynamics as persecution and evidence of bias against her.

    Actually, it is the parenting coordinator profession that perceives itself as virtuous and without fault, therefore deserving of this authority over — apparently, the mothers in a high-conflict parenting couple.    Is there any indication there that PERHAPS a woman’s instinct, or a mothers’ might notice something the paid PC might not?   The last statement there, to me, indicates that this handbook has anticipated resistance from an alert mother and how to counter it by labeling her.  Ain’t NOTHING new under the son in this field, except the name of the new niche assigned to do the same job!

    In summary, a degree of stability has been established in the family system with accountability offered by parenting coordination.

    (Actually, there is precious little accountability with this system!  Again, they are looking at “family system” and have a particular spin on events in an individual family.  There is no mention in this whether or not there has been previous severe violence, threats, including to kill or kidnap.  While it says no parenting coordination to be assigned unless parents both “consent” (what would the options be?) — only a very desperate mother, for example, would submit to a process that indicates this much bias going out the gate.

    (Continuing….)

    Father’s improvement in non-reactivity and being issue-focused has been beneficial. The parenting coordinator is concerned about the mother’s unresolved emotional issues** and the adverse impact these may have on co- parenting and on the children’s psychological health. It is strongly recommended that the mother seek individual counseling with a Ph.D. level mental health professional. Without intervention, co-parenting will be eleven more years of accusations and mistrust, necessitating ongoing parenting coordination. Furthermore, there is reason to be concerned that the mother may further confuse and alienate the children this summer.

    In other words, parenting coordination the first step, intervention, the next step, and here is the “alienation” buzz word.

    As a school nurse, she has the summer off and will be with the children all day on her parenting time. Finally, it is recommended that parenting coordination continue for 6 more months in order to facilitate effective co-parenting, monitor the dynamics in the family system, and determine whether the mother’s individual counseling has a positive impact.

    Good grief, the woman is a school nurse, which is a profession where one is trained to notice details and work with kids.  Now, she may want to have some private down time with her own, perhaps?  Not with this parenting coordinator around.

    Did I mention, who is paying child support to whom about this time?   oh, I forgot — this absolutely has nothing to do with $$ and the parenting coordinators are certainly neutral (at least by AFCC standards). ….

    Respectfully submitted, Parenting Coordinator

    **Cobblers see shoes and mental health service providers see mental health problems.  Does anyone actually see potential CAUSES of the responses?

    So there you have it – HOW to call “ALIENATOR!” — blow by blow.  A sample report.  So, isn’t it nice to know that IF you actually agree to a parenting coordinator voluntarily, this is about the level of impartiality to expect.  Don’t agree unless there is no other option, if you’re female, wouldn’t you think?  Or at least, don’t grasp at stray straws of hope….

    Now that how to write an antagonistic report about a paranoid mother who needs more therapy (or else), it’s time to get down to the issue of who gets to be a parenting coordinator.  For some reason, reading this, I feel like we are back in grade school again, picking the winning team — who is “in” and who is “out.”  Of course the Non-AFCC are going to be “out” but this is expressed in the following manner:

    Mental health and legal professionals who are interested in developing parenting coordinator skills should, in addition to pursuing training in the above areas, consider joining the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or AFCC (website: http://www.afccnet.org). Furthermore, they should obtain supervision from a professional who is recognized as a skilled parenting coordinator. That supervision should continue throughout at least six parenting coordination cases

    (Thus ensuring no “high-conflict” struggles within the Parenting Coordination Community — all will be properly groomed and screened.  With as many judges as AFCC has on its board and in its ranks, this shouldn’t be too hard.  Sounds like they don’t deal too well in this organization with challenges to their authority…..).

    Suppose there are real violence or child abuse cases a parenting coordinator is handling?  would such a person then actually consult an expert in the field?  Like a medical expert, or criminal investigator who specializes in this?  Well — no, how about another AFCC parenting coordinator who knows how to put the mental illness spin on anyone who reports.  Notice the order:

    Any parenting coordinator cases involving (1) parents with  severe personality disorders or mental illness and (2) cases with allegations of physical or sexual abuse should be conducted only by a licensed mental health professional with more extensive experience as a parenting coordinator and substantial continuing education in parenting coordination, such as parenting coordinator workshops provided through AFCC.

    Excuse me, when there are allegations of physical or sexual abuse, let’s not settle where or not this actually took place, but call in the psychiatrists?   I wonder how that will work out.  Notice it’s PARENTS (probably mothers) who have the severe personality disorders, and CASES not with physcial or sexual abuse, but allegations of it.  Just to get the priorities straight. . . . . .

    (Are we AFCC enough yet?  in this field).

    Again — read it.  It’s an eyeopener.  http://www.pcanh.org/NEW%20HAMPSHIRE%20PARENTING%20COORDINATION%20HANDBOOK.pdf 

    Of course, because I am questioning the authority of this profession, I just might be a female with a severe personality disorder…called reading .

    How I found out about this:  I read in a case which had been turned around through Alienation charges, and it just so happened to be in NH and involve not one, not two, but THREE mental health professionals stroking each other’s egos and deferentially quoting each other.  The couple involved hadn’t even lived together that long, but they managed to get the kids back to the father away from the mother.

    (material on the personnel mentioned in title, on the next post; I am splitting off  one long post by word-count)….

    To be continued….

    Evaluate, Coordinate, Sow the Seeds of Mother-Hate (a.k.a. How to Accuse a Mom of Alienation)

    leave a comment »

    Quick review:  The purpose of the Family Law system is to engage Marriage Counselors (etc.) into the legal process, and produce ongoing business for mental health therapists, and retirement plans for court-associated personnel.    

    If you don’t believe that (yet), pls. review this 1966 TIME article, narrating the relationship between Judge Roger Alton Pfaff (who was childless) and Meyer Elkin (counselor) in the experimental “Conciliation” courts whose intent was to prevent divorce by forcing people into counseling who were headed for it:

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1

    I am starting to get genuinely angry about the deceitfulness and arrogance of the material put forth in conferences which is designed for application in a custody case.  Just because a group of people believe that Psychological Services = Salvation.  Rather than, say, “divination” (and with the profits to match).

    It’s not just the brazen marketing, and using federal monies to run social science demonstration projects on unsuspecting parents for the amusement (and profit) of the . . . . social scientists and nonprofit corporations that do their biddings.  It’s not just the elitist, arrogant mentality behind the therapists (etc.) which scent is caught when one reads the conference jargon with a real-life perspective.  And it’s not just the dishonesty throughout the system — although those certainly all figure in.

    But yesterday, chasing down the yet another Warshak/Ricci/Stahl/Gardner Kids’ Turn copycat, I found that the Lackawanna County, Pennsylvani  AFCC-curricula peddler Dr. Mukliewicz along with Mr. Libassi, M.S., C.R.C., now have (with the help of the Presiding Judge? Wm. E. Baldwin) have gotten Pennsylvania Civil Code of Procedure altered to specify their product as THE mandated parental education curriculum (at least in Schuykill County) whenever a custody or visitation order even THINKs about being filed.  This appears to be in addition to some contracts they already have with the County to provide other services.

    http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-50/2355.html

    Title 255—LOCAL
    COURT RULES  SCHUYLKILL COUNTY

    Amended/Adopted Civil Rules of Procedure

    [40 Pa.B. 7041]
    [Saturday, December 11, 2010]

    Order of Court

    And Now, this 23rd day of November, 2010 at 11:00 a.m., Schuylkill County Civil Rules of Procedure No. 1915.1(b), 1915.3, 1915.15 are amended and Civil Rule of Procedure No. 1915.3a is adopted for use in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, Twenty-First Judicial District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, effective thirty days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

    and…..

    WILLIAM E. BALDWIN,
    President Judge

    Proposed Revisions to Schuylkill County

    Rules of Civil Procedure

    Rule 1915.1(b). Definitions.

    Kids First.” A four hour orientation and education program established to help parents and other parties in child custody actions to understand the effects of separation, divorce, and family conflicts in their lives and in the lives of their children.

    Rule 1915.3. Commencement of Action. Complaint. Order.

    (c) In addition to the information required by Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15, every complaint for custody, partial custody or visitation, and every petition for modification of an existing custody order, shall contain the following language:

    (1) ”Plaintiff has been advised of the requirements to attend the Kids First program.”

    (2) ”Defendant has been advised of the requirements to attend the Kids First program.”

    (d) A completed order shall be attached to the complaint or petition which includes a provision that all parties attend the Kids First program and the Custody Conciliation Conference which shall be in substantially the form set forth in Sch.R.C.P. 1915.15. All parties named in the pleadings must register for and attend the Kids First program as ordered.

    Rule 1915.3a. Kids First Program.

    (a) The Court Administrator shall determine the dates, times, and location of the Kids First program.

    (b) The name, address, and contact information for the presenter of the Kids First program are: Anthony J. Libassi, 200 Adams Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503, (570) 558-1002, (toll free) 888-215-7445, and www.libassimediation.com.

    (c) Brochures and registration forms for the Kids First program will be available at the Custody Office, Schuylkill County Law Library, and the Prothonotary’s Office.

    And, in these jurisdictions, whenever your estranged spouse, ex, or the mother (or father) of your child wants to officially modify anything regarding custody, the first step is now to pay up (or else) and sit through this class.  I’d bet (if I were a betting woman) that this class is ALSO subsidized by at least one federal grant, and that paying up would represent a double-billing.  Which brings me to the wisdom that the word “County” is a derivative of the word “Count’ as in “royalty” as in “fiefdom,” basically.  You can take the U.S. out of Great Britain (centuries ago), but I guess you can’t take the royalty mentality/patronage, etc. out of the United States, not entirely.  Read on:

    Rule 1915.15. Form of Complaint.

    (a) In addition to the information required by Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15(a) and (b), each complaint for custody, partial custody, or visitation, or a petition to modify an existing custody order, shall have attached to its front an order in substantially the following form:

    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR SCHUYLKILL COUNTY
    CIVIL ACTION – LAW

    _________________ , :
    :
      Plaintiff, :
    : No.: S-
    VS. :
    :
    _________________ , :
    :
      Defendant. :

    ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this __ day of _____ , 200__ . at __.m., you are hereby ORDERED as follows:

    You have been sued in Court to obtain Custody, Partial Custody or Visitation of the child(ren) named in the Complaint.

    I. PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM

    1. ALL PARTIES NAMED ABOVE SHALL ATTEND AND COMPLETE THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN A CUSTODY ACTION. PARTICIPATION IS REQUIRED WHETHER OR NOT AN AGREEMENT IS SUBMITTED.

    2. EACH OF YOU SHALL CONTACT ”KIDS FIRSTWITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS ORDER TO SCHEDULE AND REGISTER FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE PROGRAM IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION OF THIS ORDER, CONTEMPT CHARGES AGAINST YOU SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COURT.

    TO SCHEDULE AND REGISTER FOR THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM CONTACT ANTHONY LIBASSI BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

    (a) internet: WWW.LIBASSIMEDIATION.COM

    (b) telephone: 570-558-1002
    888-215-7445 (toll free)

    (c) mail:    ANTHONY LIBASSI
    200 Adams Avenue, First Floor
    Scranton, PA 18503

    YOU ARE EACH REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE OF FORTY DOLLARS ($40.00) DIRECTLY TO THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.

    3. LOCATION OF ”KID[s] FIRST” PROGRAMS:

    SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURTHOUSE
    401 N. 2nd STREET
    POTTSVILLE, PA
    PHONE: 570-341-2007

    FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN FINES, IMPRISONMENT OR OTHER SANCTIONS.

    {{First things first.  FIRST — go consume our product, not even based, probably, on original ideas.  It’s a “Kids Turn” knockoff, I”ll bet…. based on whose other books are advertised at “Kidsfirst.cc” in Dunmore, PA:}}

    II. CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE

    You are ordered to appear in person at the Custody Conciliation Office, of the Schuylkill County Courthouse on ______ , for a Custody Conciliation Conference.

    You are further ordered to bring with you the fully completed conciliation questionnaire provided by the Court.

    If you fail to appear as provided by the Order, and Order of Custody, Partial Custody or Visitation may be entered against you or the Court may issue a Warrant for your arrest.

    A little more found on these two individuals (and their services) here:

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    Welcome!
    The Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth & Family Services is a statewide organization of private agencies. Our members are the service providers who provide the direct “hands-on” programs and supports needed to achieve and maintain permanency and safety for children and youth and stability for families. The safety and well-being of Pennsylvania’s children and their families have long been held as priorities by private agencies who share a deep commitment to keeping children safe, families strong, and communities involved.

     

    Our Mission Statement
    To improve the quality of life for Pennsylvania’s children, youth, and families who are at risk by supporting and promoting an accessible service delivery system within our communities.

    It’s all about service delivery, of course…  This is becoming common, to have affiliated groups coordinated by website and networking:  An organization (or nonprofit) can become a Member, a Friends Member, or an Affiliate Member. This appears to focus on:  foster care, adoptions, and behavioral health, placements, etc.   So that’s who put out this:

    A “Needs based plan and narrative template” (FY2011-2012) for “OFFICE OF YOUTH & FAMILIES” (Pennsylvania) tells more about these two Kids First marketers

    Chet Muklewicz (AFCC) & Andrew Libassi (probably) are between them among the 4 largest CCYA or JYO service providers for Lackawanna County.  It is a “budget narrative” for the county to request monies for the service providers & contractors, i.e. “

    “The following pages provide a template for counties to use to complete the narrative piece of the 2011-2012 Needs Based Plan and Budget.”

    THis also focuses on dependency hearings, although as we see Libassi is quite “in” on the custody hearings, with or without abuse allegations already.

    The clinical unit also supports the county Family Court practice of returning to court within 45 days of the initial dependency to adopt a family service plan. All initial plans presented at dependency are related to completion of diagnostic assessments to better formulate a meaningful plan. This process is designed to both engage the family in the development of the plan and avoid plans of meaningless generalization.

    They are the two largest providers of in-home services in Lackawanna County:

    Review the Schedule of Existing Purchased Services and identify the four largest providers (regardless of whether it is a CCYA or JPO provider) as follows:

    Two largest providers of In-Home Services. Include contact information.  (displays better on the pdf, search for the name):

    1: Libassi Mediation Service  Children served:   168   $$ amount of services:  $197,712

    2: Chet Muklewicz, Ed.D   Children served:  49   $$ amount of services:   $120,000

    Briefly summarize the services provided by these entities, the expected outcomes of those services, and how provider performance is monitored.

    • Libassi Mediation Services coordinates all dependency and non dependency mediation. In addition, the service provides the service planning coordination for all three Intensive Reunification Courts.
    • Chet Muklewicz, Ed. D provides the Family Peace Program for the Status Offence Court. This is a Parent Education program that teaches or restores parental hierarchy in the family. It has been largely successful in reducing the number and duration of placement for ungovernable, and/or truant youth.
    • Dr. Muklewicz must file statistics showing youth in instruction, time in Status Offence Court, days of out of home placement if any.

    The Kids First program relates to custody — not dependency– hearings.  However, it’s also being marketed in Kentucky, through the Kentucky courts:

    Kentucky Court of Justice (Banner Imagery) - click to go to homepage.

    Kids First program is designed for parents to help their children cope with separation, divorce, and family conflict.

    Parents are presented with information about how parental relationships have a direct effect on the children and how children might respond at different ages. Parents learn that parental conflict hurts children and, more importantly, learn what they can do to help their children to adjust to the changes in their family.

    For additional information, contact Kids First, 1527 Adams Avenue, Dunmore, PA 18509 or 570-341-2007

    I’ve seen a lot of court-mandated programs around, but Kentucky seems to have the full panorama, including extorting Dads in arrears to participate in “Turning it around” classes where they can learn “to be a man,” and other useful information, such as sexual responsibility and co-parenting.  I’m sure a 12-week class is likely to change a person’s sexual habits.   ….   But they are extorted into it (or, go back to jail) like the separating parents in PA:

    “Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support cases.

    The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting.   Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing.

    (It too, probably has some acess-visitation type funding behind it, and a nonprofit by Lord knows whom involved.  This Kentucky state site has links eleven (11) Divorce Education classes, probably with coordinators (county-paid or state-paid) for each.  I wonder for which nonprofits….)

    How are people in Kentucky going to take a class run out of Pennsylvania — a cross-the-border commute?  Or is it a pre-packaged curricula that Dr. Muckliewicz and/or Mr. Libassi can profit from separately, while running their own dependency service programs and functioning as faculty at the local college? Or is a royalty pulled each time it’s run — what’s up?

    Here’s a local writer talking about a (different) local “Kids 4 Kash” scheme involving a single guardian ad litem (Danielle Ross) getting cases — $600 from parents upfront — and how, somehow, this county, almost 100% of the kids get a GAL:  http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/t42441326/kids-4-kash-danielle-ross-guardian-atty-nancy-barresse-and-c/

    I’m going to print that commentary here:

    Typically, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed in Family Court matters where a child is at risk due to a crisis within the family structure.  In most counties across the state, about 5 – 8 percent of all family court cases has a Guardian appointed to make sure that at-risk child(ren) have access to legal representation of their own. It’s a good idea and it often saves children from abuse. In all other counties, there is a list of attorneys to select from.

    However, in Lackawanna County, the appointment rate of a Guardian is nearly 100% of all family court cases. And, there is no list from which to select.  There’s one Guardian that gets all the cases.  It’s been that way since Harhut took over Family Court.

    For years now, Family Court judges have appointed Atty. Danielle Ross as the Guardian in practically every single case.  About a dozen cases a week are handed to Ross on a silver platter.  The parents have to immediately cough up $600 as her fee, plus she tacks on heavy fees once she’s on board if she’s called upon for a recommendation in a custody proceeding. Ross picks up about $7200.00 a week, every week of the year, and it’s been going on like that for years, which why she drives a bevy of exotic cars and takes non-stop vacations.

    {{more than one income stream, county-mandated services, county-paid salary, plus what else?}}

    90% of the families have no crisis situation that requires her presence. Some families have kids under five years-old who are not at risk of any abuse, yet they are ordered to pay Ross $600.00 anyway. Ross gets a salary from the county, plus a free county office, free phone and utilities and a free county secretary, even though she’s easily good for half-a-mil a year, year after year.

    Then, there’s the quality of her work.  Having so many cases, she’s often very difficult to access when problems arise.  Once appointed, it takes her weeks to make contact with the family.  In fact, she’s required to inspect every house, which she can’t possibly do, so she sends her county-paid secretary, Sue, with no qualifications, to inspect these houses and the family pays her an additonal $100.00, which, by the way, is required to be paid to Sue only in cash.

    Ross has a history of making custody recommendations to the court that are extremely politically motivated.  She meets with children as little as 5 – 6 years old and interrogates and manipulates them to get them to agree to certain custody conditions that certain “political” litigants want.  She’s personally serviced many county employees or cronies to get them a customized custody order, because the judge of the day follows her recommendations. I have some of those outrageous orders in my possession. There are many very angry parents who want Ross’ head on a stake, to say nothing of lawyers on the business end of her biased and unjust recommendations.

    Claire Czaykowski is the Court Administrator for Family Court. She’s Harhut’s former tipstaff. He appointed her upon his appointment as President Judge. Claire gets certain cases scheduled before certain judges to make sure the “right” judge hears the “right” cases. If you call Family Court, in fact, it’s Danielle Ross’ voice that welcomes you to Family Court.

    {{Case-steering, in other words.  it’s a network of interlinked associations…}}

    If anyone has a Family Court case involving Danielle Ross, wherein they are unhappy with Ross’ recommendations and the Court’s Custody Order that was issued as the result of it, I’d like to hear from you. I’m in possession of quite a few now, but the more the better.

    This Kids for Kash Scheme needs to come to a halt.  It’s time to end Ross’ Cash Cow days.  Rumors of her paying kickback are out there, but I can’t prove anything, yet.  That’s yet.  If a Guarian Ad Litem is needed, that’s all well and fine, but in most cases kids are not at risk and the family does not need Ross’ interference or expensive fees for nothing.

    And the link contains the feedback, including that this woman drives a $145K Mercedes, and doesn’t even do her own work, but hires others out to do so.  AMong the comments:

    Ourtraged parents have had to be dragged out of the courtroom over complaints about recommendation made by Ross.  On top of the $300 each parent has to pay, Ross then bills at $200 an hour for talking with the family.  She likes being alone with the kids and asks them very compromising questions to help steer her findings to assist who she likes in a custody case.  The woman knows nothing about what’s best for kids, only what’s best for who’s best friends with the court system.

    Different venue, sounds like the same behaviors….

    This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.).  Public Service?   This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.

    It goes on:

    Counsel and litigants without counsel are ORDERED to immediately consult their schedules for conflicts and to promptly request a continuance where necessary because of a prior attachment or emergency situation. ALL requests for a continuance of a Custody Conciliation conference must be made on the APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE form available from the offices of the Court Administrator, Custody Conciliator or Prothonotary in the Schuylkill County Courthouse. The application must be filed in the Custody Conciliation Office. A continuance will be granted only upon good cause shown.

    The moving party shall immediately serve on all interested parties a copy of the original pleading, this order, ”Kids First” registration and information, and a custody conciliation questionnaire; and shall further file an affidavit verifying service.

    Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: The Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any program, hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.

    [Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-2355. Filed for public inspection December 10, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]


    No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

    This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

    This concept didn’t just appear fully-formed in the brain of this judge, this county, or these mediators; it was circulated among professionals with decades of experience requiring others to consume their product, get business referred to their nonprofits, and doing this at public AND private expense, and through the courts.

    why do I think this is probably a Kids Turn knockoff?  Call it feminine intuition, or that I happen to live in California where a man running for judge, who started a Kids First of Orange County (aka Orange County Welfare Coalition, a nonprofit) simply said he modeled it after Kids Turn:

    http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/gerald-l-klein-for-judge/

    Among his accomplishments, he founded Kid’s First in 1996. It is a program for separated or divorced parents and their children.  Both parents attend this 8 week course together with their children to help the kids cope with changes in the family.

    Klein has been practicing law for 33 years and has sat as a temporary volunteer judge in Orange and Los Angeles counties since 1981.  He is active in the community and he also teaches Family Law and Community Property as a part-time professor at a local law school.  Although I only witnessed his expertise in family law, he is familiar with many types of law as he had a general practice in his early years.

    The Story of “Kids First”

    The History

    The “Kids First” program is a project of the Orange County Welfare Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation started by Attorney Gerald L. Klein and Attorney Ruth Shapin, MFT, in 1975. Through 1990, the coalition assisted individuals in obtaining governmental entitlements including social security and supplemental security disability benefits.

    kids First Staff
    Left to right: Robert Schuler, Gerald Klein, Sara Doudna and Ruth Shapin, along with Kids First Staff members

    Recognizing the need for a program focusing on the needs of children whose parents are separated, in 1995 Attorney Klein began looking for such a program. In 1995, he learned of the “Kids Turn” program in San Francisco which dealt with families going through divorce. The coalition adopted their idea and curriculum. Sara Doudna, MFT, became the Clinical Director, expanded upon it, and “Kids First” was born.

    In 1996, “Kids First” became operational.”

    Ms. Doudna-Klein (she married him??):

     have worked extensively for twenty years with addiction problems and with individuals, couples and families in recovery. I am familiar with all forms of addiction but am most experienced with alcoholism. Ten years ago I co-founded a non-profit program for families in divorce. I am familiar with the issues that affect all members of a family during the divorce process. I am also experienced in the assessment and treatment of “Parental Alienation”.

    Mrs. Sara Doudna-Klein, LMFT, Marriage & Family Therapist in Huntington Beach
    Situations
    involving divorce
    Check out Kids First
    A Program Helping Family in Divorce
    • Positive co-parenting
    • Single Parenting
    • Parental Alienation  
    • Parent-Child Reunification 
    • Blended Families   
    Or on another site:   ” I am clinical director and co-founder of this nonprofit program called “Kids First”.  Gerald L. Klein, Family Law Specialist founded the program in 1997.  Since that time, we have served the community of Orange County and surrounding areas to make a difference in the lives of the parents and kids in the process of divorce.”

    These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.

    and overall would be Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and perhaps may be with, however, the habit of actually legalizing this behavior may compromise it from being prosecuted under RICO.  Also, if it were fully explored and prosecuted, as I may just about to show, it would possibly not clean up, but also completely empty out the family law system Justice = Therapy-dispensing monopoly of judges, mediators, certified family law specialist, and all kinds of psychologist, from J.D.-endowed Psy.D.s to the lowly man or woman who paid up the latest AFCC-approved parenting coordinator, or mediator, or supervised visitation center training course.

    Cleaning up the racketeering element of AFCC might end up shutting down the system, because it is probably (at this point) not possible to separate the private nonprofit association, “Association of Family & Conciliation Courts” from the concept (and practice) of family law, at all.  this is such a fixture of our society that people forget it had an origin, and at one time, did not exist.  This origin was NOT by public, grassroots demand, but it was (like most oppressive systems) from top-down; by highly placed legislators, judges, and/or others who got a law passed, started practicing, and then expanded.

    On the other hand, passive inaction will just send the US economy downhill faster –a situation for which those who’ve been marketing these things will be in a better position to handle than those they force to consume their products.  At least they know how to operate  businesses, reduce taxes, and even in some cases do it under the radar, avoiding taxes and dumping the real social needs of society (housing, food, water, the ability to defend onesself and one’s property — or to own property or assets of any sort) on those already hardest hit.

    The RICO link, above, explains how the law began in the 1970s to stop the Mafia, in 1980s was applied to more individual situations, and in the 1990s the federal government sought to restrict this use:

    During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

    Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations.”

    That said, let’s note that two judges in PA were convicted of this, recently — in Luzerne County; “Kids for Cash” scheme.  And I cannot think of a better descriptive word, given the powerfully-connected (judges are members) and internet-connected, conference-churning, international, and training-oriented private “nonprofit” organization called “the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” — particularly when the associated network of nonprofits working with it are considered.  Talk about undue influence!   People who are subjected to this treatment routinely call it “Mafia” or refer to extortion, which I believe overall, the practices are. Doesn’t that last one sound like extortion (though only for $40, do the math X how many divorces and custody modifications…..)?  Why, for example, shouldn’t someone besides Libassi Mediation be able to run a simple Kids First class?  And what happened to Dr. Chet?  Has he got his own line of business with the county now?

    HOW I”M GOING TO SPLIT UP THE 17,000-WORD POST:

    I AM GOING TO JUST “CUT & PASTE” INTO DIFFERENT POSTS.  THIS IS NOT CALLED EDITING, IT’S CALLED, I GUESS, MACHETE CopyEditing.

    ONCE THE BASIC INFORMATION IS OUT, I DO NOT FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP PUBLISHING AND BLOGGING IT — CAVEAT EMPTOR CUSTODY COURTS.  THEY ARE BASICALLY (ANYMORE) PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ENTERPRISES WITH A VENEER OF PUBLIC LEGITIMACY.  THOSE WHO DON’T TAKE TIME TO LOOK ARE PASSING THE BUCK TO THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TO, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T SO FORTUNATE IN LIFE (OR COURT) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DODGE THIS RACKET.

    Jesus Christ said, long ago, “the poor you have always with you…”   It’s obviously that the leadership of the US has figured this out, and made plans with how to control them through a variety of institutions, lest they riot, or there be another civil war.   Also, to keep a substantial enough portion of people desperate and competing for jobs they are underqualified for, while promising them more help through reforming the public education system, run as a monoply anyhow, etc.   Bread & Circuses..

    Yesterday, I compiled, but didn’t publish, a triple-sized post, explaining the relationship between AFCC, Parental Alienation, High-Conflict (talk) and Parenting Coordination.  And the absolute mother-hatred in a certain parenting coordination handbook, which is standard.  I also show (and it’s obvious to those who look) that state borders (and at a certain level, state laws) are becomign meaningless when, for example, an Ohio Supreme Court Task Force (date:  1999), heavily AFCC-stacked, and lifting portions of its “tasks” wholesale from AFCC leaders — decides, in studying how to reform child custody — to simply fly its personnel out to Arizona and attend and AFCC conference.  Again, this was about 12 years ago and NOT blogged by domestic violence advocates.

    If I am able to complete the series on the Ellen Pence/Casey Gwinn (I.e., DV advocate / Family Justice Center) connections, I believe this will show an educated (researched) “guess” as to why NONE of the Domestic violence coalitions and primary ‘battered women’s” advocate generally blog, report, publish, or scrutinize the AFCC, OR the fatherhood grants system, (and its religious connections).  One of them (Center for Judicial Excellence) has made a habit of not doing this (though they are informed of it, as are many others) until very recently, I heard.  And probably because a few bloggers continued to “out” them for failling to address it.

    Mainstream, professionalized groups have their rhetoric set in stone, pretty much — and simply do not follow the money, or report to the general public on the conference circuits.  These posts are “Public Service Announcements.”  I am one (networked) person reporting certain themes.  I do not have an editorial staff and am not paid for my time here, as a whistleblower.   I write what I see, and I see a lot.  The alarm is definitely appropriate.

    INDIANA & AFCC

    Indiana has lots of Justice.  In fact, it has TWO Justice Centers from the Casey Gwinn/Gael Strack/GWBush Initiatives Alliance.

    But this is about its AFCC-State Government connections (which, FYI, the Kids First & Kids Turn concept is).

    Indianapolis, on the other hand, did it differently, and rather than going through the expense of flying its judges OUT, simply decided to invite AFCC to hold their fall conference locally.   This is from the Domestic Relations Committee, June 2009 meeting:

    Domestic Relations Committee / Judicial Conference of Indiana / Minutes June 12, 2009

    1. Members present. Craig J. Bobay, Francis G. Hill, Karen M. Love, Sheryl L. Lynch, Nanette K. Raduenz, Deborah J. Shook, Dean A. Young and William C. Fee, Chair, were present.

    2. Staff present. Jeffrey Bercovitz and Anne Jordan provided the committee with staff assistance.

    3. Guests present. Amber Njau, Project Analyst; Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director, Child Support Bureau; Karla Mantia, Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, were also present.

    4. Minutes approved. The minutes for the May 15, 2009 meeting were approved.

    5. Draft child support guidelines. Committee members reviewed comments submitted by topic area:

    a. The Health Insurance Premium Worksheet (HIPW) and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was reviewed. The committee made changes to ease the preparation of the HIPW.  b. Members of the committee agreed all commentary should be italicized in the child support guidelines. c. The “Child Multipliers” commentary was revised in the Support Guidelines and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was revised to encompass eight (8), not just five (5) children in accordance with the amounts from Dr. Venohr.***

    [[Dr. Jane Venohr  runs nonprofit Center for Policy Research, along with Jessica Pearson et. al, and I believe also works for PSI, its nonprofit arm.  These two organizations are all over the HHS grants circuit, and found publishing and promoting access visitation policies.  She is active in child support matters…See my last post.]]

    6. Domestic Relations Conference.

    a. Anne Jordan reported the two-day domestic relations conference in the areas of child development, family dynamics, custody and visitation is scheduled for November 19-20, 2009 in Indianapolis. Committee members suggested the following topics:

    (1) The economy’s effect on the family, e.g. mortgage foreclosure, high layoff rate, and the court’s ability to respond to a crisis if its staff is reduced.

    (2) Professor Marcia Klien-Pruitt, Connecticutt, to speak on family dynamics.**

    [[**Mis-spelled, Marcia Kline-Pruett is AFCC presenter, with her husband Kyle, and discussed later]]

    (3) Child-Informed Mediation, where a psychologist interviews a child and brings this input this into mediation.

    (4) Court ordered investigations in custody disputes. Some courts use a guardian ad litem for this purpose, to investigate mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and criminality.

    b.  Committee members discussed having the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts  (AFCC) hold their fall symposium in Indianapolis in November 2011 and the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent on the two-day domestic relations conference on having Indiana judges attend the AFCC fall symposium in Indianapolis. Magistrate Bobay moved to have the Judicial Center contact AFCC about holding their fall symposium in November 2011 in lieu of the two-day domestic relations conference, with the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent to have Indiana judges attend. Magistrate Raduenz seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

    As I see from the Feb 18, 2011 minutes (thanks for publishing them, guys….) the networking with AFCC is going to continue:

    This time there was a different set of guests:

    “3. Guests present. Stuart Showalter,** Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates, and Craig Scarberry were also present.”

    {{The links are relevant:  both are fathers’ rights advocates;

    • Showalter characterized as former “Neo Nazi Skinhead” and in some trouble with the law (as a youth) for it.  Later, he is found blaming a woman for her own stabbing death — because she sought a restraining order.  She was stabbed to death in front of her two daughters, 8 & 12  Here’s the quote, just so we have a grasp on who was a Guest at the Indiana Judicial Conference this past February:

    The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters. The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.

    Angela Warnock’s use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father *of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.

    (Showalter’s comment was June 2009. Note: obtaining a restraining order is sign of parental alienation.  wonder where that concept came from.  It has nothing to do with protection, obviously — just using for an advantage in divorce.  (the concept that perhaps her desire for divorce may have had to do with violence to start with doesn’t seem to have occurred to him…..)

    •  Craig Scarberry (unfamiliar to me) had custody reduced because he became agnostic, after being formerly Christian. Plans for fathers’ rights rally in Marion County…   Another article from “the democratic underground” asks whether(I DNK….)  this was the same Scarberry who sued the City of Chicago (etc.) on the same grounds, for interfering with the distribution of gospel tracts with “Repent America”:  link shows the pleading: including the Statement of Facts, which begins  ”

      STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Plaintiffs are Christians who regard the Bible as God’s literal authority. In keeping with this sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they are obligated to tell as many other people as they can about what they believe is their individual need to be “born again,” that is, to be reconciled to God. This comes only by believing that Jesus Christ is God,{{i.e., Trinitarian, which founding fathers primarily weren’t}} and that Jesus suffered and died on the cross (and was resurrected from the dead subsequently) to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity, particularly those individuals who will believe in him; and who seek healing and forgiveness for and deliverance from their past, present, and future personal sins—“sins” being defined as transgressions of the binding commands of the Bible.)

    Just including to show the mindset of someone who would attempt to “witness” in a legal pleading.   Probably the same Scarberry, although, who knows?  If so, he first proselytized FOR  his beliefs God and then, disgruntled, for how his agnosticism shouldn’t be held against him.  While it indeed shouldn’t, either line of thinking wouldn’t affect his position regarding father supremacy, most likely..or that it’s appropriate that his current beliefs be inflicted on others….  These two are not the major concern, they are two guys with a cause who sat in on a judicial conference.   It’s the conference we should be most concerned about, and this style of decision-making within government.

    This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting  concluded peacefully:

    10. Future meeting dates. Committee members agreed to meet again on Friday, March 18, May 20, July 15, August 19, and November 18, 2011 from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Judicial Center. They also agreed to meet in conjunction with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Meeting in Indianapolis on Oct. 27-29, 2011 in Indianapolis.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Jeffrey Bercovitz, Director Juvenile and Family Law

    = INBRED with AFCC.  So who ARE they, anyhow?  What do they DO?  (well, since you asked, I’ll keep posting….)

    I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?

    ??

    And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..

    While an Indiana conference, or a Schuykill County parenting education mandate may not seem to relate to you — it does.  We are a networked country, and the networks are to be watched.  When not “nipped in the bud” these things only expand — and they are inappropriate tolls on the highways of life.

    Would you trust this kind of back-door dealings with your life, or your children’s future?  Do you want others — judges, psychologists, economists, and mental health practitioners (working together) to do the heavy thinking for you, so long as they leave you alone for a while?  Even after they’ve been proven corrupt several times already?

    (California’s illegal benefits to judges — legalized.  Luzerne County, PA judges — sending adolescents to camps in which they had a vested interests, violating their rights and disrupting their and their parents lives . . . and here’s another post on some Pennsylvania court-based toll-gating with another individual:

    To be continued …


    Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”)

    with 3 comments

    This post title:  Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-Hy,” published 5/29/2011 (May 29). 

    Memorial Day Weekend.  Let’s remember that people who started out an organization pulling a fast one on the public -successfully – are likely to try the same thing, again.

    Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices

    Always.

    Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:

    (By way of finding out WHY one better watch one’s local DA’s office..and make sure they know you are.)

    For a clue what may happen when one doesn’t, see Gil Garcetti, L.A. D.A. (retired?)

    BIOGRAPHY

    Although Gil spent 32 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, eight years as the elected District Attorney, much of his life has been spent as an urban photographer. His first photo book, IRON: ERECTING THE WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL, (November 2002, Balcony Press), received much critical praise in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The photographs emphasize the contribution of the ironworkers to the building of America, but they also document the beauty of the curved, angled, and bent raw steel of this building before being covered by its exterior skin.

    Photographs from his second book, FROZEN MUSIC, (November 2003, Balcony Press), have been featured in multi page features in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, American Photo, Newsweek, Time, Harvard Design Magazine, California Lawyer and other magazines. Gil’s second book is his interpretation of the abstract art created by the finished building. The book is a portfolio of 45 panorama lithographs.

    How Nice.

    I’d love to resume arts, leisure, writing activities like this, too — or even the concept that I might have some sort of “retirement” whatsoever.  HOWEVER, thanks to this system, a lot of time is spent reconstructing where my kids, time, legal rights and finances went.  Why does it keep leading back to these offices, in particular — whose function is to prosecute crime AFTER it happens fairly, and do it right & without corruption, to the extent of their budget.  Just imagine in a world where crimes to & by men, women, and minors actually received prompt punishment as a deterrent and a message to others….

    While Mr. Garcetti’s retirement plan includes urban photography and some book royalties, up here (and in San Diego), the retirement plan, I figure probably includes selling and letting someone else run, FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS — which is why this post.  If the demand isn’t great enough for a family justice center, it helps to have a nice District Attorney well-positioned to get funds to start one anyhow, and with connections to staff it — and it appears also even connections enough to then legislate it into a business model for all times (and counties).

    But this is the Los Angeles District Attorney’s legacy, here:

    Pre-Retirement (from the office):

    WIKIPEDIA describes — clearly from a bit of a disgruntled fathers’ perspective (and with good cause — ) his “Life as (Los Angeles) District Attorney” – First and Second Terms, 1992-2000  starting right after Rodney King riots, prosecution of O.J. Simpson, Ramparts scandal, and, as it mentions:

    In the late 1990s, Garcetti’s use of default judgments in child support cases were considered by many to be particularly heinous. Garcetti openly refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.

    Which is why I bring him up, as representing a Southern California leading District Attorney’s legacy…

    Wikipedia (voice of the people, or at least people who write Wikipedia articles) goes on about the child support issue, a bit of heartfelt passion enters into the narrative…

    Gil Garcetti created so much chaos and heartache that even diehard feminist attorney Gloria Allred protested.

    Gloria Allred was a single mother in need of child support — which she went after.  As this was before the invention of the post-feminist (?) “fatherhood” movement to keep people like her in place, and also became pregnant because of a rape, possibly part of how she became a “protester” activist lawyer:  “During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo from quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories, …”

    Allred, who has perhaps done more than anybody to promote the phrase and concept of ‘deadbeat dads,’ called Garcetti’s office ‘an organization without a heart, without any compassion, and without a sense of priorities…[it’s] a system run amok’… Jackie Myers, a former Deputy District Attorney under Garcetti, said that she quit her job because ‘we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things.’

    Allred didn’t find out about the $14 million of collected child support cooling its heels (and earning interest) in Garcetti’s office, instead of going straight to its recipients, the children.  Richard Fine did.  The law said, if they couldn’t find the mother (parent) within 6 months, it goes back to the father.  Narrated briefly here:  When Fine saw them dismiss the Silva v. Garcetti case, it led to the discovery of payments to judges in the County (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles).  Funny the upset for fathers wikipedia guy didn’t mention this — but MSM silence on certain cases can be effective.

    This was an unbelievable mess.  Child Support collections was eventually (in CA at least) specifically removed from the province of the District Attorney’s Office, probably because of this, and now the practice of  holding onto child support collections while they collect interest (at least 30 days before anything is considered “late”) and attempt to divert them for private crony use, or otherwise seriously mess with mothers (and fathers) — is in the hands of a different centralized agency in California — and “Local CSA’s” (child support agencies) by county, for the most part.     They’re doing approximately as well when it comes to conflict of interest and honesty, but at lest someone else had a crack at screwing families financially for a change.

    See?  CA.Gov

    Welcome to the Department of Child Support Services Website!

    California’s Child Support Services Program works with* parents – custodial and noncustodial – and guardians to ensure children and families receive court-ordered financial and medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 52 county and regional child support agencies (LCSAs).

    * this must be why it’s “Child Support SERVICES” not collections, or enforcements.  How ‘holistic.’

    and (from same website, different tab) a note about the administrative costs:

    The May 2011 Revision updates the DCSS local assistance budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12. It provides the estimates of the administrative costs for the local child support agencies, as well as the detailed methodology for each estimate. The total administrative costs for local assistance are estimated to be $906.3 million ($277.7 million State General fund (SGF)) for SFY 2010-11 and $866.6 million ($270.8 million SGF) for SFY 2011-12.

    and such financial concepts as:

    Federal Performance Basic Incentives

    DESCRIPTION:

    This premise reflects the Federal Performance Basic Incentives. Pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the federal incentives passed onto local child support agencies (LCSAs) are to be based on the five performance measures and Data Reliability Audit compliance. California’s historical performance is displayed in the Auxiliary Tables section of this document on the Historical Incentive Performance Measures chart (Chart A-10).

    IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

    The federal performance incentive methodology was implemented October 1, 1999 and phased in over three years.

    OR, say, a measly almost $100,000 to keep the pipelines open to Strengthening Families and other Cross-Collaborations which many child support recipients (meaning payees/ payors) would be hard-pressed to comprehend, or track (if they even knew these existed).  No doubt this is far better than having ONE corrupt District Attorney’s Office simply sitting on the stuff, Los Angeles Style, until caught at it and sued to stop it:

    Partnership to Strengthen Families Grant

    DESCRIPTION:

    This premise reflects the funds for the Partnership to Strengthen Families Federal Grant. The project will support partnerships among state child support program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and university scholars and researchers. Research and data analysis will be performed to improve coordination between the state child support program and TANF agencies.

    The child support program and TANF program serve many of the same customers and share a program goal of family self sufficiency. Cross organizational partnerships can support improved efficiency and effectiveness by bringing together program experts to evaluate policy making and to assess processes that cross both organizations. The policy choices of each program can have a significant impact on the other. Isolated decision making is not in the best interest of the child support program nor the TANF program. This demonstration grant will serve as the foundation for an integrated and more effective communication between programs.

    This partnership will benefit both the child support and TANF programs with the help of university faculty and scholars to design and support data exchanges, store and analyze data, and conduct special studies or evaluations of program policies or practices. Additionally, the steering committee for the partnership will also involve local child support and TANF welfare directors so that all elements of the program leadership are included. A collaborative effort is expected to add substantial value to otherwise independent planning and actions by these organizations in isolation.

    IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

    This premise was implemented September 30, 2009.

    KEY DATA/ASSUMPTIONS:

    • Authorizing statute: Section 1115(a)(2), 1115(b) and 1115(b)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 United States Code 1315].

    • This grant is effective from September 30, 2009 through February 28, 2011.

    • The total project cost consists of Section 1115 grant funds, a required 5 percent state match, and federal financial participation. The 5 percent state match will be funded through redirection of existing resources.  [from Childsup.ca.gov, various links]

    Now, instead, they can figure out what to do with approximately $4 billion (per year) of federal funds to states intended to enforce child & family support (or, promote marriage, a.k.a. fatherhood), including Compromising Arrears (that they ran up to start with), jailing fathers for nonsupport of outrageous amounts — then letting them out into classes about “How to be a father” (including abstinence education — go figure) run by court-affiliated program promoters.

    But that’s another topic.

    Take for example (2), Alameda County’s:

    Now, for ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

    I casually noticed that the Alameda County District Attorney actually had an Annual Report 2010, I figured, why not take a look? (note:  I also look other places – so should we — such as vendor payments for this one, contracts, payrolls, etc.)

    For Annual Report, read “Sales Promotion” for receiving more money for more programs.  It’s basically going to be a Business Plan, or part of one, right.

    Being the smart woman that I am, I went straight to “LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.”

    I’ve been around the block a few times, and know what the word “initiatives” means

    I find it odd that the law enforcement is so eager to write the law also.  Kind of like the Executive Branch of the US changing the legal system (and adding a faith-based office to help the separation of church and state just a little more) and the Judicial Element forming nonprofits and directing traffic to them.  Or the Legislative Element getting press for helping the homeless, while their wives are busy charging $225 an hour to subcontract work that probably should’ve been done by a public agency (which the public pays for) to start with.

    Makes you kind of wonder where the criminal element of society really is, sometimes.  I mean, what’s truly causing the level of poverty and street crime and disrespect for authority seen throughout this county (home to the 4th and 5th highest homicide cities in the country, last I heard — Oakland, and Richmond, California).  Does no responsibility ever rest with this department?  

    So, here’s “Nancy (O’Malley) goes to Washington” — What a Wonderful Life it must be.

    Once there she has some nice chats, by mutual request it seems, with Dianne, about SB 557 – instead of having this chat first with the citizens that actually live in this state and who don’t always have our U.S. Senators’ ear.   They’re lucky, many times, if they can get law enforcement’s ear, if it’s just a “family matter” (aka domestic dispute), even though these matters can get both family and officers killed, and have.

    And here’s SB 557.  Glad I happened to hear about it.   And guess who proposed it (sponsor, co-sponsor):

    CORRECTED APRIL 27, 2011
    AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011
    AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2011

    CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2011–2012 REGULAR SESSION

    SENATE BILL No. 557
    ________________________________________

    Introduced by Senator Kehoe
    (Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Atkins, Fletcher)

    Wow —Senator(SB117) Kehoe (SB747)  & Assemblyperson Atkins (SB 887):  the Dynamic Duo strikes again

    • This time, to help their cohorts get proprietary language to promote a certain concept promising “justice”  coach parents  suffering from domestic violence and separation, including with their kids, from abusers.
    • This is not to say the same people don’t also propose better bills — like adding “strangulation” to the definition of “traumatic injury.”  However, this still ain’t gonna change how little family law judges care about it, as opposed to pushing co-parenting, therapy and marriage & fatherhood to people who are, er, divorcing (etc.).  Generally, they fall under the category of “special interests” it seems, including:
    • SB 117 (Kehoe)
      Public contracts: prohibitions: discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (see my last 2 posts on how Atkins’ partner got San Diego business…)

    While this may be a good concept, common sense says to take it up with the California Healthy Marriage and the Bush-originator and perpetuators of National Fatherhood In Aeternum.  Isn’t there some way we could lock the different factions into a single room  — like is done with a sequestered jury — and duke it out while the rest of us get about our own business, and sex lives?  Note:  no minor children should be allowed into the room for any purpose during this time.

    Actually, it was Kehoe sponsoring SB 2263 nine years ago, trying to one-stop shop an all-expense-paid (i.e., public funding through California Judicial Council) assessment of (Kids’ Turn).   Has she had children?  Has her partner had children?  So what’s with this fascination with coaching others about how children feel about divorce, and what parents should tell them during the process?

    Somehow I”m starting to wonder how these types of bills relate to each other.

    So long as family court judges continue to exercise “wide discretion” and retain immunity for screw-ups, and so long as parents are too busy on on-line forums (arguing PAS or anti-PAS) and going to rallies to Washington, D.C. to plead for mercy — it doesn’t matter that Governor Gray Davis vetoed that one, saying gently that perhaps the highest judicial body in the state wasn’t, er, qualified to measure mental health (i.e., attitude adjustments that certain mental health professionals wish to see).

    Family Law already makes just about any other law a moot point, no matter what gender you express this in — it’s possible to get permanently screwed in 2o minutes, or ex parte, and with or without a $$ to spare.

    We, the People of California (insert your state, but this state has a well-earned reputation for being off the charts sometimes, it seems) should instead actually investigate who’s married to, in business with, or on the board of directors with whom, and we’d better keep our eyes peeled about whassup in the legislature, and whassup in Washington, too.  And start respecting bloggers that do (historymatters of Sandiegooneline, or Ronkayeinlaw, etc.), rather than on-line weekly reporters (Mr. Peter Jamison of SFWeekly) that don’t.

    February 17, 2011

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

    **the last suggestion (see my recent posts) was to simply amend Civil Labor Educational Insurance and Penal codes to clarify that gender expression is a civil right (as I understood it).  This one simply adds a Title subdivision, i.e. 5.3.

    While AFCC is busy legitimizing and legalizing “Parenting Coordinators” to further undermine due process (and confidentiality) a.k.a. legal rights, the DA’s office itself is trying to legitimize and hallow “family justice centers” that shouldn’t even be necessary IF the DA’s office (law enforcement and prosecution) had been doing their jobs right to start with, including taking criminal activity committed by one parent against the other without respect to gender.  Same general idea — exploiting prior screwups by the same people to add another layer of bureaucracy to “coordinate” all the services needed.

    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DIGEST
    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

    SB 557, as amended, Kehoe. Family justice centers.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
    SECTION 1.
    Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:
    TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers

    13750.
    (a) A city, county, or city and county may establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking. Family justice centers, if established in a city, county, or city and county, may include community-based domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse in the planning and operations process of a family justice center, and may establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers.
    (b) For purposes of this title, the following terms have the following meanings:

    (1) “Abuse” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6203 of the Family Code.
    (2) “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code.
    (3) “Sexual assault” means an act or attempt made punishable by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, 289, or 647.6.
    (4) “Elder abuse” means an act made punishable by Section 368.
    (5) “Human trafficking” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 236.1.

    (6) “Victim of crime,” “crime victim,” or “victim” means a victim of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, or human trafficking.

    (c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims crime from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

    (1) Law enforcement personnel.
    (2) Medical personnel.
    (3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
    (4) Victim-witness program personnel.
    (5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
    (6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates.
    (7) Social service agency staff members.
    (8) Child welfare agency social workers.
    (9) County health department staff.
    (10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
    (11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
    (12) Civil legal service providers.
    (13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
    (14) Other professionals providing services.

    Text found at Survivors in Action (which addresses stalking — not parenting — issues)

    Wow.  I felt SO o o o o distracted by investigating the Nonprofit Filings of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” which I already knew was itself a Dubious District Attorney Doing.  San Diego (where the model started) also reported on their Doubts as to why a retiring City? attorney should simply move functions that belonged to government over to the Y, later to become what I like to call Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan Model.

    I found out that after getting a $3 million grant, producing a nonprofit structure (channel?) that has 0 $$ and 0 boards of directors (if one looks at the paperwork) yet suddenly a subsidiary group, “Family Violence Law Center” is getting flush with $millions of education & prevention programs under a different EIN.

    Having wondered why none of these groups actually tell us how Family Law Operates (which is through AFCC/CRC and a host of nonprofit groups to receive federal funds to fix families, even though the fix is getting some of them killed from the resulting mix of turmoil & entitlements) — I see that the Executive Director of this Family Violence Law Center, has a background in Family Law.

    Together, while they do not talk honestly about each other (or their relationships), they comprise an assembly line that shuffles families from separation through dissolution to destitution, getting grants along the way to “prevent family violence” at the top of the chute (abandoning those halfway down).

    Wait a minute — don’t we deserve some better accounting of the EXISTING family justice Centers before they become the model of how to (not) help Victims of Crime navigate the family law system?)

    FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT:

    D.A. Nancy E. O’Malley and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

    In May 2010, Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley led a team from the District Attorney’s Office to Washington D.C. to honor fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and meet with legislators.

    The team met with many officials to discuss the Office’s nationally recognized programs and initiatives. Highlights included presentations on the Restitution Unit, the H.E.A.T. Watch program, and the Alameda County Family Justice Center

    (A Nancy O’Malley/Davis-Lockyer, affiliate of the San Diego Family Justice Center model, founded by someone who was personally sued by one of his own staff for ignoring severe domestic violence and what appears to be death threats to one of his own employees, to which it seems he (Casey Gwinn) responded by moving the situation to a different floor, and thereafter ignoring it.   Which I have blogged.  Guess they don’t read my lovely, graphics-intensive, professionally organized posts.) 

    . Also overviewed was the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and the innovative and successful partnerships between the D.A.’s Office, Probation Department, Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Health Care.

    In a briefing with the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, D.A. O’Malley spoke about the Family Justice Center’s concept of collaborative comprehensive services.

    Time to review (From FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT), “The Brown Act.”

    THE BASICS

    Meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))

    WHO’S COVERED

    • Local agencies, including counties, cities, school and special districts. (§ 54951)
    • Legislative bodies” of each agency–the agency’s governing body plus “covered boards,” that is, any board, commission, committee, task force or other advisory body created by the agency, whether permanent or temporary. (§ 54952(b))
    • Any standing committee of a covered board, regardless of number of members. (§ 54952(b))
    • Governing Bodies of Non-profit corporations formed by a public agency or which includes a member of a covered board and receives public money from that board. (§ 54952(c))

    This is my HOLIDAY (or the Sunday before it) and catching up with a Northern California District Attorneys’ latest Dubious Doings and proposed legislations wasn’t on it.  Can I — like Kehoe recommended that Kids’ Turn (initially) — get some public funding to study the effectiveness (or rather, lack of it) of both kids’ Turn AND all spinoffs functioning in my area — AND of the local Family Justice Center closest to me?  (I posted others, from an IRS lookup of charities with the name, yesterday, bottom of the post).

    In other words, we can either work, and trust our local representatives and elected officials to do their jobs at least as well as we do our own — OR, we can scale back on work (and thus fewer taxes for them to waste) and take time to divert some of the slush funds to our scrutinizing the rest of the slush fund activity.

    Having a family law attorney running FVLC is a conflict of interest, as shown (last I heard) on the total SILENCE on the characters, traits, and habits of the family law system and the nonprofits surrounding it, like

    NAUCRATES DUCTOR (pilot fish):

    (no, the term is not familiar to me, but isn’t the image appropriate?  Because what they are escorting is indeed a shark.  And the nonprofits surrounding the family law system, which may or may not be smaller than it (who knows?  WHo is tracking) — are feeding off a fish which itself is paid for by the public to start with.  At some level, this is starting to resemble family COURT systems, not just FAMILY courts. And I’m not the only person that seems to think this way — I have a photo on here of a bunch of judges (SF area) dressing up as royalty at an AAML meeting.  They composed a cute song based on “Camelot” (itself a reference to the Kennedy White House as royalty) to go along with this and seemed to think it was funny.  )

    From the Legislative Initiatives section of the Annual Report.   

    Legislative Initiatives

    Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

    In 2010, we were instrumental in writing numerous pieces of legislation, including:

    SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

    As with “fatherhood” programs — this “trend” is hardly a grassroots demand for justice centers.  No, certain people have a vested interest in continuing to “initiate” them.

    I have a motto to counteract this trend:

    JUST SAY NO!

    Meanwhile…

    Anyone willing to do some legwork and track the nonprofit status and get some verified results from any of the existing family justice centers — please do so.  Are they all set up like this one? Are they obtaining public & private monies and funneling them to a favored nonprofit and changing the character of a nonprofit which used to simply help its clients?

    How many of the board members are actually public servants — and let’s get some payroll records.

    A reminder — someone who walked through the doors — in fact even someone who got a restraining order (already proven to have a good risk of getting him/her (a) dead or (b) eventually completely eliminated from (her) kids’ lives — when the people who should be instead supporting court order enforcement are those collaborating instead to “educate” and “train” others inside new centers…

    McDonalds is hugely successful — it serves a lot of people.  That doesn’t mean everyone should buy all their food form fast-food franchises…..

    This “trend” is going to increase the number of DISenfranchised citizens, whose real needs don’t fit neatly into such expensive and unproven collaborations.

    Just Say No. Then get on-line, and get involved demanding a better explanation of why we should put up with this.

    Take time from TV and do some FOIA requests under the Sunshine Ordinance.  Each one teach one — we can do this!

    All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?

    with 2 comments

    Well, it depends on the point of view.  In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda.  The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —

    A Sampler of Timeless  “Wisdom” across the centuries:

    • “All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…

    1600s, roughly:

    William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)

    All the world's a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players:
    They have their exits and their entrances;
    And one man in his time plays many parts,
    His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
    Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
    And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
    And shining morning face, creeping like snail
    Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
    Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
    Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
    Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
    Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
    Seeking the bubble reputation
    Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
    In fair round belly with good capon lined,
    With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
    Full of wise saws and modern instances;
    And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
    Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
    With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
    His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
    For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
    Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
    And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
    That ends this strange eventful history,
    Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
    Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

    Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life  pretty close to “from dust to dust.”  Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant:  A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…”  and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.”  There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end.    Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…

    For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
    Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
    And whistles in his sound.

    At least it makes you think!

    The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts.  He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”.  He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…

    Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,

    the bottom line is… there will be an exit.

    Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):

    Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)


    • Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …


    From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–

    Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

    Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.

    5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
    7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

    And he gently mocks the endless writings….

    . . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

    To be condensed into:

    Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

    Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):

    Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments.  THere’s even a rationale provided:  “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”

    Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new…   it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….

    “Simple Pictures are Best!”

    The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships.  Most of these have some direct parallel in law today  — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.

    How about just TWO concepts?

    Anyhow, moving on…  Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2:  Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember?  No.  Hard to do?  Yes.  But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either.  It relates to choice, determination, and will  — not education only..

    Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out.  It takes  a special mindset NOT to….

    Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”).  This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)

    Or, OK, THREE main concepts…

    • Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”

    The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…

    << 1 Corinthians 13 >>
    King James Version

    1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

    There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being.  They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant.  I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth….  let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT!  Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight.  The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers.

    Bear with the Bible stuff, please…

    I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please.  To recall:  all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:

    12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.

    This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect.  So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:

    • Faith
    • Hope
    • Charity

    The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then.  ALl will come out in the wash.  Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.

    I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts.  But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature.  Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!

    People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.

    Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.”  The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to.  they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….).  They need to be taught….  ALL of them…..

    We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day.  That’s about romance.  This is a deeper kind of action:

    The Greatest of these is Charity.

    It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…

    It is the deepest motivator.

     

    the bottom line is… charity.  And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…

    Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…

    No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught.  Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured.  THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course).  We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained….  And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.

    Nope, no more of that.  Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”.  We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).

    How about “Parenting Coordination”?

    I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:

    • All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:
    • Parenting Coordination.  The bottom line is. .  we need parenting coordinators.

      But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…

    This is from May, 2005

    Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

    Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005

    Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.

    Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..

    The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.

    The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1

    The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.

    AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.

    I was in the court system at this time.  No one asked MY opinion….  Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route.  There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow.  Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired.  (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described).  Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example).  Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once.  So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded.  I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”

    Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated.  The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…

    Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”

    Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:

    Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

    The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

    1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).

    Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.”  Then again, AFCC has great PR.

    At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross).  The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…

    The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis.  Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business.  Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process.  THey get lost there, too.


    • the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”

    The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords….  or where they congregate.

    What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:

    Overview and Definitions

    Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

    And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan”  The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…

    To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.


    PARENTING COORDINATION IS  a . . . . . . PROCESS.

    ….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.

    What kind of process?

    . . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….

    Wrong on both counts.

    (1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them.  Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle??  In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.

    (2)  From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.

    …in which a mental health or legal professional ….

    i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person.  People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY.  (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)

    …with mediation training and experience…

    Of course.  The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time.  They have rules, but don’t follow them.  Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance.  Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.

    This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.

    {FYI:  I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}

    Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.

    Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”

    Hmm.  I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court.  It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them.  But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine.  THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting.  And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court.  My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work.  Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them.  I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….

    I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal.  How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served?  It dilutes the legal due process.

    Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”

    Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.

    “They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”

    Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation.  Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage.  She musta been a rookie….

    For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence.  This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.

    OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:

    Overview and Definitions

    Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

    . . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….

    [pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again.  OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]

    Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..

    Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts.  This behavior should NOT be encouraged……

    FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance.  ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated.  I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.

    “HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly?  This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong.    It’s a lose-lose combination.

    Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders.  Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children.  IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?

    well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:

    …by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

    ….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…

    [by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]

    [“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron.  It’s a contradiction of terms!  Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess!  Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that.  These professionals are most likely WHY….]

    …educating parents about children’s needs. .

    AHA!  We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..

    Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc.  Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc.  roles?

     

    “…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .

    “…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one.  If that.  . .   It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….

    making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

    In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead.  Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc.  (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody.  Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD.  Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”).  … And so on.

    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,

    (Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).

    MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:

    Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination

    (translation:  two years later, still needing more task forces..)

    Members

    Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX

    Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX

    Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX

    Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX

    Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007

    Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction…  This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:

    The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.

    “Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” .   That’s “rich.”  why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s?  Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.

    “this emerging field”  — -give me a break!  With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….

    Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.”  Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening.  Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.

    The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1

    In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.

    (Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)

    Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.

    Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.

    If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.

    I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES.  WOULD YOU?  SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE.  OR HE MIGHT…  CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!

    THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.

    A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.


    THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:

    The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

    Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.

    Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on!  They were behind the 8-ball.

    And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!

    Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”

    Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me.  If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist.  If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)

    But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….

    Here it is — they want more “training.”

    Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.

    Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.

    Can you do this?  Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT).  Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face.  i dare you.  Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..

    Did you?  Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)…  recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’  Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law

    Wow — brilliant.  I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.

     

    They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )

    Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals.  {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}

    Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.

    That bird has flown the coop already.  People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that..  This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..

     

    But, they want more training — naturally.

    My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:

    “Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”

     

    Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen?  Look no further — you got it!

    From “NAFCJ:  Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):

    When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases. Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20]

    Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852). The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21]

     

    This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I.  I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this.  No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect.  People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…

     

    This is not kindergarten any more.  See my Shady Shaky Foundations page, look at other sources, connect the dots, and don’t believe everything said in FRONT of the curtain. Become a Toto (Wizard of Oz) and bark, and keep on barking .

     

    Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…

     

    To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”

    A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was  threatening Europe and Great Britain.  He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it.  The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.

    We are in times like that.  I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing.  But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!

    I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.).  I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out.  As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.

     

    Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
    How’s yours these days?

     

     

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures:  From 2003,



    NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
    http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htm

    Family Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection

    by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03

    Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
    While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]

    . . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.

    AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition.

     

    Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23] Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]

    Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]

    Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner.

    However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world.

    [25]Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]

     

    And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011]

    with one comment

    (“Vomite” would be an imperative in Latin, if it were a real verb, so I adjusted the ending).

    This post’s title and a case-sensitive short link to it: More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011].  The short-link ends “-Cy” and I added the “published” phrase later.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.” Minimal updating has kept this post at under 3,000 words, best read in conjunction with the one published the day before in 2011 where (alas?) it had more than minimal updating on one organization I was flagging at the time (which later went “underground” letting its IRS exemption file, while continuing “honorable mention” from some of the largest, mutually-coordinated networks around, Community and otherwise.  Both these post made it into my 2017 “retrospective” as significant.  This one I like because of its simplicity and empathy for the absurdity of the programming but for many years, the other one (“Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You?”) had been a favorite.//LGH @ 2-20-2017.

     

    Read my most recent post for some background

    That would be: Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator <=Title, post published 1/17/2011 with its case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-Cc”  This post has some updates but it still only 6,050 words.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.”

    This morning, I noticed visitors from three universities (New York, Princeton & Berkeley) had been on my site very recently.  The Berkeley visitor was viewing a site featuring some work by Lundy Bancroft, a well-known author books such as “Why does he DO that?” or “The Batterer as Parent.”

    I would like to comment upon “Why he (Bancroft, et al.) DOES that” and the concept of “The Batterer as Parent” in a wider perspective of this field of the family law system.

    For the former perspective, the short answer is, a combination of from (I’ll still presume) residual good will towards suffering females and their children and, more to the point, for a living.

    To recap that, the reasons appear to be:

    • He’s probably basically a good guy, which probably put him outside the mainstream (meaning, funding flow) of the family law court professionals, and
    • For a living.

    See my post “Moms are Parents Too” and read the comment at the bottom, which is an update.

    Now, as to the concept “The Batterer As Parent.”

    Although assault and battery is a crime (or either one alone) as I understand it, either misdemeanor or felony level, in practice, the family law system acts as an opaque umbrella under which this terminology is really not taken seriously. Not really.

    So mothers who take Bancroft & batterer language into a court hearing may be in for a real rude awakening — it’s not welcome overall.  Hence, a living has to be made elsewhere, and a name, as I mentioned.  Although Mr. Bancroft has in the past presented alongside what I’d call overt “fatherhood” presenters (yeah, I looked that up), I’d say he’s not on the same page, or in the forefront of THAT movement. He and this rhetoric is more like a gnat in its side — definitely not so much as a “thorn in the flesh.”

    Obviously, it lands with something of a thud.  to solve this, we are encouraged to watch our demeanor more carefully, strategize just so, and not step on too many toes.  Don’t pick unnecessary battles, don’t rock the boat, etc.

    I believe that anyone telling a mother who has been ass-whupped (or anything approaching it, including emotionally, financially, etc.) in front of her own kids, to advise, do it some more, and all will be well, or this is the ONLY way all will be better than it is now, has a lot of nerve. 
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator

    with 5 comments

    Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator <=Title, post published 1/17/2011 with its case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-Cc”  This post has some updates but it still only 6,050 words.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.”

    (1)

    • Mothers, supposedly — go to A battered MOTHERS conference.  BMCC, New York, weekend of Jan. 6th-9th.

    Look up “Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference” (8th year).

    (2)

    • Fathers, supposedly — should go to a FATHERHOOD summit (conference) .  Minnesota, a Monday-Tuesday combo, January 24th-25th.

      Possibly because Family Law professional attendees, can get professional CLE credit for attending on a weekday, while some people, attending, might lose a job for absenteeism.  Pay close attention to the repetitive use of the word “father” throughout this conference, because in the 3rd one, some of the same characters are likely to be found at, or helping present at, or sponsor, etc.  a conference claiming Gender has nothing to do with all this. (See #3, below)


    Read the rest of this entry »