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 ‘OCSE – Child Support’ Category

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?

////

///


Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017]

with one comment

Post title with short-link (and to explain the 2011/2017 references in the title):

Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017] (with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ending “-Qp.”)


This long (18.7K words) post featuring among others examples in HOW TO and features from various places to check in the process of doing the lookups, the two nonprofits Kids’ Turn San Diego and Kids’ Turn (in San Francisco), both of which after being hit repeatedly in 2011 with simply talking about it, posting boards of directors (plenty of whom were judges), at some point one of them later submerged itself under another nonprofit running training classes to prevent child abuse, in a networked, proprietary-program sort of way across the country.  As I recall, and referring (as I recall at the close of 2017 — which is many years ago!) but will double-check, the surviving entity it merged into — thereby “disappearing” its California OAG charitable details record, some of which I posted herein, is SFCAPC (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center or “Council”). For more details look this up at (now it’s called) BusinessSearch.SOS.Ca.Gov or “Verification” page at California OAG/RCT. ( Go to those sites for more details).  California OAG search results have added an EIN# field, but are not otherwise changed in a major way; however the California Secretary of State Business Search website (formerly “kepler.sos.ca.gov”) has been radically revised in both initial level search results, and possibly in reporting requirements.

I do not claim personal — I’ll call it — “credit” for having driven one of two California-based “Kids’ Turn” 501©3s underground, but at least one of them did go underground. It may be just coincidence, BUT the possibility that maybe I did (in addition to the general public-interest purpose of calling attention to how family-court-connected, and business-referrals-taking nonprofits organize and reproduce themselves over time) provides some minor compensation in terms of a sense of making an impact in the behavior of the court cultures nationwide,but in no way compensates for the damages the process inflicted upon my family line, and the legacy for my own children which this process re-directed away from them, and towards the professionals who make their livelihoods speaking on behalf of abused women (who apparently can’t speak), noncustodial fathers (for whom “fatherhood.gov” is still not enough help to “even out” the unfair advantage women supposedly have as mothers in divorce, or the public at large in (allegedly) reducing public debt through Post-PRWORA (1996) Welfare Reform policies scapegoating single motherhood itself and pretending to take into account that one cause of “single motherhood” is abusive fathers. No, encouraging and promoting RESPONSIBLE fatherhood will handle the danger situation, with appropriate and ever-more interventions and court-order therapies/treatments for the abused and the non-abused. etc.

One of the commissioners I stood in front of post-child-stealing event, in order to negotiate how to retroactively reduce my ex-batterers child support arrears (which I’d just been told in person in the child support offices right before, could not happen), I years later learned had been on a Kids’ Turn Board of Directors.  As with AFCC, it seems that the nonprofit gave everyone a shot at being listed on the board, which helps those who choose to do so, cite proudly to that community service. That ruling was no favor to our children, who pre-abduction at least had one stable, and consistently working parent (with whom they lived, namely me) although that work life was increasingly under attack once the restraining order had been stripped off and an apparently underemployed (and later admitted in court, wasn’t actively looking for work because he was “depressed” about not having a wife and supportive partner — an excuse I hardly was making at any point).


I worked on a re-formatted version of this post (under separate “cover” — title) earlier this season and am thinking it might be my charitable contribution (of a sort) for 2017.  This post is entertaining, and gets into layered foundations and venture capitalists directing their grants to groups like these which don’t even bother to stay current at their state level filings.


I see in hindsight from the part of the post dealing with San Diego Foundation (Gross assets in August 2011 shown as $666M) which in 2007 formed the Carlsbad Community Foundation (which then donated several thousand dollars to Kids’ Turn San Diego), and with the various dbas under which various Kids’ Turn (either SD or SF in this case) donors operated (referring to Taproot Foundation, a dba of “TapFound, Inc.”), with its (Taproot, Inc.s) third-generation venture capitalist startup funding, that the topics covered are still relevant even though many links no longer are intact.  Any more commentary from this perspective will be found on the updated, reformatted post.//LGH 12/29/2017…

For some of the flavor — after many of the lookups — a screenprint from the post below.  It’s in my voice, not a quote from some other website; “me” = yours truly…

Image from my 8/31/2011 post, complete with some typos and more sarcasm.

…Just describing what I was seeing…
Below this line is August 31, 2011, writing. If you want a better-looking version of the same information (with some, though not 100%, updates on the organizations mentioned below), wait for the 2017 update. //


And moreover, what about all these grantor/grantee relationships with corporations that don’t seem (note disclaimer) to be even operating legally in California?  While the promise is that 25 SF courthouses must be shut because of budget cuts….

And I don’t just mean Kids’ Turn /  San Diego, which at least were incorporated here legally, but is now (per the databases) on suspended status, charity registrations delinquent.

Kids’ Turn

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1657442 12/29/1989 SUSPENDED KID’S TURN CLAIRE BARNES
C1970774 06/05/1996 ACTIVE KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS

Incorporation status suspended for the SF branch (top row), but not the San Diego (which was a spinoff nonprofit).

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
KID’S TURN 075606 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 102902 Charity Delinquent SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity
1

Minor note:  The organization’s name is KIDS -apostrophe, so one must move the apostrophe (making it Kid, singular, apostrophe, S) to find on either database.

Also, California, unlike some other states doesn’t tell the on-line viewer WHEN the license was suspended, i.e., before or after outreach such as this:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 20, 2011:

Dateline:  San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.

Yes I do believe swallowing some of this would indeed call for release from “Attachment to the facts” such as that this organization has some really strange financial liaisons.

Or, I wonder if Linda Brandes was able to claim her $10,000 donation to Kids’ Turn San Diego, as their charitable status is delinquent, still, also in 2011:

Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes gives Kids’ Turn San Diego a $10,000 grant

(Posted May 25, 2011 in the Rancho Santa Fe Review)

Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.

Linda Brandes

Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.

Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.

“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

March 2, 2011 letter from the California Department of Justice (in file, on-line):

[From:] State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO CA 94203-4470

Telephone: (916)445-2021×5 Facsimile: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail: RRF1@doj.ca.gov

[TO:] KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 16935 W BERNARDO DR NO. 234 SAN DIEGO CA 92127

March 9, 2011

CT FILE NUMBER: 102902

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $50 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts

for:  KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

Now that they have another donation, they can afford the $50 check. I see no “our check is in the mail” response, perhaps one was sent.  And another letter:

Another letter a week later, same file# (CT 102902) reminds Kids’ Turn San Diego, California needs KT to fill out (not just send partial details) their list of donors, i.e., a “Schedule B,” just like you have to file with the IRS (“oops!”).    Too busy with international expansions of the programs, or is list of donors too hot to touch?

RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

While you and I don’t get this private information (barring anything on the web), it’s nice to know someone is keeping track.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

I learned this from “Don Kramer’s Nonprofit Issues” (i.e., I looked up the IRS form # footnoted on the KT San Diego letter) and learned:

Is a nonprofit required to report anonymous donors to the IRS?  Several colleagues have said that it is illegal for a nonprofit to not disclose an anonymous donor to the IRS.  Schedule B of the Form 990 provides a listing of major contributors but I have seen 990s that list the amounts without disclosing names.

You are both right.  Nonprofits of all types, not just 501(c)(3) charities, that file a Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ tax information return are required to identify substantial donors (generally donors of $5000 or more) to the IRS on Schedule B, and must include the names and addresses of the donors.  But organizations other than private foundations and Section 527 political organizations may eliminate the names and addresses of donors when they make the Schedule available for public inspection. Therefore, you are undoubtedly correct that you have seen Schedule Bs without names of donors, and your colleagues are correct that the names must have been disclosed to the IRS.

this suggests (but of course doesn’t prove) that the charity in question here (helping kids and parents deal with divorce, right) may have failed to disclose donors of over $5,000 — possibly the figures didn’t add up to the grants received, I don’t know.

The fact that 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501 (c)(6) trade associations are not obligated to publicly disclose the names of their donors has made them a very attractive vehicle for people who want to engage in political campaign advertising anonymously.  In theCitizens Unitedcase, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporations could engage in campaign advertising. Since (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s are permitted to support or oppose candidates in election campaigns—unlike 501(c)(3) charities that can lose their exemption for electioneering—many have opted to use anonymous donations for this new activity.

6/14/2011

Someone should maybe also contact the “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” who awarded KTSan Diego $20,000 to do at least four workshops for about 100-120 families in Carlsbad “experiencing” divorce and child-custody “disputes.”

Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awards nonprofit grants
13 months ago | 449 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29. 

Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.
And what’s more, they reduce parental alienation, right?
Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.

CCF Grants Chairman Tom Applegate noted that collective resources of Carlsbad’s 40-plus faith communities will be more effectively utilized to help persons in need. . . .

with all those faith communities and enough finances to go around, one might think that there’d be fewer divorces and out-of-wedlock births to start with.  (:

CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Finocchiaro said that grants were made possible through the contributions of the members of The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation. “We’re extremely honored to support Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services commitment to our community,” she said. “The intent of these donations is to support activities and programs that unify and inspire Carlsbad residents to make a positive difference in the future of our city.”

Kids’ Turn SD has great reasons to be committed to Carlsbad’s Community — see median household income.

Carlsbad’s median income (per its site, whatever date), $92, 249, and there are 2.55 people per household.  I can see how that would be stressful, custody of that extra burdensome 0.55 child, occasioning many divorce “disputes.”   The Top 10 employers of this 65,000 population city & average employee salary of $49K, with 40 faith communities, 1% African-American residents, and almost every other adult having a bachelor’s degree, plus 12% master’s or higher,  being:

Top 10 employers (2007)

1,429 Callaway Golf
1,172 Life Technologies Corporation (Invitrogen Corporation)
1,169 Carlsbad Unified School District
1,014 La Costa Resort and Spa
874 Park Hyatt Aviara Resort
862 LEGOLAND California
854 ViaSat, Inc.
797 Gemological Institute of America
714 City of Carlsbad
694 TaylorMade (Adidas Golf)

The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation is an affiliate of the San Diego Foundation, apparently (nothing is listed directly under that name, as my searches below show):

703 Palomar Airport Rd , Carlsbad , CA 92011 | 760-269-3882

www.​carlsbadcharitablefoundation.​org

The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation’s mission is to “advance philanthropy in Carlsbad in order to build community excellence, stimulate innovation and enhance the capacity of nonprofits.” Every year the foundation splits the total amount of donations in half. One half goes to grants for the year; the other goes specifically to the Carlsbad endowment, which is for the advancement of the community. CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation.

Or, in their own words:

Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation in 2007. This community-specific effort helps meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.

1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (CCF) in 2007. This community-specific effort would help meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.


4. What is The San Diego Foundation?
Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.
5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?
As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.
DOES IT HAVE TO REGISTER AND FILE TAXES SEPARATELY, WITH THE HELP OF The San Diego FOUNDATION EXPERIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, OR NOT?
6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.

7. What is an endowment?


(on the SAN DIEGO SITE):

For Nonprofits

The San Diego Foundation is honored to be able to claim $60 million in grants to community causes last year, but we cannot take all the credit. Over ninety percent of our annual grants are driven directly by our donors. These are individuals, families, and corporations recommending grants from Donor Advised Funds to the organizations and causes that are important to them.
In addition to Donor Advised Funds, The San Diego Foundation’s program grants fund nonprofits through a competitive application process. Program grants cover subject areas such as arts and culture, civil society, the environment, health & human services, and science & technology.

. . .

Donor Advised Funds

Donor Advised FundsDonor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.

Designated Funds  (note the photo chosen — things “kids” are great fundraiser causes).

Designated FundsDesignated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.
With a designated fund, at the outset, the donor designates one or more charities who will receive the earnings on the fund in perpetuity. Grant checks are mailed automatically once or twice a year, with the donor choosing the best time or according to The Foundation’s schedule of March and/or September. Donors may also opt to reinvest the earnings until the fund grows to an amount desired by the donor. Fees associated with the designated fund are particularly inexpensive, at 0.5%.
To establish a designated fund, or to learn more information, contact our charitable giving team at GivingTeam@sdfoundation.org or 619-235-2300.

The San Diego Foundation holds raffles, and registered for one in 2009 which raised “$42,564.66.”

It’s filings (under the OAG site) show this for 2002 (earliest year shown):

Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-02
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-03
Total Assets: $361,600,036.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $717,938,952.00
RRF Received: 19-NOV-03
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):

Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-09
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-10
Total Assets: $466,087,961.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $63,742,314.00
RRF Received: 15-NOV-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted


Organization Details
EIN: 952942582
Name: The San Diego Foundation — Google
Location:  2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92106
 Report Address Change
County: San Diego County
Ruling Date: 1975   (Approximate year when founded)
IRS Type: 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations…
Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public
NTEE:  T31 – Community Foundations
Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) 06/2010
Total Revenue $63,742,314
Total Assets: $466,087,961
Organization Mission Statement and Purpose
The San Diego Foundation improves the quality of life within the San Diego community by promoting and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy.

In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:

2. Article VIII is added to the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation and shall read as follows:

The Corporation is specifically authorized to obtain licensure as a grants and annuities society pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 11520 through 11524 and to conduct a grants and annuities business once licensed.

I. of The San Diego Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit

3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors.

The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has

4. The Corporation has no members.

Grants and Annuities means one can receive transfers of property, provided the business agrees to pay out to the Transferror — or the Tranferror’s Nominee — an Annuity.  Not just anyone can do it, an organization has to have been in operation for 10 years or more and qualifies according to this code:

INSURANCE CODE 
SECTION 11520-11524 

11520.  The following organizations and persons may receive
transfers of property, conditioned upon their agreement to pay an
annuity to the transferor or the transferor's nominee, after
obtaining from the commissioner a certificate of authority so to do:
   (a) Any charitable, religious, benevolent or educational
organization, pecuniary profit not being its object or purpose, after
being in active operation for at least 10 years; provided,
nevertheless, that 10 years of active operation shall not be required
in case of:
   (1) A nonprofit corporation organized and controlled by a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a general acute care hospital pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
1250) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; and
   (2) An incorporated educational institution offering courses of instruction beyond high school, organized pursuant to Section 94757
of the Education Code, and which is, and for at least one year has
been, qualified pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 94700)
of Part 59 of the Education Code to issue diplomas or degrees as
defined in Sections 94724 and 94726 of that code;
   (b) Every organization or person maintaining homes for the aged for pecuniary profit. . . .

This can be problematic, I imagine, if when elders are receiving public guardianship or being placed under a conservator’s care against their will or improperly, for the sake of access to their property.

What is an Annuity?  Investopedia explains:

What Does Annuity Mean?
A financial product sold by financial institutions that is designed to accept and grow funds from an individual and then, upon annuitization, pay out a stream of payments to the individual at a later point in time. Annuities are primarily used as a means of securing a steady cash flow for an individual during their retirement years.

The root word represents “yearly,” as in “ANNUAL.”

Women’e Enews puts in a few words about Annuities, their types and their purpose:

Annuity Funding Explained

When it comes to annuity funding and annuities in general many people are confused. The problem is often because there are so many different kinds. There’s single or flexible-payment, fixed or variable, and deferred or immediate.

Regardless the type of annuity funding you’re ultimately interested in, all annuities are financial contracts which have been created to provide you with a good source of income in your retirement years    & …..

You can choose from a number of annuity options which include a lifetime income, a guaranteed period income where your beneficiaries would receive any remaining payments, a joint and survivor option for couples as well as many other options that a financial advisor or insurance representative can tell you about

In many cases, options can be mixed and matched to provide you with the best kind of annuity funding possible.

The money contributed to any annuity funding may be in post-tax dollars. The advantage to this is that you can contribute as much money as you would like. However before you put any after-tax savings into any kind of annuity funding, it’s often advisable for you to put the maximum pre-tax amount into a retirement plan.

When an annuity is used to fund a retirement plan, contribution limits usually apply. Federal tax laws also generally require that you begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which you reach age 70.

Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.

A few more comments on annuities, endowments, and related financial/investment terminology;

I’m a novice in this and I’ll BET that Title IV-A people and others impoverished through violence (or the court battles) or just life, are not educated about these things.  That we aren’t is a factor of our school systems and family systems, most likely.

How interesting, because what the child support / fatherhood systems emphasize is getting everyone into a low-income job, garnishing the wages for child support (or don’t) and then, as I like to point out, lose track of it at the state or county level, while splitting the difference with the Feds 66%/34% for a well-behaved State SDU (Statewide Distribution Unit), or failing to report interest income — which can be considerable — if they are not.

How the HHS/OIG/OAS responds to the un-accounted for collected child support  is a concerted attempt to get their 66% but a hands-washing response to, they’re only overseeing, not controlling operations, when the situation is pretty much in epidemic proportions country-wide.   Where the child support programs WORK is when groups like Maximus, Inc. & MDRC, CPR and PSI etc. get their contracts in, their CEO’s get paid (a LOT) and stock values for shareholders manages to stay above water, even if it loses some value.  Meanwhile, what the children are getting, if they’re lucky is a child support allotment that makes it through, is not too substantially compromised, and may represent wages at (judging from what they program materials say they are aiming to help with) perhaps $8.00 to $12.00/hour, not including taxes withheld.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While there are all kinds of plans for certain types or classes of people (including financially savvy and/or endowed, or sucessful businesspeople or investors) to figure out how to have monthly income — enough to live on, plus some — til they breathe their last breath, even at 80 or 90  years old — and typically its WOMEN living much longer — the philosophy for the vast masses being coached and think-tanked/policy-driven by people that live like this, is that the real cause of widespread poverty includes only one income earner in a household, i.e., fatherlessness and single-motherhood.

I do believe that even my children in elementary school (at least MY kids at that age) could figure out that if one wishes to end up with the number “5” one might add 2+ 3 or 4 +1.  Or one might even go, if x=4,    3x-7 and come up with 5, meaning what one needs to live on.  The factors can be adjusted.

But somehow we are not to calculate the possibility of variety in income when it comes to marital dissolution and fatherhood movements, or child support program evolution, and the need of judges and attorneys to run nonprofits teaching parents anger management, and (once we learn the background of this) giving them plenty of opportunity to practice, although not regarding the other partner so much as who is forcing this on couples already under financial stressor called divorce? and dealing with the family court’s elimination of the concept that a crime is a crime, even if it was committed by someone you previously had a sexual relationship with.

No mention of where that income comes from; the presumption is always jobs only,  or possibly jobs and child support.  Not, for example, ANY form of passive income such as may come from a trust, a foundation, investments, annuities, assignment of rents, royalties on books, or virtually anything that would NOT involve being easier to find and control (and/or threaten) by the IRS.  Not on any form of initiative taking by the single parent(s), or for that matter low-income married parents.

In other words, “wealth” knows how to consolidate, aggregate, distribute according to wealth’s understanding of how not to pay taxes, after which it can tell significant others (like employees in some of their corporations) how to work jobs in which taxes ARE paid.  Last I heard, such things are NOT taught in the public schools K-12; they are still working on reading, period, and basic math, plus how to stand in line without bullying someone else.

 

So, in 2003, The San Diego Foundation (still solvent, on the books) gets into the grants and annuities business around 2003.  They have every right to.  I’m just pointing it out they did….

The New York Times Reports:

Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life

By Paul Sullivan
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
  • BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.

Still, the current wave of retirees, the first of the baby boomers, is as fearful as any group leaving the work force has ever been, many still shell-shocked from the bursting of the technology bubble five years ago, which wiped out huge paper gains.

This group is now looking at a future without gainful employment and only their often diminished portfolios to fall back on.

They do not like what they see.

“People are more fearful and realistic,” said John Diehl, head of the retirement solutions group for the Hartford, an insurance company. “There was no fear in the late 1990s. Being respectful of the markets is a good thing. People have started to think the market doesn’t always return 20 percent.”

Enter the annuities salesmen. The once-stodgy insurance product is having a resurgence. New York Life, one of the largest providers of annuities, has had an annual growth rate of 75 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to Mike Gallo, senior vice president in the guaranteed lifetime income department.

The growth in annuities has tapped into this fear. In the old days, people were wary of annuities because they locked up assets and distributed a payment only as long as the policyholder lived. But the industry has become more sophisticated. New products have guarantees for life, adjust for inflation and, at their most sophisticated, allow people access to some or, in extreme cases, all of the principle.

[Meaning “principal,” I think, right?]

ALL YOU NEED FOR $5,000/month in retirement is to put down $100,000, sure!

(not including what a $$ will buy at that time…..)

The difference, he said, is that the most popular annuities now offer a living benefit drawn from an income stream, which can rise with any increase in the value of the underlying principle, while carrying a guarantee that the payout will never fall below the initial amount.

The guarantee is financed by building derivative-style collars into the structure of the underlying portfolio to cap potential losses.

Yeah, like we all  know what is a derivative-style collar.  Some people in alternative lifestyle, about dog collars, from dog-walking & pet-sitting….

With such a variable annuity plan, “people aren’t as worried about inflation as they are with a traditional payout annuity,” he said. While the payout may remain constant in percentage terms, the cash amount will rise if inflation – or skillful investment – swells the amount of the underlying fund.

And this is what today’s retirees – without the pension plans their parents had, and uncertain of the continued existence of Social Security – want.

The top concern of the baby boomers nearing retirement is, ‘Do I have enough money to last for the rest of my life,’ ” said Doug Wolff, vice president for business development at Security Benefit, a provider of annuities in Topeka, Kansas. “We’ve seen a major shift from ‘Who can develop the best death benefits?’ to ‘Who can develop the best product to guarantee some minimum investment amount?’ “

Quite different from some people, with more than 0.55 child per household, whose concern is staying alive & housed/fed til next week.

Providers of annuities today encourage people to buy enough coverage for basic expenses, from food to taxes, plus a little bit more. The average portion of a portfolio placed in annuity is 25 percent to 33 percent and most insurers limit a 65-year-old to 75 percent, to ensure the retention of sufficient liquid assets. Coverage of basic expenses can be achieved with either a traditional immediate annuity – the buyer puts $100,000 in and receives a fixed percentage of the initial value, typically 5 percent, every month – or with a variable annuity that guarantees a minimum withdrawal benefit.

. . .   Can get a little complicated . . . . .

Something similar can be accomplished with a joint-survivor annuity – essentially paying out for two lives. A further refinement can be added in the form of a cash-refund feature that pays to the heirs whatever principle is left at death.

The next wave of innovation is expected to produce annuities that look to address the large health care bills that many retirees will face as they age, Wolff said.

Pricing all of these permutations of annuities can be complicated. There is one constant, however: The more guaranteed features that are attached – from joint-survivor to inflation adjustment – the higher the cost and the lower the percentage payout.

Jack Lemery, a former chief investment officer for Paul Revere Life Insurance, which sold annuities, maintained that this should dissuade people from putting any money at all into an annuity. Lemery is now a portfolio manager at Emerson Investment Management in Boston, where he has sworn off annuities.

Well, in 2006 “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was founded (same EIN# as San Diego) and began raising some money, part of which they obviously gave to Kids’ Turn to run classes in THEIR neighborhoods, too.  Sounds from the description at around around  $200 per four-week session per family ($20,000 for four-weeks for 100 – 120 couples).

http://www.sdfoundation.org/CommunityFoundations/RecentNews.aspx

 


THE CARLSBAD CHARITABLE
FOUNDATION

Since its inception in 2006, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation has granted $142,731 and has grown to 147 members, with an endowment of $311,000. This year CCF will focus their grantmaking on the environment in Carlsbad.

Grantees 2007-2008
Carlsbad Unified School District $20,000
Biztown $23,780

 

Grantees 2008-2009
San Diego Hospice $28,406
North County Community Services $12,500
Interfaith Community Services $12,500

Grantees 2009-2010
Kids’ Turn San Diego $20,000
Interfaith Community Services $24,545

For more information visitwww.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org.

 

BEFORE I FOUND OUT tHAT THE “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation, I went looking for it, unsuccessfully, in the usual places and found a few more interesting groups.

I cannot locate any business, or charity, called “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” on either site where they are to be registered.  There are 20 results to “Carlsbad Foundation” search.

Apparently this contribution was made, or at least announced, “13 months ago.” In the interim, Carlsbad Foundation’s charitable status seems to have held:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CARLSBAD FOUNDATION 124543 Charity Current CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity
1

Actually, that’s fairly strange as there is only ONE annual RRF (charitable registration) form on file, and for the first 6 years, no IRS filings, then after that approximately just about zero (or close to, relatively speaking) assets OR gross (not net) revenue.    For example, Apr 2009-March 2010, they reported a whopping $220.00 (so how did the $20,000.00 get to Kids’ Turn?  I am such a novice in this field, I don’t see it..)  From April 2010 to March 2011, they had zero revenue.

Carlsbad Foundation’s President (at least in 2010), Jim Comstock, (and the foundation’s address is his office, Comstock & Associates,) is a tax, financial and estate planning professional, so I assume he knows better than I how to pull that off legally:

logo

There are also  least 75 Marriage and Family Therapists (probably some overlap with the 40 Faith Communities) in Carlsbad, including two in the suite right next to Mr. Comstock and, including them, 15 on the same street, perhaps within two blocks (judging by street #s only).  There are fully 20 foundations incorporated in Carlsbad (Search “Carlsbad Foundation) only 4 (and not this one) with “suspended” status:

Entity Name: CARLSBAD FOUNDATION
Entity Number: C2530851
Date Filed: 04/24/2003
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
Agent for Service of Process: JIM COMSTOCK
Agent Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Agent City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008

Though it incorporated 2003, the ruling date shows (NCCSDataweb) as only 2007.   In 2004, however, they filed with the IRS — only tax return showing here:

There are a lot of blanks and “x”s up, including (NOT checked)< “Check here if your receipts are normally under $25,000.”   There are 3 officers, Jim & Linda Comstock, plus Glen Blavet, who appears on Corporation Wiki (for what that’s worth) associated with 2 other corporations.

I looked under “CCF,” but don’t feel like laboring through the entire list.  However, under “Carlsbad Foundation” again, this entry is interesting:

Entity Name: CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
Entity Number: C2980846
Date Filed: 02/13/2007
Status: SUSPENDED
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
Agent for Service of Process: ** RESIGNED ON 12/02/2010
Agent Address: *
Agent City, State, Zip: *

(see address).

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION Charity Not Registered CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

There are, like, 3 people involved in this one, apparently.  I’m not going to track them down, now that I know the Kids’ Turn grantor was under some other umbrella.

It does make me wonder whether a Donor couldn’t just set up funding and then somehow direct it towards certain charities and not get very well monitored, so long as they keep the amount low enough not to call attention to itself (read on):

 

 

SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION:

The San Diego Foundation, having been started original (it says) with 11 people, is still active corporate status: (There are 269 results for “The San Diego Foundation”), which shows you what good management can do.

 

Entity Name: THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION
Entity Number: C0735981
Date Filed: 05/09/1975
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106
Agent for Service of Process: MICHAEL PATTISON
Agent Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106

 

And, yes, their 2010 IRS 990 does indeed acknowledge a grant of $22,500 to Kids’ Turn San Diego for “Human Services” (the form is 99 pages long, search the name!)      the grantees (for under $100,000) are asked, in return, to inform the foundation of their “Successes and Challenges” in meeting the conditions for the grant.  As KT is all about communication to start with, and the nonprofit clearly is very good with PR, I’m figuring they did this (although it doesn’t seem the registered as a california charity correctly).  FOr Donor Advisedgrants over $100,000, IF the Donor advisee requests, the foundation can do some more monitoring.  I don’t see that the IRS shows which funds were donor advised or not.  There are several to churches & religious schools, $8,500 to Focus on the Family and (interesting)

$10,000 to the “Los Angeles Family Law Help Center” 205 S. Broadway Suite 500, EIN# 26-1252578, filed under “Civil Society.”   and

$7,750 to the “National Conflict Resolution Center,” 625 Broadway, Suite 1221, San Diego, EIN# 33-0433314
($15,000 to Oral Roberts University in Tulsa) and many more groups, obviously.  The directors (mostly, but not all, unpaid) would not fit on one page, but those who were paid, salaries (not including retirement or benefits plans) was over $1,000,000; understandable for administering so much.

2006 (formation of Carlsbad Charitable…) was not a good year in San Diego,

at least in government circles:

Report calls San Diego’s finances reckless, ‘Enron by the Sea

[08-09-2006, found under USAToday]
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The city recklessly and deliberately mismanaged its finances for years, exhibiting disregard for the law and becoming “Enron-by-the-Sea,” according to consultants who investigated how it created a $1.4 billion pension fund shortfall.

San Diego “fell prey to the same type of corruption” that ruined companies including Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and prompted Orange County to file for bankruptcy protection in 1994, said a report by the risk management company Kroll Inc.

The evidence demonstrates not mere negligence but deliberate disregard for the law, disregard for fiduciary responsibility and disregard for the financial welfare of the city’s residents,” the report concludes.

Good thing there are foundations to pick up the slack….

The $20 million report, presented at a City Council meeting Tuesday, offers one of the most detailed accounts of how San Diego created its $1.4 billion pension shortfall that has crippled its ability to borrow money.

The shortfall — the gap between the value of its pension assets and its obligation to retirees — soared after the City Council in 1996 and again in 2002 skipped payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhanced retirement benefits.

The fiscal meltdown that resulted sparked investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC in early 2004. Five former city and pension fund officials were charged with federal fraud and conspiracy in January.

The report outlines a series of recommendations, including creation of an independent audit committee and more authority for the city’s chief financial officer.

“You got a second chance here, folks,” said one of the authors, former chief SEC accountant Lynn Turner. “I think it’s a marvelous city, but you need to change it from being Enron-by-the-Sea to Emerald-by-the Sea.”

The report found that several former city officials likely violated federal securities law and others were negligent.

It says former Mayor Dick Murphy and members of the City Council failed to disclose the extent of the city’s problems to bond investors and for “knowingly and improperly” causing the city to violate state and federal law in its collection of sewage fees.

Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was involved in Kroll’s investigation and said the city overcharged homeowners for sewage to subsidize large businesses.

Wow.  Reminds me of the Los Angeles issues with the Department of Water and Power, but that’s another subject.

ANYHOW, Kids’ Turn SAN FRANCISCO, states on its 2010 Annual report (December? 2010) that half its attendees are court-ordered, that it applied for a grant from the FY 2011 AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) and is pushing a new curriculum, as well as teaching charities in the UK how to operate like itself, presumably:

The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:

• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

That’s efficacy, or that’s a court-connection?  ! !  Who’s on the Board of Kids’ Turn, generally speaking?

However, the first thing readers are told on this report is:

Program 1. Kids’ Turn sustained its very specialized services in five Bay Area Counties serving 700 participants over twelve months. Kids’ Turn enrollment is down slightly, likely attributable to the economy. It is our impression families are struggling to pay our fees and we are making every effort to negotiate reasonable tuition costs based on the particular needs of each situation. We still do not charge children to attend Kids’ Turn, and parents pay on a sliding fee basis depending on their income. Workshop records verify 60% of the families attending Kids’ Turn are in the low- to moderate-income range.1

(the footnote explains that this is because more wealthy people have less tendency to divorce, because there’s more money to support their families…In fact, let me quote it here:   “As per the Huffington Post’s new DIVORCE page (www.huffingtonpost.com), families with higher incomes have a lower divorce rate, likely attributable to the supporting resources available to them to sustain their marriages (therapists, counselors, mediators).**”

Which just goes to show that **It takes a a Village — of AFCC operatives —  for couples to stay married…..  Or so, those operatives believe!   Those who can’t afford it, might end up needing subsidy to attend Kids’ Turn classes by out-of-compliance nonprofits during their breakup.  I would just love to take classes on a sliding fee with people who attribute marital breakup among the not-so-wealthy to inability to pay for a therapist, quoting the Huffington Post…

Seriously now, how does the world manage to keep turning without the advice of these professions?   

Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):

Development

Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.

1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.

Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….

2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.

 

 

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Tapfound Inc. Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $436,604 990A 13 91-2162645
Tapfound Industry Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2004 $350,319 990 15 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $187,547 990 13 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990EZ 7 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990ER 6 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation, Inc. CA 2009 $2,156,525 990 24 91-2162645

 

 

(Wow.  The earliest 2002 is missing page 1; the other, parts are handwritten (on forms), parts typewritten (on blank sheets, for example, the listing of Board Members).

The last board member listed is Jenny Shilling, who works for The Draper Richards Foundation, which apparently started Tapfound, Inc. (The Taproot foundation) with $50,000.  The group started with $79,000 assets, not including -$32,000 of “undeposited assets,” for a net assets of $48K.  Its “Liabilities & Equity” just about cancelled each other out, and program service accomplishments for this year were “Service Grant Program awarded 18 nonprofits (not shown) with volunteer teams” — $23K.

An “updated July 6, 2003” board of directors is attached.

The 2003 filing (at least the one above I clicked on) shows the act is rather more together, and service program accomplishments reads:

Service Grants were awarded to 63 nonprofit organizations with a total estimated value of $2.5 million (I’ll tell the IRS my return was “close enough for jazz also….”) 582 volunteers were recruited to deliver these services.  (at a cost of $148,872 Program Service Expense).

STATUS WITH CALIFORNIA (AS OF TODAY)?

 


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

and (I searched the EIN)

 


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
1


I guess the OAG’s office maybe is behind in their database entry, because for a “current” charity, including tax returns showing revenue over $4 million in 2007, the only year the group’s RRF shows up is for 2008; they only reminded of an unpaid registration fee of $150 in 2010.   There is revenue of over $100K on IRS forms from 2003 through 2009, though.     OAG’s (then Edmund G Brown’s) office respectfully requests they send in their $150 fee in September 2010:

September 8, 2010

TAPFOUND, INC. CT FILE NUMBER: 120759 466 GEARY ST STE 200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

We’re coming up on a year from the date of this letter, so presumably they did, or they didn’t and OAG hasn’t noticed yet, or doesn’t care.  Secretary of State has corporate status active, too:

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2374009 01/18/2002 ACTIVE TAPFOUND, INC. AARON HURST

 

 

Entity Name: TAPFOUND, INC.
Entity Number: C2374009
Date Filed: 01/18/2002
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
Agent for Service of Process: AARON HURST
Agent Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

 

An independent audit states that for 2010:

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tapfound, Inc. dba: Taproot Foundation as of September 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Taproot concept, from which Kids’ Turn benefitted, sounds great:

MAKE IT MATTER

Most organizations tackling social problems don’t have access to the marketing, design, technology, management or strategic planning resources they need to succeed. Without this talent, few are able to have their intended impact on critical issues like the environment, health and education.

Taproot is a nonprofit organization that makes business talent available to organizations working to improve society.

(is it also registering anually as a charity within California, or not?)

We engage the nation’s millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through our award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. One day, we envision all organizations with promising solutions will be equipped to successfully take on urgent social challenges.

DOWNLOAD OUR 2011-13 STRATEGIC PLAN

OUR MISSION

Our mission is to lead, mobilize and engage professionals in pro bono service that drives social change.

LEAD NATIONALLY BY ACTING LOCALLY

While working to expand the impact of pro bono services nationally by leading the pro bono movement, we concentrate our efforts for social impact within five metro areas where we have offices: ChicagoLos AngelesNew York CitySan Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.

Today, we offer three core programs to increase nonprofits’ access to pro bono services. Through these programs we provide millions of dollars in services annually aimed at best enabling organizations to address local social issues.

Service Grant Program

Our signature Service Grant program operates in five cities and, since its inception in 2001, has engaged professionals in over 780,000 hours of pro bono service on over 1,300 projects.
GET A SERVICE GRANT

DONATE YOUR SKILLS 

Advisory Services

With our Advisory Services and leadership resources, we support companies and organizations in designing and developing their own customized, high-impact pro bono programs. We apply expertise garnered through our Service Grant Program to design pro bono programs best meeting our corporate clients business needs while ensuring their employees’ service makes a meaningful impact in their communities.
LEARN MORE

Advocacy

We partner with leading foundations, universities, companies, coalitions and associations to host convenings and run campaigns where we collaborate to design innovative solutions bringing pro bono service to bear for progress on issues facing our cities and society

(July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)

 

There are certain core values that I have made a point of formally celebrating at Taproot.  We close the office on Election Day to stress the importance of civic engagement and democracy.  We honor civil rights, and in addition to MLK Jr. Day we close the office for Matt O’Grady Day, commemorating the marriage of long-term Root Matt O’Grady to his partner in 2008.  The anniversary of every Root is also marked by giving them the day off showing our appreciation for their involvement in our shared success.

 

We also value the diversity of backgrounds and interests of our Roots and give the team three days a year to create their own holidays. For some people, they use these days for traditional holidays like President’s Day and others use them for their birthday or culturally meaningful days like Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah or Cinco de Mayo.

 

Draper Richards — which provided the first $50,000 for TapRoot (Tapfound, Inc.) is a venture capitalist company, also interesting — in high tech.

Draper Richards L.P. is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage technology companies. We fund entrepreneurs with the energy, vision, experience, and desire to build great companies.

I’m not so sure about making themselves the TapRoot being a great idea, although it’s great market positioning for nonprofits.  Are they as focused on screening who taps into them as they are on making the connections?  And I’ll just point out, this does spread tax benefits around nicely between foundation and nonprofits.

WHY TAPROOT?

A “taproot” is the core root of a plant. It gathers nutrients from lateral roots and delivers them to a plant to enable it to flourish.

We see ourselves as a taproot for the nonprofit sector, drawing nutrients from the community and delivering them to nonprofits to enable them to thrive.

A bit more on the background of Draper Richards, that helped start Taproot, that helped revamp the logo of 1989 court-connected, court-official run (basically), CCSF nonprofit vendor and access/visitation grants beneficiary “Kids’ Turn” (“Kid’s Turn” on the state search sites…) update its logo.  NOtice all the companies involved.

History

Three Generations of Venture Capital

The Draper name is well known in the venture capital industry. Bill Draper’s father,General William H. Draper, Jr., became the first professional west-coast venture capitalist when he founded Draper, Gaither & Anderson in 1958. Formerly Undersecretary of the Army, General Draper was responsible for economic reconstruction of Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan.

Bill Draper began his venture capital career in 1962 with Pitch Johnson, when he started Draper & Johnson Investment Company. In 1965, together with Paul Wythes, he founded Sutter Hill Ventures which was managed with great success until 1981, when he was appointed Chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 1985, he was selected to be Administrator and CEO of the United Nations Development Program. While in the venture capital business, Bill Draper was a founding investor in Apollo Computer (acquired by Hewlett Packard), Dionex, Integrated Genetics (Genzyme), Quantum, Qume (I.T.T.), Activision (Mediagenic), Xidex (Eastman Kodak), Measurex, Hybritech (Eli Lilly), and LSI Logic. In 1995, he returned to venture capital by founding Draper International which focused on venture investments in India. In 1996, he turned his attention to technology companies in the U.S. and co-founded a new domestic fund,Draper Richards L.P., with his partner, Robin Richards Donohoe.

Bill Draper’s son, Tim Draper, left Alex. Brown & Sons in 1985 to become the third generation of venture capitalists in his family with the formation of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim restructured a family-owned Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) that had been set up by his father in 1979 and then created a highly successful early-stage venture capital fund. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has become synonymous with early-stage venture capital. Among other successes, Tim Draper was a founding investor in Parametric Technology, Digidesign, Parenting Magazine, Upside Publishing, PLX Technology, Four-1-1, Hotmail, and Skype.

> > > > > > And Mr. Draper’s Partner, Robin Richards Donahue’s background:

Robin Richards Donohoe

Robin Richards Donohoe

General Partner

Robin Richards Donohoe has over fourteen years of experience in international venture capital. She has served on the boards of many portfolio companies including Kana Communications, Selectica and Digital Impact. Prior to managing the Draper funds, she served for four years as Managing Director of Seaboard Management Corporation, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, Georgia investing in media and technology companies. Ms. Donohoe has also worked in Prague, Czech Republic for a venture capital fund and in Paris for an investment bank. Ms. Donohoe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina and has a Master of Business degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She currently serves on the boards of the Stanford Business School Trust, University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences, Advisory Council of the Gladstone Institute at UCSF, Bay Area Discovery Museum, and Gateway High School. She is the Secretary for her Stanford Business School Class and an Advisor to Room to Read.

It seems obvious to me — if we really want to end “welfare as we know it” and eradicate poverty, we should encourage kids to get on the venture capitalist in high tech media track, starting with a college degree that will help them get on board, and perhaps take people out of inner city classrooms and let them see how the other half puts together a deal and structures a nonprofit corporation, possibly one doing business in grants and annuities, or catering to the grants-based marketplace.

This might cut down on “enrons by the sea” as we all begin to realize that the social services segment of the public-employee sector cannot be trusted (which, in truth) it can’t! to those setting policy and deciding who is naughty and who is nice in distributing contracts, business, and other grants.    Of course i could be entirely wrong, but I also would suggest that the white collar sector who have their noses to the grindstone for (venture capitalists and the risk-takers with more money to play with) start taking some personal holidays to figure out where their taxes are actually being spent, and do it with a KID old enough to understand watching…

But the two parallel sets of infrastructures — the tax-supported and the tax-exempt — both working together, and seeking clientele among the tax-paying low and moderate income, will help drive their incomes lower, and someone else’s wealth higher, leaving credibility in the dust.  Of course, with appropriate assets to spin off payments into old age, this may not matter, and if the US goes bankrupt, a b/millionaire can afford to live somewhere else, whereas a person living on social security alone, most likely can’t.

This of course would be a little messy at times, actually teaching ALL children (not just the offspring of venture capitalists and others where business knowledge including about the function of taxes and corporate identities, is absorbed from an early age) how to deal with the invisible, or at least underlying, intangible principles and  skillsets, that are the  scaffolding sustaining significant, life-supporting wealth (barring extravagances that lead to early death, such as pharmaceutical or other addictions).

OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:

3. Kids’ Turn took dramatic steps to downsize and reduce event expenses. We downsized the May, 2010 event to a cocktail party (not a sit-down dinner); all invitations were sent electronically (eliminating the need for an expensive invitation mailing). We exceeded our event net goal and will build on this success for 2011.

Yep, that would probably be good.  I’m looking at the 2006 return, and for fundraising activities (“Golf Tournament, “SF Event” (whatever that is), and “Other”) the ration of revenue raised to expenses is rather interesting:

(GOLF — someone contributed $25K, expenses were $24,423, leaving net income of $12,802 out of $62K receipts.  I’m sure golfing was fun.    The “SF Event” (great descriptor) gross receipts of $44,475, expenses $10,752, is it fair to say about 25%? or 11/44ths;       “Other fundraising events” (plural), raised $1,140, COST $13,618, resulting in a net loss of $12,478.  Essentially whatever those other fundraisers were wiped out the golf tournament’s profit completely, except for $530.    And there’s a CPA on the Board of Directors, too.)

Perhaps next time they should simply start raffles — of course this would require REGISTERING those raffles and providing signed receipts from the recipient that the funds were indeed distributed.  But they could also run raffles for themselves and the overhead is pretty low, right, on that….)

4. Kids’ Turn is developing its presence on electronic social networking. We have an active Facebook Fan page (currently 335 Fans); a Board member ‘tweets’ regularly and posts on our behalf on linkdn. Just recently, we began actively posting comments on the Huffington Posts’ DIVORCE page. Interestingly enough, our Facebook fan count has increased exponentially since raising our profile visibility on social networking sites.

5. We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. (??) This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.

The “AOC” like “KT” contains AFCC members — and actually represents the “Administrative Office of the COurts” which is charged with administering FEDERAL grants to the states from which KT is likely to benefit.  As such, it’s not money from the AOC, it’s money via the IRS from taxpayers.

The Rally Project” – found in a 2006 obituary of architect Allan Levy 

I am posting in August 2011, and this is a FY2010 Annual report, so I’ll just hazard a guess that they mean 2011.  I hope there’s more accuracy when it comes to decimal points.

the “rally project” is actually a Family Visitation center, apparently at UCSF.  I remember trying to find this before.  There are still few references to “the Rally Project’ because that’s not what it’s name is.  And this nonprofit is teaching communication skills, too!

Allan M. Levy Died on Thursday, February 16, 2006 after a five-month battle with throat cancer. He was 60 years old. He died at home and in peace, in the company of family and friends. Allan was born and raised in Memphis, TN, and embodied all of the lovely qualities we Northerners associate with Southerners: he was kind and gracious, inclusive, an attentive host (no one ever left Pam and Allan’s house underfed or thirsty), and an avid storyteller. Allan was a creator of community. He had a small army of friends of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds from every conceivable corner of the globeHe had definite opinions. About everything. He gave quietly and generously of his time and energy to non-profit organizations like Kids Turn and the Rally Project. …Allan is survived by his wife, Pam; mother, Mrs. Emily Davis; sister, Diane and brother-in-law, Arnold Eger; brother, Donald and sister-in-law, Shelley Levy; brother, Steven and sister-in-law, Betsy Olim; sister-in-law, Kate DiGiacomo; six nieces and nephews, a whole bunch of cousins, the above-mentioned army of friends, and last, but not least, his dog Maggie. A Memorial Service is being planned for Thurs, April 6, 2006, 3pm, at the Officer’s Club at the SF Presidio. In lieu of flowers, it is suggested that donations be made to Kids’ Turn, Rally Family Visitation Services, UCSF Palliative Care Group, and The Women’s Community Clinic.

I should note here, as it came up, Rally Family Visitation Services is listed twice when it comes to “SVN” (Supervised Visitation Network) which I imagine is (yet another!) nonprofit — and people from “Rally Visitation Services” are mentioned on BOTH SVN Standards and Guideline Committee Chairs  & on the SVN Board of Directors, right next to the AOC.  I’m sure having a Kids Turn Friend & Rally Visitation Center friend who is networked with the people distributing the access visitation grants and setting standards for who gets them (ideally) — would probably help in obtaining this grant, even if someone can’t figure out which year they applied for it in and proofread their (taproot-foundation-assisted) new website to get it up there right.

Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide

SVN, Supervised Visitation Network, is an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families.

SVN was Founded in 1991 to provide opportunities for networking, sharing of information, and training for agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside.

Providing resources for members and families in need of supervised visitation services

That 1991 date is kind of interesting;  NCCSDATAWEB says the ruling date was 1997.  So far I see it in Tennessee (for about 5 years) and then off to Florida (as of 2007ff) so presumably it started somewhere else, or AS someone else from 1991 to 1996.  Assuming it actually began in 1991…

 

Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  521831498 Supervised Visitation Network FL 1997 03 218,620 31,703 990

 


 

 

As of 2009, it self-describes (on the 990) as PURPOSE:

PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH EDUCATION AND SUPPORT THAT PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN TO HAVE SAFE, CONFLICT FREE ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS THROUGH A CONTINUUM OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES IN ADDITION, THE ORGANIZATION IS DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING STANDARDS FOR PRACTICE OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES, MAINTAINING A DIRECTORY OF SUPERVISED CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS, AND PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES AND FORUMS FOR NETWORKING AND SHARING OF INFORMATION PRINCIPALLY, MEMBERSHIP DUES AND ADMISSION FEES TO THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR ORGANIZATION
 
And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost:  in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.”   This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help.  (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items.  Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.

SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs:
Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004-2006):
Jody Bittrich, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.

I think it’s time to get another crack in about the field of “Supervised Visitation” and the “SVN” network.

First, it is a nonprofit incorporated in Tennessee.   These altruistic people (including David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, which helped push the term “access /visitation” to start with, and which nonprofit includes several such centers, not to mention some close connections in philosophy with AFCC founder, it would seem, Jessica Pearson (see my recent posts trying to track down AFCC incorporations over the year, including one time it showed up in Colorado at the same address as Center for Policy Research (I believe) at the time:  Emerson Street, Denver).

This is a 2003 IRS form 990-EZ for “Supervised Visitation Network,” a TN nonprofit of moderate means and large influence:

90~IZ~~ Part III:

Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development

28.SVNwebsite-provides information for both the general public and for professionals, averaging over 150 hits per week on the pages for parents and over 400 on the pages with information for professionals.- Expenses : $15,000

This blog — which is free, except for my time — gets close to that on a good day, and has been steadily for a few years — including from some sources I know are professionals (like the ones I report on) and others.    Note:  as with the field of “Parent Education” (court-supported) the interest is higher among the providers than the clientele….i

29.Conference-Trainingfor150professionalprovidersofsupervisedvisitationservices Expenses-Netgainof$14,410

30. Publications -Distributed 500 Handbook for Parents, 160 Handbooks for Professionals; 80 Sexual Abuse Curriculums;850 informational brochures;2 Newsletters, primarily forprofessional training, to 600 individuals;.

Expenses -$7.700

Its revenue is about $40,000 Program Service Revenue including government fees & contracts, and about $37,000 membership fees.  Their highest expense is “Products and Promotions.”

Most interesting is the variety of states (plus Canada) the board of directors are drawn from:  If you can’t see the graphic, the pdf is on-line for viewing:


(Karen Oehme also directs a family violence studies institute at Florida State; many of these names are well known) in family law circles, obviously.

At least one of these address shows up as the Office of the Attorney General (445 Golden Gate, SF) — no office given, though.

Shelly Glapion (at that address), 6th floor, at least in 2004, (as we speak?)   was Senior Program Analyst for

  1. California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program


    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    Shelly Glapion, J.D.. Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator. Senior Court 

As far back as 2004, there were concerns about financial embezzlement/fraud, shifting financial requirements for supervised visitation, at least in California.  This is part of a (available on-line) group email (I’ll post complaint and one reply) about the behavior of a supervised visitation monitor, from a mother, criticized for wearing flip-flops (in California…..) and giving her daughter a birthday cake.  it appears that the mother was under supervised visitation, although the typical auspices of this is increased noncustodial (FATHER) parent access, which was how Ron Haskins helped sell it to Congress to start with, as I understand:

Supervised Monitoring   Message List
Reply Message #17218 of 22083 < Prev | Next >
Hi,
I’m in CA. I have had this supervised monitor that stated I’m a danger to my daughter because one time during the summer I was wearing flip flops and gave my daugther a birthday cake for her birthday.
Well, my question is this…now she is constatnly changing the financial agreement we signed several months ago. And she’s now back charging me for phone calls, emails to arrange visits and she doesn’t even respond to most of them. She is now threatening to take me to court if I don’t keep paying her for things I have never agreed to. Additionally, she charges me for cancelled visits and yet doesn’t even notify me that they are cancelled. Isn’t there any law of how she constatnly changes her fees and agreement? Originally it stated that the cancelle of visits is 100% resposnbile for the fees, well last weekend I was 100% resposnbile and she is refusing to credit her account that everyday she comes up with new fees or changes the agreement that was orginally signed. I’m hoping that when she does take me to court that I will not hav to pay for things that I never agreed to and for visits that is clearly stated that I am not financially resposnbile for. She also charges me $5 per min. to discuss any of this on the phone or email. And then she charges me a flat fee ontop of her min incurred fees. Please help me stop this insanity. I also believe that because my ex won in court because of past bribery that he must have also done this upon the monitor. The monitor did state once that the father told her to charge me more and make it exteremly difficult to see my daughter. And the monitor stated that if I wanted this information that I need to pay her for this.
I’ve given up all hope that I’ll be allowed to see my daughter – this justice system provides no justice…because the courts don’t care that they purjed under oath (saying I have a criminal record and a bunch of lies like that..that I can easily prove false), let alone CPS closed the case because it was unfouned..and now that the courts have allowed him to do this to me of taking 50% of all my wages. At least now I’m hoping that I can get this monitor to stop asking me for money that isn’t due and to stop fabricating these charges of $5 per min. to read an email and then her $25 fee to just have it in her inbox (even if she doesn’t read them).
Any suggestions????
THE REPLY is to contact Shelly Glapion (of SVN board of directors, which this person probably didn’t know, and program administrator, via CFCC)
Re: Supervised Monitoring

In a message dated 11/27/04 10:06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXX@… writes:

Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?


Especially if she is connected to a supervised visitation center, you should make a public records request for all payoffs she is receiving, and also ask for her tax returns for the duration of time since she has been providing you “service”.

Then, go very public with the fact that what she is doing constitutes fraud, illegal and criminal misconduct, so that she will dump you as a client in order to try to conceal what she is doing wrong.

After she dumps you, go to the press with evidence of financial and other fraud operative through your case, saying that this is another example of the type of Access to Visitation Enforcement program fraud that is rampant as the means to promote a pro-abuser agenda in the guise of fatherhood and custody programs. Use this article from NY– re: Viola Stroud of CRC being under investigation for embezzlement — to bolster your case:  Click here: Guardian under scrutiny

Next, send a summary (brief and objective re: criminal misconduct and financial fraud) to Shelly Glapion, the CA adminstrator of the SAVP: shelly.glapion@…, asking her, as the person overseeing the AV program in CA, who has been monitoring your supervisor to ensure the integrity of the “service” she is providing. Be sure to tell Ms. Glapion that you hold her personally responsible and legally liable for the kickbacks and illegal payoffs you are sure were being used to cause intential and malicious harm to you and your child on behalf of your ex, using government program funding.

Be sure to send me a copy (use XXXXX not the FCR board) of your complaint, along with the name of the supervisor, the county you are in, your case number, the judges, lawyers and other appointees involved (especially any mediators or custody evaluators) and I will incorporate it into the complaints that we are putting together that are addressing AV program fraud and corruption at the federal level.

Cindy Ross
CA Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice

To this woman, who says she does not have a criminal record, and apparently CPS was told she was some sort of perp, but closed the case — she is being treated like one, which she reports as basically being cursed (spoken evil of) by the supervised visitation monitor.  The other point of view — particularly from someone on this nonprofit SVN group and probably also running a program that provides these services, it’s not a curse, it’s a blessing!  Barbara Flory, in THIS message exchange (file under “PR”)   The URL is a Florida State University address:    http://familyvio.csw.fsu.edu/messageboard/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_winter_04.pdf

The supervised visitation and exchange programs have truly been a blessingfor so many families.

First of all, monitored visitation provides yet another level of protection for the victim and the children. This

protection is essential to victims!

(not mentioned — often, the victims ARE children…. this happens when there’s molestation also):

Second, it allows contact between the perpetrator and the children, which would not have

occurred without said programs.

{{now that’s food for thought……  “contact between perp and children = good.”  (?)}}

This is especially important for those perpetrators who are truly trying to improve their lives and those of their children.

And the way to tell if a perp is REALLY sincere and wants to improve his(her) life is …..   ask a supervised visitation professional?

Or a judge on the board of a nonprofit benefitting from access visitation (or other) grantsmanship?

It is also extremely important for the children who sometimes do not understand why they cannot see one of their parents, but want to see that parent.

And one tells which children DO and which children do NOT want to see their perp parent?  (See Jack Straton; I get tired of reminding us….)

In many cases it is also the hope of being with the children and helping their children that motivates a perpetrator to understand the cycle of domestic violence.

It’s HOPED that HOPING to see one’s kids will produce character change for a perp.  I’m not even sure we can find definite validation that batterers intervention programs do that…..

These programs provide a safe environment for all involved and they further provide hope!

Yes, hope of virtually guaranteed (court-ordered) income for supervised visitation providers who pay into the system!

Other than that —

No they don’t.  That’s false!   They can become and have obviously become nightmares; moreover, some people have been killed at or around supervised visitation, or while the family was utilizing supervised visitation!   See this chart from 2001 (i.e., in recent memory of the above message), particularly 3rd from bottom row:  The chart is from “MNCAVA” something reasonably accessible to the people involved above:

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/strategies/strategies.html

Staff of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation collected examples of behaviors commonly displayed by alleged batterers who were referred to supervised visitation programs in Florida in 2001. As the examples in the following table indicate, the same behaviors of batterers described in the literature, are observed in supervised visitation programs.

 

Table 1. Common Behaviors of Batterers Seen at Supervised Visitation Programs

Behavior Manifestation at Supervised Visitation Program
Denial of Abuse/ Minimizations Children may ask parent, “why did you hit mommy?” Visiting parent may deny hitting child’s mother, say it was accident or minimize his action. Or he may say it’s the fault of mother he has to see child at visitation program. One program reports a 12 year old asked his father why he chased his mother with a knife. Father denied doing it saying the mother told him to say that. This occurred despite witnesses to the knife incident.
Blaming partner Frequently supervised visitation staff report that a batterer will tell staff “this is all my wife’s fault,” “she’s the one who brought this on.”
Control/ Manipulation Often batterers will question, or challenge program rules or suggest exceptions to rules should be made of them. This is seen in examples of refusing to arrive or depart per requirements, bringing unauthorized individuals to visits, bringing gifts or food to visits which may be disallowed, attempting to take videos or photographs. Tearing up rules or throwing intake forms across room.
Attacking Parenting Skills Involving staff in apparent false allegations of child abuse against parent who has been abused, trying to use staff to call Abuse Registry. Makes disparaging remarks about mother, “you need to clean up better than mommy.”
Making Covert/ Overt Threats Program staff report incidents of batterers showing a weapons permit when asked for identification, driving around visitation site at time of scheduled visits but not coming into program as well as verbally threatening to harm staff, volunteers, judge, partner, etc. during visits. Law enforcement officers referred to programs have come for scheduled visits in full uniform wearing their weapons despite instructions to the contrary.
Involving Children During scheduled visitations, batterers may attempt to question children about their current living arrangements (particularly if they are staying at shelter or another undisclosed location); inquire about what their plans are, where they are attending school; or, may try and find out who the child’s mother is seeing. Additionally batterers may utilize visitation times as a vehicle to get children to convey messages back to other parent.
Stalking Following a parent who is leaving a program, recording information about parents car. One program reports two examples of cases when the perpetrator had custody. In one case he left with the child prior to his wife (non-custodial) but waited for her in a nearby parking lot. In another, a non-custodial mother picked up her child for a monitored exchange and was followed to a neighboring city by her abuser. Perpetrators may reveal stalking incidents during conviction with their children during visit Questions such as Where were you all last night? or Why weren’t you in school yesterday?
Financial Abuse/ Manipulation Refusing to pay for scheduled visits, not going to pay to see my kids. Paying in pennies or other small coins. Saying they will not bring food for visits because they’re paying child support to mother and she should make sure food is available for father’s visit.
Animal Abuse Batterers may inform child during visit that a beloved pet has died or had to be given away since the child was not longer in the home. One program reported a father bringing the child’s pet rabbit to the program knowing the child would not be able to take it back to the shelter where he was staying.
Physical Violence At least three murders of [WORD missing — Freudian slip?] have occurred on-site or in parking lots of supervised visitation programs in recent years. Other programs report murders or physical assaults by non-custodial parents off site but while family was utilizing services.
Suicide Visiting parent telling child and/or staff how depressed he is and how he might just end it all.

 

 

Not to mention, see Joyce Welch / Brian Tippe case, where the supervised visitation monitor was in a bestiality relationship (criminal!) with DOGS and a slave/master relationship (as the slave, i.e., fairly “deviant” behavior for someone involved with children, and around the field of domestic violence, which is itself characterized by inappropriate slave/master behaviors, only without the designated slave deriving (?) sexual enjoyment from the degraded status).  The mother was ordered supervised by a commissioner who was at the time on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too….

Guess under what banner I found that:

Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases

M. Sharon MaxwellLCSW, Ph.D.
Karen OehmeJ.D.

authors commissioned by
Violence Against Women Online Resources [logo]

Barbara Flory, MSW, LFMT (or whatever) and 2003 at least SVN board member, wrote the above glowing recommendation of supervised visitation; Karen Oehme, here, chairs the FLorida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation.  They are talking about strategies to have less abuse and murder occurring around supervised visitation (no mention made of financial fraud, etc., although it’s been found repeatedly) — and not whether it’s a good or bad idea, based on the fact that murders and further abuse HAS occurred around it!

ACTUALLY, Familylawcourts.com has a page on the “AOC” and says it better than I do; it’s funny, but right:

2.  The Elkins Task Force, which was headed by the AOC supposedly to promote accountability and listening to children, was an expensive and expansive white wash.

How else to explain why the AOC commissioned a 50k research project to ask family court litigants questions for the entire state; and the results featured only 53 litigants and 83 AOC staff personnel?

3.  One lasting, inept brainchild of the Judicial Council, again working in conjunction with the AOC, was to decriminalize crime via a “Supervised Visitation,” form in which kidnapping becomes the more civilized “parental abduction.”

Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council working in conjunction with the AOC, created the non-professional field, there remains no oversight. Which con artists have discovered.  Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors are awarding custody to the suspected pedophiles.

As such, if the AOC wasn’t so damaging to the point of lethal, it would be listed as a sub-category to Comic Gold.

Is there anything where AOC excels?

Yes.  The AOC excels at wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer funds for slick, expensive conferences, most of which are designed to continue prohibiting access to any real justice in the courts, such as the one below.

http://www.familylawcourts.com/aoc.html

(note:  I don’t agree with author in GPS issue, though).

She sarcastically notes:

Practice Hint:  Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department.  Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest.  The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.

Actually, I experienced so-called “parental abduction” (call it what you will) AT a law enforcement station, after having asked (in vain) previously for supervised visitation or something to prevent this (as I recall the LONG case history).  Apparently the problem is I wasn’t willing to cut some deal with CPS and let my children go into foster care needlessly to get revenge on my ex.   So, they did nothing, knowing it would be off their plate and safely in family court anyhow.   This custody-switch kept the case going, which also (FYI) meant a significant delay in child support matters, probably resulting in a little interest accumulation (at least from program funds) on the side, too.  The possible profitable (except to the children) permutations are endless in this system.

I figured I’d just hop on over to Tennessee to look up this nice nonprofit I learned was incorporated there:  Surprise:

 

Search:       1-1 of 1
Search Name:  Starts With Contains
Control #:
Control # Entity Type Name Name Type Name Status Entity Filing Date Entity Status
000454811 NCORP SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. Entity Inactive 09/29/2003 Inactive – Terminated

 

 

000454811: Corporation Non-Profit – Domestic
Name: SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.
Old Name:
Business Type:
Status: Inactive – Terminated Initial Filing: 09/29/2003
Formed in: Putnam County Delayed Effective Date:
Fiscal Year Close: June AR Due Date: 10/01/2007
Term of Duration: Perpetual Inactive Date: 01/11/2008
Principal Office: 2804 PARAN POINTE DR
COOKEVILLE, TN 38506 USA
Annual Report
Mailing Address:
1223 KING STREET
JACKSONVILLE, FL 322040000 USA
AR Exempt: No
Public Benefit Corporation: Yes
Skip Navigation Links

Name Status Expires
  No Assumed Names Found…

 

WELL, they apparently kept it going about 5 years — with the exception of AFCC, that’s pretty average for nonprofits catering to therapeutic-jurisprudence professions in the courts, which is probably why new ones (such as COllaborative law practice) must constantly be created. ….  Maybe the moved to Florida… or just went extra-USA terrestrial…..

TypeDateImage #DetailTermination01/11/20086178-2677Articles of Dissolution01/11/20086178-2675Administrative Amendment12/05/20076164-2457Detail Notice of Determination12/03/2007ROLL 61612006 Annual Report Due 10/01/200612/19/20065902-1491Notice of Determination12/01/2006ROLL 58932005 Annual Report Due 10/01/200510/07/20055578-01582004 Annual Report Due 10/01/200409/14/20045233-08802003 Annual Report Due 04/01/200402/10/20045032-2914Detail Initial Filing09/29/20034922-0943

Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?

Financial Reports for Registered Charities

(I didn’t find out whether or not).

I THINk the first address listed as  c/o Nancy Fallows, who shows up as someone probably good at getting grants, and on the board of a substance-abuse-prevention group, “Putnam (County) Power of One

Nancy Fallows Secretary,
(Grant-Writing Sub-Committee Chair)
Tennessee Community Services Agency,
Upper Cumberland Director
1000 England Drive, Suite F,
Cookeville, TN 38501(work) 931-646-4087; (fax) 931-520-0080
Nancy.Fallows@tncsa.com

 

Joe Nullet (also on Board, and the registered agent? in Florida for the TN corporation also) is Harvard, JFK School of Government, father of 3 boys, and:

 

and obviously someone who knows how to obtain funding for a program.  This one is selling educational curriculums, isn’t everyone these days?

Joe Nullet

Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the Family Nurturing Center of Florida, *** an organization committed to creating a community of nurturing care for our children.

 

As recognized Trainer/Consultant for the Nurturing Parenting programs, Joe’s area of strength is in the administration, support, and successful implementation of the Nurturing Parenting programs. Since 2001, Joe has successfully obtained financial support from the Jaguars Foundation, the Community Foundation of Jacksonville, the Reinhold Foundation, the Rice Family Foundation, UPS, Publix, the Martin Foundation, and others for the implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs.

As a father of three beautiful boys, Joe is passionate about nurturing his family and the world in which they live. Joe is available to train your agency staff to facilitate the Nurturing Parenting programs or as a consultant to develop innovative strategies to foster community collaboration, solicit financial support, and manage the effective implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs within your organization and/or community.

Joe Nullet, Executive Director
Supervised Visitation Network

*** per ‘SUNBIZ.org” -a site I really appreciate where you can look up florida organizations — actually, this was incorporated in 1993 as “Family Visitation Center, Inc.” and in 2000 they did a name change (adding the “nurturing”) as we can see in 2001, Mr. Nullet helped them expand the concept, or at least get funding for doing so.     The group’s current address, 2759 Bartley Circle (same city) is apparently owned by the City of Jacksonville  (a community center) and listed with the courts, or taking business from them:

Family Nurturing Center of Florida
Supervised Visitation, Dependency and Family Law


2759 Bartley Circle
Jacksonville, FL 32207
ServicePhone:
Fax:
(904) 389-4244
(904) 389-4225
Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.
Services: Information and referral; Other
Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims
Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns
Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7
Fee: Yessliding scale for Family Law clients.
Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation.
Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org

 

That site shows them in the 2 primary businesses supported by A/V grants:  Parent Education and Supervised Visitation and yes, they are a nonprofit; their “For Parents” link hopefully points to the SVN, and has a hastily (or at least crookedly) scanned “handbook” coaching parents on how to pick the right type of visitation center, i.e., one of ours, listing the SVN at 1223 King Drive (although it’s not been there for a while…..)

 

FNC is proud to partner with a number of local service providers to offer comprehensive services to clients. We have relationships with each of the certified domestic violence centers within the Fourth Circuit, and we also partner with Family Foundations, Youth Crisis Center, and many others. If you have a question about additional resources which may benefit your clients, please contact us or you can conduct your own search using the 2-1-1 system.

Like Kids’ Turn (etc.) it is described as the 1993 brainchild of a judge — only this one, responding to complaints from parents with children in foster-care:

We opened in 1993 as the Family Visitation Center, the first of its kind in Florida. It was the brainchild of the Honorable Judge Dorothy Pate, who was moved to act after hearing frequent complaints from parents who were not being allowed to see their children who had been placed in foster care.

SEE ALSO HERE:

Representatives from the Department of Children, the Children’s Home Society and the Junior League of Jacksonville met with Judge Pate to discuss a new concept called “supervised visitation.” Since that meeting, we have expanded our agency to include three programs at four locations and changed our name to reflect this growing commitment to improving the lives of families throughout Northeast Florida.

(NoTE — that predates the 1996 welfare reform, the 1994 national fatherhood initiative and violence against women act).

 

GONE SOUTH — literally, to FLORIDA — or at least here’s another corporation by the same name, in the same city (Jacksonville) that decided to get started up around the time the Tennessee incorporation shut down (or was shut down):

Florida Non Profit Corporation
SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number N07000010935
FEI/EIN Number 521831498
Date Filed 11/09/2007
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 11/15/2007
Principal Address
3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
JACKSONVILLE FL 32205
Changed 01/06/2010
Mailing Address
3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
JACKSONVILLE FL 32205

By the former address, yes, this is the same corporation (see files):

EIN# 521831498

IT’s purpose (see sunbiz.org if this doesn’t show, click on bottom link below Annual Reports) is fairly clear — business promotion and collaboration on how to obtain access visitation funding, basically:

Article III ” The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized” — “Provide a forum for networking and sharing of information

between CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS.  Advocate for adequate public and private funding for Child access and visitation programs.”

 

Others at the first Jacksonville Address (1223 King STreet)  address include a window-washing service.  Now, 3995 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL appears to be a particular real estate group, “Bo Bridgeport Brokers“) which I only figured because google-mapping zooming in on the address contained that label.

Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real 
3955 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
(904) 358-3955

 

 

It’s also listed in “Family and Child Services” in a VERMONT (how’s that for the other end of the east coast?) Child Support / Commission on Women office.  Cute:

  1. Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women

    women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached

    1223 King Street JacksonvilleFL 32204 904-389-7800 http://www.svnetwork.net/ . SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a 

1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223KingStJacks – Cached
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204. Companies at this address: Vision Window Washing, Inc. Alzheimer’s Care, Inc. Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. 
As explained nicely on the VERMONT government site, after one reads about the child support contacts:

Family Division and Office of Child Support

Vermont Office of Child Support

800-786-3214
http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers

 

Vermont Parent Representation Center, Inc.
77 Charlotte Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-540-0200
http://www.vtprc.org

An interdisciplinary team of an attorney, a social worker, and a peer navigator (a parent who has direct experience with child protective and foster care systems) represents parents at risk of experiencing the removal of their children into state custody and foster care or kin-care. A Community Action Team (CAT) works with the custodial parent to address issues that threaten the children’s safety to prevent a petition from being filed in court  (Family and Probate).

 

VPRC is a {{YET ANOTHER…..}} not-for-profit public interest law and policy organization. VPRC’s goals include:

To reduce the number of children removed from their families into state and other out-of-home custody; to shorten the length of stay in state and other out-of-home custody for children who have been removed, and to reduce the number of children re-entering state and other out-of-home custody after being reunified with their families.

This says nothing about “custody-dispute” Parental alienation situations, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t handle such things and get some grants or contracts to do so.

 

This is clearly more directed at CPS & Foster Care uses, but notice how SVN can springboard that into “custody dispute” or “estranged from the other parent” situations . . …

 

National

 

Supervised Visitation Network
1223 King Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204
904-389-7800
http://www.svnetwork.net/

 

SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free {{AFCC code language;  not ‘High-conflict”}} access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.

Wonder what the percentages are.  Notice, it doesn’t even pretend to be a grass-roots organization, or even parent-originated.    “The “is-estranged” could be either, has a restraining order on because of criminal conduct, or is judged to be guilty by allegation — from a PAS-saturated official — of the “crime” of parental alienation.  See in New Hampshire, parent coordination association (and my posts on it) for HOW to allege parental alienation and cut the children off from their mothers, after obtaining parent coordinator status.

6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.

I presume they are probably meaning the year 2011; someone has a little data input trouble here…..    If the SF Courts ever pay off what it is SFTC has a lien for (see my other Kids’ Turns posts) perhaps they can hire a proofreader for their new website, and get their license back.  Oh, this may be a little difficult though, because so many SF Courtrooms are being closed, soon, for lack of funding, budget cutbacks, etc. . . . .   You know how it goes….

I think that MOST businesses and charities understand (as well as shouldn’t most attorneys who are going to be sometimes doing business with them, or incorporated themselves as an LLP) that one has to register as a nonprofit with the state, and also file annual reports with the secretary of state whether for-profit or not, if doing business in that state.  But here it is stated explicitly:

 

Florida Charity Nearly Ruined

Sun Coast Law Enforcement Charities (Sun Coast) is a police charity benefiting police officers and their families in several Florida counties. Recently, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) served the charity’s president with a lawsuit.

Why? Because the charity failed to renew its registration with the Department, even though it had sent letters and made phone calls reminding the charity to do so. In Florida, any charity that asks for donations in the state mustregister with the department each year. It costs between $10 and $400, depending on how much money the charity raises. Sun Coast’s registration fee was $75.

The Department’s lawsuit wanted to impose a $10,000 fine against Sun Coast. Paying that fine would have ruined the charity. According to its IRS filings, the charity’s 2008 total revenue was only $11,000. Luckily it avoided the problem.

It explained to the Department that a former bookkeeper had ignored calls and letters from the Department. The Department took into consideration that Sun Coast had been registered since 2000 and kept up its renewals until the 2009 incident. In the end, Sun Coast paid a $1,000 fine and remains in operation.

Registration Laws

Many states are like Florida and require registration of charities. ArizonaConnecticutColorado, and Pennsylvania are good examples. The rules usually are different in each state, though. For example, in some states, a charity must register:

  • And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state
  • And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year
  • Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both
  • By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both

(Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)

Apparently being able to look it up on-line is new? http://www.800helpfla.com/socbus.html

Back to the Division of Consumer Services' Homepage

Solicitation of Contributions
Information for Businesses

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

Gift Givers Guide

 

Looking at the SVN site, describing the backgrounds of its current Board of Directors, here’s a nice connection to “responsible fatherhood” if you don’t get it yet:

 

Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD

Cambridge, MA

A psychologist and lawyer was Senior Psychologist of the Family Service Clinic from 1982 to 1988, conducting custody and visitation evaluations for the Middlesex County Family Court. From 1988, he served frequently as Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict custody and access disputes.

In 1991, Dr. Straus started Meeting Place: Supervised Child Access Service, a program of The Guidance Center, Inc. in Cambridge, MA, providing a safe setting in which children in high-risk situations can visit parents with whom they are not living.

 

Entity Name Identification Number Old Identification Number Principal Office
Address, City, State, Zip, Country
GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE 042199861  000013371  5 SACRAMENTO ST., CAMBRIDGE, MA  02138  USA 

Some details about the organization, including its name change:

The exact name of the Nonprofit Corporation: GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE


The name was changed from:  CAMBRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCI on 9/17/1997


Mergered into :  RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. on 8/21/2009

Entity Type:  Nonprofit Corporation
Identification Number: 042199861

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000013371

 

He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.

 

So maybe if I want to find what state it first incorporated in, I should go to Massachusetts?

 

From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.

Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.

 

 

Dr. Straus (psychologist/psychotherapist) published in 1994 (as cited in AFCC publication) on traumatized children in supervised visitation.  Maybe if the kids are so badly traumatized, they shouldn’t be there to start with?  Anyhow, this abstract for the cite:

 

Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

ARTICLE: Traumatized Children in Supervised Visitation: What Do They Need?

Authors’ Note:

This article was presented as a plenary paper at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, France, November 4-7, 1998.

April, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135

Author

Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. Straus

Excerpt

The purpose of supervised access, also known as supervised visitation and exchange services, is to provide a protected setting for parent-child contact when such contact presents risk following parental separation, child abuse, or neglect, or after an extended interruption of contact. There has been a remarkable growth in such services over the past two decades, in the United States and Canada, 1 as well as internationally. 2 Although there is a growing literature on the functioning of child access services (see, for example, Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Straus & Alda, 1994)**, to date there has been little concentrated attention in the field on how better to respond to the vulnerable children who are the primary clients of visitation services. It seems likely that several factors have contributed to the relative invisibility of children’s individual and developmental needs in designing access programs. These factors include the urgency with which the needs of these distressed parents and their advocates call for the attention of decision makers and service providers, the fact that visitation orders (usually made in family courts where children lack their own voice) take precedence in defining how children are served, and, most important, the lacunae in clinical and research findings about the special needs of this population of children.

Whereas supervised access is used to provide supportive services and reunite parents with their children when there has not been trauma, the majority of the child clients of supervised visitation services have not been so fortunate. This article …

** of course there was even then a growing literature from certain sources on access services, particularly with the CRCKIDS.org organization on, and the nonprofit board-member multiple inter-relationships in place from the start.  Abstract is from “Lexis-Nexis

LexisNexis®

 

Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.

 

RSJ CORP. Summary Screen 
Help with this form

The exact name of the Domestic Profit Corporation: RSJ CORP.
Entity Type:  Domestic Profit Corporation
Identification Number: 043061365

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000312860

Date of Organization in Massachusetts:  09/11/1989 Date of Revival:  05/29/2007
Date of Dissolution:  08/31/1998
Current Fiscal Month / Day: 12 / 31 Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 00 / 00  
The location of its principal office:

No. and Street:  22 BERKELEY STREET
City or Town: CAMBRIDGE State: MA   Zip: 02138 Country: USA

 

Supervised Visitation Access is not suitable for long-term, has been acknowledged (?) since 1999.  Therefore, I can see how if business is to keep coming there would need to be new customers.  THEORETICALLY a good bit of supervised visitation access will heal all relationships, reform perps of course (Except parentally alienating ones?) and lead to a reunified family.  (Alternately, see Warshak….).  OR, it could provide a nice excuse to terminate relationship with the offending parent, possibly the one most offended at (and/or paying for) the supervised visitation to start with.  Another Lexis-Nexis abstract, delivered in Paris again — here:

Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?

Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, November 5, 1998.

October, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478

Author

Martha Bailey

Excerpt

SOME COURTS AND COMMENTATORS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT LONG-TERM SUPERVISED ACCESS IS INAPPROPRIATE

Supervised access is ordered to develop, reestablish, or maintain a relationship between a child and a parent, or other relative, generally with the expectation that unsupervised access will at some point become possible. Some courts and commentators have said that supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman wrote that supervised access is “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access,” not “a long-term remedy.” 1 Lawyer Karen Oehme, cochair of the Family Visitation Program of Tallahassee, Florida, said, “Attorneys should realize that institutional supervised visitation is not a long-term solution in most family court cases, and that the programs should not be thought of as a substitute for addressing the underlying problems that resulted in the need for supervised visitation in the first place.” 2

In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible3 A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” 4 In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …

 

 

WELL, if one looks at the history and membership of the Children’s Rights Council (which does have a chapter in paris, and the link I clicked seemed to indicate, since about 1999 — not that my French is very good.) and remember who active David Levy (also on board of supervised visitation network is) none of this is too surprising except that it’s not about time to make up some new terminology about now, because Collaborative Law is pretty well established, as is Parenting Coordination.    It’s recommended to do this before the U.S. goes bankrupt and the $$ is inflated into worthlessness and no longer the world’s reserve currency, which I can see why considering what we DO with it!

http://www.crckids.org/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-trustees/

David Levy

David L. Levy, Esq. is a CRC co-founder and former CRC President. He has directed 16 CRC conferences, was editor of the 1993 book entitled “The Best Parents is Both Parents®”, and has recently published an eco-novel entitled “Revolt of the Animals.”

 

 

Michael Oddenino, member of the CRC's Board of Trustees

 

 

Michael L. Oddenino has been the CRC’s General Counsel since its inception in 1985.  He practices family law full time in Arcadia, CA, just outside Los Angeles.   He has written numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs and journal articles on family law.  His CRC brief in the 1989 Michael H case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court agreed with the CRC that never-married fathers were entitled to a hearing to determine visitation rights to their children, even if the child was born within a marriage of the mother to another man.

 

 

 

Margaret Wuwert, CRC's Chief Operating Officer

 

Margaret A. Wuwert, Chief Operating Officer, is a retired social worker and serves as Director of CRC of Northwest Ohio. Her agency is one of CRC’s largest chapters with eight Access Centers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.  In 2002, Ms. Wuwert was recognized by the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court for her untiring dedication and supportive access services to the children and families in the Toledo area.

 

 

Mark S,. Inzetta, member of CRC's Board of Trustees

 

Mark S. Inzetta, J.D. is the Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Wendy’s International, Inc., based in Dublin, Ohio. Before the CRC, Mark served on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Commission, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Task Force on Family Law and Children, ***and Board of Directors of the Franklin County, Ohio Chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates.

*** Lots of AFCC influence on that one, I think I blogged it.  To get input, they simply flew the task force out to Arizona (home to an AFCC organization) to sit on AFCC presentations; I may have even blogged that.  Given Ms. Wuwert, and others, I can see possibly why CRC shows up on the Indiana Child Support site.

 

 

Just to show how “totally” unrelated AFCC is from this SVN (that’s bouncing its corporation status from state to state?) here’s what’s scheduled for the October 2011 SVN conference, I guess tax-deductible for the SVN because it’s a regional training, and probably for attendees under education, and probably who knows what else.

 

“2011 REGIONAL TRAINING for “SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK”:  INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families, Implications for Supervised Visitation”

Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana

October 26,2011

This One Day Institute will focus on the issues presented in Supervised Visitation when Domestic Violence is present. This Institute will provide information to help professionals who work with SV providers, and those who provide direct services, to understand how domestic violence may require changes to their services to respond to the complex dynamic involved.

 

Scheduled one day before the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Regional Conference:

“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners” at the Hyatt Regency.

For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE

(and you can see the great race-car graphics, too….)

 

I don’t know about that “no winners” part.  It seems like great retirement planning if you’re in the business, particularly if you have published something that could be marketed as “parent education” or how to work with flawed parents, or such .  . . . .

Cost: $125 for SVN Members, $150 for Non Members (Includes Breakfast and Lunch):

Register HERE

A rate of $135/night at the Hyatt Regency is available through the AFCC Conference: HERE

 

 

I think we should look at the current list of AFCC Board Membership, starting with Linda Fieldstone (of Florida), now President:  Is your judge on it?

AFCC Board of Directors

President

Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL

President Elect

Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA

Vice President

Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW, St. Paul, MN

Secretary

Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH

Treasurer

Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ

Past President

Robert M. Smith, JD, MDiv, Windsor, CO

Hon. Peter Boshier, Wellington, New Zealand Hon. Diana Bryant, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Andrea Clark, MSW, St. Louis, MO patti cross, JD, Toronto, ON

Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, Boston, MA Hon. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Los Angeles, CA Hon. R. John Harper, Toronto, ON Grace M. Hawkins, MSW, Tucson, AZ Mindy F. Mitnick, EdM, MA, Edina, MN Hon. Graham R. Mullane, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL, Northampton, MA Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD, Palo Alto, CA Larry V. Swall, JD, Liberty, MO

AFCC Staff

Executive Director

Peter Salem, MA

Which reminds me, some time, to do a post or two on the Hofstra University (NY) connection to AFCC.

Associate Director

Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT

Program Director

Candace Walker, CMP, CMM

Business and Administrative Director

Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA

Office Manager & Registrar

Dawn Holmes

Program Coordinator

Nola Risse-Connolly, BA

Program Coordinator

Erin Sommerfeld, BA

Administrative Assistant

Jessica Murdy, BS

AND IF YOU LIVE IN INDIANA, be comforted to know they have the violence/danger thing all under control:

Co-sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center

 

I notice that the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (aka “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.)-related “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has fully enmeshed itself now with AFCC (and continuing to receive preventing violence discretionary grants, no doubt) and as such will be just about useless when it comes to objective critiques of the AFCC and its impact on our culture and the culture of divorce in re:  murder/suicides around exchange of children or the filing of protective orders (so to speak) (I’m referring to Loretta Frederick:  Go to TAGGS.hhs.gov and see if you can find the  name, or search my blog on the organizations it’ll make more sense):

 

4. Judicial Officers institute— interparental conflict and domestic Violence: structuring Parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse

The basic implication of “abuse” is danger to the abused, or if access to hurt the abused is cut off, attempts to hurt HER children instead.   The most common sense solution would be separation.  But that concept has an “irreconciliable difference” with the fathers’ rights and perpetual new professions contingents, so we need to create more tax exempt entities to confer and rehearse how to make these situations work, even if the idea is ridiculous.

You beat a person — you shouldn’t be around children.  GOT IT?  Why should everyone else pay an adult to be supervised in the presence of children rather than get that adult AWAY from children and let them deal with their life in an adult manner somewhere else.  This is called deterrence.

COMMON SENSE though, wouldn’t support the word “institute” which there seems to be always another one of …….

Research has documented that interparental conflict and violence have multiple negative effects on many aspects of parenting and family functioning and on children’s psychological functioning and dysregulation. It is also associated with multiple adjustment problems in children, including internalizing and externalizing problems, PTSD, sleep problems, and school adjustment problems and performance.

 

IT  meaning “interparental conflict and violence.”  Is conflict the same as violence?    VIOLENCE is directional, and just might have self-defense counter-moves.  Two can have conflict, but generally one starts the violence.  ACEStudy.org (Kaiser/CDC study, an old one, but a large and 10-years-long one) talked about adverse childhood events having these impacts, two of which such events included physical violence and sexual abuse.


Presenters in this institute will tie the latest research on [how to rename/reframe partner and child abuse] the impact of interparental conflict and domestic violence on children to the practical task of structuring parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse. As a result of this institute, participants will be better able to structure and evaluate parenting arrangements that account for the unique nature of the violence and conflict in the family and link the abuse to the parenting capacities of the parties.

Loretta M. Frederick, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN

Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH

E. Mark Cummings, PhD, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN

Pamela A. Hayman-Weaner, JD, Defiance, OH Gabrielle Davis, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project,

Minneapolis, MN

 

And be sure not to miss this pre-conference institute cliff-hanger:

7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time

The rubric of utilizing multiple hypotheses is essential to ensure appropriate interventions, services and parenting plans while addressing any shifts in parent-child estrangement vs. alienation. This workshop will help participants grapple with the complex and sometimes changing dynamics of families in conflict, particularly where domestic abuse is alleged or identified. Various typologies of abusers, victims, and relationships will be examined. Presenters will explore how to conduct initial assessments while elucidating the importance of ongoing assessment and monitoring of any progress.

Amy Van Gunst, MA, Fountain Hill Center, Grand Rapids, MI

Randy Flood, MA, Men’s Resource Center at Fountain Hill, Grand Rapids, MI

 

Make sure to read aloud the portion in red 3 times fast.  Then cogitate on the concept of putting “abuse” and “parenting” in the same place at all.  Then think about whether you’d like to have people who speak like that to decide where your child lives, or influence others who do.

SUPERVISED VISITATION very linked in with the AFCC and with, at least the California Courts

 

 

  1. [PDF]

    SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK (SVN) STANDARDS FOR 

    http://www.afccnet.org/…/Supervised_Visitation_Nework-Standards%20Final%2…

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    of the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Standards Task Force (the “Task …. 1 TheSupervised Visitation Network acknowledges that the concept of both 

  2. California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody 

    Jul 28, 2011 – Why can supervised visitation help in cases where there is or has been  and education requirements of the Supervised Visitation Network

 

 

WELL, that’s enough fun for one post….  Perhaps it will illustrate a few points for my next one, about the SF Courthouses closing down, but still there are ongoing grants to SFTC from a very interesting few sources….

OCSE: Child Support Enforcement/Federal Grants to States: Let’s Look at the “TAGGS” HHS Charts (CFDAs 93.563 & 93.564)

with 5 comments

(POST is incomplete — but I’m going to post anyhow for a sample of some of the funding for child support, and how one can look up Who’s Who when a nonprofit exists to take some of that extra-special “child support research and demonstration” (etc.) grant monies, especially when it is combined with other money in fatherhood initiatives to help men with their child support and custody issues (i.e., taking TANF money to promote fatherhood to encourage child support payment in hopes that it will trickle down to less overall TANF $$ == huh?)

I realize that few people are going to get through 20K words of text from my last post. However, it should be clear by now that a lot of child support COLLECTED simply ain’t reaching the customers, although that was the ostensible (as opposed to “evolving”) purpose of child support enforcement, to start with. Today, I am providing some visuals, from the Grants to States for Child Support Enforcement, culled from the “TAGGS.hhs.gov” database I keep yakkin’ about.

2016 update: Database TAGGS.hhs.gov has recently got a “facelift” on its search pages.  It generates a re-usable link (“url”) for any report — among the options on the top right of a generated report, you’ll see buttons for “Export to Xl,to pdf, to text, and furthest right, will generate a “tinyurl” link to copy and save.  This

CFDA 93.593, “CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT” Grants to States — selected Years 2010 & 2011

These are the columns one can select for any Advanced Search on TAGGS: “OpDiv” would be for example, “ACF,” Program Office — in these cases — would be OCSE, Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Grantee Institution Grantee Address Grantee City Grantee State Grantee Postal Code Grantee Country Grantee County Grantee Type Grantee Class Fiscal Year Operating Division Program Office Grant Title Award Number Award Code Budget Year Action Issue Date Principal Investigator Award Action Type Award Class Award Activity Type CFDA Number CFDA Program Title Award Abstract Text Recovery Act Indicator

I learned yesterday that a Supreme Court Case had verified that a man (or woman) about to be incarcerated for FTP (failure to Pay) child support does NOT have a constitutional right to a public defender — because it’s a “civil” right involved. That’s official now. Center for American Progress

Families Lose in Child Support Case

By Joy Moses | June 22, 2011

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Turner v. Rogers Suggests More Work Ahead

There were no winners in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Turner v. Rogers. The Court decided that the appointment of an attorney is not required when parents, who are typically fathers, face jail time for not paying child support. This decision means more fathers will likely end up in jail. The Court required some lesser protections that could help fathers avoid jail time, but more action is needed from outside the courts to help these families. Fathers obviously lose since their freedom is on the line when they’re unable to launch the best possible defense. For many, there is a legitimate defense that they are simply too poor to pay. Half of all child support debtors are the poorest men in society, and 70 percent of past due payments are owed by those making $10,000 or less. Some men are more at risk than others because they have the highest unemployment rates, including those who are black (17.5 percent), Latino (10.1 percent), and/or have limited education and skills (13.7 percent). But mothers lose, too. The Court says {broken link} men can’t be guaranteed attorneys because women may not have them. This is certainly fair—unless you focus on the fact that women may not have attorneys. Equalizing this disadvantage is better than some other options. But what if both parents had the help they needed? . . . Children lose as well. Court and child support systems that are meant to serve their best interests will continue to fail far too many, reaching some issues beyond those that were before the Court. When their dads refuse to pay, punishing them with jail time is helpful. But what about the children with fathers who can’t afford to pay, have difficulty representing themselves, and end up in jail? For them there’s now zero chance that their dad will work and pay support, and it’s much harder to see him behind bars. Importantly, an opportunity is lost to help the child through more family-friendly child support policies that increase the ability to collect via help with employment and fostering father-child connections.

This author has  a B.A. from Stanford and a J.D. from Georgetown and is a Senior Policy Analyst at a Progressive organization. Joy Moses

Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity program at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, she was a Children and Youth Staff Attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. The majority of her practice focused on the education rights of homeless students, 

Therefore, I allege that, although she has been focusing on different (and quite valid) issues she is smart enough to figure out what’s up with the child support & access visitation grants system (among others), and how fathers are already having grants-funded free legal help to “facilitate” their family connections.   It seems she has come to a decision that the Fatherhood Policies are needed, and working — as seen by her other articles, and publishing one with Jacquelyn Boggess, co-founder of CFFPP (search my blog) and also a member of Women in Fatherhood, Inc. (A recent nonprofit profiting from HHS fatherhood grants). . . . . CFFPP, as we may recall, is a nonprofit that changed its name to remove the word “Father” from the title and use instead “Family” to be less obvious about how “fatherhood” they actually are in practice, and focus.

Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves, But Could Use Some Help: Fatherhood Policy and the Well-Being of Low-Income Mothers and Children (2010) by Joy Moses (Center for American Progress), Jacquelyn Boggess, and Jill Groblewski >>

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE ASKS and ANSWERS its own question: The tension between progressive notions about strong independent women and the benefits they get from help with child rearing is just one philosophical question underlying the debate about the relationship between women and fatherhood policy. Others include:

  • Do policies that promote responsible fatherhood fail to recognize that women also face significant financial hardships and structural barriers on the road to self-sufficiency?
  • Do all women and families have the same stake in fatherhood responsibility policy without regard to differences associated with socio-economic status and race?
  • Do discussions about fatherhood amount to attacks on single mothers?

Although the authors understand the underlying concerns giving rise to these questions, we would answer all of them with a “No.” First, we contend that it’s not necessary to pit fatherhood responsibility policies against the interests of women, especially low-income single mothers who rely on federal social services programs. Rather, fatherhood policy is family policy that benefits all family members, including mothers. Suggesting the need for social services programs that encourage and facilitate fathers’ economic and emotional support for their families need not equate to a lack of recognition of the challenges faced by these women or an indictment against single mothers.

I deduce that Ms. Moses has not participated in a custody war against a former abuser and been baptized in the fire of this process, post-1994….  First of all, those questions, while nice philosophically — were not asked here in an open format Notice, the link to the post has no COMMENTS format, typical).     The detached tone and generic terms, asserting that Fatherhood Policy benefits all family members — is simply false; TANF funds are diverted to fatherhood projects on the presumption that there is a trickle-down benefit.   Abstinence Education (still going on), Marriage promotion, and increasing and expanding the child support enforcement apparatus into “family-friendly” ever-evolving programs DOES help provide jobs — for those administering the programs and evaluating them, that is.   I found this site, the other day, chasing down a multi-million $$ organization called “MDRC” (or “Manpower Research Development Corporation”) which puts the giant (as to funding, in the DV prevention arena) “Minnesota Program Development, INc.” (MPDI), a.k.a. the outfit from Duluth which is pushing supervised visitation so hard, and collaborating (or one of its subsidiaries / offshoots, Battered Women’s Justice Project, “BWJP”) with the AFCC (my favorite acronym for this blog, I guess — it comes up nearly every post) — to undermine the language defining crimes as crime, re-characterize individuals as family members, and both responsible for criminal activity by one of them, and so forth  The Child Support Enforcement in Kentucky (Family) Courts has a nice little extortion unit for fathers found in arrears — either go (back) to jail, or get a “get out of jail free” pass if they will participate in a court-favorite program Turning It Around (how to be a man, a father, and other things probably aimed at the 6th grade level, although it’s to men who have sired children)….. the kicker in this one being that it probably also gets grant funding — and if Dads participate, there’s an incentive for the states to get supportive grants. “Turning It Around ” works with the “Home Incarceration Program, yes:

“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. Compliance with the program requires making weekly child support payments as well as attending a twelve (12) week class.

It appears that in 1975, Kentucky restructured its courts.  This 2002-2003 Report on the courts has a flowchart showing when a Family Court was added, and describing some of its programs, including “Turning It Around”:

In 1975, Kentucky voters supported a constitutional amendment to the Judicial Article that provided for a unified, four-tiered judicial system for operation and administration, called the Court of Justice. Judicial power of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is thus vested in one Court of Justice, which is divided into the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, trial courts of general jurisdiction known as Circuit Courts, and trial courts of limited jurisdiction known as District Courts. In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier. . . . In FY 2002- 2003, the average number of cases heard by family court judges was 1,477 per judge  {X 33 judges in this court}, representing cases originally within the jurisdiction of the circuit and the district courts.  {And it says approximately half the citizens in the state…?} … the Department has coordinated training for family court judiciary and staff, disseminated information via development of a quarterly newsletter, website, a family court benchbook and various reporting materials. The coordination of legal and social services and the provision and support of many programs, including but not limited to divorce education, Families in Transition, Turning It Around, Domestic Violence Information Sessions and truancy court projects have had a significant impact on the citizens of Kentucky

YES of course it has.  This report is actually some good reading, including relating how it was in 1996 that the JURISDICTIONAL basis for Family Court was established in 1996 (odd, funny, how that dates to WELFARE (TANF) REFORM year and the addition of access visitation grants to help support programs such as they mentioned above — divorce (parenting) education, and so forth.   This report shows NINE new justice centers being built (mostly in 2000ff) and notes that:

In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier.

{{NOTE:  In 2001, then-President George Bush initiated — by Executive Order — the OFFICE of FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY etceteras, aggressively helping put faith-based organizations, including plain old churches — on the federal grants stream and interspersed throughout government, meaning that they could also apply for funds to teach:  Parent Education, and “How to be a Man” etc…}}

Family Court. With ratification of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment in all 120 counties, the Kentucky Constitution has seen the most sweeping change in the structure of our court system since we adopted a unified four-tier court system in 1975. This historic moment came during the 2002 general election when more than 75 percent of Kentucky voters approved passage of the Family Court Amendment. This mandate permanently added Family Court to the state’s court system and proved that the people of Kentucky have overwhelmingly embraced the concept of “one family, one judge, one court.” Family Court, which is involved in {{I.E. NOW REGULATING AND AFFECTING..}} the most intimate and complex aspects of human nature and social relations, provides a court devoted exclusively to the needs of families and children. It currently serves 2 million people in 42 counties — nearly half of Kentucky’s population. My goal is to see that within 10 years every family in the state has access to a court that makes families and children the highest priority.

Kentucky’s court pages has one of the most active set of programs for kids, Moms, Dads, of any states that I’ve seen.  It was here I found a parenting education class (Kids First) which led directly to a nonprofit (I’ll say it:  “Front Group”) in PENNSYLVANIA — of course AFCC in origin and intent.  I wonder if some double-billing goes on (and how much) as has been discovered already in other programs around the country, in custody cases. In 2002 also, an “Alternate Dispute Resolution” Department was added (like many others nationwide).  While this may be appropriate in many types of situations, this process is unfair and DANGEROUS to parents, I’m referring primarily to mothers, whose custody case stems from violence issues.  It dilutes protections, attorney-client confidentiality,and to the extent mediators are court-paid (and/or AFCC-trained, meaning they are going to be hostile towards mothers) it is a bad deal for everyone involved.  I obviously am opposed; in what other areas of crime is a victim MANDATED to mediate with the perp, leaving the decisions to be influenced by a person whose very position has a built-in motive to extend the litigation?  Here it is:

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert approved the creation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Department in April 2002. The mission of the Department is to promote, facilitate, and maintain the effective use and growth of alternative means of resolving disputes. Initiatives include mediation training for general civil and family mediators, small claims mediation programs, and guidelines for mediators and mediation training. The AOC-sponsored training program is the most thorough alternative dispute resolution initiative to date. Several week-long seminars are designed to train lawyers, judges, educators, mental health and human resource professionals, family court staff, pretrial mediators, and AOC management. The proliferation

FEB, 2011 article by this justice defending himself against a newspaper attack:

n any event, let me set the record straight. In my 10 years as chief justice, I established family courts in Kentucky, and those courts now serve 75 percent of our population. At my request, the General Assembly authorized construction of 50 or more judicial centers, almost all of which are located in rural counties that often get little attention from state government. Those court facilities provided thousands of jobs for Kentuckians who needed work, and they were built with money to be repaid over 25 years borrowed at historically low interest rates. I was also instrumental in establishment of the senior judge program, which has resulted in far greater efficiency than ever before in Kentucky courts. Hardly ever is a court day lost because the judge is unavailable. When judges are ill or must attend to family matters, as in the federal system, a senior judge is available to fill that seat for the day or week of the regular judge’s absence. Jurors, witnesses, and others don’t have their time wasted. I also established nearly statewide drug courts, whereby non-violent offenders are given treatment and are closely supervised by judges and caseworkers. Drug court have been about the only significant progress made in recent years in combating the scourge of drug abuse.

He complained that he was not given (by the senior judge) leave to run for Attorney General while in his position as family judge; this JAN 25, 2011 (blog quoting said )article mentions some of the financial conflicts of interest — and the major court-house construction projects in some detail:

Lambert established guidelines for leaves of absence in 2005, a time when he was rumored to be considering a run for governor in 2007. Minton has not granted any judge a leave from the program. Lambert apparently only granted one, for a judge to complete an advanced degree at Yale University. It comes as no surprise that Lambert’s decision about running for public office is so closely tied to his financial planning. As chief justice, he designed the senior judge program that will provide him, and others, a generous retirement. Lambert also conceived the widely criticized $880 million courthouse construction program and hired the residential architect who designed his own home to oversee it. The firm that sold the bonds on the lion’s share of the courthouse projects employed Lambert’s son for a time. And the construction company that got more than half the courthouse business contributed generously to the judicial campaigns of Lambert’s wife, Debra.

Here’s a nice 2007 Continuing Legal Education Commission schedule, from the Kentucky Bar, giving thanks for contributors:

ABOUT THE HANDBOOKS AND PRESENTATIONS ␣ Handbook materials are the result of the combined efforts of numerous dedicated professionals from around Kentucky, and elsewhere. The KBA gratefully acknowledges the following individuals who graciously contributed to this publication: AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination  (the link is a Google search, it brings up my posts on the topic as well as of course a course selling information at a discount to AFCC members on how to implement “parenting coordination” (translation — how to steer a family court case against mothers, I kid you not….), how to basically CHANGE courts, and a potpourri of other AFCC agendas  They really are a marketing outfit….  Parenting Coordination Task Force (a concept pushed by this group) consisted of:   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.

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution [ADR] 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.
 

3 para. of rant, here, plus come copyediting notes: [**”assists . . . .. to” is a grammar mistake!  “Assist” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object.  They wrote the sentence without one.  It’s “assist in implementing/implementation” or “Help Parents implement.”  And these are the perpetual teachers…The task force boasts TWO “M.Ed.”s, a JUDGE, a JD, and a bunch of Ph.D.’s — did they do this on their dissertations?][***”EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT CHILDREN’S NEEDS” already has a cash-supported grants stream dedicated to it, called access and visitation ($10 million/year nationwide, and California, where some of these are, gets about $1 million of that still).  Maybe what the parents need, instead, is lower legal bills — and fewer AFCC personnel on their case, particularly the ones that double-bill the grants program, and the parents, and/or are affiliated with the SF court system and Kids Turn (which is trading funds [i.e., a lien!], or was, with the SFTC, Trial Courts, system mysteriously….). Labeling parents “high-conflict” when one parent may or may not be having a “conflict” with the law-breaking, or child-endangering behavior of the others, is a word-trick used by such professionals to place themselves as the supposed “adults” in the matter, reframe what may be some VERY serious issues as “disputes” and sometimes reframe actual domestic violence, threats to kidnap, etc. as “conflict” — squarely blaming both parents for the behavior of ONE.  There are very, very few truly neutral individuals in this world — EVERYONE has a viewpoint.  However, few parents, particularly mothers, are aware of the influence and viewpoints of this organization and how neutral it is on pedophilia and abuse, and how activist it is in preventing women from leaving such situations with their children safe.   I seriously doubt that many people outside some of us mothers who have been diligently blogging this, in recent years (following upon NAFCJ and a VERY few others original exposures of the origins of the AFCC) understand how VERY large a part of the AFCC is #1.   Driven by simple greed — the money motive to market their own materials, and have a monopoly on the marketplace; #2.  Unbelievably activist, narcisssitically so — they position themselves to, and do, re-write laws (or add new ones), or by PRACTICE simply undermine and reverse existing state codes; #3.  Improperly continue to handle CRIMINAL matters in the FAMILY context — pleading caseloads all the time.         I have been systematically looking up (researching, if you will) AFCC individuals, task forces, memberships (i.e., who are judges where) nationwide as part of advocacy for noncustodial mothers in shock (including myself, initially) at what happened to our civil rights?    The behaviors and patterns of AFCC are very predictable, and their rhetoric uniform — rarely does an actually new IDEA come up — just a new market niche.  SImilarly, the nonprofits formed by man of the AFCC-personnel have a few commonalities — namely, they are geared to get court-referred business, they take sometimes grants monies, and they relentlessly conference, publish and collaborate to change the language and practice of law to a direction that this group, in particular, likes.  They are inbred with bar associations, the APA and several other groups as well — I know this because I look, closely The success of this organization which began as a SLUSH FUND IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE (from the best I can tell, and others — in articles written about this in the 1990s; don’t take it on my word — go to “the money trail” in Full Disclosure.net which follows Richard Fine’s case and work) depends upon inherent greed and egotism.  Parents are perceived as a PROBLEM, and they are the SOLUTION.   The success — besides who is positioned where in the judicial and court-referral professions — is also demonstrated by the total silence of domestic violence groups on this one.     To take the “veil” off — combine some listening, some reading, and then go check the financials!   Ask, how long are adult mothers and fathers supposed to be forced into educational materials designed at the FIFTH GRADE level (I found one today, may blog it tomorrow)???      The people most qualified to help their children, for the MOST part, are the parents — they live with them, they know them!   With this court system having been around now for several generations, many of the troubles we are seeing — like familicides, terrorism, fatalities on court-ordered exchanges, and/or kidnappings by parents to avoid payment of child support ! ! – or to get even — are now elements of the difficulties single mothers face.     I do not believe that the family court system (which exists primarily because of these individuals — some still practicing — to start with) is reformable, and I DO not believe it is broken — I believe it is doing exactly what it was designed to do — provide steady income growth for an otherwise low-paying field (psychology, absent the Ph.D.s), and a cult-like evangelizing of products (parent education, batterers intervention, supervised visitation, etc.) — which will provide secure retirements for the people who (a) designed and/or (b) parroted and helped affiliate-market them. )      

OK, I know that was 3 LONG paragraphs, but at least I kept it to only 3!
 
Parenting coordination is a quasi-legal, mental health, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management and sometimes decision-making functions.

Correction:  It is an all-expenses paid (to the coordinators) method of engaging in dubious QUASI-LEGAL and so-called “MENTAL HYGIENE” processes which BECAUSE OF THIS have ZERO business in OR around the courtroom UNLESS the parents opt for it — BOTH of them, and WITHOUT court coercion. Do they expect, in the cases of impoverished parents, to take some of their fees from the already compromised TANF funding, or what? ALSO — PARENTING COORDINATION is yet another tool of the trade of playing the PARENTAL ALIENATION card in a custody hearing and calling for “intervention” (a la Dick Warshak or Matt Sullivan, Ph.D. & Friends) “reunification.”  In other contexts, this would be called deprogramming, a practice which in the 1970s was played on some young adults by their parents, and was criminal — because it involved kidnapping.   It’s claiming that brainwashing happened (whether or not it did, and without true discretion) and so justifying coercive, “INTERVENTIONS” “Intervention Strategies for Parenting Coordinators in Parental Alienation Cases” (AFCC author Susan Boyan and probably the other one also) Divorce Wars: Interventions With Families in Conflict Ms. Ellis’ book, above is Copyright 2000 by the APA, and has of course a chapter on “Parental Alienation Syndrome:  A New Challenge for Family Courts (p. 205)” and by the end, p. 267, she gets around to “Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases.”  (Note:  PAS is real — see chapter title; but Sexual Abuse apparently is not, because it only surfaces next to the word “Allegations” emphasizing doubt (like Sexual abuse just doesn’t happen in families, or in divorcing families?) — and in the context of how to EVALUATE . . . . ALLEGATIONS.     Typical AFCC priorities…..”Lead” with PAS, and then — if forced to — say “sexual abuse” but never as if it were truly an issue.) It is a MAJOR issue….. (The Franklin Coverup)  Click on the link summary — the material is very disturbing, though…. Now, let’s reconsider why the AFCC, with it UNTRACKED and EVER-EXPANDING FUNDING AND REVAMPING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS emphasizing instead PROGRAMMING activities (endless trainings……) IS SO URGENT TO DESTROY ANY LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION OF THE HORRORS OF THIS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN, AND AGAINST ONE (OR MORE) OF THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. https://events.afccnet.org/store/online_bookstore Susan M. BoyanAnn Marie Termini: The Psychotherapist as Parent Coordinator in High-Conflict Divorce: Strategies and TechniquesDecember 2004 Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective CO-Parenting   August 1999 WELL, this post was to be a little sample — only — of some places that “child support enforcement” monies (grants/which are incentives) are going to the states.

 BACK to Ms. Moses’ article though:

To be fair, the Supreme Court decision did include some important protections the Obama administration suggested in its brief to the Court. The Court required safeguards that are alternatives to an appointed attorney such as telling men that they can avoid jail if they can’t afford to pay and providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate that they can’t pay.

The man in question from South Carolina did time for failure to pay amounts less than $60/ week. I’m so glad to know that our country is willing to go after the “real” culprits and thieves in lifes — people who cannot afford defense attorneys — and just SO “uninterested” in actually distributing money garnished (improperly and sometimes, in excess of court orders) from parents amounting to, sometimes, millions of dollars per state. SOME CHARTS: I did a basic search on the CFDA category “93563” which is Child Support Enforcement, plain and simple — and I selected only the years 2011 and 2010. I’d like this to exhibit how in different states (and tribes) different agencies collect, and how much money is spent on this. By publishing the street addresses fo the state (or tribe) designated agency, people can then search on-line for those addresses and see what else is going on at that street address. Although this is more helpful for private companies or nonprofits, it’s a good habit to develop. For Year 2010 only (seeing as we are not through with 2011 yet), this is the report:

FY 2010 Grants to States, Tribes, and D.C. for Child Support Enforcement

CFDA Prog. No.

OPDIV

Popular Title

Number of Awards

Number of Award Actions

CAN Award Amount

93.563

ACF 

Child Support Enforcement (CSE)  

180

1,037

$3,604,010,339

Page Total

180

1,037

$3,604,010,339

Report Total

180

1,037

$3,604,010,339

 

Same category, FY 2011:

CFDA Prog. No.

OPDIV

Popular Title

Number of Awards

Number of Award Actions

CAN Award Amount

93.563

ACF 

Child Support Enforcement (CSE)  

170

713

$3,258,225,288

Page Total

170

713

$3,258,225,288

Report Total

170

713

$3,258,225,288

(So, one can see where I got my “$6.8” billion figure  from by adding the totals, there). USASPENDING.gov (year, 2010, same code) shows:

Total Dollars:$3,604,010,339 (probably includes some contracts, not just grants….)

NOTE:  these are GRANTS only — for contracts, plus grants, plus loans, plus (etc.) one would have to hop on over to another database, such as USASPENDING.gov.  however (the thing is) with both of those, the amounts are provided from the agencies themselves; there might be a better way to actually see what went out (like the individual state grants received documents, etc.) There are also SPECIAL PROJECTS for Child Support — CFDA 93601…

CFDA Prog. No.

OPDIV

Popular Title

Number of Awards

Number of Award Actions

CAN Award Amount

“2010”

93.601

ACF 

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

118

257

$17,306,652

93.601

CDC 

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

1

1

$601,234

Page Total

119

258

$17,907,886

Report Total

119

258

$17,907,886

NOW, what exactly are those projects?  I decided to take a look (FY 2010) and recognize quite a few names – especially the first one here:

Program Office

Grantee Name

{Yr “2010”}

City

State

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

CFDA Number

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

Award Abstract

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

93601

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

93601

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

Circuit Court for Baltimore County 

BALTIMORE 

MD 

90FI0057 

OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5 

1

93601

PETER J LALLY 

-$1,215

View Abstract

OCSE 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office 

CLEVELAND 

OH 

90FI0093 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

KENT K SMITH 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

BEN LEVEK 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

BEN LEVEK 

$24,300

View Abstract

OCSE 

Florida State University 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

90FI0107 

USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES 

1

93601

KAREN OEHME 

$100,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0095 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

JOE FINNEGAN 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0095 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

JOE FINNEGAN 

$25,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0097 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

PHYLLIS NANCE 

$25,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

MILWAUKEE 

WI 

90FI0103 

IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION 

2

93601

JANET NELSON 

$25,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0082 

2005 SIP GRANT 

2

93601

JOY LYNGAR 

-$1,203

View Abstract

OCSE 

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

93601

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

93601

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

3

93601

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$24,170

View Abstract

OCSE 

STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM 

HERNDON 

VA 

90FI0102 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

DAVID P POPOVICH 

$22,816

View Abstract

OCSE 

Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

SAN JOSE 

CA 

90FI0101 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

93601

RALPH MILLER 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

SAN JOSE 

CA 

90FI0101 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

3

93601

RALPH MILLER 

$25,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency 

AKRON 

OH 

90FI0109 

OCSE DEMONSTRATION 

1

93601

JENNIFER BHEAM 

$83,330

View Abstract

OCSE 

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

93601

MICHAEL HAYES 

$0

View Abstract

OCSE 

The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families 

COLUMBIA 

SC 

90FI0105 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION 

2

93601

PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN 

$50,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. 

TUSCALOOSA 

AL 

90FI0108 

CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY 

1

93601

TERESA COSTANZO 

$100,000

View Abstract

OCSE 

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON 

MA 

90FI0106 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

DENISE M FITZGERALD 

$48,995

View Abstract

OCSE 

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0096 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

SANDI CRAWFORD 

$33,052

View Abstract

I’ll look up a few (that I know less about, for example, Karen Oehme in FL is a known position….): MICHAEL MAGNANI in NY (apparently relates to a Drug Court): Michael Magnani Director Division of Grants and Program Development New York State Unified Court System 25 Beaver Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-428-2109 Fax: 212-428-2129 Email: mmagnani@courts.state.ny.usFor example:

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.  EIN#63-12904,

I looked this one up at NCSSDATAWEB.org — revenues showing over $2 million. 990 nonprofit purpose:

“TO EMPOWER FAMILIES BY PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES THAT DEVELOP SKILLS AND RESOURCES TO IMPROVE THE FAMILY’S QUALITY OF LIFE, PREPARE THEIR CHILDREN FOR SUCCESS IN A COMPETITIVE SOCIETY, AND ALLOW EACH INDIVIDUAL TO REALIZE HIS OR HER POTENTIAL FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY”

With this nonprofit purpose, I shoulda been a nonprofit as a mere parent — this is what parents generally do!   They basically want to be some other family’s “family.”     So at what point is this outsourced to nonprofit organizations instead, supported by federal grants?   ‘Howsabout’ empowering parents by consistently refusing to violate their fundamental rights as individuals and help keep YOUR local neck of government honest and accountable for its use of OUR money (via IRS, or wage-garnishments in child support programs, or sales taxes, etc.) and your officials, accountable for its use of all program funds? Their 2010 IRS filed Form 990 shows program income revenues ZERO; contributions and grants, $2,082,707 — considerably higher than last year (which was $1,917,454) of which $2,5K (roughly — and lower than last year’s which was over $6K) INVESTMENT income.  There are 17 officers and directors… Part III, #4, they are required to report have a ‘Statement of Program Service Accomplishments” (with  expenses and revenues — and this section is blank.!  This is th section that justifies the tax-exempt purpose.  Instead, they simply re-stated their purpose (not what they actually DID)… and claimed that doing (whatever) cost “$1,968, 563” “All Other Achievements Description” — (after a number of blank pages of the form — and this is a statement, not an “achievement”) reads: FORM 990, PAGE PART I,LINE4D (the part I just noted was blank, but shouldn’t have been……)

“CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND OF ALABAMA AND DHHS GRANT AND FAMILY RESOURCE PROGRAM GRANT USED TO PAY SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF DHR CASE CONTRACTS FOR THE COUNTY AND CITY OF TUSCALOOSA AND TO PAY TFRC SALARIES AND EXPENSES RELATED TO CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS” “Organization’s process to review Form 990″:  ” NO REVIEW WAS OR WILL BE CONDUCTED”  (that seems obvious.  AFter all, it’s only $2 million, right?) “GOVERNING DOCUMENTS DISCLOSURE EXPLANATION FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 19 NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC” Here are a bunch of directors:   “

  • TONYA ADAMS-NELSON DIRECTOR
  • CARLA BAILEY DIRECTOR
  • AVANTI BAKER DIRECTOR
  • ELIZABETH BEEMER DIRECTOR
  • MARY BETH CAVERT DIRECTOR
  • ROBERT WHALLI JR DIRECTOR
  • HELENE HIBBARD DIRECTOR
  • ALISON HUDNAIL DIRECTOR
  • TOM LEDBETTER DIRECTOR
  • AMANDA MULKEY DIRECTOR
  • SANDRA RAY DIRECTOR
  • MIKE RUSSELL DIRECTOR
  • TAMMY YAGER DIRECTOR
  • KIM THOMA BAILEY PRESIDENT
  • DEBRA NELSON -GARDELL VICE-PRES
  • STEVEN K CASE TREASURER
  • LESLIE GUY SECRETARY

(Alabama has been dealing with tornado damages…) solicitation (same address) from a group dealing with youth homelessness:There’s a blog and this shows a history — of TOP spot Family Resource Center.  It began (like many nonprofits) with someone formerly in government social service work, and a grant of $80,000 — not bad for a startup:

In 1999, a group of concerned community members came together to create the East Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. The goal was to create a place where underserved members of the Tuscaloosa community could come to gain access to services that were already available in other parts of town. The board of directors hired as the agency’s first executive director Teresa Costanzo, a social worker with management experience as the director of the Hale County Department of Human Resources. The budget in that initial year was $80,000; there were three employees.

Teresa’s Vision:

Very soon, Teresa’s vision began to exceed the limits of east Tuscaloosa, so, in 2001, the board of directors decided to drop the “East” from the name, making it the Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. The agency [TECHNICALLY, it’s a “nonprofit” not an agency] continued to grow, as did the array of services provided. Soon, the community began to think of the agency as a “one-stop-shop” for a wide array of family needs. In an effort to reflect this perception of the agency, the board decided to begin operations under the business name Tuscaloosa’s One Place, a Family Resource Center.
{{More likely, this was a phrase promoted by the management, similar to the One-Stop-Justice-Centers started on the West Coast and encouraged in part by faith-based grants funding availability}}
Through the years, many of our services have changed. We now offer many school-based programs, several career-development programs, an on-site adult education program, an English-as-a-second-language program, healthy relationship programs, a juvenile detention alternative initiative, a Hispanic outreach program, and home visitation programs, to name a few of our services. We press approximately 800 volunteers, from all walks of life, into service for our community every year, and that number is growing. Our budget for the most recent fiscal year was approximately $1.5 million; we now have approximately 25 full-time employees and 80 temporary or part-time employees. To say that we’ve changed would be an understatement.Through all these changes, though, the agency’s constant has been its executive director. Teresa continues to be at the forefront of everything TOP does. Her oversight has been and still is the key factor in the agency’s place in the community.

And she got $100K of “Child Support Special Resource & Demonstration” project funds.  Recently. ALABAMA UNDISTRIBUTED CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS(posted in an Iowa Fathers’ group), 2005:

ALABAMA $11,765,750 $8,271,986 70.3% $3,493,764 29.7%

(Columns:   NET, PENDING & % of NET (cols. 2&3) Unresolved & % of NET(last 2) Fatherhood Groups tend to be up on Where is the Money Going? — as here (but as we look below, TANF money IS being diverted to Fatherhood programs, at $30 to $50K a pop; and I have a 2011 list)  In that link, I see the group complaining that money was given to the Administrative Office of the Courts, and not “promoting responsible fatherhood”  (??the courts are where that promotion would be most likely to take effect!) MEANWHILE, this appears to be an outfit offering MARRIAGE CLASSES with a “Focus on the Family” (very strong) emphasis = NOT good.  See:

Marriage Classes/Curriculum 1. Classes Offered by Tuscaloosa’s One Place. http://www.etfrc.org, P.O. Box 40764, 870 Redmont Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35404 (205) 462- 1000 (Contact Wanda Martin, wmartin@etfrc.org Relationship/ Marriage Educator, Family Support Specialist; or D’Undray Peterson,

www.etfrc.org They have the solicitation part of the website all nicely set up:

We also accept monetary donations to support our programs. Because we are a non-profit social service agency, all donations are tax deductible. Please mail or deliver monetary donations to our offices, conveniently located in Alberta City or click below. Become a fan on Facebook!!

There’s the “Home visitation” services under “Parenting” and here is the “Let’s Help Dad with His Custody Case” (reduced or free legal fees) segment. Dads who are not actually getting legal results from these grants should complain to their local legislator, because that’s the purpose (also, for each State to conduct social experimentation at the direction of the Secretary of HHS, as 45 CFR 303.109declares): Apart from trouble with using the word “assist” or “assisting” correctly, this segment appears to have been part of the “special demonstration” funded program, above?  Tax-funded, so noncustodial MOTHERS can know that their tax dollars, if they are employed, are going to the good cause of a nonprofit organization taking advantage of its tax-exempt status to help connect the fathers with REDUCED-FEE OR FREE LEGAL SERVICES, no doubt to also help them with custody matters as well.

D.A.D.S. Program (Dads Are Dynamite)

The DADS program is designed to assist non-custodial fathers comply {{“in complying”}} with child support obligations. Participants in this program will receive job search assistance as well as learn skills to strengthen their relationship with their child and his or her primary caregiver. DADS participants receive individualized case management services, which includes assisting those fathers who are underemployed become {{“in becoming”}} gainfully employed.

One night per week, fathers will participate in a class/support session to discuss issues unique to non-custodial fathers. ** Legal services are also available to fathers at either a free or reduced fee.  Fathers interested in voluntarily participating in this program should contact Tuscaloosa’s One Place to schedule an initial intake. Call David De Shazo at (205) 462-1000 to sign up.

**if these are unique to noncustodial fathers, they do not apply to noncustodial mothers.  They are family court &/or child support matters.

HOPEFULLY no one providing such services has any inappropriate relationships with (a) any family court judges or (b) program disbursement authorities in any of the grants being used to assist the fathers, such as we found (1999) in the Karen Anderson, Amadaor County (CA) case, where her ex-husband’s attorney just so happened to also have authority over the A/V funds, and just-so happened to also be in business? with a little nonprofit outfit receiving those funds…..

$1,500 of Tuscaloosa’s 2011 proposed Community Developmt Block Grant going to this DADS program

However “DADs are DYNAMITE” got $50,000 — from TANF funds — in The CHildren’s Trust Fund in this (Alabama Dept of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention )

THE LINK above IS LOADED WITH FATHERHOOD FUNDING (DESIGNATED “TANF” ON THE RIGHT COLUMN AS WELL)  — PLS. BROWSE.   Clearly the way to reduce childhood abuse and neglect is to dedicate public funds to fatherhood policies, including some that will provide legal help (reduce/low-fee) in their child support and most likely child custody/visitation cases — which the mothers do NOT have a source of legal help for, for the most part.  How does that work out when the reason for separation (or not cohabiting) was abuse to start with?

Other groups that received from this fund (dated March, 2011) include:

Grantee / Program / Source / $$

  • Baldwin County Fatherhood Initiative, Inc./ (same)- TANF funding – $50K  [for-profit, inc. 2004]
  • Alfred Saliba Family Services Center / Saliba Center Fatherhood – TANF funding – $40K
  • Autauga County Family Support Center / “DADS” / TANF – $40K
  • Family Guidance Center of Alabama / Fatherhood Program / TANF – $5oK
  • Family Services Center of Coffee County / Coffee County Fatherhood Initiative / TANF – $35K [Non-profit, reg. 1998, but no reports since 1999 and where is the EIN#?  Cotter R. Rainer, III, purpose “assist families in need of prevention” at 203 EAST LEE STREET

ENTERPRISE, AL (currently an attorney’s office, Tindol- M. Chad & Cotter- R. Rainer- III Attorney) ACTUALLY — here is a Youtube 41second blurbon this one (date?) — I think it’s being offered at the courthouse, a judge announced:

The judge says the program will help the non-custodial parent pay his child support and have a relationship with his child.

Coffee County District Court Judge Paul Sherling says the state court system has awarded grant money to the county for a fatherhood initiative. He says that when a person charged with nonpayment appears in court and says he can’t afford to pay, he’ll have an alternative.

The program will direct the parent to a 12-week seminar program designed to help him find ways to earn income and pay for his child. The fatherhood initiative will be offered through the Coffee County Family Services Center.

This “eprise” site is interesting — because along with this article, are several others involving, for example, child abuse, murder, and complaints that the courts are short of money: this site states who helped get this money.

County gets almost $45,000 for fatherhood program

  • A new program designed to help fathers help their children has received a financial boost. District Judge Paul Sherling announced that Coffee County has been awarded nearly $45,000 from the state court system to fund a fatherhood initiative.
    08/27/2010 6:00 AM
  • An Enterprise man was sentenced to 90 years in prison on six charges involving sexual abuse of three minor children.District Judge Paul Sherling sentenced Jack Ellis Hockemeyer, 54, to serve 15 years in state prison on each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently, meaning he will serve a maximum of 15 years.Sherling imposed the sentence Tuesday afternoon following Hockemeyer’s guilty plea on one count of sexual abuse of  child under age 12 and five counts of second-degree sodomy involving minors over age 12, but under age 16ENTERPRISE, Ala. —      The 12th Circuit District Attorney Office’s recent child support roundup was its most successful to date, collecting more than $25,000 for Coffee County families. Assistant District Attorney Chris Kaminski said, as of Friday, the office has collected $25,573.69. Five more people remained in the Coffee County Jail on cash bonds, which will increase the total, he added. Kaminski said Friday’s total was “by far the best we’ve had.” From late March until April 8, the DA’s office allowed anyone behind on child support payments to catch up or arrange a plan without a penalty. Twelfth Circuit District Attorney Tom Anderson said about 80 percent of this year’s collections were obtained during that period.

    Former Elba lawman {stepfather} charged with torture, willful abuse of child

    (and let out on $5K bail after THIS:)

A 3-year-old child is now in the custody of the Coffee County Department of Human Resources after his stepfather was arrested and charged with torture/willful abuse of a child.  {{WHERE WAS MOM!??!}} Coffee County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Ronnie Whitworth said the child’s grandfather reported the incident to law enforcement authorities. Jeffery Hayes Fuller, 28, of County Road 349, Elba, was arrested and charged with the Class C felony Dec. 22. Fuller is reportedly a former Elba police officer and a former firefighter. Whitworth said the baby was found badly bruised in the buttocks region with blood coming from the wounds.   Fuller reportedly confessed to paddling the child with a hand-gripped paddle, then placing the child on a hot pad and then rubbing peroxide on the wounds. Fuller was released from the Coffee County Jail on a $5,000 bond and ordered by Judge Paul Sherling to have no contact with the child. Whitworth said the case remains under investigation. (SORRY about all those extra hyperlinks)…..

REPEAT THE MANTRA:  Fatherhood training will reduce child abuse and prevent it……  Here’s a 30 yr old Army Sgt caught with 18 videos of child porn (same judge, which is how it came up)  – he’s in jail. . . . .    “The child pornography evidence against Hogan includes 18 videos and pictures of him sexually assaulting 2 out-of-state girls, ages 8 and 10. Authorities arrested Hogan Jan. 28 on charges of second-degree possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony possession of a controlled substance.”

THIS “family services center” appears to be not just a regular nonprofit, but one of the many situations that appear to be a public/private project involving an actual building; it was dedicated in 1998, per this article (and also articles of incorporation):

Coffee County Family Services Center receives 2010-2011 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding

Check presented in the amount of $103,400

Linda HodgeThursday, Dec 02,2010

Elected officials, officials from the Alabama Department of Abuse and Neglect Prevention and the board of directors of the Coffee County Family Services Center all gathered Tuesday morning, Nov. 30, in Enterprise, Ala. for the announcement of the 2010-11 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding. Coffee County Family Services Center received $103,400 from the Children’s Trust Fund to be used for child abuse and neglect prevention programs. “I can not tell you how much we appreciate this money and their (Alabama Dept. of Abuse and Neglect Prevention) support of our programs,” said Judy Crowley, executive director of the Coffee County Family Services Center.

The Coffee County Family Services Center opened its doors in 1998, and Crowley said that also was the first year the local organization received grant funding from the Children’s Trust Fund for assessment referral, which remains a number one priority today as the programs most highly utilized area.  In regards to the 2010-11 grant funding announced Tuesday morning, Crowley said the monies will be used also to assist with all child abuse and neglect prevention programs, as well as, the Building Blocks program and the new Fatherhood Initiative program.

This is a listed nonprofit (Here’s the 2009 “990 “filing from NCCSDATA.org — though mostly blank, it confirms that it gets about $265K grants/contributions per yr and Judith Crowley earns only around $40K.  There is no description of services provided . . . . . it does have an EIN# (721374603 ) Heritage Training and Career Center, Inc / Faithful Fathers Fatherhood Program / TANF – $30K (THERE are 11 pages of this, and I don’t feel like going through all – -most pages have several, not just one or two, fatherhood programs on them) Any of these can be looked up (for example, the last one shows at the Alabama Secretary of STate site as existing, yes, as of 2007 — and as a nonprofit, but I don’t see any filings yet.   ”

Entity ID Entity Name City Type Status
565 – 632 Heritage Training and Career Center MONTGOMERY, AL Domestic Non-Profit Corporation Exists

This group (under a “Cynthia Brown”) when I looked up the street address, is a “New or Rejoined Nonprofit” member of the Montgomery chamber of commerce:

A “Billy W. Jarrett Construction Co., Inc.” at this address apparently got a contract (for a North Carolina Military project) …. There are also 5 entities, some LLC’s  incorporated (or registered agent) by a “Cynthia Brown,”(without middle initial)  not that this isn’t a common name…

EVERY/ANY one of these organizations (in whichever state) can be looked up as to:  Incorporation (Secretary of State) and any related dbas (other names it does business as), if nonprofit, the NCCSDATAWEB.org or other site showing some of the 990 filings for these groups; their websites, their directors, and other LLCs they form.  SOMETIMES these are front groups that exist ONLY to catch the fundings.

EVERY organization (for example) that is taking TANF funds in particular, can and should be looked up and checked up (especially for any Alabama residents with access to internet) — again there is a LOT of fatherhood funding showing up here:   http://www.ctf.alabama.gov/Grantees%202010-2011/2010%202011%20Grantees%20Funded%20as%20of%20March%2029%202011.pdf

AND, of course the “Healthy Marriage” part as well, right underneath help to enroll in Food Stamps.  (If you are Title IV-A, your Child Support qualifies for Title IV-D, and as such a diversion into marriage promotion will of course help establish the steady payments of fathers). (A LINK from the TUSCOLOOSA ONE-STOP group)

Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative

AGAIN, here is the child support funding for “Regular” (not “research and special demonstration”) child support.  In each State, County — your county — what does this translate to, and who is watching?  Who is profiting — are the children subject to the child support order profiting, and is this consistently effective in reducing TANF expenditures?

CFDA 93.593, “CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT” Grants to States — selected Years 2010 & 2011

Also for scope, the chart should show how which agency gets this varies from state to state. The “activity type” is at all times described as “SOCIAL SERVICES” and note that the grants type is either NEW, or Administrative Supplement/Discretionary — meaning, they asked for more… I left blank the column Private Investigator — because it’s agencies getting the monies. Keep in mind also that some states farm out the responsibilities to private contractors, some of whom I have been researching, and the large ones of which have been in several cases caught in major money-laundering or fraud. This is good to keep in mind when considering how quickly one state (South Carolina) is to contribute (further) to the racial inequality in the US prison system by jailing low-income black males for nonpayment of child support — and then going to the public and complaining that the child support system is unfair to low-income black males (although the literature saying this typically calls the males “fathers” and the mothers’ households, “female-headed households” as if they were domesticated breeding stock (which, viewed in certain lights, they are…. being treated as). FOR A SAMPLE of this chart:

Grantee Name

Grantee Address

City

State

County

Grantee Type

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

Action Issue Date

CFDA Number

Award Action Type

Sum of Actions

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0804AK4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$217,656

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0904AK4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/07/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$471,245

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0904AK4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$154,695

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$1,435,990

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,971,304

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$873,529

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,370,981

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$113,038

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,857,781

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$423,527

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,558,010

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004AK4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$522,227

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$2,394,674

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$666,335

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,766,654

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$807,328

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,424,624

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,270,146

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

ANCHORAGE 

AK 

ANCHORAGE 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104AK4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,564,608

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

0804AL4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$443,330

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

0904AL4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/24/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,870,128

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

0904AL4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,563,098

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,878,920

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,738,775

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,666,800

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$270,313

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,294,300

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$609,699

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,197,264

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004AL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$384,262

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$12,437,200

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$17,670

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,295,520

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,975

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,514,100

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$816,471

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

MONTGOMERY 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104AL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,712,928

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

0804AR4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$606,262

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

0904AR4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$882,220

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$1,081,749

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,336,191

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$954,627

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,324,393

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$781,215

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,779,830

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,503,484

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$14,637,460

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004AR4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$75,008

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$9,824,903

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,897,250

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,537,998

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,644,995

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,733,689

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,761,165

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

PO BOX 1272 

LITTLE ROCK 

AR 

PULASKI 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104AR4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,481,843

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

0804AZ4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$424,427

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

0904AZ4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$687,232

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$7,236,581

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,991,382

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,324,572

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,682,219

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,350,417

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,093,961

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,748,400

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1004AZ4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,547,956

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$10,840,894

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$4,085,910

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,450,246

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,402,213

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,570,129

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,960,501

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

PHOENIX 

AZ 

MARICOPA 

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

1104AZ4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,249,743

BLACKFEET TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 

TRIBAL OFFICE 

BROWNING 

MT 

GLACIER 

Educational Department 

10IBMT4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$296,873

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

0804CA4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,520,413

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

0904CA4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,981,714

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$20,049,309

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$145,968,345

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$38,513,768

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$129,832,458

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$10,597,780

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$62,305,239

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1004CA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$107,984,151

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$125,931,992

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$9,448,771

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$122,438,508

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$20,997,400

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$129,166,305

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,142,721

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

SACRAMENTO 

Welfare Department 

1104CA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$94,719,355

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$695,218

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$579,348

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10TCOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$463,479

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10TCOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$463,478

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$634,920

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

POST OFFICE BOX 948 

TAHLEQUAH 

OK 

CHEROKEE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$423,281

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

10IAOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$659,158

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

10IAOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$549,298

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

10IAOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$136,183

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

10IAOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$336,160

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

11IAOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$476,612

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

11IAOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

11IAOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

03/31/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$97,022

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

11IAOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 1548 

ADA 

OK 

PONTOTOC 

Other Social Services Organization 

11IAOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$608,870

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMT4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$194,631

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMT4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$162,193

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMT4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$162,192

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMT4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$129,754

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMT4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$208,457

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMT4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMT4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE 

ROCKY BOY ROUTE 

BOX ELDER 

MT 

HILL 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMT4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$138,971

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

0804CO4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$271,490

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

0904CO4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$713,994

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$1,963,471

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,858,500

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$792,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,057,020

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$918,244

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,702,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,404,043

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,696,534

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1004CO4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,224,106

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$9,840,330

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$911,350

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,499,260

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$286,137

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,561,620

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$689,647

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

1575 SHERMAN STREET 

DENVER 

CO 

DENVER 

Welfare Department 

1104CO4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,398,700

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAID4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/13/2010 

93563

NEW 

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAID4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAID4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$152,137

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAID4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$221,058

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAID4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAID4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 408 

PLUMMER 

ID 

BENEWAH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAID4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$147,372

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 150 

NESPELEM 

WA 

OKANOGAN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IEWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$397,415

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 150 

NESPELEM 

WA 

OKANOGAN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IEWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 150 

NESPELEM 

WA 

OKANOGAN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IEWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 150 

NESPELEM 

WA 

OKANOGAN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IEWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$264,942

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 150 

NESPELEM 

WA 

OKANOGAN 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IEWA4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$460,212

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 150 

NESPELEM 

WA 

OKANOGAN 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IEWA4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$383,510

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IFOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$134,424

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IFOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$112,021

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IFOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$119,314

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IFOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$91,440

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IFOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$159,310

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IFOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$165,209

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IFOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$132,758

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 908 

LAWTON 

OK 

COMANCHE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IFOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$73,755

CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES 

P.O. BOX 278 

PABLO 

MT 

LAKE 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IDMT4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

12/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$238,765

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$143,989

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$95,994

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$147,185

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$133,983

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION 

P.O. BOX 638 

PENDLETON 

OR 

UMATILLA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$127,804

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

0804CT4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,790,720

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

0904CT4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$609,139

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,193,136

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,637,365

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,408,041

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,266,669

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,895,077

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$367,943

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,326,324

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1004CT4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,200,208

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$11,887,422

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,270,701

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,778,199

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$37,738

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,966,424

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$953,656

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

HARTFORD 

CT 

HARTFORD 

Welfare Department 

1104CT4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,278,236

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

0804DC4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$83,962

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

0904DC4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

10/08/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$802,300

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

0904DC4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$136,662

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,593,280

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,241,838

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,604,840

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,217,637

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,100,520

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$971,680

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,123,940

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1004DC4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$563,656

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$4,032,033

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$301,643

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,597,460

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$961,498

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,479,620

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$69,798

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL 

441 4th street, nw 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Welfare Department 

1104DC4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,672,240

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

0804DE4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$58,246

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

0904DE4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$276,175

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$4,373,359

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,935,571

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$201,342

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,532,156

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,306,420

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,179,132

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,635,337

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,889,253

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1004DE4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$4,432,595

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$7,499,212

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$5,070,262

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$7,503,364

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,450,993

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,230,650

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,116,225

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY 

NEW CASTLE 

DE 

NEW CASTLE 

Health Department 

1104DE4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,056,512

EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE 

P.O. BOX 538 

FORT WASHAKIE 

WY 

FREMONT 

Indian Tribal Council 

08IBWY4004 

2008 OCSET 

1

10/19/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$401,375

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

0804FL4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,789,799

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

0904FL4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,159,234

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$22,719,061

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$56,042,541

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,179,266

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$53,033,364

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,227,388

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$38,803,054

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

05/18/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$17,299

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$48,079,001

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004FL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/30/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,556,024

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$56,287,376

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,588,919

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$52,482,981

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$8,808,111

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

03/17/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,677,187

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$46,465,236

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$9,538,373

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

LEON 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104FL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$51,635,458

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$165,653

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$171,413

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$143,054

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$92,097

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10ICWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/19/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$21,440

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10TCWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

06/05/2010 

93563

NEW 

$59,393

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

10TCWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

08/30/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$567,600

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$179,039

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY 

P.O. BOX 396 

CRANDON 

WI 

FOREST 

Indian Tribal Council 

11ICWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$119,359

FT BELKNAP COMMUNITY COUNCIL 

FT BELKNAP AGENCY 

HARLEM 

MT 

BLAINE 

Indian Tribal Council 

09ICMT4004 

2009 OCSET 

1

09/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$283,281

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

0804GA4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$370,916

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

0904GA4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,857,146

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$15,500,754

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$4,978,898

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$999,477

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$738,535

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

05/18/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,026

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$19,246,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1004GA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$4,015,821

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$20,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$7,174,590

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,008,830

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,049,097

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295 

ATLANTA 

GA 

FULTON 

Welfare Department 

1104GA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$24,496,254

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

0804GU4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$41,400

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

0904GU4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$115,246

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$345,101

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$300,126

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

12/09/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$529,436

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$66,329

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$554,629

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,190

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

05/18/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$156

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$710,340

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1004GU4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$317,016

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$759,911

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$66,203

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$727,644

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$318,769

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

02/09/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$604,521

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$274,696

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW 

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309 

AGANA 

GU 

AGANA 

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

1104GU4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$675,165

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0804HI4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$162,504

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0904HI4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$346,576

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$382,743

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,942,600

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,895,080

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$242,655

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,798,060

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,994,191

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,236,960

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$525,251

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004HI4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$982,476

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$3,090,400

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$948,371

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,962,200

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,092,179

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,530,200

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$713,234

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

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207 

KAPOLEI 

HI 

HONOLULU 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1104HI4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,001,440

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

0804IA4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,034,154

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

0904IA4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/24/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$8,750

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

0904IA4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,535,162

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$9,033,996

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$19,519,024

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,688,235

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,723,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,814,802

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,063,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,992,298

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

05/18/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,357

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,376,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1004IA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$5,392,854

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$11,526,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,266,820

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$7,076,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$5,690,379

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,213,200

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$5,496,825

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

1305 EAST WALNUT 

DES MOINES 

IA 

POLK 

Welfare Department 

1104IA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$10,776,500

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

0804ID4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$227,639

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

0904ID4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$207,448

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$1,282,527

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,403,756

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$423,956

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,987,028

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$471,286

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,325,460

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,925,578

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,861,854

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1004ID4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,715,774

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$4,235,706

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$954,759

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,504,043

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$679,903

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,467,225

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,180,751

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE 

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR 

BOISE 

ID 

ADA 

Health Department 

1104ID4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,684,935

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

0804IL4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,048,070

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

0904IL4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/24/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$87,230

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

0904IL4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,727,004

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$30,172,273

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,235,953

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$31,611,964

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,853,722

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$34,984,718

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,780,679

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$34,504,934

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1004IL4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$4,040,629

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$28,644,219

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,935,737

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$28,382,830

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,077,767

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$37,210,017

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,258,566

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

SANGAMON 

Welfare Department 

1104IL4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$33,507,714

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

0804IN4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,046,221

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

0804INHMHR 

2008 HMHR 

1

10/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$198,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

0904IN4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/24/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$164,556

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

0904IN4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$8,868,855

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$14,487,923

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,041,143

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,324,023

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$3,952,413

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,629,715

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

05/18/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,602

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$14,137,408

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$8,314,548

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1004IN4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/13/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,242,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$13,396,113

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,293,314

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,961,368

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$9,942,425

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$16,775,367

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,624,634

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

POST OFFICE BOX 7128 

INDIANAPOLIS 

IN 

MARION 

Welfare Department 

1104IN4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,090,305

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IGOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$102,908

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IGOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IGOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IGOK4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$68,604

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

11GIOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

NEW 

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

11GIOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/12/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

11GTOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/12/2011 

93563

NEW 

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IGOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$109,717

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IGOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$91,431

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE 

KAW CITY 

OK 

KAY 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IGOK4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$91,431

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$78,498

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$65,415

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$71,606

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAMI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$42,261

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11AIMI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

NEW 

$16,660

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$78,904

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$71,035

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY 

107 BEARTOWN ROAD 

BARAGA 

MI 

BARAGA 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAMI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$75,727

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAKS4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$105,494

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAKS4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$87,912

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAKS4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$85,653

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAKS4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$63,551

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAKS4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$160,536

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAKS4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAKS4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS 

P.O. BOX 271 

HORTON 

KS 

BROWN 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAKS4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$107,025

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 

P.O. BOX 70 

MCLOUD 

OK 

POTTAWATOMIE 

Indian Tribal Council 

09IIOK4004 

2009 OCSET 

1

06/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$263,587

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IBOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$95,783

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IBOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IBOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IBOR4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$63,854

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IBOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$104,487

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IBOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IBOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP) 

POST OFFICE BOX 436 

CHILOQUIN 

OR 

KLAMATH 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IBOR4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$69,658

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

0804KS4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$279,439

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

0904KS4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/24/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$72,200

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

0904KS4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$698,875

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$5,270,236

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,631,555

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,803,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,943,573

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$296,186

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$7,036,770

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,517,041

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

05/18/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,540

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,130,248

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1004KS4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$952,911

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$8,480,533

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$676,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,938,255

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,652,115

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$7,600,934

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$907,503

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES 

915 HARRISON STREET 

TOPEKA 

KS 

SHAWNEE 

Welfare Department 

1104KS4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$7,238,308

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

0804KY4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$782,208

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

0904KY4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

05/11/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,296,286

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

0904KY4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,127,059

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$7,394,829

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,256,316

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$5,047,054

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$896,494

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,485,158

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,579,378

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$6,267,103

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1004KY4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,038,706

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$5,458,820

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,439,672

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,864,886

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$836,980

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,112,680

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$1,379,228

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN 

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR 

FRANKFORT 

KY 

FRANKLIN 

Other Social Services Organization 

1104KY4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,229,773

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

0804LA4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$681,486

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

0904LA4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$4,929,044

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$8,336,935

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$15,790,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$4,964,952

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$19,915,563

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$2,040,488

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$16,164,782

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,715,603

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$16,778,349

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1004LA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

08/06/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,436,578

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$14,405,038

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

12/09/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$2,573,946

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$11,881,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

01/24/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$1,164,059

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,933,756

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

04/26/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$102,845

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN 

POST OFFICE BOX 44215 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

EAST BATON ROUGE 

Welfare Department 

1104LA4004 

2011 OCSE 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,370,140

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE 

113394 W. Trepania Road 

HAYWARD 

WI 

SAWYER 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IEWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/13/2010 

93563

NEW 

$242,207

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE 

113394 W. Trepania Road 

HAYWARD 

WI 

SAWYER 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IEWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/12/2011 

93563

NEW 

$257,793

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$97,241

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

10IAWI4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$64,828

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$106,825

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

P.O. BOX 67 

LAC DU FLAMBEAU 

WI 

VILAS 

Indian Tribal Council 

11IAWI4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$71,215

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE 

115 6th Street, NW 

CASS LAKE 

MN 

CASS 

Other Social Services Organization 

09IDMN4004 

2009 OCSET 

1

03/25/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$223,202

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE 

115 6th Street, NW 

CASS LAKE 

MN 

CASS 

Other Social Services Organization 

11ICMN4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

NEW 

$81,077

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE 

115 6th Street, NW 

CASS LAKE 

MN 

CASS 

Other Social Services Organization 

11ICMN4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

06/10/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$62,328

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

10ICWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

NEW 

$265,452

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

10ICWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

10ICWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

10ICWA4004 

2010 OCSET 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$176,967

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

11ICWA4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

10/01/2010 

93563

NEW 

$256,619

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

11ICWA4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

01/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

11ICWA4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

04/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

2616 KWINA ROAD 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

WHATCOM 

Community Action Organization 

11ICWA4004 

2011 OCSET 

1

07/01/2011 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$171,080

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0804MA4004 

2008 OCSE 

1

12/17/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$917,199

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

0904MA4004 

2009 OCSE 

1

12/21/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$3,032,452

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

09/23/2009 

93563

NEW 

-$3,734,789

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

10/01/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,308,292

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

11/23/2009 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$781,695

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

01/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$12,023,485

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

03/05/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,261,339

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$9,746,540

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

04/29/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

-$6,413,634

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

MIDDLESEX 

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

1004MA4004 

2010 OCSE 

1

07/01/2010 

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

$13,883,799

This is 500 names (at least, the search results were sorted to show 500 names at a time) of approximately 1,308 names.  I’m not sure why several years displayed, i.e., why a 2009 date would show up.  However, the point is to get an idea of where & how much money is hitting is inbound, at least the state level. As this is PUBLIC money, anyone has a right to find out what is the local public payroll, how grants are being spent, who is allocating them to whom (Subgrants).  Some of this can be looked up on-line and some can be formed in a FOIA letter, which by law, has to be responded to in a certain time frame.  It may not be, but it is a legal right to request public information. AT ANY POINT — it’s appropriate to ask what are these grants being used for  They are Smaller, but they are in positions of influence, including some courts. ALSO notice the ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT / DISCRETIONARY BLOCK category seems the main category (sometimes being adjusted downward).  If I looked only at “NEW” grants for (YRS — “All”, i.e., database goes back to 1995).  Notice how active Center for Policy Research is — hardly surprising:  JEssica Pearson was a co-founder of AFCC (Per Liz Richards) and this Denve

Grantee Name

City

St

Award

Award Title

Budgt Yr

Action Issue Date

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

90FI0047 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2 

1

12/20/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ALICIA LUCKIE 

$200,000

AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

90FI0077 

FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3) 

1

08/30/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MARIAN LOFTIN 

$100,000

AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

90FI0077 

FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3) 

2

08/24/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MARIAN LOFTIN 

$100,000

AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

90FI0077 

FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3) 

2

12/29/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON 

$0

AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

90FI0077 

FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3) 

3

08/20/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON 

$100,000

AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD 

MONTGOMERY 

AL 

90FI0077 

FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3) 

3

01/11/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON 

$0

Allegheny County Court of Commons Pleas 

PITTSBURGH 

PA 

90FI0065 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY 

1

06/23/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

PATRICK QUINN 

$99,978

BALTIMORE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES SVCS 

TOWSON 

MD 

90FI0057 

OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5 

1

06/16/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

PETER J LALLY 

$150,815

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

SACRAMENTO 

CA 

90FI0008 

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE IMAGING SYSTEM AND DATABASE FOR VOLUNTARY PATERNITY DECLARA 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

 

$180,000

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0059 

EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT 

1

06/16/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DR JESSICA PEARSON 

$99,926

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

08/31/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$100,000

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

08/25/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$24,730

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

09/03/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/24/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$198,664

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/24/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$124,820

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

02/22/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

06/26/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/04/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$124,829

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

06/30/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

02/15/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

06/15/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

09/01/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$124,863

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

03/31/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

06/20/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

06/26/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$99,908

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

07/24/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

10/23/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

09/18/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

08/02/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

09/25/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

CHANGE HAPPENS 

HOUSTON 

TX 

90FI0076 

FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

08/30/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MS RIVA F OKONKWO 

$100,000

CHANGE HAPPENS 

HOUSTON 

TX 

90FI0076 

FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

09/21/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

MS RIVA F OKONKWO 

-$1

CHANGE HAPPENS 

HOUSTON 

TX 

90FI0076 

FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MS RIVA F OKONKWO 

$100,000

CHANGE HAPPENS 

HOUSTON 

TX 

90FI0076 

FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

12/06/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MS RIVA F OKONKWO 

$0

CHANGE HAPPENS 

HOUSTON 

TX 

90FI0076 

FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

09/20/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MS RIVA F OKONKWO 

$100,000

CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL 

GRAND RAPIDS 

MI 

90FI0087 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CANDACE COWLING 

$199,323

CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL 

GRAND RAPIDS 

MI 

90FI0087 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/20/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

CANDACE COWLING 

$124,898

CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL 

GRAND RAPIDS 

MI 

90FI0087 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

03/17/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CANDACE COWLING 

$0

CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL 

GRAND RAPIDS 

MI 

90FI0087 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/12/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

CANDACE COWLING 

$124,674

CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL 

GRAND RAPIDS 

MI 

90FI0087 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

08/29/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

KARROL MCKAY 

$124,938

CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0044 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$100,000

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 

NESPELEM 

WA 

90FI0006 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MARLA BIG BOY 

$32,800

COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC 

ALLENTOWN 

PA 

90FI0048 

SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

PATRICIA W LEVIN 

$177,374

COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC 

ALLENTOWN 

PA 

90FI0048 

SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2 

1

05/04/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICIA W LEVIN 

$99,227

Christian Community Council 

ALBANY 

LA 

90FI0084 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/25/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CHERYL BREAUX 

$100,000

Christian Community Council 

ALBANY 

LA 

90FI0084 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/24/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

CHERYL BREAUX 

$50,000

Christian Community Council 

ALBANY 

LA 

90FI0084 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

01/24/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CHERYL BREAUX 

$0

Christian Family Gathering 

MILWAUKEE 

WI 

90FI0038 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADVOCACY INTERVENTION TRAINING – SIPS 

1

02/09/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MARIA J JENKINS 

$99,895

Circuit Court for Baltimore County 

BALTIMORE 

MD 

90FI0057 

OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5 

1

04/07/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

PETER J LALLY 

-$1,215

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office 

CLEVELAND 

OH 

90FI0093 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/29/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

FRANCINE B GOLDBERG 

$100,000

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office 

CLEVELAND 

OH 

90FI0093 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/13/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

FRANCINE B GOLDBERG 

$25,000

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office 

CLEVELAND 

OH 

90FI0093 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

10/22/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KENT K SMITH 

$0

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office 

CLEVELAND 

OH 

90FI0093 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

09/07/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

KENT K SMITH 

$25,000

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

06/09/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BEN LEVEK 

$99,800

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

07/24/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

BEN LEVEK 

$24,300

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

11/18/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

BEN LEVEK 

$0

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

06/06/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

BEN LEVEK 

$0

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/02/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

BEN LEVEK 

$24,300

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

DENVER 

CO 

90FI0094 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

06/16/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

BEN LEVEK 

$0

ECUMENICAL CHILD CARE NETWORK 

CHICAGO 

IL 

90FI0026 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA -1 

1

06/20/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DEBRA HAMPTON 

$50,000

EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

LAS VEGAS 

NV 

90FI0030 

CHILD SUPPORT & DRUG COURT PROGRAM 

1

06/27/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

KENDIS STAKE 

$50,000

Episcopal Social Services, Inc. 

WICHITA 

KS 

90FI0079 

RELIABLE INCOME FOR KIDS COALITION (PRIORITY AREA 1) 

1

08/29/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MR GAYLORD DOLD 

$193,600

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

90FI0022 

FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

NANCY LUJA 

$79,495

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

90FI0009 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

 

$25,864

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

90FI0022 

FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING 

1

03/28/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

NANCY LUJA 

-$29,753

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

90FI0022 

FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING 

1

09/15/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

NANCY LUJA 

-$280

Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc. 

SAN ANTONIO 

TX 

90FI0086 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

1

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

RICHARD M DAVIDSON 

$200,000

Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc. 

SAN ANTONIO 

TX 

90FI0086 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

2

08/24/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

RICHARD M DAVIDSON 

$125,000

Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc. 

SAN ANTONIO 

TX 

90FI0086 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

3

08/11/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

RICHARD M DAVIDSON 

$125,000

Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc. 

SAN ANTONIO 

TX 

90FI0086 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

4

08/09/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

RICHARD M DAVIDSON 

$125,000

Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis 

SAINT LOUIS 

MO 

90FI0070 

HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 

1

08/09/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

HALBERT SULLIVAN 

$100,000

Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis 

SAINT LOUIS 

MO 

90FI0070 

HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 

2

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

HALBERT SULLIVAN 

$100,000

Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis 

SAINT LOUIS 

MO 

90FI0070 

HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 

3

08/06/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

HALBERT SULLIVAN 

$100,000

Florida State University 

TALLAHASSEE 

FL 

90FI0107 

USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES 

1

08/30/2010 

OTHER 

NEW 

KAREN OEHME 

$100,000

GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

ATLANTA 

GA 

90FI0074 

GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

1

08/19/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DOUGLAS G GREENWELL 

$100,000

GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

ATLANTA 

GA 

90FI0074 

GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

2

08/24/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DOUGLAS G GREENWELL 

$25,000

GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

ATLANTA 

GA 

90FI0074 

GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION 

2

12/18/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DOUGLAS G GREENWELL 

$0

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH 

PITTSBURGH 

PA 

90FI0080 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

09/01/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ERIC YENERALL 

$200,000

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0095 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

06/24/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MARIE THEISEN 

$100,000

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0045 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 4 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MELINDA ROMAN 

$99,090

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0066 

CONNECTING CHILD SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SECURE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR CHILDR 

1

06/22/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

KAREN FROHWEIN 

$100,000

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0095 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

09/01/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JOE FINNEGAN 

$25,000

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0095 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

10/26/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOE FINNEGAN 

$0

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

DES MOINES 

IA 

90FI0095 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/30/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JOE FINNEGAN 

$25,000

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

SPRINGFIELD 

IL 

90FI0007 

IMPROVEMENT GRANT 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MARTIN D SUTHERLAND 

$149,686

Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program 

EL CENTRO 

CA 

90FI0051 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1 

1

12/20/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MARY N CAMACHO 

$141,858

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0088 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/29/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JUAN VEGAS 

$100,000

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0088 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/28/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

PHYLLIS NANCE 

$25,000

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0088 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

09/07/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

PHYLLIS NANCE 

$25,000

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0097 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

06/23/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

PHYLLIS NANCE 

$100,000

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0097 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/18/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

PHYLLIS NANCE 

$25,000

Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

BAKERSFIELD 

CA 

90FI0097 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/30/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

PHYLLIS NANCE 

$25,000

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

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

90FI0015 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

GORDON HOOD 

$50,000

LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

FORT COLLINS 

CO 

90FI0014 

CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MYRNA MAIER 

$170,244

LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES 

FORT COLLINS 

CO 

90FI0014 

CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE 

2

08/04/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MYRNA MAIER 

$248,972

LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES 

FORT COLLINS 

CO 

90FI0014 

CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE 

2

08/08/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

MYRNA MAIER 

$0

LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES 

FORT COLLINS 

CO 

90FI0014 

CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE 

3

08/27/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MYRNA MAIER 

$249,781

LIVINGSTONE COLLEGE 

SALISBURY 

NC 

90FI0025 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE 

1

01/03/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

WALTER ELLIS 

$49,668

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

BELLINGHAM 

WA 

90FI0019 

LIBC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DAVID BUNTON 

$129,181

Louisiana Family Council 

METAIRIE 

LA 

90FI0060 

LOUISIANA FAMILY COUNCIL 

1

06/23/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

GAIL TATE 

$100,000

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

90FI0024 

INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES 

1

09/14/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DIANA OBBARD 

$544,500

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

90FI0024 

INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES 

1

07/21/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

DIANA OBBARD 

-$469,500

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 

CAMBRIDGE 

MA 

90FI0024 

INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES 

1

09/15/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

DIANA OBBARD 

-$38,000

MARRIAGE COALITION (THE) 

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS 

OH 

90FI0054 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 2 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

SANDRA G BENDER 

$199,994

MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

BALTIMORE 

MD 

90FI0010 

PATERNITY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

GINA HIGGINBOTHAM 

$100,312

MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

BALTIMORE 

MD 

90FI0052 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOHN LANGROCK 

$200,000

MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

BALTIMORE 

MD 

90FI0052 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1 

1

08/19/2003 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

JOHN LANGROCK 

-$200,000

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH 

LANSING 

MI 

90FI0075 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/18/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JANE ALEXANDER 

$99,792

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH 

LANSING 

MI 

90FI0075 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/24/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JANE ALEXANDER 

$24,805

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH 

LANSING 

MI 

90FI0075 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

09/21/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TANYA LOWERS 

$0

MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT 

DETROIT 

MI 

90FI0032 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

06/28/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

NANCY CHRIST 

$187,550

MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT 

DETROIT 

MI 

90FI0081 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

2

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JOSEPH SCHEWE 

$37,500

MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT 

DETROIT 

MI 

90FI0081 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

2

11/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOSEPH SCHEWE 

$0

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

EAST LANSING 

MI 

90FI0071 

CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

08/22/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

RICHARD BRANDT 

$98,364

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

EAST LANSING 

MI 

90FI0071 

CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

KAREN SHIRER 

$99,996

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

EAST LANSING 

MI 

90FI0071 

CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

05/31/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DAWN CONTRERAS 

$0

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 

EAST LANSING 

MI 

90FI0071 

CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS 

3

08/20/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DAWN CONTRERAS 

$99,952

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT 

LANSING 

MI 

90FI0064 

OCSE’S SPECIAL IMROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

06/21/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BILL J BARTELS 

$100,000

MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

MILWAUKEE 

WI 

90FI0103 

IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION 

1

09/01/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JANET NELSON 

$100,000

MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

MILWAUKEE 

WI 

90FI0103 

IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION 

2

09/28/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JANET NELSON 

$25,000

MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

ST PAUL 

MN 

90FI0041 

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH LOW INCOME NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS – SIP 

1

02/01/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$300,000

MONTANA SCHOOL DISTRICT 

HELENA 

MT 

90FI0049 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 3 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BARBARA DELANEY 

$149,464

MONTEREY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

SALINAS 

CA 

90FI0078 

MOBILE CUSTOMER SUPPORT 

1

09/02/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JAMES HANSEN 

$200,000

MUSKEGON COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BOARD 

MESKEGON 

MI 

90FI0050 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BRAIN P MATTSON 

$199,772

Massachusetts Probate and Family Court 

BOSTON 

MA 

90FI0106 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

03/23/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION 

DENISE M FITZGERALD 

$0

Milwaukee County Dept. of Administration Fiscal Affairs 

MILWAUKEE 

WI 

90FI0103 

IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION 

1

11/17/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION 

JANET NELSON 

$0

NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION 

BOULDER 

CO 

90FI0055 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 5 

1

12/19/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

VINCENT L KNIGHT 

$199,887

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 

WILLIAMSBURG 

VA 

90FI0034 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

02/09/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

KAY FARLEY 

$40,000

NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0017 

NATIONAL CERTIFICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOEL K BANKES 

$48,548

NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0039 

CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT 

1

02/20/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

 

$74,900

NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0039 

CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT 

1

11/06/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

THERESA MOASSER 

-$20,982

NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0039 

CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT 

1

09/21/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

THERESA MOASSER 

$0

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0012 

JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOY ASHTON 

$36,125

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0012 

JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT 

1

03/20/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

JOY ASHTON 

-$9,605

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0082 

2005 SIP GRANT 

1

08/19/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOY D ASHTON 

$150,000

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0082 

2005 SIP GRANT 

2

08/29/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JOY D ASHTON 

$37,500

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0082 

2005 SIP GRANT 

2

10/01/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOY LYNGAR 

$0

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

RENO 

NV 

90FI0082 

2005 SIP GRANT 

2

03/31/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

JOY LYNGAR 

-$1,203

NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0023 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOAN ENTMACHER 

$50,000

NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0029 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

06/06/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOAN ENTMACHER 

$50,000

NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0029 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

11/20/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

JOAN ENTMACHER 

-$50,000

NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

RALEIGH 

NC 

90FI0099 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

06/26/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

KRISTIN RUTH 

$78,842

NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

RALEIGH 

NC 

90FI0099 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

03/16/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KRISTIN RUTH 

-$78,842

NC ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

RALEIGH 

NC 

90FI0046 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4 

1

12/20/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BARRY MILLER 

$200,000

NJ ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE 

TRENTON 

NJ 

90FI0028 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

06/12/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$50,000

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

08/06/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$99,830

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

08/12/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$24,325

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

03/03/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$0

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

08/09/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$24,997

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

10/23/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$0

New York State Unified Court System 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

11/30/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$0

New York State Unified Court System 

NEW YORK 

NY 

90FI0092 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

12/21/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION 

MICHAEL MAGNANI 

$0

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

1

06/23/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$100,000

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

08/24/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$24,170

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

12/15/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$0

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

04/07/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$0

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

3

08/20/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$24,170

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

OKLAHOMA CITY 

OK 

90FI0100 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

3

04/14/2011 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$0

OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER 

FREDONIA 

WI 

90FI0067 

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE 

1

06/09/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA 

$100,000

OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER 

FREDONIA 

WI 

90FI0067 

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE 

1

03/08/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA 

-$100,000

OR ST DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

SALEM 

OR 

90FI0104 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

09/01/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

BECKY L HUMMER 

$88,371

PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 

PHILADELPHIA 

PA 

90FI0083 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

RYLANDA WILSON 

$100,000

PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 

PHILADELPHIA 

PA 

90FI0083 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

10/14/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

RYLANDA WILSON 

-$47,438

PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 

PHILADELPHIA 

PA 

90FI0083 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/27/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

RYLANDA WILSON 

$50,000

PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE 

TACOMA 

WA 

90FI0001 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

WILLIAM VELIZ 

$69,531

PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE 

TACOMA 

WA 

90FI0001 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

03/31/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

WILLIAM VELIZ 

$69,531

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 

KINGSTON 

WA 

90FI0018 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DALLAS I DEGUIRE 

$50,400

RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION 

PROVIDENCE 

RI 

90FI0002 

DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LIEN REGISTRY FOR RHODE ISLAND AND REGION 1 

1

09/18/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

 

$149,820

RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION 

PROVIDENCE 

RI 

90FI0013 

CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN) 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JACK MURPHY 

$149,380

RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION 

PROVIDENCE 

RI 

90FI0013 

CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN) 

2

06/28/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JACK MURPHY 

$41,472

RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION 

PROVIDENCE 

RI 

90FI0013 

CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN) 

3

09/19/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JACK MURPHY 

$40,840

SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY MAYOR’S OFFICE 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CA 

90FI0063 

INCREASE PARENTAL PARTICIPATION IN ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT AND PATERNITY JUDGEM 

1

06/21/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MILTON M HYAMS 

$200,000

SAN MATEO CTY DEPT OF HEALTH SCVS 

SAN MATEO 

CA 

90FI0011 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION & SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ILIANA M RODRIQUEZ 

$97,437

SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

SAN JOSE 

CA 

90FI0101 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

1

06/26/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

RALPH MILLER 

$100,000

SC ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

COLUMBIA 

SC 

90FI0043 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A 4 

1

12/20/2002 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

THOMAS L CHRISTMUS 

$414,574

SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE 

TOKELAND 

WA 

90FI0089 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/24/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DEB DUNITHAN 

$99,896

SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE 

TOKELAND 

WA 

90FI0089 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/28/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DEB DUNITHAN 

$49,934

SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE 

TOKELAND 

WA 

90FI0089 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/29/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DEB DUNITHAN 

$24,991

SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL 

AGENCY VILLAGE 

SD 

90FI0020 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

B. J JONES 

$50,000

SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

90FI0069 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

08/31/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CAROLYN A MYER 

$99,703

SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

90FI0069 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

09/05/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

CAROLYN A MYER 

$99,962

SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

90FI0069 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

08/27/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROLYN A MYER 

$0

SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

90FI0069 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

3

09/20/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

CAROLYN A MYER 

$98,962

SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST 

BATON ROUGE 

LA 

90FI0069 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

3

06/12/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROLYN A MYER 

$0

SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

CALDWELL 

ID 

90FI0004 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CHRIS P NELSON 

$59,176

SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

CALDWELL 

ID 

90FI0004 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

12/02/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

CHRIS P NELSON 

$13,711

SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 

CALDWELL 

ID 

90FI0004 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/15/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

CHRIS P NELSON 

-$48,235

STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM 

HERNDON 

VA 

90FI0102 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

03/16/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

VIVIAN L LEES 

$78,843

STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM 

HERNDON 

VA 

90FI0102 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

07/24/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

VIVIAN L LEES 

$60,082

STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM 

HERNDON 

VA 

90FI0102 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

07/30/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DAVID P POPOVICH 

$22,816

STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM 

HERNDON 

VA 

90FI0102 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

10/15/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DAVID P POPOVICH 

$0

STRIVE DC, INC. 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0035 

ASSIST EX-OFFENDERS OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT, COMPLY WITH THEIR CHILD SUPP 

1

02/20/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

 

$75,000

Sagamore Institute, Inc. 

Indianapolis 

IN 

90FI0090 

DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

07/25/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MR ALAN W DOWD 

$83,498

Sagamore Institute, Inc. 

Indianapolis 

IN 

90FI0090 

DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

07/15/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL 

$24,995

Sagamore Institute, Inc. 

Indianapolis 

IN 

90FI0090 

DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

08/09/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MR JAY F HEIN 

$24,995

Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

SAN JOSE 

CA 

90FI0101 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

09/07/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

RALPH MILLER 

$25,000

Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

SAN JOSE 

CA 

90FI0101 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

2

01/12/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

RALPH MILLER 

$0

Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

SAN JOSE 

CA 

90FI0101 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

3

08/20/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

RALPH MILLER 

$25,000

State of Connecticut Judicial Branch 

HARTFORD 

CT 

90FI0068 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1

06/23/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CHARISSE S HUTTON 

$100,000

Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency 

AKRON 

OH 

90FI0109 

OCSE DEMONSTRATION 

1

08/30/2010 

OTHER 

NEW 

JENNIFER BHEAM 

$83,330

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN 

DETROIT 

MI 

90FI0081 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT 

1

08/10/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JOSEPH SCHEWE 

$145,950

TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

NASHVILLE 

TN 

90FI0058 

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

1

06/22/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0003 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

SCOTT SMITH 

$123,870

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0003 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

01/18/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SCOTT SMITH 

$30,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0003 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

04/04/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

SCOTT SMITH 

-$18,242

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0033 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1 

1

06/20/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

GARY CASWELL 

$196,600

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0033 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1 

1

04/23/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

JAMES MOODY 

-$90,218

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0056 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 7 

1

06/21/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

HARRY MONCK 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0072 

NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI 

1

09/01/2005 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0072 

NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI 

2

08/17/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

NOELITA L LUGO 

$25,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0072 

NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI 

2

12/06/2006 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

NOELITA L LUGO 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

08/06/2007 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ANITA STUCKEY 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

08/08/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$25,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

12/11/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

2

06/14/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

08/09/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$25,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

TX 

90FI0091 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

3

08/10/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$0

The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families 

COLUMBIA 

SC 

90FI0105 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION 

1

08/30/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

MRS PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN 

$90,429

The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families 

COLUMBIA 

SC 

90FI0105 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION 

2

09/27/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN 

$50,000

The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families 

COLUMBIA 

SC 

90FI0105 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION 

2

11/01/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN 

$0

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. 

TUSCALOOSA 

AL 

90FI0108 

CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY 

1

08/30/2010 

OTHER 

NEW 

TERESA COSTANZO 

$100,000

UNITED MIGRANT OPPORTUNITY SERVICES, INC 

MILWAUKEE 

WI 

90FI0037 

LATINO/HISPANIC COMMUNITY CHILD SUPPORT OUTREACH PROJECT – SIPS 

1

02/09/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CHERYL COBB 

$142,626

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON 

MA 

90FI0106 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

08/30/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CHRISTINE YURGELUN 

$99,581

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON 

MA 

90FI0106 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

08/31/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DENISE M FITZGERALD 

$48,995

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

DURHAM 

NH 

90FI0016 

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DR. WALTER ELLIS 

$49,668

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

DURHAM 

NH 

90FI0016 

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE 

1

01/03/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

DR. WALTER ELLIS 

-$49,668

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0061 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 6 

1

06/21/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

LAUDAN ARON-TURNHAM 

$100,000

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0096 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

06/23/2008 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

RENEE HENDLEY 

$68,355

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0096 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

07/24/2009 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

SANDI CRAWFORD 

$48,881

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0096 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

07/25/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

SANDI CRAWFORD 

$33,052

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

WASHINGTON 

DC 

90FI0096 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

07/29/2010 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SANDI CRAWFORD 

$0

VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES 

WATERBURY 

VT 

90FI0062 

PROJECT WEB-MED SUPPORT 

1

06/10/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ROBERT B BUTTS 

$100,000

WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

OLYMPIA 

WA 

90FI0005 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

09/17/1998 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ART HAYASHI 

$17,171

WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

OLYMPIA 

WA 

90FI0040 

OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF 

1

02/15/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS 

$150,000

WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

OLYMPIA 

WA 

90FI0040 

OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF 

1

03/12/2004 

DEMONSTRATION 

OTHER REVISION 

CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS 

-$2,013

WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

OLYMPIA 

WA 

90FI0042 

NEW APPROACHES TO ENGAGE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OFFENDERS JOB PROG AND PAYMENT OF 

1

02/08/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

FRAN FERRY 

$175,000

WV ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

CHARLESTON 

WV 

90FI0027 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

1

06/20/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

SUSAN HARRAH 

$25,597

WY ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

CHEYENNE 

WY 

90FI0021 

FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING 

1

09/07/1999 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DAVE SCHAAD 

$140,000

WY ST DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES 

CHEYENNE 

WY 

90FI0021 

FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING 

2

08/28/2000 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DAVE SCHAAD 

$140,000

Womens Education & Legal Fund (CWEALF) 

HARTFORD 

CT 

90FI0036 

LOCAL NETWORKS – LATINO COMMUNITY – SPECIAL INITIATIVES PROJECT 

1

02/02/2001 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

ALICE PRITCHARD 

$183,313

r-based organization is often working the Child Support Field.  The for-profit arm is Policy Studies, Inc. — CPR is the smaller, leaner, nonprofit…This table has 224 rows; I will also upload it here, for easier viewing: ///

66% to 34%, “Undistributable Child Support Collections,” and why HHS/OAS is more concerned about its share, than kids getting theirs….

with 5 comments

It’s been one of those nonstop write & read days, so I give you about 20,000 words herein, including “Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless” (Dawin Deason, jet-sitting psychotic yacht-owning pot-smoking, multi-divorced corporate bully responsible for, er, collecting child support (etc)) and a little more Maximus/PWORA background, plus exposing how little the OCSE actually seems to care about how poorly welfare reform (and child support collections) are indeed working — so long as they get their cut.  Which is “the lion’s share.”   Roarrr!

A little review of this PROWA — “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Acts” — I am seeing how radical a shift this was.   FOR THE RECORD, it was a Republican push, and President Clinton, at the time, would’ve had some political risk to veto welfare reform a 3rd time:

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

President Bill Clinton signing welfare reform legislation.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORAPub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaignpromise to “end welfare as we know it”.[2]

PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which had been in effect since 1935 and also supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program of 1988. The law was heralded as a “reassertion of America’s work ethic” by the US Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill’s workfarecomponent. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

and (still, Wikipedia):

 Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.[10]

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton[11], Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government’s responsibilities. It instituted the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.[12]

As I have been showing, by Federal Incentives to the States, and other strong-arm tactics surrounding threats to withdraw TANF payments, a network of single-agencies for distribution of child support, parent locator sources, and more “stuff” has been forced onto the states, relating to this legislation.  It took a few years for the hammer to come down (about 1998, 1999ff) — but the result has been MORE types of families being (through court agencies as well) forced ONTO welfare — as people mistaking child support enforcement for actually “child support enforcement” are confronting a different agenda in Washington — which is to stop divorce in its tracks, involve more faith institutions, and what appears to be continue the EXPANSION (not contraction) of the welfare state. . . . . .

As with any large bureacuracies, there are larger-than-life loopholes, which I am discussing these days — places were millions of $$ and the interest from them, appears to be, er, disappearing after it has been extracted from one parent (or, if the state got the kids somehow, possibly both).

It DID actually end “welfare as we know it” — although not the expanding welfare state.  It just changed its character…..

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party’s vote counts and persuaded more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.[11]

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.[11] As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act “gives us a chance we haven’t had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.”[13]

(Actually, the Wikipedia article is not a bad introduction, overall)….

FOr example, through increased “privatization” and the need for expanding IT (technical, data collection, etc.) services, companies like Maximus, with a history of fraud embezzlement racism, sexism, etc., at unprecedented levels, can now do business directly with states, to allegedly, get the citizens back to work.  Like in Wisconsin:

RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Jan. 20, 2004–MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS) has been awarded a two-year, $37.1 million contract from the State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development to provide comprehensive Wisconsin Works (W-2) program services including eligibility, assessment, soft skills workshops, job placement, and job retention follow-up services. 

W-2 is the state welfare-to-work program in which MAXIMUS serves Milwaukee County in assisting its citizens become self sufficient through gainful employment. Under this new contract, MAXIMUS has been awarded an additional region in the county and will be serving approximately 5,700 cases. The new caseload level for the two regions is a substantial increase over the previous MAXIMUS contract with the state.

“We have enjoyed our long-standing relationship with the State of Wisconsin helping them achieve national prominence in welfare-to-work. It is a distinct honor to have been selected to continue our relationship”

MAXIMUS has been a partner with the state of Wisconsin in their nationally-recognized W-2 program since its inception in 1997. This competitive re-award of the W-2 contract demonstrates the high-level of confidence the State of Wisconsin places with MAXIMUS to provide quality services in a cost-effective manner.

“We have enjoyed our long-standing relationship with the State of Wisconsin helping them achieve national prominence in welfare-to-work. It is a distinct honor to have been selected to continue our relationship,” commented Dr. David V. Mastran, MAXIUS CEO.

YEP.  Prospecting among the poor is sure profitable….

Here’s a dissertation (2010) on this period, with evaluation from women who lived through the transition:

January 01, 2010

Wisconsin works’?: race, gender and accountability in the workfare era

Bridgette Baldwin Northeastern University

Morality tales about laziness and dependency have become popular catchall narratives in the continual reconstruction of welfare policy development and implementation. The American public is overburdened by the lavish lifestyle of the Black ―welfare queen.‖5 She drives around in her nice new Cadillac, never going really anywhere in particular, unless off to pick up her welfare checks (which by the way she had gotten rich on) or to dine on steak and lobster. However, she usually stays at home watching soap operas like ―Days of our Lives‖ generating more income by producing baby after baby. She is cunning, yet shiftless. She is clever in her manipulation of the system, yet uneducated. And, she is quite active in attaining immediate desires and wants, yet lazy in her work ethic, while betraying the ethos of delayed gratification.
 
All hail the ―welfare queen.‖ It is this image of the ―welfare queen‖that became so prevalent  during the ―welfare debates‖ of the 1980s and persisted as a driving force in all out demands for reform of the welfare system. Debates over welfare reform have been so saturated with this image that little attention has been paid to the actual realities or needs of welfare recipients or most explicitly, the conditions in which they live and navigate under policy reform.
 
5 Nancy J. Hirschmann, ―A Question of Freedom, a Question of Rights? Women and Welfare,‖ in Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in the United States and Europe, eds. Nancy J. Hirschmann and Ulrike Liebert (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001).

My dissertation will offer an evaluative analysis of the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program as the model initiative within national welfare reform strategies

It looks like good reading.

here are some Brits talking about it as well, in 2001:

The Impact Of Reform

The Act provoked a storm of protest. President Clinton’s decision to sign the Republican bill that became PRWORA was famously condemned by one of his former aides, Peter Edelman as ‘the worst thing Bill Clinton has done’.4 Similarly, the doyen of commentators on poverty Daniel P. Moynihan lamented that ‘the premise of this legislation is that the behaviour of certain adults can be changed by making the lives of their children as wretched as possible’. The result, he predicted, would be to ‘substantially increase poverty and destitution’.5 Equally forthright was the Nobel  Prize-winning economist Robert Solow. It would be imposs- ible, he argued for the labour market to absorb a sudden influx of unskilled and inexperienced women workers, and the result would be a sharp rise in unemployment and a drop in wage rates.6 Perhaps the most significant critic, however, was David Ellwood, who had done more than anyone to legitimise the idea of time limits and who had been the chief architect of Clinton’s earlier welfare reform plan. He condemned the 1996 Act as ‘appalling’. It offered claimants not ‘two years and you work’ but two years ‘followed by nothing—no welfare, no jobs, no support’. Even worse, the Act would initiate a ‘race to the bottom’ since those states which did want to promote work-based reform ‘may find it too costly if nearby states threaten to dump their poor by simply cutting benefits’.7

And  House Ways & Means Testimony boasting about it in 1998:

This groundbreaking legislation, based in large part on Wisconsin’s experience and recommendations, gives each state the tools it needs to design a work-focused program responsive to the unique needs of its population. Wisconsin Works (W-2), our Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, is paving the way for a world without Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Jesus:  “The poor you always have with you.”

Republicans:  “Poverty is an attitude problem, but we have ways to fix that…”

Of course it’s possible to get rid of AFDC by renaming it (which this has done) or by bringing on the corrupt private contractors, which Maximus certainly proved to be, and still is, and is still working for the US government and other ones.

Then — as this post shows — it’s also possible to actually get rid of AID to Families with Dependent Children by setting up a Federal/STate incentive system that bills the middle class to let policy makers run demonstration projects on the poor –OR, as we see here, developing strong-arm and far-reaching ways to collect child support — and then just fail to distribute it, either because the parent has disappeared OR there is a pending legal dispute, which is another great excuse to sit on millions while they collect interest, to be split 2:1 between Fed & State and nothing for the children.

Being a leader in welfare reform for ten years, there is no doubt that Wisconsin had a head start addressing the problem of welfare dependence and the poverty that it creates. In fact, Wisconsin’s welfare legacy began in 1987, when Governor Thompson made welfare reform one of his top priorities upon taking office. At the time, Wisconsin’s AFDC caseload had swelled to over 98,000 cases.

Governor Thompson had little confidence that the Family Support Act of 1988 would do much more than continue the status quo. As a result, Wisconsin pioneered the way for states to receive waivers from the federal government to run welfare demonstrations. Wisconsin’s first waiver, called Learnfare, changed the direction of welfare by connecting, for the first time, the receipt of welfare to personal responsibility. Learnfare, which has since been folded into W-2, requires students to attend school or face a reduction in the family’s cash benefit.

Hmm. Here’s a fairly positive report on Maximus, showing that its founder had previously worked in government, HEW, in addition to his military experience.  It also shows that prior to Maximus, it was Ross Perot’s “EDS” applied to the paperwork behind Medicare legislation (1965), thereby enriching him enough to twice run for U.S. President. . …

Since welfare reform legislation passed in 1996, MAXIMUS has dramatically increased its revenues, but not without generating a good deal of controversy. The company received unwanted publicity in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, and especially in New York City, providing ready ammunition for critics who not only question how MAXIMUS does business but attack the very principles that the company espouses.

The founder of MAXIMUS, David V. Mastran, earned an undergraduate degree from West Point in 1965, followed a year later by a master’s degree in industrial engineering from Stanford University. He then spent seven years in the air force, including a one-year tour in Vietnam, before returning to school to earn a doctorate in operations research from George Washington University in 1973. He briefly worked at the Pentagon as an air force researcher, then transferred his skills to the old federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He managed contracts and grants and essentially tried to impose discipline on social welfare programs.

The first work for MAXIMUS was a $3,000 contract to assist in the processing of military health-care claims, followed by a $15,000 job in New Hampshire to create statistical profiles of fraudulent Medicaid recipients, but MAXIMUS soon had difficulty with one of its early contracts. Hired by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to increase payments by deadbeat parents, MAXIMUS developed a system that would target people with high incomes. The agency, however, maintained that the law did not allow for such selectivity and opted not to renew the contract.  {{interesting…}}

Generally MAXIMUS maintained a low profile as it began to collect bigger fees and add employees to handle its mounting workload. In 1984 the company received an important contract from New York City, when it was hired to help reduce welfare fraud. Appalled by the condition of the welfare centers he visited, Mastran began a motivational campaign to improve the morale of welfare workers, awarding cake and trophies to those who were successful at reducing fraud. He said that the experience confirmed his view that a private company was better suited to motivate employees than the government. “Government workers are not paid on the basis of performance,” he was quoted as saying. “I can reward performance; government can’t do that.”

In 1988 MAXIMUS signed a major five-year, $49 million contract with Los Angeles County to run its portion of a state welfare-to-work program called GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence), the first attempt to privatize a welfare system. Rather than just serving in a support capacity, MAXIMUS was essentially replacing government. The company determined whether someone was eligible for welfare, prompting a lawsuit by the Service Employees International Union that contended that only civil service employees had the legal right to make such decisions. Social critics also questioned the inherent conflict of a for-profit company engaged in public work: Would MAXIMUS focus its efforts on the clients that could be more easily placed in jobs, thus padding its success rate at the expense of the people who needed their help the most?
Read more: MAXIMUS, Inc. – Company Profile, Information, Business Description, History, Background Information on MAXIMUS, Inc.http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/29/MAXIMUS-Inc.html#ixzz1St3v58cp

As I’m pretty sure I already posted, Maximus was quickly in trouble for sexism (paying women lower than men for the same jobs), questionable expenses in Wisconsin ($466,000) and in general, getting people off the welfare lists — not out of poverty; this caused trouble in NY as well:

Federal Agency Finds Workfare Contractor Violated Wage Law (Sept. 1, 2000)

By NINA BERNSTEIN
The nation’s largest operator of welfare-to-work programs violated federal law by paying lower wages to women than to men placed in the same jobs in a Milwaukee warehouse, according to a decision made public yesterday by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The company, Maximus Inc., has been under mounting criticism for its business practices in recent months. A state judge in Manhattan has held up the Giuliani administration’s plans to award Maximus more than $100 million in contracts to help welfare recipients find work. And state auditors in Wisconsin recently found that the company had billed the state for $466,000 in improper or questionable expenses.

The federal commission’s ruling found that a woman placed in warehouse jobs by MaxStaff, the company’s temporary employment agency, was paid $7.01 an hour while five male co-workers got $8.13  ….    ……

”The goal was not to remove women from poverty, but simply from the welfare rolls,” she said. ”Consequently, any job was good enough.”

Ms. Jones, now 33, said she had asked a MaxStaff supervisor a year ago why she, the only woman, was being paid less than all the men. The supervisor told her that she was mistaken, and later warned workers that they could be fired if they discussed wages. At that point, the commission said in its ruling, the company began hiring males at a lower rate of pay — apparently in an effort to cover up sex discrimination.

But Ms. Jones privately challenged male employees to prove their earnings and collected pay stubs that she took to the commission. Eight days later, she was fired.

This NYTimes article has many more in the series — almost immediately after welfare reform 1996, the privateers were running into trouble

HELPING AMERICA”s CHILDREN — SITTING ON MONEY COLLECTED FROM ONE PARENT WITHOUT SENDING IT TO THE OTHER:  Administrative Bill, give or take $5 billion/year.   

COMPILED from forms submitted to the OCSE on “Undistributed Child Support”

OCSE site — motto:    “Giving Hope and Support** for America’s Children”

(**except these amounts)

Table P-32: Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2009

STATES

*Net UDC

Pending UDC

Unresolved UDC

Amount

As a Percent

of Net UDC

Amount

As a Percent

of Net UDC

ALABAMA

$15,513,725

$9,819,075

63.3%

$5,694,650

36.7%

ALASKA

2,725,702

1,908,063

70.0

817,639

30.0

ARIZONA

9,672,557

7,041,823

72.8

2,630,734

27.2

ARKANSAS

2,881,919

1,412,953

49.0

1,468,966

51.0

CALIFORNIA

62,279,494

54,437,329

87.4

7,842,165

12.6

COLORADO

2,777,312

2,391,693

86.1

385,619

13.9

CONNECTICUT

3,674,286

3,454,239

94.0

220,047

6.0

DELAWARE

5,017,020

2,608,851

52.0

2,408,169

48.0

DIST. OF COL.

1,232,740

196,685

16.0

1,036,055

84.0

FLORIDA

45,094,156

22,220,435

49.3

22,873,721

50.7

GEORGIA

4,897,121

3,890,098

79.4

1,007,023

20.6

GUAM

4,443,637

367,074

8.3

4,076,563

91.7

HAWAII

7,270,327

5,757,125

79.2

1,513,202

20.8

IDAHO

1,258,036

1,141,667

90.7

116,369

9.3

ILLINOIS

17,838,705

9,753,202

54.7

8,085,503

45.3

INDIANA

9,229,247

2,069,145

22.4

7,160,102

77.6

IOWA

3,810,982

3,123,513

82.0

687,469

18.0

KANSAS

3,954,679

2,247,801

56.8

1,706,878

43.2

KENTUCKY

9,849,484

5,793,613

58.8

4,055,871

41.2

LOUISIANA

4,043,603

3,631,297

89.8

412,306

10.2

MAINE

1,663,737

1,021,675

61.4

642,062

38.6

MARYLAND

9,753,346

4,524,421

46.4

5,228,925

53.6

MASSACHUSETTS

10,204,504

8,858,264

86.8

1,346,240

13.2

MICHIGAN

42,416,592

34,780,861

82.0

7,635,731

18.0

MINNESOTA

7,863,922

7,702,387

97.9

161,535

2.1

MISSISSIPPI

11,318,268

9,549,135

84.4

1,769,133

15.6

MISSOURI

11,120,017

10,328,364

92.9

791,653

7.1

MONTANA

305,201

122,608

40.2

182,593

59.8

NEBRASKA

2,455,050

1,946,773

79.3

508,277

20.7

NEVADA

2,603,935

2,077,769

79.8

526,166

20.2

NEW HAMPSHIRE

951,292

540,557

56.8

410,735

43.2

NEW JERSEY

14,280,590

NA

NA

NA

NA

NEW MEXICO

3,208,444

1,703,361

53.1

1,505,083

46.9

NEW YORK

97,236,334

NA

NA

NA

NA

NORTH CAROLINA

12,678,621

9,265,605

73.1

3,413,016

26.9

NORTH DAKOTA

2,577,581

1,749,323

67.9

828,258

32.1

OHIO

26,412,221

21,011,756

79.6

5,400,465

20.4

OKLAHOMA

6,072,829

5,693,119

93.7

379,710

6.3

OREGON

3,470,923

2,530,705

72.9

940,218

27.1

PENNSYLVANIA

12,688,205

10,207,799

80.5

2,480,406

19.5

PUERTO RICO

13,952,836

NA

NA

NA

NA

RHODE ISLAND

2,469,889

478,651

19.4

1,991,238

80.6

SOUTH CAROLINA

8,628,219

2,794,306

32.4

5,833,913

67.6

SOUTH DAKOTA

1,162,182

1,150,667

99.0

11,515

1.0

TENNESSEE

14,108,239

11,153,511

79.1

2,954,728

20.9

TEXAS

20,163,471

10,706,501

53.1

9,456,970

46.9

UTAH

2,782,396

2,578,060

92.7

204,336

7.3

VERMONT

781,008

667,022

85.4

113,986

14.6

VIRGIN ISLANDS

501,609

112,809

22.5

388,800

77.5

VIRGINIA

7,250,388

6,798,907

93.8

451,481

6.2

WASHINGTON

5,857,359

4,306,901

73.5

1,550,458

26.5

WEST VIRGINIA

4,033,922

3,953,506

98.0

80,416

2.0

WISCONSIN

8,396,881

NA

NA

NA

NA

WYOMING

1,685,676

1,198,043

71.1

487,633

28.9

TOTALS

$588,520,419

$322,779,047

71.0%

$131,874,731

29.0%

Source: Form OCSE-34A

Part 1, line 9b

Part 2, line 2

Part 2, line 8

*Nets out undistributable collections.

Note: Pending UDC plus Unresolved UDC equals total Net UDC. All data are from the fourth quarter.

NA – Not Available.

Table P-32

Net Undistributed Collections (UDC), Fiscal Year 2010

STATES

*Net UDC

Pending UDC

Unresolved UDC

Amount

As a Percent

of Net UDC

Amount

As a Percent

of Net UDC

ALABAMA

$16,283,994

$10,162,914

62.4%

$6,121,080

37.6%

ALASKA

2,540,313

1,845,082

72.6

695,231

27.4

ARIZONA

8,050,495

6,088,812

75.6

1,961,683

24.4

ARKANSAS

2,738,092

1,405,745

51.3

1,332,347

48.7

CALIFORNIA

61,953,147

53,863,014

86.9

8,090,133

13.1

COLORADO

3,147,874

2,684,230

85.3

463,644

14.7

CONNECTICUT

4,048,068

3,636,004

89.8

412,064

10.2

DELAWARE

4,689,833

2,208,774

47.1

2,481,059

52.9

DIST. OF COL.

890,797

210,423

23.6

680,374

76.4

FLORIDA

37,820,845

20,289,591

53.6

17,531,254

46.4

GEORGIA

5,061,317

3,114,118

61.5

1,947,199

38.5

GUAM

5,288,947

287,148

5.4

5,001,799

94.6

HAWAII

7,472,497

5,932,236

79.4

1,540,261

20.6

IDAHO

1,298,553

1,202,222

92.6

96,331

7.4

ILLINOIS

16,297,021

7,899,734

48.5

8,397,287

51.5

INDIANA

8,452,134

4,036,024

47.8

4,416,110

52.2

IOWA

4,150,261

3,432,731

82.7

717,530

17.3

KANSAS

3,441,981

1,579,071

45.9

1,862,910

54.1

KENTUCKY

11,715,986

5,842,102

49.9

5,873,884

50.1

LOUISIANA

4,057,300

3,599,220

88.7

458,080

11.3

MAINE

1,636,864

976,259

59.6

660,605

40.4

MARYLAND

8,671,676

4,843,503

55.9

3,828,173

44.1

MASSACHUSETTS

11,480,713

10,097,172

87.9

1,383,541

12.1

MICHIGAN

32,915,478

26,160,772

79.5

6,754,706

20.5

MINNESOTA

8,373,327

8,188,234

97.8

185,093

2.2

MISSISSIPPI

12,638,267

10,778,762

85.3

1,859,505

14.7

MISSOURI

11,879,792

11,011,325

92.7

868,467

7.3

MONTANA

225,806

143,827

63.7

81,979

36.3

NEBRASKA

2,367,888

2,004,444

84.7

363,444

15.3

NEVADA

2,630,921

2,077,185

79.0

553,736

21.0

NEW HAMPSHIRE

1,194,368

803,439

67.3

390,929

32.7

NEW JERSEY

19,190,538

16,774,020

87.4

2,416,518

12.6

NEW MEXICO

3,164,051

1,721,474

54.4

1,442,577

45.6

NEW YORK

84,946,388

44,484,466

52.4

40,461,922

47.6

NORTH CAROLINA

13,056,068

9,389,470

71.9

3,666,598

28.1

NORTH DAKOTA

2,762,026

1,845,580

66.8

916,446

33.2

OHIO

31,091,183

26,111,589

84.0

4,979,594

16.0

OKLAHOMA

5,324,362

5,063,689

95.1

260,673

4.9

OREGON

3,518,242

2,596,605

73.8

921,637

26.2

PENNSYLVANIA

10,654,748

8,741,372

82.0

1,913,376

18.0

PUERTO RICO

10,621,359

1,614,807

15.2

9,006,502

84.8

RHODE ISLAND

2,394,247

525,902

22.0

1,868,345

78.0

SOUTH CAROLINA

9,382,292

2,738,292

29.2

6,644,000

70.8

SOUTH DAKOTA

1,335,117

1,327,016

99.4

8,101

0.6

TENNESSEE

11,894,864

3,715,282

31.2

8,179,582

68.8

TEXAS

22,050,037

8,924,915

40.5

13,125,122

59.5

UTAH

3,290,906

3,143,906

95.5

147,000

4.5

VERMONT

993,073

812,028

81.8

181,045

18.2

VIRGIN ISLANDS

541,564

78,472

14.5

463,092

85.5

VIRGINIA

7,592,934

7,159,816

94.3

433,118

5.7

WASHINGTON

5,686,598

3,993,341

70.2

1,693,257

29.8

WEST VIRGINIA

4,874,294

4,811,128

98.7

63,166

1.3

WISCONSIN

8,590,737

8,004,761

93.2

585,976

6.8

WYOMING

1,688,598

1,173,193

69.5

515,405

30.5

TOTALS

$568,058,781

$381,155,241

67.1%

$175,022,390

30.8%

(LInk to a “preliminary” for 2010, same report):

CHILD SUPPORT IS WELFARE link” points out that the primary part of welfare is Title IV-A — and that the other parts (B, C, IV-D=child support, E=adoption, etc.) are primarily to recoup expenditures from A)

The Social Security Act is made up of 21 “Titles”, each numbered in sequence using Roman numerals:

The fourth “Title” (Title IV) covers “grants to states for aid and services to needy families with children and for child-welfare services”:  Therefore, Title IV creates and generally covers what most Americans refer to as the public “welfare” system.

Title IV currently has four parts (A, B, D, and E), with each part serving a particular function within the overall “welfare” system.

  • Part A—BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
  • Part B—CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Sec. 451. [42 U.S.C. 651]  For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State program funded under part A) for whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part.

Commentary from “Child Support is Welfare”

Originally, Title IV-D was created to reimburse taxpayers (the government) for what was being spent on providing Title IV-A/welfare/public assistance services.  This was accomplished through the collection of “child support” from an absent/abandoning parent (who was believed to be the cause of the need for public assistance).  This “child support” was then solely used to help repay welfare expenditures.

However, this is not the case today.  The child support program has “evolved,” according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and now “child support is no longer primarily a welfare reimbursement, revenue-producing device for the Federal and State governments…”, as taken from Page 1 of the following OCSE publication:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2010/reports/preliminary_report_fy2009/#boxscores

A page full of bar charts, graphs and pies — but yes, it does verify that a lot of child support collection has NOTHING to do with welfare…  This chart shows Administrative expenses 2005-2009.  Please note the vertical axis is in Billions.

The data for figure 8 is after this graphic

The Federal share of total administrative expenditures increased by 5.4% in FY 2009, while the State share of total administrative expenditures decreased by 9.0%.

How many children are in these programs?

The data for figure 10 is after this graphic

While I”m in the vicinity, notice that in 2009 UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS were:


As we can see from the top chart, the children’s lives are going to be primarily affected by who puts more money into (at least “administrative support”) of the child support system, overall — the federal government is putting in the larger share, and so is in reality the “controlling” interest — although as we can see, it’s not exerting that much control when it comes to how much ends up in slush funds, black holes, kickbacks, or unaccounted for….. Millions are being collected, and not going to parents.

Parts of me wonder whether (like I eventually got to the point) custodial parents realized what kind of hell they might go through if, being somehow Title IV-D, they actually attempted to enforce a child support order — they’d be subjected to prolonged custody litigation, funded in part by these incentives….  The opposing side would be getting legal help — and the opposing side also might be a father who didn’t even WANT custody, but had to choose between extortion-level child support, and going along with the program at hand.  As well as simply men who are not motivated like Good Dads would be — which is, they wouldn’t need the strong arm of the law to care about their kids.  I think this happens more than we realize….

ALSO note:

According to OCSE statistics, almost half (43%) of the current national child support program caseload is made up of those who NEVER received public assistance, as taken from Figure 1 of this preliminary report for 2009:

Further, that same report indicates that only 14% of the current caseload are actually receiving public assistance.

Annually, taxpayers spend a total of $5.8 BILLION on just the administrative expenditures of collecting child support (Figure 8 of the same report), with an additional $504 Million in incentive funding as well.

This means that BILLIONS of our tax dollars are being spent on paying for a government agency to collect money for people who could otherwise collect that money on their own.

Imagine what our country could do with just 43% of $6.3B ($2.7B) if we as a nation decided that taxpayers shouldn’t be responsible for the bad choices that rich people make, and kicked the middle/upper class out of the child support/welfare system

ACTUALLY, the “we as a nation” needs to continue understanding that they are being stolen from in multiple initiatives that have one result:  to FORCE what would otherwise be middle class people able to handle their lives a little better (for how rich people handle their lives, see articles on “ACS” and Darwin Deason, below) was there not a system to force many of them onto welfare, while justifying this as reducing welfare.

I’m going to take a risk here, and summarize a private conversation about how come the HHS “Office of Audit Services” (OAS) seems rather lax on actually auditing a huge restructuring (nationwide) of the US Child Support Enforcement system based on a 1996 huge restructuring (nationwide) of welfare called PROWRA.  This was expressed by a friend of mine who has been involved in some “forensic accounting” around US Courts and individual cases, including from what I can stand her own — as opposed to attending White House vigils and pleading for mercy and/or attention and press coverage of a personal plight or anecdote, which seems to bring out the worst in the AFCC-run courthouses:

[family court cases can get sand-bagged] initially by magistrates, friends of the court, and commissioners who are county employees paid to create collaborative programs with county agencies like CPS and DCSS. {{meaning, Child Support agencies}} The county recieves $2 from HHS for every $1 of child support that it collects. If the state does not disburse child support after 3 years, the state and the feds split the support plus interest 66/34. The state recieves a bonus from HHS every time the open or enforce a child support case.  The states are financially rewarded for opening TANF cases.
Yes, they are — see incentives law.
That’s odd, because most of the programs were sold as stopping welfare.   For example, fatherhood rhetoric almost says “welfare queen,”  i.e., going after nonpaying fathers to help the mothers get off welfare.  Because fatherlessness causes abuse — don’t we all except this yet?  — then the obvious solution to “abuse” is fatherhood promotion.
Actually, the primary abuse is perhaps of privilege, and authority….
There is no incentive to disburse child support, they are not tracking the money, and the reports show that even if states do get caught, the feds dont care about anything except whether the 66% share was correctly calculated. Stealing from children is encouraged and rewarded, and while they starve and are put on the welfare, parents are wrongly prosecuted and the money goes to the general funds and handed to crooked people.

“Expenditures. Total administrative expenditures were $5.8 billion in FY 2009, a 0.4 percent decrease over those in the previous year (Table P-3). This is the first reduction in total administrative expenditures in the history of the Child Support Program. The Federal share of expenditures was $3.9 billion, and the State share was $2.0 billion (Table P-1).”

This chart shows “Never assistance” (meaning, NON-welfare cases….); compare to the other categories:

Nationwide Boxscores
Nationwide Boxscores % change
from FY 08
Collections Distributed $26,385,592,827 -0.7%
– Current Assistance

$978 million$978,127,0900.0%

– Former Assistance

$9.3 billion$9,293,931,882-6.5%

Never Assistance

$close to 12 Billion$11,936,424,5420.1%

– Medicaid Assistance$4,177,109,31312.2%Total Expenditures$5,849,699,175-0.4%Cost Effectiveness ($ Change)$4.78-$0.02Paternities & Acknowledgements1,810,5640.7%Orders Established1,267,4376.3%Full Time Equivalent Staff58,516-2.5%Total Caseload15,797,7680.8%- Current Assistance2,179,6526.4%- Former Assistance6,872,007-2.8%- Never Assistance6,746,1092.9%Net Undistributed Collections$588,520,419-16.4%Arrears Amounts Due$107,638,651,6772.0%

CSE Highlights:
In 2007, 92 percent of child support collections have gone to families. Welfare recipients now make up just 14 percent of our caseload; the largest group of clients is families who no longer need public assistance, in large part because of child support collections. Preliminary data indicate that, in FY 2007:”

This is exactly what the OAS audit reports state.  They show no concern about the fact that millions are sitting undistributed.

Fathers (from whom a lot of this money comes — though not ONLY from them, I must point out) are a little quicker to report this — as mothers are busy being taught to talk about who hurt them and how, and are in many cases legitimately pre-occupied with this, i.e., there are criminal matters being handled in the family court system too often.   But even so, mothers should be smart enough to start paying attention to what fathers are reporting IN ADDITION to the psychological dramas.

DadsAmerica.org

Undistributed child support that has been collected from Fathers

States report an undistributed funds pool of over $634 million at the end of 2000 in
collected but undistributed child support. Most states cannot explain the existence
of the fund pools nor do they know to whom the money rightfully belongs. For
example, in California, there is an unexplainable $192 million or so that is
reported to the Federal Office of Child Support as net undistributed funds, but only
$45 million in actual cash. The other approximately $148 million cannot be accounted
for. It is quite possible that money has been diverted to general fund accounts. In
Michigan, the amount of undistributed funds doubled from about $20 million in 2000
to $40 million in 2001 and Tennessee has the highest rate/case of undistributed 
funds at $71 million at the end of 2001. (See Chart 2)

NEW YORK COMPTROLLER caught on to some of this back in 2004:

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

Undistributed Child Support (Follow-Up Review)

Certain payments for child support are not paid directly to the custodial parent, such as payments intended for public assistance recipients and payments withheld from paychecks or tax refunds. In New York State, such child support payments are collected by the local social services districts (57 counties and New York City), and the local districts are expected to forward the payments to the custodial parents. However, in some instances, such as when a custodial parent cannot be located, payments cannot be forwarded and remain undistributed. In our initial audit report 2001-S-32, we examined the actions taken by the local districts and the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the districts, in attempting to minimize the amount of undistributed child support payments. We found that these actions varied in different local districts and were often labor-intensive. We recommended that OTDA monitor the local districts more closely to identify best practices and districts in need of assistance. We also recommended that OTDA make certain improvements in the automated information system used by the districts to maintain information about child support cases. In our follow-up review, we found that progress had been made in implementing our audit recommendations.

For a complete copy of Report 2004-F-25 click here.
For a copy of the 90-day response click here.

From Report 2004-F-25:

“The amount of undistributed child support payments in New York State at the time of our initial audit exceeded $70 million.

Before I give more examples, let’s look at this GAO report in 2004.  Note:  After reading several HHS/OAS audits (in some alarm), I began simply searching the term “Undistributable” (Or Undistributed)  Child Support Collections” and reading.  That’s how I found this one:

U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) report 04-377

Child Support Enforcement: Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed

GAO-04-377 March 19, 2004

[$657 Million Undistributed from 2002, UP from $545 in 1999 — maybe — we don’t know for sure]

Summary

Congress established the child support enforcement program in 1975 to ensure that parents financially supported their children. State agencies administer the program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services oversees it. ***

*** no mention here that as of 1996, Welfare overhaul by legislation forced most states to centralize distribution units and made a concerted effort to call all child support cases, in fact, welfare cases (even when they weren’t).  See bottom of about 2 posts ago, where I found this policy right in the Texas law on the Centralizing of the State Distribution Unit.  I just picked up that this Federal-level report is saying, it’s the States’ responsibility (although if they don’t behave, of course the government could technically enforce by refusing to fund TANF the next year….)…..   It IS the state’s responsibility, but the Federal Level has co-opted and is intent to oversee it.

In 2002, state agencies collected over $20 billion in child support, but $657 million in collections from 2002 and previous years were undistributed–funds that were delayed or never reached families. One method used to collect child support, intercepting federal tax refunds, involves all state agencies, OCSE, and two Department of the Treasury agencies–the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Financial Management Service (FMS). GAO was asked to address (1) how the total amount of undistributed collections changed over the years, (2) the causes of undistributed collections, (3) states’ efforts to reduce these funds, and (4) OCSE’s efforts to assist states. GAO analyzed OCSE data, administered a survey, visited 6 state agencies and interviewed officials.

We have 50 states — 6 states were visited (probably not the counties within the states…).

OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.

OK, let’s get this straight:   The “Office of Child Support Enforcement” (Budget — give or take how many billion/year, not including $10 million for access & visitation, also poorly monitored, if that)?) – – – provided the GAO with information that “may not be accurate.” . . .. and the OCSE HAS NO PROCESS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS DATA.  (This, almost 10 years after welfare reform and 4 years after they deadline given the states to centralize or be excommunicated from receiving welfare, period.).

Perhaps this is because so long as OCSE KEEPS GETTING FEDERAL FUNDING/APPROPRIATIONS & THE 66% KICKBACK FROM MUCH OF IT, THAT”S OK IF A LOT GOES DOWN A BLACK HOLE OF “WE DON’T KNOW WHERE IT IS.”

Based on state agencies’ survey responses, GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000. (EACH, PROBABLY….) — that’s in just about 1/10th of the states — because only 6 agencies were visited.

OCSE has provided some assistance to help state agencies reduce their undistributed collections. However, the Department of the Treasury has not provided OCSE information that would allow state agencies to distribute collections from joint tax refunds to families sooner. Further, OCSE’s efforts to obtain this information have been minimal.

OCSE, in other words, wasn’t trying too hard either….  Perhaps they were more focused on engaging fathers in early childhood learning and finding media coverage to promote the concept — (I’m remember Nicholas Soppa, an OCSE employee, head of “Project Save Our Children” which relates to enforcement efforts — and he was allegedly spending weekends in jail for nonsupport in his own case.  During the week he was released to come out and lecture other fathers to pay up, in his government job at OCSE.  I don’t have the date on this (possibly 2/28/2001, last updated), but we see David Gray Ross signed the letter, and see acknowledgements:

Involving Non-Resident Fathers In Children’s Learning

Foreword and Acknowledgements

Main Page of Report | Table of Contents ]

Foreword

Children need and deserve financial and emotional support from both their parents. You will see from this publication how important it can be to have dad’s involvement in children’s education. The positive effects of father involvement have been a fairly consistent finding in studies of two-parent families. Now a growing body of research is showing that financial support and the positive involvement of a father, including cooperation between parents, increase positive outcomes for children who do not live with both of their parents.

Moreover, research that separates father involvement from mother involvement is telling us that fathers have an independent effect on child well-being. For example, the father’s parenting style, level of closeness, monitoring, and other family processes affect the child’s development.

In the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, we continue to work with our partners in seeking innovative ways to engage fathers as active participants in their children’s lives. This publication is one example. Another example is our recent partnership with states and the Advertising Council, Inc. We developed a national multi-media campaign to create an awareness of the responsibilities of fathers and of the importance of a non-resident father to his children.

This is obviously higher priority than respecting the Dad’s time (and the legislative intent in setting up the child support agency to start with) by actually getting child support garnished from his (or sometimes, a Mom’s) paycheck and tax rebates TO the children, thereby positively impacting their household’s (as opposed to program operatives and state/federal government’s) bottom line>

We know that most fathers want to be good parents to their children and do the right thing by them. With a tag line of “They’re Your Kids, Be Their Dad,” the public service announcements bring into sharp focus the importance of fathers to their children.

Other projects we support will test approaches that serve young, never-married, non-resident parents who do not have a child support court order in place and may face obstacles to employment. Activities will include fatherhood and parenting workshops, transportation assistance, educational and career planning services, financial planning, skill education, the voluntary establishment of paternity, and other services.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the following people and organizations who were instrumental in developing and producing these materials:

Principal authors of the report: Ken Canfield, National Center for Fathering, and Lisa A. Gilmore, Office of the Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Contributors: We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Father-to-Father, a national effort to unite men in the task of being a strong and positive force in their children’s lives, whose members generously provided their ideas, experiences, and expertise. In addition, we express our sincere thanks to Grantmakers for Children, Youth and Families for allowing us to reprint the entire section on Research and Practice-Focused Resources on Fathers and Families, published in the April 2000 issue of GCYF Insight.

Artwork: Original cover and interior illustrations by Rene Sterling, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Special thanks for the support of our colleagues:

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Kevin Thurm, Deputy Secretary and chair of the HHS Fatherhood Initiative; David Gray Ross, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF); Frank Fuentes, Associate Commissioner, OCSE; David H. Siegel, Phil Sharman, Nicholas Soppa, Harold Staten, and Andrew Williams, OCSE

. . . .There are many more, but I”l just skip forward to the last few acknowledgements:

From the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education (PFIE): We also would like to acknowledge each of the following organizations and their representatives who participate as family-school members of PFIE: Sue Ferguson, National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education; Darla Strouse, Maryland State Department of Education; Justine Handelman, MARC Associates; Ken Canfield, National Center for Fathering; Neil Tift, National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, Inc.; Jim Levine, Families and Work Institute/The Fatherhood Project; Frank Kwan, Los Angeles County Office of Education; and David Hirsch, Illinois Fatherhood Initiative.

Acknowledgment is also due to the Office of the Vice President for its leadership role and support for the initial teleconference “Fathers Matter!” which aired on October 28, 1999.

Meanwhile, RandiJames July 2009 commentary on Mr. Soppa’s unique work arrangement for nonpayment of his own support is here:

They’re Your Kids, Be Their Dad and Pay Up: Child Support Head, Nicholas Soppa, Not PayingChild “Family” Support

However, OCSE has morphed and extended its original interests. The child support collections aren’t so much about the children as they are a means for the states to secure extra income for custody litigation and building supervised visitation centers for parents with violent, criminal histories.

Who is running these agencies? First, we have the lovely David Gray Ross of Maryland. Then, we have Nicholas Soppa…interestingly also of Maryland.

For information about the national Project Save Our Children task force, contact Nick Soppa at 202-401-4677 or nicholas.soppa@acf.hhs.gov project manager

Our elected appointed officials are running game in our government offices. I know that’s of no news to many of you, but agenda is bleeding all over the place…in the name of “saving our children.”

How is Nicholas Soppa saving our children?

I’m glad you asked.

Nicholas Soppa is on work-release and is spending his weekends in a Calvert County jail for…um…how do I tell you this?…FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT UNDISCLOSED REASONS (edited by moderator))!!!

Courtesy of the Calvert County Circuit Court, case #04C08001101

Defendant/Respondent Information

Party Type: Defendant
Party No.:1
Name: Soppa, Nicholas Henry

That blog also has a good post on ‘David Gray Ross?  Obama, You got to be shittin’ me,’ also revealing him on the Board of CRC (Children’s Rights Council) and it’s a good read. she’s protesting Obama’s appoint of this man to an HHS transition team….

He has received awards from:

National Practioner’s Network For Fathers and Families

Increase Access and Visitation Services for Non-custodial Parents. As more non- custodial fathers benefit from the services and supports received from participation in responsible fatherhood programs, become able to pay regular child support, and re- enter the mainstream of community life, they are also increasing their willingness and desire to be active and engaged parents, to see their children regularly, and to be involved in their children’s activities—such as school and recreation. In many instances, their desire to be involved parents is met with resistance from the mothers of their children and other adults and agencies that may prevent fathers from connecting with their children. States need to have additional guidance and resources to enhance access and visitation services that will reduce the barriers to father involvement. NPNFF recommends that provisions be added to pending TANF reauthorization to increase the Federal government’s investment in encouraging states to increase access and visitation services for non-custodial parents. Improving fathers’ access to their children can reduce conflict and strengthen relationships between parents, thereby leading to healthier family environments for children.

National Child Support Enforcement Association

NCSEA serves child support professionals, agencies, and strategic partners worldwide through professional development, communications, public awareness, and advocacy to enhance the financial, medical, and emotional support that parents provide for their children.

Children’s Rights Council

Unlike many other organizations with some of the same concerns, CRC is genderless; we are not a women’s group nor a men’s group. Rather, we advocate what we believe to be in the best interests of children.

For the child’s benefit, CRC:

* advocates a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting in divorce custody orders
* believes in balanced and comprehensive child support: financial, emotional, and physical
* works to transform the typical adversarial divorce process into one of conciliation and mediation
* favors parenting education and school-based programs for children at risk
* believes two parents and the kinship network are the best first line of defense

It should not be surprising that 85% of the men in prison today come from fatherless homes. Teenage girls who grow up with single parents are also more likely to engage in promiscuous sex or turn to prostitution.

If David Gray Ross believed this as a judge, what kind of judge was he, then?  (In addition to, we heard, also behind in his own child support case).

…..

Ohio child support collection agency sued

On behalf of Ralph A. Kerns & Associates posted in Child Support on Thursday, May 19, 2011

Ten years ago, the state of Ohio was sued by a group of parents who claimed that the state was withholding child support money. As a result, the state paid millions of dollars to custodial parents who were not distributed the correct amount of child support.

But earlier this month, another legal claim was filed against the state of Ohio and the state’s Department of Job and Family Services. Allegations are that the agency has been over-collecting child support and failing to inform parents of the actual status of their payments. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of parents who need the child support to provide for their children.

The lawsuit claims that the Ohio agency knew that parents were paying more child support than necessary and not seeing those payments go to the custodial parent. The state has said that the problem originates from computer glitches, but some believe it could be a bigger problem. In fact, an example was given of a father who had to pay the state child support even though the child was in his custody.

In addition, a parent in Ohio who fails to make child support payments can go to prison for falling behind. But if there are computer glitches, are some parents going to jail even though they have actually made timely payments?

Right now, there are millions of dollars in undistributed child support in Ohio alone. How many families are unable to provide for their children because of this undistributed money? National concern has been sparked over this issue as more child support collection agencies across the nation are being accused of deceptive practices.

At this point, it is not certain whether Ohio agencies are intentionally withholding child support or simply dealing with some technological difficulties. Regardless, custodial parents rely on child support to provide food, clothes, and shelter for their children. Going without that financial support can make things more difficult for all.

Source: The Sacramento Bee online, “Child Support Overpayments: Lawsuit Alleges State Withholds Too Much Money, Unfairly Charging Parents and U.S. Taxpayers,” 10 May 2011  [That link is broken…]

Further lookups on “Undistributable Child Support” show an Ohio Divorce? attorney’s blog, indicating that the issue of child support triggered a man PUNCHING his wife in front of a judge on the issue, in  chambers!    Oh — and the judge “hadn’t realized” he was violent, although the wife had tried previously (and been rejected) for restraining orders.  Both husband and wife were Marines:

THIS HHS/OAS report on (a small section!) of Colorado, reveals the changeover from 1994 through 2000, and how when TITLE IV-D is NOT involved (i.e., one parent pays the other one DIRECTLY (meaning, no wage garnishments, I gather), then the clerks of court handled it, but with the rest, it’s centrally disbursed, with a certain “ACS” agency being the contractor.   See “Executive Summary.”  (This ‘scribd” link would most likely also be available on the main HHS/OIG site I have link to on these pages — under “ACF Archived Documents” as to reports).

Report 07-07-04106, Nov 2007 (review of periods 1998 through 2005)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND

The Child Support Enforcement program is a Federal, State, and local partnership, established in
1975 under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, to collect child support payments for
distribution to custodial parents. Within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
provides Federal oversight.

OCSE requires States to offset Child Support Enforcement program costs by recognizing and
reporting program income from Title IV-D undistributable child support collections and interest
earned on child support collections.

It only makes sense to do this with the truly “undistributable” collections (other than to stop collecting funds that can’t be sent right on to the kids’ households!) — because after all, each year, the state is going to want MORE enforcement funds.

Specifically, the instructions for Federal forms OCSE-34A,  “OCSE Child Support Enforcement Program Quarterly Report of Collections,” and OCSE-396A, “Child Support Enforcement Program Financial Report,” used to report undistributable
collections and program income, respectively, require States to report program income for
undistributable collections when State law considers them abandoned.

In Colorado, the Department of Human Services (State agency) administers the federally
mandated program through the Office of Self Sufficiency.The State agency uses the Automated
Child Support Enforcement System (ACSES) as a tool to help locate absent parents, establish
paternity, establish and monitor child and medical support, enforce child and medical support,
monitor collection and distribution of support payments, and to interface and cooperate with
Federal and other State systems.

Before 1994, the Clerk of the District Court offices for each county in Colorado processed child
support collections.

In 1994, the Family Support Registry was established, and the State of Colorado contracted with

Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) to process all child support
collections and disbursements.By July 2000, all child support payments in Colorado, except
those paid by the non-custodial parent directly to the custodial parent,** were to be processed
through the Family Support Registry.

**these could not be Title IV-D, because parent receiving help through Title IV-A would have to sign over collection rights to the state (or is it, county).

Therefore, the state, county, and federal government make no real profit (or have no incentive) to work on enforcing where parents have their own support orders.

As the county Clerk of the District Court offices stopped processing child support collections,they generally transferred the remaining undistributable child support collections to either theFamily Support Registry or the State Treasurer as abandoned property.Although the FamilySupport Registry processes all child support collections, the Clerk of the District Court officescontinued to hold undistributable child support collections they collected before July 2000.

It says right above, that even after 2000, if the parents paid each other directly, payments did NOT come through this Family Support Registry.  I don’t see why the clerks couldn’t have continued to handle these, if they wanted to.  What OCSE is really upset about is the failure to transfer balances to them to help IT look better (balance budget) and/or get that 66%.

Pursuant to the Colorado statutes, undistributable child support collections are considered abandoned if the owner has not claimed them within one year.  (PRETTY FAST!)
OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine whether the State agency appropriately recognized and reported program income for undistributable child support collections and interest earned on child support collections.

I”m getting a little off the beaten path, however, ACS is another giant company.  Remember how I keep saying, the safest place to work in an economy like ours is FOR the government in some facet of oppressing poor people, or people who got snared somehow into a governmental institution?  ACS is hiring:

Affiliated Computer Services plans to hire 600 people in Colorado Springs

Comments 25

June 29, 2009 5:10 PM
THE GAZETTE

The struggling Colorado Springs economy got a much-needed shot in the arm Monday when a Dallas-based outsourcing giant announced plans to hire 600 people by the end of August for a customer service center it is opening.

The center, planned by Affiliated Computer Services Inc., is the biggest local business relocation or expansion announced since T. Rowe Price Group Inc. announced plans in June 2006 to expand a local customer service center and add 650 employees. The project also includes the most hiring by any company coming to the Springs since ICT Group Inc. opened a customer service center in 2003 with plans to employ more than 1,000. That center closed last year.

The Affiliated Computer Services announcement comes as more than 25,000 Colorado Springs area residents were out of work and the area’s unemployment rate was at 8.1 percent in May, the most recent available data and the highest seasonally adjusted rate in more than a decade. The announcement is the eighth this year by companies that, combined, say they plan to hire 1,395 people within five years; those gains have been partly offset by 842 layoffs by 16 local employers.

Well that’s efficient.  Just imagine — some poor slob gets behind on his child support payments (OR, pays them — and it’s sitting in some undistributable pool, not reaching his kids) — but he can make up for lost times by working for ACS to help garnish someone else’s wages — and then possibly get his garnished too, if they catch up with him.  That way the public can pay for all this by paying the IRS< and that’s 650 fewer jobs not out-sourced at least to India, the Philippines, etc.

“This is excellent news for a large number of our work force and our city,” said Mike Kazmierski, president and chief executive of the Colorado Springs Regional Economic Development Corp., which helped bring Affiliated to the Springs.

Fred Crowley, senior economist for the Southern Colorado Economic Forum, estimated that spending by Affiliated’s employees will generate another 350-400 jobs during the next year in the local economy at grocery stores, auto dealers and other businesses.
Affiliated, which employs 74,000 at more than 500 locations worldwide, will open the 34,000-square-foot center in the space it is leasing in the Verizon Communications Inc. complex at 2424 Garden of the Gods Road.

Read more: http://www.gazette.com/news/computer-57539-services-affiliated.html#ixzz1SrzKzXr3

I read a few of the comments; one reader from Oregon and another from Arizona talk about how corrupt it is,  they felt used:

I suggest that people read the comments about this company from former employees that was linked to by a previous poster. Amazing stuff what they pull on their employees:

http://www.indeed.com/forum/cmp/Affiliated-Computer-Services/Affiliated-Computer-Services-Salaries-Bonuses-Benefits/t8199

” Do not work for ACS. I currently work for them and have for 3-4 years. I have submitted about 50+ resumes to various companies as have MANY of the employees here, and nobody will hire us because of our affiliation with ACS. The engagement that I work for used to be owned by Enron, which was Arthur Anderson. ACS bought that engagement but kept all the management staff on. Stay away from this company, it is extremely corrupt, from top to bottom.”

s johnson in Raleigh, North Carolina said: DO NOT apply to ACS. It is a horrible company in every way. Scratch this company COMPLETELY off your list!!!

only if you are desparate should you even consider working at acs. by desparate i mean homeless, no money, nothing!!!! this place is the worst place i have ever been involved with. first of all the management sucks! the only reason they are there is no one else would hire them. they change their minds constantly. we never know what we are making salarywise. some of the long time employees actually took pay cuts. we have been told we will no longer get raises. there is so much verbal abuse coming from management’s mouths. you constantly hear public humiliation coming out of their mouths. they hire young kids to be supervisors, kids with no experience beyond acs or burger king. the reason is that way when acs gets in trouble, they can blame the entry level sups who know nothing and will do anything they are told. our human resource director recently left. now we have to contact an hr call center if we want to get any advice, and some of those people don’t even speak english as their first language! they must be outsourced to mexico or someplace else. one woman i work with recently was told by her supervisor that he forbids her to call the hr call center (like he can stop her!). apparently she filed a complaint against this supervisor and he had to talk his way out of the mess. many of us are just waiting for the day that acs in gresham oregon shuts the doors for good. eventually this will all catch up with them. one other thing, if you have a sprint phone, chances are you speak to an acs employee if you phone customer service. my suggestion is to get rid of sprint cell service asap! they aren’t doing too great, and they lie, lie, lie!”  (ETC, pretty much along the same lines!)

Anonymous in Tualatin, Oregon said: …I would have been making 10.25 but the entire quality department was eliminated without notice from the site and state for that matter and moved to Juarez,Tx/Mx. where they pay at a lower pay scale. I was in an mid level acting position for an unsaid amount of time and found out after 6 months that I was 2 days from being permeneant when a vicious rumor of my unprofessional behavior would have me removed. My theory….after being ridiculed by HR about my attitude, which no direct quote or statement could be provided to me just that I was being removed and they have the right to do that. So no fact on the basis of their complaint…thats when I got the attitude to be honest. I was offered 38,000 annual salary to perform a mid level management position that was pulled from underneath me after all my hard efforts, not to mention cleaning up an entire department, to have the position given to …(NOW CATCH THIS)a lower paid and already salaried employee who is still working for the same pay…

I remember you fondly and the facts that (1) you did an EXCELLENT job and (2)cared about providing an excellent service. I, too, was accused of something that (in NO way) I could not possibly have done. I couldn’t “prove” my innocence (this was not possible for someone in my position, but I do know who the actual perpetrator is) and was terminated. I wish you luck and know you’ll get a reward some day, if not in this life, certainly in the next. I would hire you.

if you look at our paychecks, you will see that some of us are actually getting dollars taken out (we see a minus when we review what we were supposed to be getting). i was told it’s not up to me to understand it. others were told that they didn’t meet certain stat goals. that is horse pucky! we are promised a certain wage and they cannot take that away from us. when one woman questioned her supervisor, the reply was “we checked on it and it is legal.” if they had checked with the bureau of labor they would have found out the opposite. several of us have filed complaints with the bureau of labor here in oregon, some still work there, some don’t. believe me, they will be surprised when they found out that some of their former loyal employees are going after them, people that never made any waves. several of us are waiting for the day that the site is shut down. we just hope we will last that long, as we want to hold the door open for the gm, ops mgrs, etc. as they are escorted out, as they will never be able to get a cushy job like they have now, as they have no morales and are really not skilled. the only way they could have gotten their jobs is by selling the souls to the devil!

…I worked for ACS for 6 months. From the start I was made fun of due to my age and military record by their young supervisor, who had absolutely no training or leadership knowledge. 2nd level supervisors did not help in the situation. I filed a grievance with the company only to have everyone concerned lie through their teeth. ACS Ombudsman rejected my grievance because they “could not substantiate my allegations”. Having been an area supervisor for the FAA, with many management training courses under my hat, I resigned my position considering this extremely insulting. I await the Civil Rights investigation to conlude as I filed an age discrimination grievance at the federal level; something ACS cannot rig to their advantage.

///

he ACS location in Lexington,KY on Fortune Drive is a joke — the General Manager has a high school education, college drop out after 1 year — has no previous Call Center experience and makes more than $100K per year. She will fire anyone at the drop of a hat – without explanation. She has set up dozens of people to be fired – she thrives on gossip and drama – she has taken numerous employees out on her drinking binges, even in the middle of the work day, and then fires them for drinking on the job – yet she bought the alcohol herself!
She will throw her own mother under the bus just to get one step forward.
The GM in Lexington approves of Supervisors dialing into the Sprint monitoring system in order to ‘bill’ out the Supervisors salaries, and then the Sups lay the phone down and don’t take calls while dialed in.
The Sprint Manager onsite allows this to happen because he will not deal with issues.
The GM lies daily, keeps constant turmoil going, has her own ‘personal parties’ at her home with her ‘girls’ on a weekly basis – and the Sprint Manager does nothing.
One supervisor after another has affairs with their own employees, and the GM and Sprint Onsite Manager does nothing.
The site is losing money by the day, and the executives could not care less.
Why does ACS have such a bad reputation as an employer? Because all ACS’s are the same. They lie, they abuse their employees, they offer nothing for benefits and the promise a good life. Sure, for those high-school educated, college drop outs who lie on their resume and get hired because no one else will hire them! One of the CEO’s of ACS lives in Lexington, drives a $100K car – and they will not provide health insurance that their $10/hour employees can afford.
HYPOCRIT – THY NAME IS ACS ON FORTUNE DRIVE!

– Was this comment helpful? Yes (18) / No (1)Reply – Report abuse

WOW — and I didn’t even get through the comments list:  Usernames such as “RUNfromACS” and “God No!!!” are there.  People say they felt slimed by the experience; and here’s someone involved with the new Colorado Call Center:

Hello. Here is my opinion, and experience, on ACS. They have a new call center opening up in Colorado Springs, so I applied in July. During my interview with them, I was told that I would be making 9.00 hr to start during training and then the pay would go up after the three week training. However, in training they told us a completely different pay scale. The ABC scale, which meant that maybe we would only be making minimum wage depending on our performance. Then later in training we were told ANOTHER pay scale would be used, which was based on attendance, AHT, and quality. Training was lousy, the trainers were still learning everything we were, we had barely any hands on experience. The phones weren’t hooked up by the time we were done with training, so they gave us an extra two weeks in which we still barely had any hands on training, they drilled quality into our heads though, and had it not been for the phone delay, we would all have gone out to the floor blind to what quality expected from us, and blind to a plethora of other issues we did not learn in training. Now, here’s the big part of my point. They fired my room mate, because she was sick during training, even though they said not to worry and just come back on that Friday. It took them a month to send out her final check, and that was only after she bugged them repeatedly. According to the law, an employer has 48 hours to cut someone their final check. Now they are doing the same thing to me. My last day was about two weeks ago, I worked one week into the pay period. Today is payday. I still haven’t seen my check. I called Payroll to get some info on it, and he had no clue to the whereabouts of my check, and that he would get back to me in 24 hours. It’s Friday, so that means in three days. These people contract through other places, and so they feel that they can work around the system. They are a horrible company to work for, and I do not recommend it to anybody!

! ! !

ACS is a Texas Fortune 500 company?  Here’s Corporation Wiki:
And here’s a plain old “Wiki” including that it’s under SEC investigation for executives backdating stock options for the periods 1994-2005 (hmm, see above):

Affiliated Computer Services Inc. (ACS) provides information technology services as well as business process outsourcingsolutions to businesses, government agencies, and non-profit organizations. ACS is based in Dallas, Texas and the current CEO is Lynn Blodgett. ACS is ranked at number 341 on the 2010 Fortune 500 list.[3] Founded in 1988, by Darwin Deason, ACS now operates in nearly 100 countries, generating over $6 billion annually. As of September 2009, ACS employs approximately 74,000 people.[4]

On September 28, 2009, Xerox Corporation announced plans to acquire ACS in a $6.4 billion transaction.[5] The deal closed on February 8, 2010.[6]

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) was founded by Darwin Deason in 1988. Initially created as a data services provider to the financial services industry, Deason led ACS’ expansion into the communications, education, financial services, government, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, retail, and travel and transportation industries.[4]

ACS expanded beyond banking BPO services when it signed a 10-year data processing outsourcing contract with Southland Corp. (7-Eleven). In 1995 ACS became a public company and divested bank data processing. By FY1996 ACS became the fourth largest commercial outsourcer in the U.S.[5]

AND  GET THIS — is this who we want collecting child support and tracking it?  Sounds like a bunch of crooks who got caught!

SEC Investigation

In 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified ACS that they are conducting an informal investigation into certain stock option grants made by the Company from October 1998 through March 2005.[7] This was due to the improper and unethical practice of back-dating stock options to specific low points in the stock value. ACS said the executives improperly backdated the price of options grants during a period from 1994 to 2005. During that time, ACS said the executives deliberately chose days on which ACS’s stock took a dip as the effective date for the options, making them more valuable when exercised. Rich, King, and Edwards “used hindsight to select favorable grant dates,” ACS said in a statement.[8] CEO Mark King and CFO Warren Edwards, both implicated in the wrongdoing, resigned immediately. The former CEO Jeff Rich retired in the beginning of the year, taking an $18.4 million buyout of his backdated options. The $18.4 million buyout of his backdated options resulted in no bonuses to be handed out to the entire company. Also, Jeff Rich announced his intention to resign in September of 2005 because of growing personal problems and the fear of being caught for backdating stock options. He received councel to resign from his Young Presidents Organization. [9]

He literally took the money ($18.4 million in backdated options) — and ran!

During the internal probe, which was conducted on behalf of ACS by former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, investigators sifted through more than 2 million pages of hard copy and e-mails. Electronic documents created prior to 2000 weren’t searchable because they lacked the necessary metadata, ACS said.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York are continuing to investigate options dating at ACS. The company in a statement said that it is cooperating with the investigators. Calls to ACS officials were not immediately returned.

ACS said it estimates the practice cost the company $51 million in unrecorded expenses.

If that’s not “reassuring” enough, here’s a 2007 article that has become all too familiar in these fields of outsourced child support collections (although this is perhaps another branch of ACF’s operations):

ACS To Pay $2.6 Million To Settle Federal Fraud Charges

Jul 9, 2007ACS To Pay $2.6 Million To Settle Federal Fraud ChargesUnder contract with a local government agency in Dallas, ACS was tasked with enrolling individuals in benefits programs funded by the federal agencies. By Paul McDougall InformationWeek July 6, 2007 Outsourcer Affiliated Computer (ACS) Services has agreed to pay more than $2.6 million to settle charges it over billed the federal government

Outsourcer Affiliated Computer (ACS) Services has agreed to pay more than $2.6 million to settle charges it over billed the federal government for business services. Under a deal disclosed earlier this week by the office of U.S. Attorney Richard Roper, ACS will pay $2.65 million to the U.S. government to resolve charges under the False Claims Act.

The federal government alleged that ACS employees submitted a number of fake claims for payment from 2002 to 2005 for work related to outsourcing contracts funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Under contract with a local government agency in Dallas, ACS was tasked with enrolling individuals in benefits programs funded by the federal agencies. ACS’ compensation was based partly on the number of individuals enrolled.

In the statement, Roper, who represents the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas, said ACS fully cooperated with the subsequent federal investigation into the misconduct. Wednesday’s edition of the Dallas Morning News reported that four ACS employees were terminated as a result of their participation in the scheme.

ACS is the nation’s third-largest, pure-play outsourcing provider. Earlier this year, company founder and chairman Darwin Deason disclosed an effort to take the publicly traded company private in partnership with a private equity group. In June, ACS said it planned to solicit buyout offers from other parties in addition to Deason’s group.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=200900796

 WARNING — THIS article — about ACS cameras on Maryland helping him fight SEC charges — contains offensive language, probably because the writer is offended at ACS… Then again, some citizens were offended by the speed cameras proliferating in their area, with (it says) 40% of the fine going to ACS.  One customer “mooned” (see article) the cameras, others apparently read aloud Orwell’s 1984 in a meeting.    It gets the point across:

Darwin Deason Needs a New Yacht!
Speed Camera Bribes Attract Legislators Statewide.
Senate Revives Bill to Allow Use of Camera Scam Beyond Montgomery.

By SUDSY RAGABOND
The Assassinated Press
4/4/09

Darwin Deason needs a new yacht. And you know what that means–more speed camera tickets for you. His current yacht (pictured here) is just not lavish enough for the founder of Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) the company with speed trap contracts in Montgomery County. Every time one of Deason’s rigged cameras click he gets over 40% of the fine collected. Sweet.

The Apogee–all 205 feet of her.

Now, he needs a new yacht. The Apogee is just too humble to host the lavish parties that Deason throws with Maryland taxpayer money.

“Citizens have spray-painted the cameras and fired paintball pellets at them. One motorist addressed a letter of complaint about them to the “Extortion Enforcement Unit” apparently unaware that no Montgomery County employee ever sees its own citizens’ complaints. Those letters go to low level Deason employees who promptly add them to their circular file.

A passenger in a car on Georgia Avenue expressed himself by pushing his bare backside out an opened hatchback as the camera clicked. More-polite critics say they are creepy and intrusive and even Deason admits he likes to watch them as much as porn.

“But, shit, in the two years since Montgomery County became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to install my speed cameras, they have helped make me richer and I’ve used that money to fight SEC complaints against my company and break the law elsewhere,” Deason says. The cameras have generated more than 500,000 citations, at $40 a pop, netting more than $20 million much of that going to Deason for his new yacht. Apparently, one contract with Deason covers the percentage of the ticket ACS gets while another contract is for administration of the program. I bet all you dumb fucks who support this bullshit thought that this was a County program. Well, assholes, its not. It’s a private program that the County has outsourced to Deason and ACS.

And yesterday the legislature in Annapolis took a big step toward buying Deason that new yacht by allowing the cameras throughout Maryland.

Inbetween all the language and characterizations, the writer gets some budget in there, including how much the cameras are bringing in to the county, and how alleged “effectiveness” may be more related to people figuring out better neighborhoods to go “crash and shop” in, than one where they can get tickets.

As Deason’s legal bills mount and his docking fees go up ,the roadside cameras have proliferated across the country since the first were installed in Arizona two decades ago, according to Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which supports the cameras as long as their makers keep contributing to his Institute. They were installed in the District in 2001 and have reduced incomes dramatically giving out thousands of bogus tickets and reducing commerce in the city as people prefer to stay away rather than get a fraudulent ticket, police said. Virginia has resisted their use because of civil liberties concerns.

It is utter bullshit to say that the county and four municipalities — Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg, Rockville and Takoma Park — operate the cameras in Montgomery. Deason and ACS operate the cameras and the journalist who wrote this garbage ought to be fired. The county pays Deason to rig the largest number, 54 cameras. At seven locations studied, speeds decreased an average of 22 percent while rear end accidents rose 297% after cameras were installed, according to county police.

“We’ve been out there for 80-plus years trying to enforce speed limits the democratic way,” said Capt. John Damskey, head of the county police traffic section. “Speed cameras are an authoritarian technology that is proven to work and effect change, not all for the good mind you, but change nonetheless, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Besides Deason has invited me on his new yacht to party with some of his Dallas high rollers friends and their whores.”

In Chevy Chase, Deason installed cameras on a heavily traveled stretch of Connecticut Avenue, and the number of motorists roaring through the 30 mph zone at 25 to 29 mph fell by 73 percent, officials said. The number of crashes also fell, from 67 in the year before the cameras were installed to 44 in the year after as people went elsewhere to crash and shop. Businesses in the area reported a 68% down turn which the County has attributed to the economy in general not the fear of getting an arbitrary ticket from a camera operated by a documented confidence man….

The village of Chevy Chase cleared $1.6 million after Deason’s cut from Deason’s four speed cameras in 2008, a sum equal to a third of its annual budget while failing to take into account the money largely came from its already existing tax base and Deason got the lion’s share of it.

I couldn’t stand to read more than about a half page of this — but it does give insight into who runs the companies that collect child support:
Deason, and “Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless (2003)
by Rogers, Tim

ACCOUNTS DIFFER AS TO WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED ABOARD THE Cartoush II during its pleasure cruise in the Bahamas in September 2001. Darwin Deason denies that he threatened to kill the chef. Others claim he did. “There certainly was a threat of getting a gun and doing something,” says one person intimately acquainted with the details of the incident. As for the chef, he isn’t saying much.

The 118-foot luxury yacht ostensibly belonged to Deason, founder and chairman of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services, or ACS. Deason himself had overseen a major refit of the boat the year before, which entailed reinforcing the upper deck so that it could support a massive hot tub. Playing host to his friends on the boat, Deason liked to smoke marijuana and drink the unthinkable concoction of Diet Coke and Kahlua out of a large brandy snifter. The passengers on that particular voyage, besides the captain and crew of four, included former Cowboys punter Mike Saxon and his wife Suzanne; Dallasite CarterAbercrombie and his wife Angie; and Deason. He was 61 at the time. Having recently divorced his fourth wife, he was traveling without a companion.

The Cartoush was sailing the waters off the Exuma chain of islands when the trouble started. It was in the early afternoon, and Deason, for one reason or another, flew into a rage. “The guy was definitely having a psychotic episode,” says a source. He began yelling at the chef, Vinny Feola, who locked himself in his quarters. As the standoff dragged on for hours, the ship’s captain, Don Hopkins, worked the satellite phone, frantically trying to reach someone back in Dallas who could mollify Deason. Another source says that Deason pulled Saxon and Abercrombie aside and asked them, “Would you guys be willing to beat the shit out of the chef for me if I asked you to?”

. . .
Eventually Feola was put off the boat at tiny Staniel Cay, about 80 miles southeast of Nassau, where he was stuck for several days because all flights had been grounded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. “I really kind of don’t like to talk about it,” Feola says now. “For whatever reason, I wanted to get off the boat. I have nothing bad to say about anybody, and I never will say anything bad about anybody, because I believe in karma.”

Deason, now worth about $500 million, dismisses the entire incident as little more than a boisterous disagreement. Not every parting of ways ends with hugs and kisses (as any number of former Cartoush crewmembers could tell you, including three who summarily disembarked the day Deason came aboard for that Bahamian cruise). Assuming, then, that every story has two sides and the truth lies somewhere in between, we’re not really talking here about the commission of any crimes-except for the heinous cocktail of Diet Coke and Kahlua. But more on that later.

Rather, the serious matter-the one that may yet hold repercussions for Deason and for the Fortune 500 company still under his sway-isn’t what happened aboard the Cartoush. It turns out to be the Cartoush itself. In papers filed earlier this year in federal court, it is claimed that Deason, as the chairman and controlling stockholder of ACS, set up a complex scheme of off-balance-sheet corporations that, in essence, provided him free use of not only the Cartoush II and its predecessor, but also a squadron of private jets-all at the expense of taxpayers and the companies he controlled. The charges may interest the SEC and the IRS.

…Flip forward a few pages. Deason moves to Dallas and winds up, at age 39, launching Texas’ first ATM network. (Trivia buffs: it was called MPact, and it was late 1979.) From Deason’s 22nd-floor downtown office, the president and CEO of MTech grows his company 600 percent in less than five years, making it the largest bank-data processor in the country.

Which brings us to the three-day retirement. In 1988, with banks failing all over Texas, MTech’s majority owner, MCorp (holding company of once-an-icon Mercantile Bank), begins to slide toward Chapter 11. Reading the tea leaves, Deason puts together a $360 million management buyout of his firm. At the last second, though, Plano-based EDS raises its hand and shouts, “Four hundred and sixty-five million!” MTech is sold to the highest bidder. Deason is furious. He resigns some 90 minutes into his employment with EDS, apparently walking out before anyone can get him to sign a noncompete agreement.  (WELL etc.)

I’ll stop here except to say, this article is worth reading;

“Holly says that the yacht-the Cartoush I-cost approximately $1.3 million and required a crew of five to maintain and operate. The boat never produced any revenue. Holly says Deason used it exclusively for personal pleasure throughout 2000 and into 2001. It was eventually sold at a substantial loss, Deason used up almost $4 million of the credit line extended to DDH-again, according to Holly-toward the purchase of a second yacht, the Cartoush II.

Again: even if true, there would be no earthshaking legal consequences solely from such corporate tomfoolery. Deason’s supposed grandiose living on the DDH expense account would only indirectly impact his own pocketbook and, to a lesser extent, those of his fellow stockholders.

However, Holly’s lawsuit alleges that DDH spent more than $5 million bankrolling Deason’s maritime hedonism, which amount, if it were never reimbursed, should have been recognized by Deason as taxable income in the form of non-cash compensation. At topend income tax rates, the plot outlined by Holly’s counterclaim regarding Deason’s misappropriation of the naval armada may have disguised up to $2 million that he would have had to pay.

“DDH” represents 3 men (Deason Debo, & Holly) who met — and one was a corporate pilot; hence this company DDH.  Described here:

… he (Deason) began assembling what was reportedly the most expensive penthouse in all of Miami, eventually putting $5 million into the unfinished space. “I’ve always wanted a beach house,” Deason told the Miami Herald in 1997. He said his daughter, who was attending the University of Miami, introduced him to South Beach. “I absolutely fell in love with it. … Talk about bodies. You know, on the French Riviera, I always say, eight out of 10 women are topless, and only one should be. On South Beach, eight out of 10 are topless, and eight out of 10 should be.”

Darwin was living large: a man with golf to play on the West Coast, a company and a restaurant to run in Dallas, and 16 out of 20 breasts to appreciate on the East Coast. Enter Robert Holly, a man who knew how to buy and sell planes. The two were introduced by a mutual friend named Dennis Debo, who was a corporate jet pilot.

Together the three men started DDH Aviation, which took its name from their initials. For a time, DDH prospered. But last year, the endeavor began to unravel, DDH sued Holly and about a dozen other domestic and international parties, alleging that Holly was guilty of racketeering. Holly filed his answer to the allegations in March, but he didn’t stop there. He made counterclaims against DDH and brought in other partiesincluding Deason himself. If these claims are successful, they could have dire implications for Deason and his continuing relationship with ACS, the company of his creation.

(While Deason did answer certain personal questions for this article, neither his attorneys nor Holly’s would allow their clients to comment on the record about their respective lawsuits.)

ACS to the Rescue

Although not absolutely clear, it appears highly possible that by July of 2002-during which time Holly insists that DDH had become financially distressed as a result of Deason’s spendthrift ways-ACS may have advanced to DDH as prepayments cash to the tune of $9.5 million without requiring anything in return. A study of the public filings of ACS reveals no precedent for this type of transaction.

What rationale would motivate ACS to extend such terms to another company?

And why would ACS purchase $1 million of prepaid flight services from DDH Aviation when that amount exceeded the prior year’s bill with DDH and when ACS was expecting the imminent delivery of its own very expensive Challenger 600 jet?

WHATEVER Mr. Deason is about, I do believe that getting child support to needy children is not primary…
2007 — this appears to be an insider’s discussion of Darwin Deason’s attempt to take the company private, with his own private equity (?) company, Cereberus Capital Management.  In 2 long, detailed posts called “Is Darwin Deason a Crook?” the writer points out that while Deason held 40% of voting shares, he held only 10% of the actual shares, and that others also needed to consider what was good for the other shareholders (fiduciary duties, in other words).  Apparently he tried to bulldoze through considering alternate options (for going private), and on facing opposition, forced independent directors to resign, on the spot; it also mentions conflict of interest:

“Is Darwin Deason a Crook?”

Posted in the ACS – Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Forum

{{Dated November 2, 2o07 –  NOTE:  THIS WAS AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT THAT ACS WAS PAYING $2.6 +MILLION SETTLEMENT ON FRAUD CHARGES WITH THE US GOV’T FOR OVER-BILLING.}}

Dear Darwin:

From the first day that you and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. made a proposal to acquire ACS, the independent directors have acted appropriately and in a manner designed to safeguard the best interests of the company and all of its shareholders. We immediately began a process designed to consider your offer in a fair and balanced manner and to protect the company’s minority shareholders. Although you control in excess of 40% of the voting power of ACS, you represent less than 10% of the outstanding shares. We must look after the minority shareholders – even if it means you cannot get the deal that is most advantageous to you personally. From the outset, you have attempted to subvert the process in order to prevent superior alternatives to your proposal from being consummated.
On March 20, 2007, when you and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. publicly disclosed your proposal to acquire ACS, we first learned of the Exclusivity Agreement that you had previously entered into with Cerberus. On March 21, 2007, after lengthy discussion, the Board of Directors of ACS, through its lead director, advised you that the Board was concerned with the Exclusivity Agreement between you and Cerberus and requested that the agreement be voided so that the Board would have the ability to deal with all parties (including you and Cerberus) who might be interested in a transaction involving the company. You refused. The Special Committee (which was formed to consider all strategic alternatives available to ACS, including your proposal), after extensive discussions with Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, its independent financial advisor, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, its independent legal advisor, also concluded that, with the Exclusivity Agreement in place, it could not effectively consider all of the company’s strategic alternatives, including a transaction involving a third party other than Cerberus. Also, the Special Committee and its advisors were not comfortable with a “go-shop” here given the terms of your employment agreement, your voting power and the fact that potentially interested parties would be deterred given your partnership with Cerberus.
As a result, the Special Committee insisted that the Exclusivity Agreement be voided. Unfortunately, for almost three months until June 10, 2007, you and Cerberus refused to in any way modify the Exclusivity Agreement in response to the Special Committee’s concerns. Your self-serving conduct had a material adverse impact on the process of considering strategic alternatives, including your own offer.(Several parties who had expressed an interest in a transaction with ACS were not willing to proceed with the Exclusivity Agreement in place.)
As we can see, it looks like Mr. Deason had pre-planned that only his chosen company would get teh offer, through an Exclusivity Agreement (which the rest were not informed of in time) which would per se drive off other potential buyers.  This being shady dealing, they met, sought outside counsel, rejected it, and persisted.  Deason (who did start the company, let’s not forget, in 1988) persisted, and finally:
Your carefully choreographed power play Tuesday evening to coerce the independent directors of ACS into resigning on the spot is consistent with your continuing refusal to understand that the Board’s fiduciary duties are to all shareholders – not just to you. Your ultimatum: resign in one hour or I will go to the press and smear your reputations – was a remarkable piece of bullying and thuggery, and it almost worked. We also find it curious that your counsel in connection with your proposal, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, is now serving as the company’s outside counsel. In this capacity, Cravath, your personal counsel, is taking a lead role in removing the very directors who refused to go along with your proposal. We cannot understand how you and ACS management could become comfortable with this blatant conflict.
IF THAT ISN’T ENOUGH, HERE’S A NICE SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE “ACS” ISSUES —
Charges Plague Affiliated Computer Services (ACS)Allegations against the company founded by Darwin Deason range from bribery to stock option fraud, breach of contract and breaching the identities of millions of people.
Troubling Stories About Affiliated Computer Services, Inc (ACS)
October 2006: ACS announced that personal information on as many as 1.4 million Coloradoans may be in the hands of thieves after someone stole a computer from the company’s Colorado office. The computer contained child support payment information and information on newly hired employees of the Colorado Dept. of Human Services.”
THE “COPS/Bribes” article:

Two high-ranking police officers in Edmonton Canada face charges of accepting bribes from red light camera supplier Affiliated Computer Services (ACS). The charges allege Staff Sgt. Kerry Nisbet, 51, and Detective Thomas Bell, 49 accepted bribes from the Dallas based company to recommend the company’s system for a 20-year photo radar and red light camera contract worth $90 million.he allegations are Bell and Nisbet received unauthorized perks, including free travel, from Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), a red light camera and photo radar firm they touted to city council as the only one able to do the job.

The charges stem from a 19-month Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation. The preliminary hearing which began Tuesday will determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. The Canadian government will call twenty nine witnesses against the officers during the hearing which is estimated to take four weeks.

If convicted, the officers could face maximum sentences of 5 years on each charge of breach of trust and accepting a bribe.

DOUBLE-BILLING IN SANTA MONICA – -one employee discovered it:


Cities may owe millions for vendor collected tickets

Santa Monica will anti up $950,000 for their part

September, 25, 2006

Cities across America may owe millions of dollars for citations their corporate partners double billed.

Towns and cities may be gobbling up millions in fees that are not theirs, because many people were paying the same ticket twice after receiving a second notice mailed before payment was received.

Santa Monica officials have decided to act proactively to refund fees that should never have been collected.

In the past three years, 18,000 people – nearly 80 percent of them from outside Santa Monica — paid nearly $1 million too much to Santa Monica for parking violations, City Manager Lamont Ewell revealed at a special press conference last Wednesday.

He announced the City’s intentions to return the nearly $950,000 accrued over three years to the rightful owners. The city discovered the problem during an internal audit but Ewell said said the problem may apply to other cities across the country.

Identifying people who have paid twice was something neither Santa Monica nor its Dallas-based collection vendor, Affiliated Computer Services, has been doing with accuracy for many years – an oversight that has angered consumer advocates.

California law states that government agencies must identify multiple or duplicate deposits of bail or parking penalties and issue refunds within 30 days of identification.

Doug Heller, executive director the non-profit Foundation for Consumers and Taxpayers’ Rights warned, “This may not just be millions, but tens of millions, owed and may end up being a scandal of much larger proportions.”

Part of the reason for the mismanagement may be the use of a third party vendor, he said.

“The problem with outsourcing government is that they are less tethered to the public,” said Heller.

A complicated and prolonged appeals process and lack of access to human operators may also frustrate any person calling the vendor to contest the double payment, he said.

Despite the criticism, officials from Applied Computer Services, a multi-national Fortune 500 company that operates 100 call centers around the world, said they are only following orders.


MORE on “UNDISTRIBUTABLES:”

States reported an undistributed funds pool of over $734 million at the end of 2004 in collected but undistributed child support payments. Many States have a policy, some state lawmakers find it disturbing, that money collected from parents by the state on behalf of children could instead be spent on prisons, roads or legislative staff.

Unclaimed child-support funds that do go into the state treasury can later be claimed and paid for the intended children, officials point out. But the practice of sending undisbursed money to the treasury after just one year is still a point of outrage for many.

Let us help you find that money. Our databases and resources from numerous jurisdictions and sources will assist you in locating any unclaimed child support payments rightfully due.

FLORIDA, 2009:

Special report

April 20, 2009|By Mary Shanklin, Sentinel Staff Writer

At a time when Florida families increasingly struggle to pay bills, the state is sitting on $28 million in child-support payments that it has not distributed — largely because it [allegedly] can’t find the parents who are owed the money.

Florida’s stockpile of undistributed child-support payments has more than doubled since 2007, partly because federal tax rebates paid to parents who are delinquent on child support have been intercepted by the state. The state’s fund of undistributed child-support money is now so large that it could provide an extra $80 for each of the 347,000 families awaiting back support payments. More than $5 million has been undistributed for five or more years.

When parents are divorced in Florida and a judge orders a parent to pay child support, the state’s Department of Revenue is legally required to collect the support — through garnished wages, credit cards or checks — and distribute it to the parent who has custody. But in Florida, only 54 cents of every dollar of support is collected and distributed the month it is due. The average among states is 60 cents of every dollar, according to the most recent federal measures.

Parents looking for the payments may contact the state only to encounter a department that doesn’t always take a mother’s word when she reports a new address and a bureaucracy that points to computer glitches as a chief reason that it can’t process the payments.

State and federal overseers have continually chided the Department of Revenue for failing to comply with state laws that dictate how undistributed money should be processed. {{OH?  I’d like to see their communications..See below — HHS is barely auditing its own handiwork.}}  In a report released last year, for example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cited the department for “significant delays” in implementing legislation that had been passed five years earlier.

The law called for the state to determine at what point the money simply cannot be distributed. It also outlined steps for dealing with the money: If the parent who made the payment owes support for other children, for example, the money should go to those offspring. The next step is for the undistributed money to be returned to the parent who made the payment, if that person can be located. If there are no other options, it can be divided between the state and federal governments.

The report sounds as though the nice governments, state and federal both, would rather do ANYTHING than split the proceeds.  I don’t buy it… if so, how come with all the budget items on the chopping block, fatherhood promotion,marriage promotion is still going strong, better than courts, schools, police services, etc.

After Silva v. Garcetti we ALL should understand that Counties & States (and in general, goverment) exists to expand itself and likes to hold onto money it already has, even though there’s at least two forcible collection systems around, called the IRS and (parallel in force?) the Child Support System.  Child Support Enforcement activities apparently could range from wage garnishment orders, seizing bank accounts or tax refunds, insurance settlements, or physically siezing noncompliant PEOPLE (via bench warrants for arrest) and throwing them into jail, to be housed, fed ,and supervised at public expense. . . . . . OR almost any activity remotely connected with the word “family” “Marriage” or “Child” –  activities such as abstinence education, Marriage/Fatherhood promotion, parenting classes, or you name it “research and demonstration.”

Here’s a Missouri State Audit on “Undistributed Child Support Collections” covering, I think, 1997 – 2004:

Parents wait for child support payments while state holds money and does not use all available resources to find parents

This audit reviewed why state officials held child support money owed to custodial and non-custodial parents and did not distribute it as soon as possible. As of February 2005, the state was still holding $2.5 million in payments collected over a 7-year-period ending in 2004. This report is the third audit on how well state officials collect and distribute child support. The following highlights the findings of the most recent audit work.

State releases thousands to parents after audit tests

$1.7 million held for missing addresses

State officials released $34,000 in child support due to parents after auditors showed no reason for the state to continue to hold it. Auditors reviewed 106 cases in which the state held child support payments for several reasons including: missing or expired addresses, intercepted tax refunds or payments received before they were due. (See page 5)

Auditors found state officials did not take appropriate actions to release payments on $116,000 held in 40 child support cases. On $14,000, state officials did not use all available resources to find correct addresses for custodial parents before closing the cases. On another $12,000 in open cases, state officials did not search for new custodial parent addresses. And on $7,000, state officials only searched for new addresses for a month before closing the cases. On a number of other cases, errors in case management were made or state officials had searched for new addresses for a while, but then closed the cases with monies still on hold. (See page 10)

This report is an eyeopener — in fact, simply search the term “Undistributable Child Support Collections” and jump in.  It’s a page-turner….  WHY are those funds sitting somewhere accruing interest, while somewhere else, another family went homeless, stayed homeless, or custodial parent sat in some welfare line, welfare office, or in line at a soup kitchen or food bank?  Among other reasons — they simply weren’t TRYING hard enough!

Undistributed Collections Not Always a High Priority:

With the exception of two special projects, the division has not placed a high priority on the assessment and management of undistributed collections. The division also has not implemented federal oversight agency recommendations designed to reduce and manage undistributed collections. Instead, the division has established policy to close cases when possible, and plans to rely on automation to reduce the growth of undistributed collections.

Historically, the division has devoted minimal resources to addressing the problem of undistributed collections. According to the Compliance Deputy Director, after the division converted case records and management activity to the MACSS system in late 1998, the division focused on getting support orders established and providing enforcement services. Undistributed collections were not a priorityuntil the Governor’s Missouri Results  Initiative project in 2001. As part of the project, a division work group devised various reports which are now used in limited undistributed collections work done by central office personnel. Before the project, the division did not generate management reports of held payments for monitoring or tracking, according to the Financial Resolutions Section Assistant Deputy Director.

and,

No sustained efforts to release held funds:

Although the division has conducted two special projects, which resulted in some reduced child support held, no sustained effort to resolve and release undistributed collections has occurred. The division’s Central Locate Unit conducted a special project to find addresses for custodial parents where the state held child support. From August 2001 to April 2003, about five employees worked to manually locate custodial parent addresses. The division did not track the amount of support paid to families during this project, but in fiscal year 2003 the Central Locate Unit located such addresses for an average of 438 families each month. When addresses are located and verified as valid, held child support is paid out. In contrast, held child support paid to families dropped significantly after this special project ended. With usually only one employee assigned to look for new addresses for custodial parents, the Central Locate Unit found addresses for an average of 85 families each month in fiscal year 2004, an 81 percent decrease from fiscal year 2003.

or

Closing Cases Benefits the State:

Division officials told us closing [CHILD SUPPORT] cases to further IV-D services benefits the state because the division does not have to report child support held on closed cases to the federal oversight agency. In other words, closing cases benefits the state for reporting purposes, even though held payments had not been paid to families. In addition, keeping cases open when enforcement is not taking place could adversely impact the amount of federal incentive payments the state receives, according to the Compliance Deputy Director.

HOWEVER, many times they actually do collect money.  Minor problem – it gets diverted, rerouted, or just plain old HELD…to accrue interest, to pay ???, and to incentivize further citizen abuses, either parent and taxpayers.   Child support held long enough can be categorized as “undistributable.”

An example from Tennessee….

This should distress, alarm and cause shocked outrage — to the public, although it took me (even with my “Show me the Money” attitude, and looking at expenditures for some years) someone else’s reference to see these audits at http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/oas/acf_archive.asp

We actually have a right to know what’s politicians (etc.) are doing with our money:

Pursuant to the principles ofthe Freedom of Information Act {{“FOIA”}} ,,55U..S..C..§552,,as amended by Public Law 104-231, OIG reports generally are made available to the public to the extent the Public Law 104-231, OIG reports generally are made available to the public to the extent the information is not subject to exemptions in the Act (45 CFR par 5). Accordingly, this report will be posted on the Internet at http://oig.hhs.gov.

What the “OAS” (Office of Audit Services) does:

Office of Audit Services

The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS.

For example, here’s TENNESSEE:

Audit (A-04-08-03521)

02-09-2009

Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Tennessee From October 1, 1998, Through December 31, 2007

Executive Summary

We found that from October 1998 through December 2007Tennessee did not recognize and report as program income $8.7 million ($5.8 million Federal share) in undistributable child support collections that met the State’s definition of abandoned property. In addition, the State reported incorrect amounts for undistributed collections. Within the Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) oversees the Child Support Enforcement program. OCSE requires States to offset program costs by recognizing and reporting income from undistributable child support collections. Undistributable collections result when States receive child support payments but cannot identify or locate the custodial parents or return the funds to the noncustodial parents.

We recommended that the State report as program income undistributable child support collections totaling $8.7 million ($5.8 million Federal share), ensure future compliance with State laws regarding abandoned property, and correct reporting errors on the next quarterly Federal filing. The State said that it would implement our recommendations.

Where’s the paragraph on “we recommend that the State examine its practices to make sure that in the future child support money collected actually reaches the intended children and their caretakers — after all $8,700,000 represents a lot of meals, rental support, and school backpacks to the children!”

In 2003, the Tennessee Comptroller reported on the (State) Dept of Health and Human Services, including on its TANF, Child Support (including UDC — UnDistributed Collections) and had this to say:– and was reported to the Governor, the “General Assembly” and the Dept of Human Services Commissioner”

This report addresses reportable conditions in internal control and noncompliance issues found at the Department of Human Services during our annual audit of the state’s financial statements and major federal programs. The scope of our audit procedures at the Department of Human Services was limited. During the audit for the year ended June 30, 2003, our work at the Department of Human Services focused on five major federal programs: Food Stamps, State Administrative Matching Grants for Food Stamp Program, Rehabilitation Services-Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Child Support Enforcement. We audited these federally funded programs to determine whether the department complied with certain federal requirements and whether the department had an adequate system of internal control over the programs to ensure compliance. Management’s response is included following each finding.

Our objective was to obtain reasonable assurance about

whether the State of Tennessee’s financial statements were free of material misstatement.

FINDING 1 — it violated HIPPA privacy in 14 out of 224 business agreeements

FINDING 2 — The department did not reconcile the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards or the related federal reports to the state’s grant’s accounting records

This is somewhat similar to balancing one’s own checkbook — and would seem a priority!  Any business has to reconcile accounts sooner or later!   The Department simply didn’t do that!   “

n addition, the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, Subpart C-Post Award Requirements, Sec._20 Standards for Financial Management Systems, require that fiscal control and accounting procedures be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports and the tracing of funds to an adequate level to ensure that they have been used properly.”

FINDING 4

The Department of Human Services did not reduce Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for participants who failed to cooperate with child support requirements. Federal regulations require the state to reduce benefits not less than 25%. Twelve of 28 cases tested (43%) did not have benefits reduced appropriately. This was a finding in the prior two audits.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) administers the TANF program in Tennessee under the name Families First. One of the important features of this program is the requirement that the head of the household must cooperate with child support enforcement efforts. Those recipients who do not cooperate are subject to having their benefits reduced.

Management concurred with the prior audit finding and stated that the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System (TCSES) was not sending an alert to the Automated Client Certification and Eligibility Network of Tennessee (ACCENT) when it was determined that a TANF recipient was not cooperating with child support enforcement efforts….  {{I wonder if TN has a DV exception when this might prove dangerous.  However, there is also a solicitation of establishing child support orders, obviously…..}}

In passing on the pressure to produce child support orders, the STate is protecting its right to TANF funds.  LIke I keep saying, the states are now more and more subject to the Fed. Gov’t mandates, even when they don’t comply properly:    ”

Failure to properly apply the prescribed penalty for non-cooperation is a violation of program requirements and could result in a reduction of federal funding for the TANF program.”

FINDING 5

The department has not completed its reconciliation of undistributed child support collections. At June 30, 2003, the balance of undistributed collections in the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System was $13,690,301; the balance in the State of Tennessee Accounting and Reporting System was $26,068,404; and the balance on the federal quarterly report was $14,278,567.This was a finding in the prior three audits.

Details:

As noted in the three prior audit reports, the amount of undistributed child support collections reported in the Tennessee Child Support Enforcement System (TCSES) does not reconcile to the State of Tennessee Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) or to the related federal Office of Child Support Enforcement quarterly report. At June 30, 2003, the balance of undistributed collections in TCSES was $13,690,301; the balance in STARS was $26,068,404; and the balance on the federal quarterly report was $14,278,567.

TCSES is maintained by the maintenance contractor Accenture. However, due to problems with TCSES and Accenture personnel {??} , data obtained from TCSES have been found to be inaccurate.

Another reason for the lack of a reconciliation is that the contingent revenue account in STARS** that is used to account for undistributed collections also contained interest earnings, administrative fees paid by non-custodial parents, and federal incentive funds. Management concurred with the prior audit finding which was released in May 2003 and stated that the reconciliation between the amount of undistributed child support collections reported in TCSES is now reconciled to the quarterly collection report. The balance in TCSES was agreed to the quarterly report that was due September 30, 2003. Management also stated that they expected to complete the reconciliation of TCSES to STARS during calendar year 2003; however, this reconciliation still has not been completed.

If the department cannot reconcile the state’s accounting records to the applicable federal reports, the state could be required to repay some of the grant funds that it has received.

**STARS = “State of TN Accounting & Reporting System”  SOunds like it was co-mingling different types of fundings.  Note”  Interest earnings”  Note, the concern that they would lose federal grant funds.  If there is so much undistributed, what are those grants being used for, instead?

FINDING 6

Child Support Enforcement program contract terms have not always been followed, resulting in an overpayment exceeding $421,000 to the contractor. The contractor calculated its fee using an estimate of collections instead of using actual collections as required by the agreement. Also, the department did not perform a reconciliation between the amount the contractor was actually paid and the amount the contractor should have been paid.

NOW this gets interesting — and relates to our friend, “Maximus, Inc.”  In short, the state wasn’t doing its job, pretty much, to check up on its own contractor:

Finding

The Department of Human Services did not always pay a Child Support Enforcement program contractor based on actual collections.

So, it’s an old dog that can’t learn new tricks?  Was that an excuse of some sort?  If the contract says, paid on actual collections, then obviously someone needs to verify actual collections in order to pay — at least if payments are to be supported and valid.   Would any parent pay a babysitter that slept through the job and kids showed up without diaper change, not put to bed, or fed — and do this month after month?

The department contracted with Maximus, Incorporated, a for-profit corporation located in McLean, Va., to provide child support enforcement services in Davidson County. The contract states that Maximus, Incorporated, would be paid nine percent of child support collections, which would be reduced or increased by penalties or incentives.

A pressure I’m sure they, like ACS (see this post) would be only too glad to pass on to the customers….

The contract also states that Maximus, Incorporated, would submit a monthly invoice to the department which would, at a minimum, include the amount of child support collections during the period and the total amount due the contractor for the period invoiced. However, the contractor’s monthly billings were based on an estimate of the annual child support collections rather than actual collections. Management was not aware of the fact Maximus, Inc., was being paid based on an estimate until the state auditor brought this to their attention during fieldwork.

What kind of management is that?  Just rubberstamping invoices that come across the desk?

Based on departmental records, Davidson County child support collections during the year ended June 30, 2003, were $46,056,870.57. Nine percent of these collections is $4,145,118.35; however, Maximus, Incorporated, billed and was paid $4,566,690.00. Without regard to adjustments for penalties and incentives, as of December 15, 2003, Maximus, Inc., was apparently overpaid $421,571.65, of which $278,237.41 was federal funds.

Mathematically challenging process (My kids could do it, given the data!):

  • 1.  Verify collections for the month (one would think there’d be a database with the figures, so this would consist of reading an on-line number.  Alternately, someone could tabulate what comes in:  Add up receipts!.
  • 2.  Multiply by 9% (which my kids also know is by “0.09.”  They could probably do this mentally — take 10% (move a decimal), subtract 1% (move a decimal, mental math, no paper needed).
  • 3.  Compare result to Maximus’ invoice BEFORE signing it!

But paid management staff (whoever they were) didn’t or couldn’t……

This contract also states that the Department of Human Services will monitor contractor performance through monthly on-site visits; however, the department was unable to present evidence that on-site visits were performed. If the department does not monitor Maximus, Inc., it is not complying with the terms of the contract, nor has it obtained assurance that the contractor is fulfilling the requirements of the contract.

In other words, the paper (or electronic file) the contract was signed on was just for show….meaningless, really….

Interesting (above) that “Accenture” — an IRISH firm that broke off from Anderson Consulting prior to Enron scandal — is working in Tennessee, and also with the California Pension system (CalPERS), description about state automation problems, here:  Accenture “was in the news for dropping its sponsorship of golfer Tiger Woods, hit by a serial marital infidelity scandal.” Accenture, with headquarters in Ireland, has about 211,000 employees in 53 countries.

Accenture self-description is – as aren’t they all? — All about Supporting Children and Families:

Supporting Better Outcomes for Children and Families

Children in a circle laughing.

Child support enforcement agencies are focusing on practical solutions to help realize critical outcomes for children and families. Now more than ever, these agencies need strategies and technologies that will help maximize program performance.

Accenture brings a full gamut of capabilities, from designing and implementing new systems, to providing training, production support and ongoing maintenance after a system is launched. We also bring deep experience:

  • In the early 1990s, we delivered one of the first child support systems in Texas.
  • Accenture created a child support enforcement Public Service Value framework that targets improved program performance and constituent benefits. As a result of the framework, our child support clients reflect the most improved child support programs in the nation.
  • More than 30 percent of the US population’s child support collections are managed by systems that Accenture built.
  • We have successfully implemented more federally certified child support systems for US states than any other integrator.
  • Our team currently maintains child support applications for California and Michigan—each project collects more than $1 billion in child support annually, and together, represent 4 million cases serving more than 10 million citizens.

 

CONSIDER THE SCOPE OF ELECTRONIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO MANAGE STATEWIDE SYSTEMS LIKE THIS:

(website is from CGI — whoever they are)

Department of Child Support Services

Working in partnership with the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), IBM (prime), Accenture and CGI designed, built and implemented the largest automated statewide child support system in existence today. The (California Child Support Automation System – CCSAS) Child Support Enforcement (CSE) system serves approximately 1.8 million children and families. Within this vast and complex initiative spanning seven years, CGI, in collaboration with DCSS, led the transition of 10,000 users in 58 local agencies***  to the new system. CGI successfully converted county data with a 99.999 percent success rate, led the change management activities with county users, provided on-site user support and ensured little interruption to daily activity. The federal government certified the system, saving the State over $200 million annually in penalties and securing a federal rebate of over $190 million.*** The CCSAS project received the American Society for Public Administration’s 2009 Intergovernmental Cooperation Award from the Sacramento Chapter. What’s more, the new system’s performance indicators will greatly assist California with obtaining additional federal funding for future projects.

Yep, Child Support Enforcement is a major industry — these users weren’t the parents, these were the staff support, including I’m sure attorneys.   10,000 salaries in a broke state.    *** It’s my understanding that California was slow to get this done, and was the largest outsourcer (to private contractors) of any state.  One of the component elements in this system is apparently “Bank of America” — which has made headlines in a $410 million class settlement suit on overcharging its clients.  I tend to wonder if this includes government clients as well.  Their policies “disproportionately targeted low-income clients.”

 

 

 

In 2003, “MAXIMUS” got a 5-year contract for about $7 million to do child support enforcement in Tennessee (alone):

News Release

MAXIMUS Awarded $7.3 Million in Tennessee Child Support Contract
RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–June 11, 2003–The State of Tennessee Department of Human Services has awarded MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS) a five-year, $7.3 million contract to operate a full service child support program in the State’s 25th Judicial District.This new contract in West Tennessee will provide child support services to the counties of Fayette, Hardeman, Lauderdale, McNairy, and Tipton. These services were previously provided by the District Attorney General of the 25th Judicial District. Under this contract, the Company will provide intake case processing, location of non-paying, non-custodial parents, establishment of paternity for children born outside of marriage, and establishment of court ordered child support obligations and court orders to provide medical support. MAXIMUS will also monitor payment compliance, take administrative and judicial action to enforce support compliance, and modify child support orders as necessary.{{SO NICE TO KNOW THAT OUR JUDICIAL COURT SUPPORT ORDERS JUST GOT PRIVATIZED PARTICULARLY WITH THIS COMPANY….}}Over the five-year life span of this contract, MAXIMUS will effect collections of more than $94 million in child support for families in the five counties.”We are dedicated to continuing to provide the highest quality child support services to the families of Tennessee. Our record of success helping families in Tennessee is a testament to our long-term commitment to the children in the State,” Dr. David V. Mastran, CEO of MAXIMUS.There are 31 judicial districts providing child support services to families in Tennessee. Ten of these are operated by private contractors, and the remainder of the districts are operated by government agencies. MAXIMUS currently operates four of the ten privately-operated child support programs in Tennessee. MAXIMUS also operates the statewide customer service center and the statewide new hire reporting system for Tennessee.

Maximus’ site describes:

The project provides full-service child support operations for the 11th Judicial District in Tennessee. MAXIMUS works with a number of community based-organizations dedicated to employment, food, housing, medical, transportation, and legal assistance to help parents provide for themselves and their children.

Here’s an interesting discussion — date, 2009  from “The Commercial Appeal,” Memphis– on how in Shelby County, TN & Memphis, the Juvenile Court LOST the child support enforcement contract to Maximus, Inc.:

On July 1, Juvenile Court’s 40-plus-year reign over child support cases in Shelby County will end.

The coming change is leaving a trail of questions and concerns among county officials, court employees and families who will be affected by the Tennessee Department of Human Services’ decision to end its longstanding contract with the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County.   …

Will custodial parents seeking support payments encounter procedural snags during the transition? Will people paying child support be unreasonably hounded by a private firm, whose main mission is to bring in more money?

How many of Juvenile Court’s 242 workers in the Child Support Division, including 26 attorneys, will be hired by Maximus Inc., the Virginia company that recently won the state contract to provide child support enforcement services in Shelby County?

Why the change?

DHS, dissatisfied with the cost-versus-collection ratio of child support collected by Juvenile Court, decided in January not to renew its child support collection and enforcement contract with Juvenile Court beyond June 30. The state agency instead opened the contract to a competitive bid process.

Maximus, a multifaceted company based in Reston, Va., was selected in mid-February after offering the lowest bid of four entities — including Juvenile Court — that competed for the $11.8 million performance-based contract.

Maximus signed a contract with DHS on Tuesday, sealing the five-year deal.

DHS, which also has performance-based child support enforcement contracts with private companies in Davidson, Knox and Hamilton counties, believes that contracting with a private firm will help the state serve the greatest number of children and families for the lowest cost to Tennessee’s taxpayers.

The maximum amount that Maximus will be paid in the first year of the contract is $11.8 million, if the company meets all performance goals. Juvenile Court’s contract with DHS was for $14.8 million.

It came down to this: Juvenile Court collects $8.29 in child support payments for every $1 it spends on collection efforts. Private contractors collecting in Davidson (Nashville), Knox (Knoxville) and Hamilton (Chattanooga) counties get $13.52 per dollar spent. District attorneys general, whose offices handle the task throughout most of the rest of the state, collect $12.64 per dollar spent, according to DHS.

The D.A. took back child support enforcement from Maximus in a DIFFERENT Contract (guess that 5-year $7 million contract had been completed…):

Last summer, Dist. Atty. Gen. Michael Dunavant of the 25th Judicial District took control of enforcing child support in Tipton, Fayette, Lauderdale, Hardeman and McNairy counties.

The work previously had been handled by Maximus, whose five-year, $7.3 million contract with the Department of Human Services ended on July 1 last year.

In a recent interview, Dunavant said Maximus’ performance levels in his district were unsatisfactory and he felt his office could do a better job.

He said the general perception was that Maximus was lacking in customer service, in getting timely court dates for child support orders, and in working with clients and defendants.

Dunavant’s office has 13,000 to 14,000 active child support cases.

Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County has about 115,000 active cases and receives about 1,200 new cases each month.

Dunavant, the West Tennessee district attorney general who took over enforcement for his judicial district, thought he could do better than Maximus. He’ll find out, at least for the first year, when his fiscal year ends July 30.

The bigger question here for DHS and Maximus is whether the company can squeeze more child support money out of noncustodial parents in a city and county where about 19 percent of the population lives in poverty.   …

And let’s not forget what everybody involved in this says they want — that children get every dime of child support to which they’re entitled.

Jerome Wright is citizens editor for The Commercial Appeal

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/07/verdict-out-on-private-collection/

As Larry Hollander posted, a former private employee of a private child support enforcement agency (in TN) was caught selling private information obtained:

Friday, April 3. 2009

Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested! Selling Confidential Records.

I have to commend WZTV in Nashville Tennessee for bringing this story forward. Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested (Source: Former child support services employee arrested; www.wztv.com; April 02, 2009) That’s right, another child support services employee arrested for allegedly stealing AND selling confidential child support records.

I guess the going rate for stolen names, social security numbers, and what ever else private information is located in these child support enforcement program computer systems are just under a $1.50 per name. But how much damage has really been done, especially since we are dealing with a largely unaccountable group of state, county, and private agencies that are being granted wide-spread access to extremely personal information with very little safeguards implemented?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A Nashville man is facing charges that he tried to sell 1,600 stolen names, Social Security numbers and bank account numbers.
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agents arrested 27-year-old Steven K. Gilmore on Wednesday after he sold the information to an undercover TBI agent for $2,800.

This wasn’t the first time this individual has allegedly sold confidential information from the Child Support Enforcement databases, and certainly not the first story of corruption on the State Child Support Enforcement programs.

Gilmore had access to the information through his former employer, a private company that contracts with the state Department of Human Services to provide child support services.   A federal criminal complaint against Gilmore says the U.S. Secret Service and TBI are investigating Gilmore and that he has sold such information before.

(DNK if this one was Maximus) — but again, here’s this company that paid $30 million in settlement on issues of (as I recall), fraud/embezzlement (etc.) — getting ANOTHER $49 million contract for Tennessee:

Thursday, May 28. 2009

Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal

Your private information may have just gotten more vulnerable in state of Tennessee. In a deal that is qualified as the largest state privatization deal up to this point has been awarded to “Government Health Services Provider Maximus, Inc.” to provide services that the state is paid to provide to its residents under a federally mandated social security program known as Title IV-D. (42 USC 651). The contract details, we are working on, but Maximus, Inc. will be doing the government’s job in locating absent parents, establishing paternity, carrying out support orders and medical support orders, processing interstate cases, and providing customer service. This comes as a surprise because just last month there was a Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested in Tennessee for selling confidential records.

In 2009, they got the largest child support enforcement contract in the nation — $49 million! (so I guess dropping a cool $30 million here and there in lawsuit settlements is no big deal):

May 28, 2009 06:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time

MAXIMUS Awarded $49 Million Child Support Operations Contract in Tennessee

-Largest Child Support Privatization Contract in the U.S.-

RESTON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS), a leading provider of government services, announced today that its Human Services North America Division recently won a new, five-year, $49 million contract to provide full-service child support operations with the Tennessee Department of Human Services for the 30th Judicial District in Shelby County.

The effort is the largest privatization contract for child support enforcement services in the nation. MAXIMUS will provide a broad range of child support enforcement services including location and establishment of paternity, support orders, medical support orders, interstate case processing services, and customer service.

Virginia T. Lodge, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services commented, “Our primary goal continues to be that children of Memphis and Shelby County and throughout our state receive the support to which they are entitled.”

For over thirty years, MAXIMUS has operated full-service and specialized-service child support projects throughout North America, helping child support programs improve operations and maximize their resources. To ensure that all children receive support from both parents, child support enforcement agencies partner with MAXIMUS to locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity and support orders, and enforce support payments to families.

And again here is the disclaimer we are finding at the bottom of articles promoting Maximus:

Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about the Company’s confidence and strategies and the Company’s expectations about revenues, results of operations, profitability, future contracts, market opportunities, market demand or acceptance of the Company’s products are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.These uncertainties could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements and include reliance on government clients; risks associated with government contracting; risks involved in managing government projects; legislative changes and political developments; opposition from government unions; challenges resulting from growth; adverse publicity; and legal, economic, and other risks detailed in Exhibit 99.1 to the Company’s most recent Quarterly Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, found on www.maximus.com.

 Yep…  Here’s how “MotherCluckerBlogger” responded to this news, April 2011 post:

Maximus CEO Richard Montoni puts his two-cents into the article, but only to brag about the fact that by signing this contract with Tennessee, it allows Maximus to “build upon its portfolio”. His statements almost made me lose my lunch, since he mentioned nothing about the importance of collections, and only talked about the building of their portfolio and gaining a “market-leading position” in child support collections. This article proves my point about Maximus and their contracts. They are only in this business to gain contracts. After all, 49 million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to put back into the “market”. This simply proves that Maximus could care less about the collections of child support, once they have that contract, they already have THEIR MONEY. Why would they give a rats behind whether or not some poor single mom, or dad, in a town in Tennessee gets their child support payments?

And (related post on privatization) this person notes that, when the government screws up, people can respond with their VOTES, pointing out that Maximus is close to a monopoly, there:

People who are for privatization within the public sector argue that “privatization” is more efficient at delivering services, or goods, than governments, due to free market competition. Wikipedia defines a “free market” as “a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce taxes, private contracts, and the ownership of property.”  

Those of us who have dealt with Maximus Child Support and their shenanigans can now say that the argument for privatization is absolutely asinine. How can this argument be supported, in the case of Maximus Child Support, when Maximus has practically created a monopoly in obtaining child support contracts? In the case of Maximus, there isn’t any “free market competition”, since they are so aggressive at obtaining these privatization contracts.

TO GO BACK TO THE OIG AUDIT STATEMENT (note timeframe):

We found that from October 1998 through December 2007Tennessee did not recognize and report as program income $8.7 million ($5.8 million Federal share) in undistributable child support collections that met the State’s definition of abandoned property. In addition, the State reported incorrect amounts for undistributed collections…

. . . The State agency did not recognize and report program income for undistributable child support collections primarily because it had not developed and implemented adequate policies and procedures to comply with State and Federal requirements for treatment of undistributable collections. The State agency’s quarterly report was not accurate because the state agency had not  (1) adjusted its recordkeeping and support documentation to account for ACF’s recent

(1) adjusted its recordkeeping and support documentation to account for ACF’s recent modifications to the Form OCSE-34A or (2) properly accounted for child support payments collected on behalf of children in the Statte’s’sFoosstteerrCaarreepprroogrraam..

The State agency appropriately recognized and reported program income for interest earned on child support collections.

The state’s “quarterly report” ???  There a 9 years and one quarter covered in this audit:  9 X 4 = 36 + 1 = 37 quarterly reports, plural!

Also from this report:

Child Support Collections Not Recognized as Abandoned and Not Reported as Program Income:

…From October 1, 1998, through December 31, 2007, the State agency did not recognize and report as program income $8,739,762 ($5,768,243 Federal share) in undistributable child support collections that met the State’s definition of abandoned property, nor did the State agency transfer those funds to the State treasurer as required by State law. Of the $5,768,243 Federal share, $5,742,699 was subject to the Unclaimed Property Act’s 1-year holding period, and the remaining $25,544 was subject to the Unclaimed Property Act’s 5-year holding period.

The State agency did not recognize and report program income for undistributable child support collections primarily because it did not have adequate policies and procedures to comply with State and Federal requirements for treatment of undistributable collections. In addition, the State agency said that it preferred to retain undistributable child support collections beyond the Unclaimed Property Act’s holding period in hopes of identifying the appropriate payee.    {{{NOT TO MENTION IT IS EARNING INTEREST DURING THIS TIME< TO BE SPLIT $2 fed for every $1 state (66%/34%) between federal and state}}}

Undistributed Child Support Collections Not Reported Accurately

The State agency’s Form OCSE-34A and its attachment, the “Itemized Undistributed Collections” (UDC), for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, were inaccurate. On the Form OCSE-34A, five of the nine lines in sections A and B were incorrect. For example, section A, line 1, “Balance Remaining Undistributed From Previous Quarter,” was reported as $10,628,588 but should have been reported as $15,967,079, and section B, line 9b, “Net Undistributed Collections,” was reported as $6,432,235 but should have been reported as $12,685,451. Nineteen of the twenty lines on the UDC were incorrect.

That level of inaccuracy would not graduate one from 8th grade:      $10 MILLION was supposed to be $15 MILLION (i.e., 50% higher) and $6 MILLION was supposed to be $12 MILLION (i.e., roughly 100% higher).

The quarterly report was inaccurate because the State agency had not (1) adjusted its recordkeeping to account for ACF’s recent modifications to the Form OCSE-34A or (2) properly accounted for child support payments that were collected on behalf of children in the State’s Foster Care program.

You mean the entire state of TN’s leadership “forgot” that it was collecting child support for foster care kids?  What’s the interest accrued on the extra approximately $11 million meanwhile?

 

WELL — is that enough information for one day?  Because it gets more and more fascinating — how values from the mid-1900s (and fear of cultural shifts) translated into a major governmental paradigm shift, including increased centralization and outsourcing of government functions it probably shouldn’t be engaged in, anyhow.

 

Add to this the coming of the internet (and lack of privacy), plus computers’ ability to tabulate and categorize unfathomable amounts of information about people — all kinds of people, labeled according to income,ethnicity gender, age, household status (fatherless or not….), religion, fertility, (I kid us not), and (expand ad infinitum) — — is going to naturally support the people management fields.  It also has transformed finances of course.

Understanding more of this has helped me understand our messed-up courts, so that at least I can advise my children what to expect — or more specifically, NOT to expect — from law enforcement, judges, and about anything else promising protection or help in any form.

 

 

Interesting though, isn’t it?

 

Time to look up how Statewide, Centralized “SDU”s Child Support Distribution & Enforcement (all CSE) became subject to Title IV-D/IV-A standard and control

with one comment

WORK-IN-PROCESS:

#1 — Exploring other WordPress themes or domains that could present the information better.  I hate in particular the “quote” function and may indicate begin/end quotes differently this time…. Til then, “mea culpa, mea culpa”

#2 — Compiling a state-by-state set of links to address and explain some of these issues, where the Child Support Enforcement becomes an arm of the Federal Government’s welfare law — and controlled by it.

At the bottom of the last post (published today) I happened to run across Texas Legislation creating the centralized state child support enforcement (bureaucracy) and the language stating that IF ANY COUNTY had a Title IV-D contract going, ANY NEW (CHILD SUPPORT) CASES — AND potentially all EXISTING CASES (unless an obligee specifically declined) COULD BE CONSIDERED TITLE IV-D.

No parent receiving public assistance, that i’m aware of, has any right to decline signing over child support to the local county to collect.  That parent loses a significant right in the process, and probably unaware of the implications.  We are living under the old mythology that these are the good guys, and will go collect child support while you take care of your children and seek more work as a single parent, typically.  Nope….

Here’s a little background on how we got “CENTRALIZED STATE DISTRIBUTION UNITS” for child support, from the Congressional Research Service. It dates back to 1996 welfare reform, and in short, the states either complied, or lost their welfare (TANF) funding block grant.  most didn’t want to, so they complied, automating and computerizing where we work, what we earn, and transfer of wealth (income, at least) between families at the federal level.  Considering how recent the entire computer age is, this is amazingly fast transformation of government and managing the “poor” (real and alleged) through an invasive and pervasive technolgy reporting where people live, work and how much they earn (although the IRS supposedly already has this information ,when people report):

“P.L.” stands for “Public Law”:

P.L. 104-193 requires state Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies to operate
a centralized automated unit for collection and disbursement of payments on two
categories of child support orders
:

(1) those enforced by the CSE agency and

(2) those  issued or modified on or after January 1, 1994, which are not enforced by the state CSE
agency but for which the noncustodial parent’s income is subject to withholding. The
state disbursement unit generally must use automated procedures, electronic processes,
and computer-driven technology to collect and disburse support payments, to keep an
accurate identification of payments, to promptly disburse money to custodial parents or
other states, and to furnish parents with a record of the current status of support
payments. The collection and disbursement unit provisions went into effect on October 
1, 1998; except that states that processed the receipt of child support payments through 
local courts could continue to process those payments through such courts until 
September 30, 1999. All of the jurisdictions with the October 1, 1998 deadline, with the 
exception of California, are now operating state disbursement units. Information is not
yet officially available with regard to states with the October 1, 1999 deadline. (States 
have until December 31, 1999 to notify the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS) as to whether or not they have a centralized disbursement unit.) HHS expects
that California, Nebraska, Ohio and perhaps five or six other states will not meet the
October 1, 1999 deadline. Because of the total loss of CSE funding plus possible loss
of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funding for states that
are not in compliance with the state disbursement unit requirements, Congress has passed
legislation (H.R. 3194) that would impose a lesser alternative penalty for these states. 


On November 18, 1999, the House passed H.R. 3194, an omnibus appropriations bill,
that contains a provision that would lessen the penalty for states that are not in
compliance with the centralized state disbursement unit requirement. On November 19,
1999, the Senate passed H.R. 3194. This bill was signed into law (P.L. 106-113) on
November 29, 1999. This report will not be updated.

GET THIS:

The state disbursement unit must be operated directly by the state CSE agency, by
two or more state CSE agencies in different states under a regional cooperative agreement,
or by a contractor responsible directly to the state CSE agency.

The disbursement unit must disburse  to custodial parents all amounts payable within 2 business days after receiving the money
from the employer. The disbursement unit may retain arrearages in the case of appeals 
until they are resolved. 

Uh-hmmm.  So, if appeals are encouraged, then it holds onto those arrearages (and accrued interest) which it supposedly/theoretically then accounts for (only many states simply don’t and as I showed last post, HHS isn’t exactly monitoring that too closely, or spanking anyone (at all) if they don’t.  What this tells me (now over 10 years later into these systems) is that there must be plenty of wiggle room between federal and state, or the federal would probably be MUCH more concerned about fraud, waste, and improper reporting, right?  I suspect that a lot of funds get “lost” to various parts of the bureaucracy by mutual consent and tacit understanding that not too much is going to happen.  Consider what, by contrast, would happen to states that didn’t bow the knee to Washington if they didn’t computerize, centralize and work closer with the HHS — they would simply lose their welfare funding!

Hmm….

Costs. If the state is incorporating the collection and disbursement unit into its 
statewide automated CSE system, those costs are eligible for 80% federal matching funds. 
After the state’s share of that enhanced funding is reached, the state can receive the regular  66% federal reimbursement for the costs of the state disbursement unit.

66% of the costs are supported by the “feds.”  So, who are we really serving in these matters then?  Are the public servants int he courts most likely to be driven by the best interests of the children, or a state’s need to keep helping its poor get their welfare and prevent local riots, looting, (or mass starvation) if they don’t?

SOCIAL SECURITY LAW –Section 454 [42 U.S.C 654] —   This is just a running start.  The numbers (1) (2) etc. go up to (34) . . . . .

STATE PLAN FOR CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Sec. 454. [42 U.S.C. 654]  A State plan for child and spousal support must

(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State;

(2) provide for financial participation by the State;

(3) provide for the establishment or designation of a single and separate organizational unit, which meets such staffing and organizational requirements as the Secretary {i.e., of HHS} may by regulation prescribe, within the State to administer the plan;

(4) provide that the State will—

(A) provide services relating to the establishment of paternityor the establishment, modification, or enforcement of child support obligations, as appropriate, under the plan with respect to—

(i) each child for whom (I) assistance is provided under the State program funded under part A of this title{{That means, I believe, welfare, i.e. Title IV-A}}, (II) benefits or services for foster care maintenance are provided under the State program funded under part E of this title, (III) medical assistance is provided under the State plan approved under title XIX, or (IV) cooperation is required pursuant to section 6(l)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(l)(1))[136], unless, in accordance with paragraph (29), good cause or other exceptions exist;

(ii) any other child, if an individual applies for such services with respect to the child; and

(i) basically means, any child receiving some kind of state benefits, whether welfare, or in foster care, or on Title XIX medical assistance, or (barring certain exceptions) receiving “food stamps” and (ii) means, anyone else whose parent(s) want in on this….

(B) enforce any support obligation established with respect to—

(i) a child with respect to whom the State provides services under the plan; or

(ii) the custodial parent of such a child;

The State is to enforce the child support obligation regarding the child, and the custodial parent of the child.  (Child & Spousal support, i.e.)

(5) provide that (A) in any case in which support payments are collected for an individual with respect to whom an assignment pursuant to section 408(a)(3) is effective, such payments shall be made to the State for distribution pursuant to section 457 and shall not be paid directly to the family, and the individual will be notified on a monthly basis (or on a quarterly basis for so long as the Secretary determines with respect to a State that requiring such notice on a monthly basis would impose an unreasonable administrative burden) of the amount of the support payments collected, and (B) in any case in which support payments are collected for an individual pursuant to the assignment made under section 1912, such payments shall be made to the State for distribution pursuant to section 1912, except that this clause shall not apply to such payments for any month after the month in which the individual ceases to be eligible for medical assistance;

Section 408(a)(3) means — if the state helps you with (cash aid or food stamps, possibly medical costs?) — you MUST assign child support collection rights to the state.  They don’t want to help you if the father or other parent is already paying you — you might be a crook,, lying, or defrauding the government, right?  So, to protect this system — the first thing a person receiving FOOD to keep (her) kids fed after, say, leaving a bad situation — or having an absent father or not establishing a financial relationship with the father of the parent if, for example, that wouldn’t be wise — is to give up some rights.  Give it up — Big Brother will go after the child support (or not, or compromise it, or  . . .. etc.) but you don’t get to both collect child support (however small) AND receive food stamp aid.  Here’s the section it links to:

(3)[50] No assistance for families not assigning certain support rights to the state.—A State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall require, as a condition of paying assistance to a family under the State program funded under this part, that a member of the family assign to the State any right the family member may have (on behalf of the family member or of any other person for whom the family member has applied for or is receiving such assistance) to support from any other person, not exceeding the total amount of assistance so paid to the family, which accrues during the period that the family receives assistance under the program.

In practice, I think that these cases continue to be called “Title IV-D” long after any family may be no longer receiving state assistance.  Perhaps some families don’t know to in writing terminate the status…..

There is an exception if a person has been battered — but the state must limit this to no more than 20% of the people seeking such TANF help, even if (as has been reported elsewhere) up to 45% of the families would meet this criteria — as physical and economic abuse often go together where there is cohabitation/marriage.  There is a Hardship Exemption for assigning rights to the states so it can go after the fathers (or mothers, but this is aimed at fathers;  see “paternity” clauses):

(7) No assistance for more than 5 years. {“(whether or not consecutive)”}—  (A), (B),
(C) Hardship exception.—

(i) In general.—The State may exempt a family from the application of subparagraph (A) by reason of hardship or if the family includes an individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.

(ii) Limitation.—The average monthly number of families with respect to which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the average monthly number of families to which assistance is provided under the State program funded under this part during the fiscal year or the immediately preceding fiscal year (but not both), as the State may elect.

There are quota limits on being subjected to extreme cruelty or battering.  Make sure one does not apply for help when the previous year, too many others did, relative to the entire welfare population….

(iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.—For purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been subjected to—

(I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result in, physical injury to the individual;

(II) sexual abuse;

(III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;

(IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent child to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities;

(V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;

(VI) mental abuse; or

(VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.

This gets kind of interesting — but it represents the nationwide centralization of child support units to a SINGLE state distribution agency, the establishment of incentive payments to the states (I don’t know the previous arrangement, but this one apparently began at 80% for states complying wholesale (i.e., states that actually wanted to continue having the U.S. Government continue to pay welfare & medicaid help to their populations, which is basically ALL states, from what i can tell) — and then was reducted to approximately 66% of costs.  When you have a Federal 66% and State 34% relationship (to costs), this means in a local state anyone whose child support order really comes under these programs (i.e., wage assignments or welfare is at all involved, or people who get innocently sucked into the concept that the Child SUpport Enforcement apparatus exists primarily for — Child SUpport Enforcement) — is going to be REALLY dealing with FEDERAL policies (at the rate of $2 to every $1 state — right? (See %s).  . . ..

I was shocked to discover this initially.  I got to a COUNTY level superior court, learn its rules, learn my state codes.  But I was unaware — entirely unaware — that the FEDERAL policy and take on anyone asking for a little help immediately after a very abusive relationship — OR anyone walking into a local child support agency for enforcement help, rather than hiring a private attorney instead — is going to basically be dealing with the welfare-based system run at the HHS level.

And this level has been re-tooled to accommodate fatherhood and blames abuse poverty, and basically all social “sin” (cf.  “Eve” in the Bible)  on the lack of a biological father in the family home!  In order to function at a local level, one has to become HHS-wise.  How many hours are available in the average single parent’s home who has a divorce and is trying to provide the best things possible (according to whatever budget) for her kids, hopefully entrance to a college education and/or a solvent, safe future?

Here’s another factoid, oir rather 3 of them (22- 25) from this US Code Section 454:

(22) in order for the State to be eligible to receive any incentive payments under section 458, *** provide that, if one or more political subdivisions of the State participate in the costs of carrying out activities under the State plan during any period, each such subdivision shall be entitled to receive an appropriate share (as determined by the State) of any such incentive payments made to the State for such period, taking into account the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities carried out under the State plan by such political subdivision;

The State cannot be mean and hog or hoard all the incentive payments, but actually distribute them to the various (counties) (“political subdivisions”) which go along with the plan, here.   However if the State determines (or feels) that these have not been GOOD boys and girls (counties) as ot child support enforcement and etc. practices, it may choose NOT to pass on the incentive payments.  Hmmm…

(***More on Section 458, below (after #25) — it’s relevant we might as well go over the material now)>

(23) provide that the State will regularly and frequently publicize, through public service announcements, the availability of child support enforcement services under the plan and otherwise, {{and otherwise??}} including information as to any application fees for such services and a telephone number or postal address at which further information may be obtained and will publicize the availability and encourage the use of procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child support by means the State deems appropriate;

Basically, the Federal Government has become the controlling interest at the Superior Court level when it comes to child support, and is going to solicit more business for itself in this manner.  As the Federal Government is to be “of, by and for the people” (yeah, sure) I find this odd that the people are coming increasingly under distant control of their daily lives….       I have seen plenty of this advertising over the years –and it is definitely (in our area at least) aimed at NONcustodial parents, which I found interesting.    Alternately, the states could just say goodbye to welfare assistance….

(24) provide that the State will have in effect an automated data processing and information retrieval system—

(A) by October 1, 1997, which meets all requirements of this part which were enacted on or before the date of enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988,

(B) by October 1, 2000, which meets all requirements of this part enacted on or before the date of the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996[142], except that such deadline shall be extended by 1 day for each day (if any) by which the Secretary fails to meet the deadline imposed by section 344(a)(3) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996;

(25) provide that if a family with respect to which services are provided under the plan ceases to receive assistance under the State program funded under part A, the State shall provide appropriate notice to the family and continue to provide such services, subject to the same conditions and on the same basis as in the case of other individuals to whom services are furnished under the plan, except that an application or other request to continue services shall not be required of such a family and paragraph (6)(B) {which relates to fees….} shall not apply to the family

I know this is a lot to handle (it is for me too, incidentally)…..

INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES (SECTION 458 — see (22), just above, which refers to this)

(SIT DOWN, this one takes a little computation..and has some new jargon:..)

Sec. 458. [42 U.S.C. 658a](a) In General.—In addition to any other payment under this part, the Secretary {{of HHS, who else?}} shall, subject to subsection (f), make an incentive payment to each State for each fiscal year in an amount determined under subsection (b).

(b) Amount of Incentive Payment.—

(1) In general.—The incentive payment for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the fiscal year.

INCENTIVE PAYMENT (IP, let me call it “IP$” which it represents) = Incentive Payment Pool, as legislated into $$ figures, below,  for that fiscal year (IPP — meaning the NATIONWIDE Pool) X Incentive Payment Share (IPS, or basically %).  The states are thereby competing with each other for some water from this pool...

IP$ = IPP for the USA X Your State’s IP%.

(2) Incentive payment pool.—  (What I called “IPP”)

(A) In general.—In paragraph (1), the term “incentive payment pool” means

(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;   FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO MILLION

(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;   FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE MILLION = +7

(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;  FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY MILION = +21 (3-fold increase, i.e. 7X3)

(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;   FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE MILLION + 11 million (less of an increase)

(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;     FOUR HUNRED FIFTY-FOUR MILLION (a decrease… huh…)   – 7 million

(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;   FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-SIX MILLION  (another decrease) – 8 million

(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;   FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION (an unexplained increase) +12 million.  You tell me why — I’m clueless what’s so special about the year 2006…..

(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;  FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE MILLION (highest yet)  + 13 million

(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and  FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-THREE MILLION (ditto).    + only 12 million again.

(x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the second preceding fiscal year.

OK, about here, my attention (or desire to figure this out) just flagged.  After all, it’s government prophetic economics 102.

(B) CPI.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term “Consumer Price Index” means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.

(3) State incentive payment share.—In paragraph (1), the term “State incentive payment share” means, with respect to a fiscal year—

(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the fiscal year; divided by

(B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year.

BASE AMOUNTs per state lead to a series of charts for determining how good the SDU has been, or rather, the States have been, with these federally-set goals from Social Security Administration law:

What is an “INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT”?  Basically, another thing that TITLE IV-D & IV-A are going to judge the State by, kind of reminds me of elementary school….

(4) Incentive base amount.—In paragraph (3), the term “incentive base amount” means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State performance for the fiscal year:

(A) The paternity establishment performance level.

(B) The support order performance level.

(C) The current payment performance level.

(D) The arrearage payment performance level.

(E) The cost–effectiveness performance level.

IN SHORT, these are things that the Federal Government, in administering welfare and regulating Child Support (as part of PRWORA, aimed at eliminating welfare) has determined IT cares about.

While a decent parent cares about how their children are doing, including do they get to eat, attend decent schools, have reasonably healthy values — and violence towards other human beings or attempt to control micro-manage one’s partner as if one’s partner were an infant, or incompetent, or simply a bad person is definitely NOT a healthy value — this bureaucracy obviously mistrusts the common man, and the States, in particular anyone receiving state assistance (although a serious attempt is made here to make ALL child support cases in to welfare-style cases) — so IT is concerned about A, B, C, D, & E, above.

I’m NOT quite sure I understand this right, but it seems to me that of the total cases approved under this plan (regardless of the year?) the “applicable percentage” (that could increase or decrease $$ to your individual STate), the MORE CHILD SUPPORT CASES OPEN THIS YEAR< THE MORE INCENTIVE PAYMENT TO THE STATES: THERE IS AN INCENTIVE TO ESTABLISH CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS – UNDER THIS WELFARE-BASED SYSTEM:

(B) Establishment of child support orders.—

(i) Determination of support order performance level.—The support order performance level for a State for a fiscal year is the percentage of the total number of cases under the State plan approved under this part in which there is a support order during the fiscal year.

(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.—The applicable percentage with respect to a State’s support order performance level is as follows:

If the support order performance level is: The applicable percentage is:
At least: But less than:
80% 100
79% 80% 98
78% 79% 96
77% 78% 94
76% 77% 92
75% 76% 90
74% 75% 88
73% 74% 86
72% 73% 84
71% 72% 82
70% 71% 80
69% 70% 79
68% 69% 78
67% 68% 77
66% 67% 76
65% 66% 75
64% 65% 74
63% 64% 73
62% 63% 72
61% 62% 71
60% 61% 70
59% 60% 69
58% 59% 68
57% 58% 67
56% 57% 66
55% 56% 65
54% 55% 64
53% 54% 63
52% 53% 62
51% 52% 61
50% 51% 60
0% 50% 0.

LOOK AT THIS INCENTIVE CHARTS (THERE ARE OTHERS, I JUST PICKED TWO): —

INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO ARTIFICIALLY TINKER WITH (I.E. “COMPROMISE OR REDUCE”) ARREARAGES

(D) Collections on child support arrearages.—

(i) Determination of arrearage payment performance level.—The arrearage payment performance level for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the total number of cases under the State plan approved under this part in which payments of past–due child support were received during the fiscal year and part or all of the payments were distributed to the family to whom the past–due child support was owed (or, if all past–due child support owed to the family was, at the time of receipt, subject to an assignment to the State, part or all of the payments were retained by the State) divided by the total number of cases under the State plan in which there is past–due child support, expressed as a percentage.

(ii) Determination of applicable percentage.—The applicable percentage with respect to a State’s arrearage payment performance level is as follows:

If the support order performance level is: The applicable percentage is:
At least: But less than:
80% 100
79% 80% 98
78% 79% 96
77% 78% 94
76% 77% 92
75% 76% 90
74% 75% 88
73% 74% 86
72% 73% 84
71% 72% 82
70% 71% 80
69% 70% 79
68% 69% 78
67% 68% 77
66% 67% 76
65% 66% 75
64% 65% 74
63% 64% 73
62% 63% 72
61% 62% 71
60% 61% 70
59% 60% 69
58% 59% 68
57% 58% 67
56% 57% 66
55% 56% 65
54% 55% 64
53% 54% 63
52% 53% 62
51% 52% 61
50% 51% 60
49% 50% 59
48% 49% 58
47% 48% 57
46% 47% 56
45% 46% 55
44% 45% 54
43% 44% 53
42% 43% 52
41% 42% 51
40% 41% 50
0% 40% 0.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the arrearage payment performance level of a State for a fiscal year is less than 40 percent but exceeds by at least 5 percentage points the arrearage payment performance level of the State for the immediately preceding fiscal year, then the applicable percentage with respect to the State’s arrearage payment performance level is 50 percent.

HOW THIS CAN WORK IN PRACTICE:   A little birdie (i.e., acquaintance) told me of a case where the visitation was 60/40 one parent to the other (not too bad an arrangement right?) with the mother being custodial 60% and receiving some child support payments, not too much I gather.  The case was then switched — 100% custody to the father, his child support case closed (he’s 100% custodial now, right) and a NEW ONE opened where she pays.

This increases that state’s % favorably — they just established a “new” child support order.  I’m sure it wasn’t an isolated case.

Or, if an arrears is exceptionally high AND a custody switch AND compromise of arrears (which maybe were unreasonably high to start with) can be made — that’s a double-delight:  new child support case, and greater % of arrears paid, right? (of course the AMOUNT of arrears was lowered to up the %, but hey … it’s all in how one allocates it on the books)….

Imagine who this might (and trust me — does!) play out with a totally naive parent, who doesn’t know about the incentive payment system factor, and actually hopes that the Child SupportEnforcement system is focused on the children — and not gyrating to the frequency of these parameters –she (most likely) will have probablyo adjusted lifestyle as possible to accommodate an existing child support order, whether or not it’s being complied with — and suddenly (in the middle of a school year, a rental lease period, or any carefully balanced arrangement of her work schedule, children’s school and or after school activities, living situation, transportation, etc. — that takes a lot of planning and juggling — and suddenly the “system” determines it’s better to switch custody, bill her for child support (after she loses in court, probably running into some of the access-visitation enabled personnel) – and the children, and associated others, are exposed to this chaos — while they go into court and Mom is insulted for protesting, i.e., being a “high-conflict” family per AFCC standards.

Just even not knowing the various elements at play make it a Russian Roulette situation..

And, to cap it all off — the HHS is apparently not paying very close attention to what states are doing with their advances, or their undistributable collections, anyhow.  Do we really want the entire nations’ workforce on this child support grid? (consider the “New Hire” information — any employer just might happen to be hiring a deadbeat parent, so they must report ALL new hires not just as part of their Tax filings, but also to the state Distribution Unit — although this unit is almost totally ineffective at the underground economy which received a major boost, I’m sure, resulting directly from its oppressive presence!)

END OF SECTION ON “INCENTIVE PAYMENTS”, below here is miscellaneous commentary on the SDU _- Statewide Distribution Unit — overall.

The state wants to continue as if the family is Title IV-A (receiving assistance) when in fact, it is not.  Title IV-D (this act, basically) cases are flagged and handled differently IN THE COURTS — specifically BECAUSE so many other related court programs (and their funding) can be called into play, making the landscape a virtual set of land mines and hidden trenches…

CHILD SUPPORT in most states is now centrally disbursed.  As California’s website affirms:

Today child support payments are collected and processed by a single entity – the California State Disbursement Unit (SDU). Required by federal law, the SDU processes 100% of child support payments that used to be handled at the Local Child Support Agencies.

Alongside this SDU site sometimes is helpfully posted how to get one’s child support arrears “compromised” _- which I wish I’d known about a few years ago; this one is from El Dorado County, CA.   Shouldn’t the primary caretaking parent (where there is one) be informed of this at the local facilitator’s office, where I guarantee some of them are found from time to time seeking help of one sort or another surrounding custody matters?

Compromise of Arrears Program

If you owe child support arrears to the state, you may qualify for the Compromise of Arrears Program. In order to be eligible for this program you must meet the following criteria:

  • You must complete the necessary application forms.
  • You do not have the ability to pay all the child support arrears and interest you owe within the next three years ** without a compromise.
  • You have the ability to pay a reduced arrears amount, plus any support and arrears owed to the custodial party within three years.
  • If you owe current child support, you must pay the current support.
  • You have not been convicted, nor had a contempt finding for failure to pay child support in the last six months.
Consider:  Any TANF cases would have to prosecute (file a contempt order) themselves, if the local agency simply declines to do this, which it frequently does…. How many people legitimately on TANF can afford private attorneys to prosecute child support contempts, or know how to do it themselves, including ferreting out income, filing subpoenas, showing up in court in one piece, etc.?
  • You must owe the government {{note:  not the other parent…}}  at least $501.00 in child support arrears. (which is almost nothing!)
  • You have not stopped paying child support in anticipation of this program.
  • You do not conceal or misrepresent your income and/or assets.
    You have not had an agreement denied in the last year.
  • You have not had an agreement rescinded in the last two years.

State Compromise of Arrears Program

I’m not sure this is current — and just posting it as a “clue” – it appears to predate the Y2K scare, but indeed, 2000 was the year in California the system began to switch from the District Attorney’s offices (for enforcement) to a separate agency.   I’ll just bold interesting terms:

CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE:

10080. (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(1) The failure of the Statewide Automated Child Support System (SACSS) has left California without a statewide automated child support system as required by federal law and subjects the state to  significant federal penalties. 

The federal stick…..

(2) Statewide uniformity of child support enforcement practices and procedures is essential to an effective child support enforcement
program.

Probably true, at least to be fair — face it, divorcing separating parents don’t always hang around in the same counties, for good reasons…
(3) A single statewide automated child support system promotes uniformity and supports a child support collection system that keeps
children out of poverty and reduces welfare costs. Successful implementation of a single statewide child support system is critical
to the welfare of California and its children.

{{Seeing as some District Attorneys have been caught cheating parents of collected funds already……}}
(4) The federal government has informed the state that the proposed consortia-based alternative system configuration submitted
by the state for approval does not meet the criteria required by federal law.

(5) The federal government has informed the state that it intendsto disapprove the state’s child support (Title IV-D) plan because the
state has  failed to timely implement a State Disbursement Unit as required by federal law. Disapproval of the state IV-D plan may
result in the state’s ineligibility for a federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant under Title IV-A of
the Social Security Act jeopardizing the receipt of billions of dollars of federal funds.

I THINK IT”S PRETTY CLEAR WHO’S HOLDING THE TRUMP CARD IN THIS SITUATION . . .. AND IT”S NOT CALIFORNIA….

(b) It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature to:
(1) Establish a single statewide automated child support system
that complies with all federal certification requirements, federal
and state laws and policies, meets Year 2000 requirements, and
ensures child support collections will continue to increase.
(2) Ensure that all counties will have an automation system that
will allow them to continue their child support services while a
single statewide automated child support system is developed and
implemented.
(3) Designate the Franchise Tax Board, as an agent for the
department, as the entity responsible for the procurement,
development, implementation, and maintenance of the single statewide
automated system in accordance with the state’s child support (Title
IV-D) plan.
(4) Ensure that the single statewide automated system project will
be completed successfully and in the most expeditious manner
possible through the cooperation of all affected state agencies.

(5) Ensure county participation and compliance with the single
statewide automated system by providing for the sharing of federal
penalties.

{{i.e., “Pass It On” applies to the federal-to-state pressure….}}
(6) Avoid the repetition of the practices that led to the failure of the SACSS system and to require the department to ensure that
procedures are in place to prevent the repetition of those practices.

AND SO FORTH . . . .

Found some notes in North Dakota, 1998, that showed a nonprofit called “R-KIDS” (Fargo Chapter of MN-based nonprofit) was in hearings about child support switching to the SDU model:

http://www.rkids.org/TITLE_IV-D___Child_Suppo.html

  • R-KIDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating law makers, family law professionals and the public with regard to family law and social services and their effects on children, families, and the consequences to the taxpayer.
  • Our main concern is for our community of children of divorced, separated, or unwed families. We believe that children need, want and deserve the love, support and involvement of both parents regardless of marital status.
  • Founded in 1985, our membership is comprised of both moms and dads, custodial and non-custodial parents, grandparents, stepparents, and professionals such as social workers, doctors, attorneys, and family law practitioners.
  • It is the objective of R-KIDS to develop equitable family law legislation in an effort to improve the lives of all Minnesota children.

“ALL CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS AND ALL GRANDPARENTS IN THEIR LIVES”

  • Unless those affected by the current family law system voice an opinion and demand positive change, we and our children will continue to suffer. This change will not occur without your help! Legislators and family law professionals need to hear from; parents, grandparents, and constituents. Until they do, things will not change.
This definitely sounds like a fathers-oriented group, although it’s incorporating grandparents:

R-KIDS Issues and Concerns

  1. The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.**
  2. The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
  3. Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.**
  4. Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
  5. The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
  6. Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well. **
  7. The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
  8. Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
  9. Accountability for the use of child support.
  10. The impact of the no-fault divorce system on families with children and the need for effective education for parents considering marriage, separation, or divorce.

**That’s not particularly true when the cause of the divorce was child abuse or domestic violence, or habitual drug use, or any other criminal behavior!  I don’t know this group, but here they are, participating in a hearing (long ago) about the centralized child support system. The second families comment is typical of a remarried father’s concern…. as is use of child support; I know plenty of mothers paying child support, and not one has indicated a concern about the usage, even through the relationship had prior abuse issues.  Guess the abuse is more of a concern….

We can see from this site that 3 representatives from R-KIDS (which is based on MN, but has a ND chapter, or did in 1998) are in on the Legislative meeting from North Dakota on implementing the statewide distribution system:

NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Minutes of the CHILD SUPPORT COMMITTEE

Monday, June 22, 1998
Roughrider Room, State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota

Representative Eliot Glassheim, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Members present: Representatives Eliot Glassheim, Wesley R. Belter, William R. Devlin, April Fairfield, George Keiser, Amy N. Kliniske, Sally Sandvig; Senators Dwight C. Cook, Joel C. Heitkamp, Donna L. Nalewaja, John T. Traynor

Members absent: Representatives Linda Christenson, Dale L. Henegar, Jim Torgerson

Others present: Daniel Biesheuvel, R-KIDS, Bismarck
Bill Kerzmann, Bismarck
Arnie Fleck, Wheeler Wolf Law Firm, Bismarck
Susan Beehler, R-KIDS, Mandan
Bonnie Palecek, Bismarck
Sherry Moore, Bismarck
Bill Strate, Department of Human Services, Bismarck
Philip Papineau, R-KIDS, Fargo

. . . STUDY OF THE PROVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Chairman Glassheim called on Mr. Bill Strate, Director, Child Support Enforcement, Department of Human Services, for comments regarding the status of the implementation of the child support state disbursement unit and the proposed content of child support annual summaries.

Mr. Strate said in order to take full advantage of economies of scale and to ensure a timely turnaround of payments, automation is the key to child support. He said conversion of IV-D child support cases to the fully automated child support enforcement system (FACSES) has been under way since January 1998 and is over 90 percent complete. The child support distribution changes and the design and planning necessary for implementation of the state disbursement unit, he said, have been under way since 1997 and are projected to be completed and tested by late summer 1998, at which time the conversion from the clerks of court to the state disbursement unit can begin.

It sounds like they were asking some intelligent question.  I am wondering where was anyone involved in women’s issues or mother’s issues at this meeting: surely the group has some DV outfits, right?

Mr. Strate said the annual report an obligee receives from the state disbursement unit will differ from the annual report an obligor receives. He said a child support obligee will receive a monthly report anytime a child support payment is retained by the state. This report, he said, will provide a breakdown of collections for the month and show how the collections were distributed, and this report will serve as the basis for the annual report each obligee will receive.

Mr. Strate said child support obligors who are not under income withholding will receive a monthly billing statement. He said the information from this statement will serve as a basis for the annual report each obligor will receive.

In response to a question from Senator Traynor, Mr. Strate said new hire reporting went into effect October 1, 1997. He said although specific statistics are not yet available regarding the effectiveness of the employer new hire reporting, child support enforcement collections indicate a 17 percent increase since the new hire requirements went into effect. Employers have been very cooperative, and new hire reporting outreach is being performed, he said, in the form of fliers included in state agency mailings to employers. He said approximately 55 percent of the employers report via facsimile, 20 percent via on-line communication, and 25 percent via the United States mail. Mr. Strate said he is not certain whether federal money will be available for future maintenance of the state disbursement unit system.

In response to questions from Senator Nalewaja, Mr. Strate said child support collection from obligors who are self-employed or underemployed raises unique problems that are difficult to address

It seems obvious that SOME parents divorcing or separating my fun businesses, or function as contractors; it’s a no-brainer if someone intends to dodge paying support, to avoid situations where one’s wages might be garnished.  Funny how these situations seem so “exceptional” (to this date)…..As they were also switching from one model to another of ASSESSING child support (I don’t fully understand these differences, but they are income shares model vs. obligor model.”  Note that the system was not prepared to accommodate this, either:

Chairman Glassheim called on Mr. Strate for comments regarding the costs associated with changing to an income shares child support guidelines model. Mr. Strate reviewed the written testimony he provided to the committee on February 10, 1998, and said the cost to the child support enforcement program of a change to an income shares model would be between $168,750 and $187,500 per year. He said the majority of this amount would be incurred by the counties due to an increase in the work associated with establishing and reviewing orders. He said it is difficult to estimate the cost upon the judiciary and private litigants, although the short-term impact would likely be significant because the transition would result in an increase in child support litigation because one party would perceive an advantage under the new model. Mr. Strate provided written testimony, a copy of which is on file in the Legislative Council office.

In response to a question from Representative Belter, Mr. Strate said only one case comparison was prepared for this meeting; however, at previous meetings multiple hypotheticals were presented using the Utah child support guidelines which illustrate a variety of income situations.

In response to a question from Senator Heitkamp, Mr. Strate said both the obligor model and the income shares model may have problems in dealing equitably with exceptional cases.  (ETC.)

Here’s a PDF from “FIRSTDATA.com” (who is one of the coordinators of the SDU apparently) describing the situation:

THE CHALLENGE

In August 1996, the federal Personal responsibility and Work opportunity reconciliation Act (PrWorA) was signed into law. the sweeping legislation included a mandate that each state was to create a centralized location to process all child support payments by october 1, 1998.

By 2004, California had yet to meet PrWorA’s requirement for centralized payment processing, nor had it met the Family support Act of 1988 requirement for a statewide case management system. As a result, the state had accumulated nearly $1 billion in federal fines. California needed to come into compliance—quickly.

That’s my California, the “Golden State.” ……

THE SOLUTION

When California selected Bank of America to head up its compliance initiative, First Data was brought in as a primary project partner. in this role, First Data helped to build and manage the California state Disbursement unit (CA sDu), a key component of the California Child support Automated system (CCsAs) implemented by the Department of Child support services. the solution was to be comprehensive. unlike some other states, California chose to outsource nearly every component of the child support payment process. CA sDu became part of the largest state IT outsourcing project in the history of California. And from collections, suspense, reconciliation, disbursements and reporting to the call center, interactive Voice response (iVr) system, Web site and client outreach, First Data helped create and manage every component of CA sDu.

HEre’s another California’s county’s description of how various  Child Support Cases are covered under the “SDU” system:

PAYMENTS ARE CREDITED AS OF THE DATE THE PAYMENT IS RECEIVED AT THE SDU. If the payment is not received by the SDU by the last day of the month, interest will accrue on the unpaid balance. ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE SDU.

The centralization of payment processing offers direct deposit of disbursements from the SDU and electronic transfer of payments to the SDU. The SDU has an electronic help desk to provide assistance to custodial parties, non-custodial parents, employers and other states using electronic processes to make or receive payments. For more information about electronic transfer of payments, please contact the SDU Electronic Help Desk at 1-866-325-1010 or visit the SDU website.

All child support payments must be sent to and disbursed by the SDU. This includes ALL payments currently paid by wage assignment and sent by employers directly to custodial parties (known as NON-IV-D cases, these are cases which are NOT currently open in a local child support office). Payments received by the SDU will be allocated between all of a non-custodial parent’s obligations, which will include IV-D cases (cases open in a local child support office) as well as non-IV-D child support cases.

Any such monopoly resents competition from parents who can work out their own difficulties….

Employers who may have wanted to send direct to custodial parents (not that I’d think many would wish the burden) aren’t allowed to do so anyhow.  This unit is invading their territory as well and affecting, possibly, how disgruntled a particular employee (father) may be in the workplace too.  I imagine it may have some workplace safety side-effects….

So — the key is “wage assignment.”  If child support is paid VOLUNTARILY and ON TIME by the father (or mother) and has not required force/enforcement through wage garnishment, then this incentivized system (I believe) can be avoided.   If not, then

The SDU allocates child support payments to all of a non-custodial parent’s cases. If a non-custodial parent has more than one child support case, any payment received may be divided among all the cases. How the payment is allocated between the cases depends on many things, such as whether or not the payment is for current support or for past-due child support, the amount of child support owed, the payment source, and the amount of the payment.

How sweet.  If your baby’s Dad has participated in “Multiple-partner fertility activities” — the state will prioritize her/their children’s well-being with yours by some formula probably only known to them.

I actually had some money disappear “electronically” — the father sent in the full amount.  The CS agency said that, in a previous month (without my knowledge) it had wrongfully allocated part of someone else’s to me? However, when I came into the office about this, I was told (in their jargon) that the system had to corrects its own virtual/electronic/allocation error by taking REAL money the REAL father REALLY submitted to pay child support our REAL kids — and not much I could do about it, without a tape recorder on in the office.  And if I’d had that tape recorder on, I probably wouldn’t have learned that much. …..  The person I spoke to and I seemed to comprehend that both of us were, indeed, speaking different languages — however as her office had the money, that language prevailed, not reason, i.e., this time Dad sent the whole amount — and you split it up without warning and re-allocated it to someone else, a stranger?

Then again, who knows – maybe it was a kickback….

Information about your case is confidential. Confidentiality and privacy laws restrict child support workers from providing information to anyone who is not a participant in a case. Your child support office can provide information to you ONLY about YOUR CASE. We cannot provide any information to you about any other individual’s case nor can we provide anyone else information about your case.

IS it?  Are these laws complied with (some reports say no — privateers, private contractors enforcing child support —  compromise privacy, and guess what – the entire US is already under U.S. Patriot law, so if someone is snooping, you wouldn’t be informed anyhow).

DEBIT CARD OR NO DEBIT CARD? FOR PAYMENTS?

Here’s “choice,” Child SUpport Style (in my state):

IF YOU RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS:

Custodial parties have three ways to receive payments. Payments may be received as checks sent through the mail, as a direct deposit to an existing checking or savings account, or as funds transferred to an electronic payment card (known as EPC). Electronic payment cards work as debit cards and can be used at ATMs and for point-of-sale transactions.

If you receive payment through the mail, the check will be printed on green check stock. The envelope and the return address will be from the SDU. To avoid delays, please be sure to provide any change of address to Alameda County DCSS promptly. If your address has changed, please e-mail us your current mailing address. Please include your ACDCSS case number or participant ID and the new address in the “Comments” section of the e-mail form below:

Checks = delays, more trips to the bank.  Direct Deposit — some like, some do not.  Some banks don’t take direct deposit unless account holder is in traditional workforce.  People involved in custody litigation, the drawn-out kind, often are subject to job instability as well, meaning, they may not qualify.  Then there is the handy/dandy debit card where, if one is a custodial parent, the state can also track exactly what the money goes for — not that the father is likely to get this information.  It’s just the innate, instinctive desire to collect data about everything on as many people as possible.

TEXAS FAMILY CODE CHAPTER 234: ; “State Case Registry, Disbursement Unit and Directory of New Hires

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

July 19, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)

with 18 comments

(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.


Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.


This blog discusses

Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From:  “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010  / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit.  The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare,  against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty.  Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”  

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed.  That’s the game, folks.  Promise protection, then fail to deliver.  Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit.  What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit.  To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems.  These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »

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

with 4 comments

 

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

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

  • What is AFCC?

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

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

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

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

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

AFCC Members are:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“Rebuttable Presumption” talk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLENARY

Rethinking Domestic Violence

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

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

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

Presenter: Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D.

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

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

Task Forces and Initiatives

Child Custody Consultant Task Force

Child Custody Evaluation Standards Task Force

Family Law Education Reform Project

Parenting Coordination Standards Task Force

Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project

Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network

Brief Focused Assessment Task Force

Court-Involved Therapist Task Force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight Magazine

Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

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

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

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

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

Unless they, too, were in on it somehow.

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

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

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

A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

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

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

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

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

1962

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

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

1963

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

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

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

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

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

OK, NOW — My RESPONSE TO THE MICHIGAN POST:


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

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

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

I wrote:

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

RE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652,*

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

No. 281004

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652

August 19, 2008, Decided

– – – – – 

[ENDQUOTE / start LGH comments]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with 5 comments

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

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

Privatized Child Support, some principal players:

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

The Child Support Industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“MAXIMIZING” CONTRACTS, MINIMIZING ACCOUNTABILITY:

(Circus) Maximus, Inc.

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

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

MAXIMUS. Because Children and Families Come First.

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

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

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

Program Consulting

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

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

Child Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on July 23, 2007 by LaBovick Law

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

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

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

FORMER MAXIMUS EMPLOYEE INDICTED FOR $32 MILLION FRAUD

August 16, 2007

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

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

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

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

09/13/2007 | 06:00 am

Maximus Inc : New York Awards Medicaid Fraud Contract to MAXIMUS

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

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

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

State of Tennessee and Maximus Privatization Contract Largest in United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bronze Fasces

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm…..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAXIMUS just bought ’em out. .. .

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

SERIES “90FD” GRANTS TO THE STATES FOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grantee Name

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

AcT’n Issue Date

CFDA Number

Award Activity Type

Award AcT’n Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of AcT’ns

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/29/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

GLENDA STRAUBE 

$63,063

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$63,063

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

02/23/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$63,063

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

05/16/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0001 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

05/12/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

-$6,054

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

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

1

09/17/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

BARBARA MIKLOS 

$30,491

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

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

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$30,491

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

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

2

02/04/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

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

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BYRON WALTHER 

$30,491

AK ST DEPT of REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

90FD0002 

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

3

05/18/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

BYRON WALTHER 

$0

AZ ST DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY 

90FD0065 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN L CLAYTON 

$99,596

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

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

1

09/19/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PEGGY JENSEN 

$72,500

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PEGGY JENSEN 

$72,500

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

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

3

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PEGGY JENSEN 

$72,500

CA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0003 

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

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PEGGY JENSEN 

-$73,983

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0047 

OCSE – 1115 DEMOS – URBAN HISPANIC OUTREACH PROJECT 

1

09/13/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

RICHARD A WILLIAMS 

$50,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0083 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

09/15/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LEORA GERSHENZON 

$60,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

08/24/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

DANIEL LOUIS 

$150,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

2

09/19/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DANIEL LOUIS 

$75,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

2

08/29/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

LESLIE CARMONA 

$0

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

3

09/09/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LESLIE CARMONA 

$75,000

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0114 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

3

10/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KATHY HREPICH 

$0

CA ST DEPT of CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 

90FD0158 

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

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MR BILL OTTERBECK 

$29,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

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

1

09/16/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$72,500

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$72,092

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

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

2

02/11/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAULINE BURTON 

$0

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0004 

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

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$72,500

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0028 

NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$75,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0028 

NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAULINE BURTON 

-$75,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0069 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$100,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0080 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/10/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$55,023

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0080 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/17/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$80,108

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0080 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/01/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAULINE BURTON 

$64,869

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0096 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/14/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$125,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

1

07/12/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$114,741

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DAN WELCH 

$174,845

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

3

07/31/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DAN WELCH 

$125,579

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0111 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM – PA 2 

3

04/30/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DAN WELCH 

$0

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

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

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$99,815

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

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

2

08/28/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$74,998

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

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

3

07/20/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$49,923

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0126 

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

3

04/27/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOHN BERNHART 

$0

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0132 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$30,000

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0166 

PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS 

1

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$52,443

CO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0168 

TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$84,783

CO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0033 

COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAULINE BURTON 

$80,000

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0005 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN FORD 

$66,862

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0005 

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

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DIANE M FRAY 

$66,862

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0005 

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

3

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DIANE M FRAY 

$66,862

CT ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT 

90FD0037 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration, SECT’n 1115 

1

09/01/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DIANE M FRAY 

$50,000

DC DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

1

09/01/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CORY CHANDLER 

$135,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0072 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOE PERRY 

$52,525

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0072 

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

1

02/16/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JOE PERRY 

-$31,189

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0072 

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

1

09/21/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JOE PERRY 

$0

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0100 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/20/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LYNNE FENDER 

$86,574

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

1

08/28/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CORY CHANDLER 

-$135,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

1

10/12/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CORY CHANDLER 

$135,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0119 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC 

2

09/27/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CORY CHANDLER 

$65,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CORY CHANDLER 

$60,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

07/14/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TANYA JONES BOSIER 

$50,000

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

08/28/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TANYA JONES BOSIER 

$37,500

DC OFFICE OF CORPORAT’n COUNSEL 

90FD0120 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

06/07/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TANYA JONES BOSIER 

$0

DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0091 

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

1

09/22/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ART E CALDWELL 

$50,000

DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0091 

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

2

09/15/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ART E CALDWELL 

$50,000

DE ST DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0091 

STATE OF DELAWARE, DEPT of HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES 

2

09/29/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ART E CALDWELL 

$0

DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY 

90FD0040 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration SECT’n 1115 

1

08/31/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ANNMARIE MENA 

$50,000

DEPT of ECONOMIC SECURITY 

90FD0112 

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

1

06/28/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LEONA HODGES 

$120,000

DEPT of Children and Families 

90FD0159 

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

1

09/20/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RON HUNT 

$99,985

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0098 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

09/14/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NANCY LUJA 

$99,853

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0099 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

09/20/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

VELVA MOSHER-KNAPP 

$124,144

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

HEATHER J SAUN 

$14,619

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

2

09/19/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$12,202

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

2

02/25/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

3

09/01/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$12,202

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0128 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration: PRIORITY 4 

3

02/08/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

HEATHER SANDERS 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

1

11/23/2009 

93564

OTHER 

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

PATRICIA CLARK 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

1

08/26/2010 

93564

OTHER 

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

PATRICIA CLARK 

$0

FL ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

2

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICIA CLARK 

$13,237

Florida DEPT of Revenue 

90FD0143 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT REENTRY COLLABORAT’n PROJECT 

1

09/19/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

PATRICIA CLARK 

$16,713

Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen 

90FD0165 

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

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

SHARON KERI 

$97,872

Florida DEPT of Revenue, Child Support Enforcemen 

90FD0173 

CHILD SUPPORT AND ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE COLLABORAT’n 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MARILYN MILES 

$60,363

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0090 

GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

1

08/27/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RUSSELL EASTMAN 

$125,000

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0101 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

1

09/16/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RONNIE BATES 

$43,000

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0156 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

RUSSELL EASTMAN 

$99,000

GA ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0156 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

01/28/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

RUSSELL EASTMAN 

-$55,500

HI ST DEPT of VOCAT’nAL EDUCAT’n 

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

06/30/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JAN IKEI 

$108,400

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

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

07/27/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JAN IKEI 

$108,400

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

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

05/07/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE 

$0

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

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MS ROSEMARY MCSHANE 

$108,400

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

90FD0110 

PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

03/27/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SHERI WANG 

$0

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

90FD0133 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 

1

11/13/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

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

MS SHERI WANG 

$0

HI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM 

90FD0133 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY 2 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MS SHERI WANG 

$30,000

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0086 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

1

08/27/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JEANNE NESBIT 

$58,000

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0086 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

1

05/04/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JEANNE NESBIT 

-$2,205

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0093 

IOWA DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/02/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL EATON 

$29,000

IA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0130 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LORI WETLAUFER 

$30,000

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

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

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LOIS RAKOV 

$63,318

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

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

2

08/28/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LOIS RAKOV 

$64,000

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

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

2

03/09/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LOIS RAKOV 

$0

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

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

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LOIS RAKOV 

$64,000

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0006 

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

3

05/05/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LOIS RAKOV 

$0

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0007 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/29/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBERT LYONS 

$56,145

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0007 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

10/06/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ROBERT LYONS 

-$56,145

IL ST DEPT of HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0057 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOSEPH MASON 

$193,268

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0075 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN J BOYCE 

$100,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0076 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

THELZEDA MOORE 

$100,000

Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services 

90FD0144 

LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

HAROLD B COLEMAN 

$50,000

Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services 

90FD0144 

LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/06/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

HAROLD B COLEMAN 

$50,000

KS ST REHABILITAT’n SERVICES 

90FD0068 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JAMES A ROBERTSON 

$59,558

KY ST HUMAN RESOURCES CABINET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

90FD0149 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT RESEARCH 

1

09/23/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVEN P VENO 

$45,295

Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services 

90FD0145 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KELLY POTTER 

$15,272

Kansas Dept of Social and RehabilitaT’n Services 

90FD0145 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MONICA REMILLARD 

$14,946

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

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

09/01/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$49,981

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

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$0

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

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

2

03/19/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$0

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

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

09/21/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$37,445

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

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

3

05/05/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$0

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

90FD0160 

PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$99,570

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMIH 

$72,500

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$72,500

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

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

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

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

3

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$72,500

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0012 

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

3

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$3,706

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMIH 

$34,078

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$64,355

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

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

2

02/04/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

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

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$80,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0013 

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

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$2,045

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0030 

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

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$80,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0030 

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

1

04/13/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$16

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0049 

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

1

02/16/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$3,019

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0049 

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

1

09/21/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0067 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$100,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0067 

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

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MARILYN R SMITH 

-$6,479

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0094 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS – PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

09/18/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PUAL CRONIN 

$100,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0141 

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

2

01/24/2011 

93564

OTHER 

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

MARILYN R SMITH 

$0

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0157 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN RAY SMITH 

$100,000

MA ST DEPT of REVENUE 

90FD0162 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KAREN MELKONIA 

$38,060

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

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

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DENESE F MAKER 

$78,677

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DENESE F MAKER 

$79,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

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

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

DENESE F MAKER 

$78,677

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

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

3

11/10/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

DENESE F MAKER 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0010 

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

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

DENESE F MAKER 

-$2,045

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0011 

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

1

09/09/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN 

$22,030

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0011 

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

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN 

$20,200

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0011 

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

3

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CLAUDETTE SULLIVAN 

$20,200

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0034 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM 

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TERESA L KAISER 

$127,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0034 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKER TRAINING CERTIFICAT’n PROGRAM 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

TERESA L KAISER 

-$50,677

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0066 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TERESA L KAISER 

$100,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE 

3

07/27/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$102,414

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE 

3

01/11/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0116 

PROJECT FRESH START 

1

08/24/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOSEPH A JACKINS 

$135,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0116 

PROJECT FRESH START 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$64,998

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0116 

PROJECT FRESH START 

2

05/08/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SARAH BRICE 

$150,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

2

07/18/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$100,000

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

2

03/05/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

2

05/11/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

3

08/31/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SARAH BRICE 

$74,706

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0121 

ERASING BORDERS PROJECT-SECT’n 1115 

3

05/20/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH BRICE 

$0

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0154 

PARTNERSHIP TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHNNY RICE 

$99,962

MD ST DEPT of HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0164 

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

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SARAH BRICE 

$267,063

MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0041 

CHILD SUPPORT WORKER CERTIFICAT’n IMPLEMENTAT’n PROGRAM 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TERESA KAISER 

$49,979

MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIV

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

BRIAN D SHEA 

$105,562

MD ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0109 

BALTIMORE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITITIATIVE 

2

07/27/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BRIAN D SHEA 

$102,421

ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS 

90FD0009 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$67,294

ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS 

90FD0009 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$67,000

ME ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, HLTH & MEDICAL SVCS 

90FD0009 

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

3

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$67,002

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

90FD0170 

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

1

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$85,000

MN DEPT of HEALTH 

90FD0048 

SECT’n 1115 OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$50,000

MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0042 

SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$50,000

MN DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0045 

SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

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

1

09/09/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$59,606

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$96,570

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

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

2

01/20/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LAURA KADWELL 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0014 

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

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$96,570

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0015 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/22/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$29,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/22/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

LAURA KADWELL 

$46,110

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

2

08/28/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$46,110

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LAURA KADWELL 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

LAURA KADWELL 

$46,110

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0016 

ST CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMTAGENCIES Demonstration 

3

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

LAURA KADWELL 

-$38

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0059 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT (PRIORITY AREA II) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DENNIS ALBRECHT 

$65,250

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0071 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

DENNIS ALBRECHT 

$43,500

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0089 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

1

09/23/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

WAYLAND CAMPBELL 

$43,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

1

09/11/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$100,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

09/07/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$75,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

05/05/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

04/08/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

3

09/26/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0127 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

3

04/27/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

PATRICK W KRAUTH 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0140 

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

1

08/28/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

PATRICK M KRAUTH 

$78,735

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0140 

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

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JILL C ROBERTS 

$75,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0140 

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

2

06/02/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JILL C ROBERTS 

$0

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0147 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

MOLLY CRAWFORD 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0147 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

SOCIAL SERVICES 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MOLLY CRAWFORD 

$50,000

MN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0147 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 

2

04/06/2011 

93564

SOCIAL SERVICES 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MOLLY CRAWFORD 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARL BLANCHETTE 

$38,896

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$39,539

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

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

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY BURKS 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

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

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$24,190

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0017 

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

3

08/18/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CINDY BURKS 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0018 

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

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARL BLANCHETTE 

$29,015

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0018 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKE 

$29,015

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0018 

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

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

DORIS HALLFORD 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

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

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARL BLANCHETTE 

$43,738

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$51,282

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

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

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY BURKS 

$0

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0019 

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

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY BURKS 

$27,817

MO ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0062 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

GARY BAILEY 

$192,607

MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV 

90FD0036 

A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA 

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ANN STEFFENS 

$50,000

MT ST DEPT of PHHS, CHILD & FAM SERV 

90FD0036 

A STUDY OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD IN MONTANA 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ANN STEFFENS 

-$925

Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services 

90FD0043 

SECT’n 1115 – OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT Demonstration 

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVE HUSSEY 

$50,000

Maine St. DEPT of Health and Human Services 

90FD0044 

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

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

 

$84,640

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

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

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$60,000

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

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

2

05/22/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$0

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

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

2

01/22/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$0

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

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

3

09/02/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$60,000

ND ST DEPT of HUMAN SVCS 

90FD0118 

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

3

01/25/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$0

ND ST Office of the Governor 

90FD0118 

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

1

08/28/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MIKE SCHWINDT 

$75,000

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0097 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

09/14/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARGARET J EWING 

$72,466

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

1

08/24/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NANCY MONTANEZ 

$51,005

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR SCOT ADAMS 

$48,487

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

2

04/08/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MARGARET EWING 

$0

NE ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0117 

SECT’n 1115 GRANT PROJECT 

3

08/31/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARGARET EWING 

$50,269

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0020 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/22/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARY WEATHERILL 

$24,928

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0020 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

08/28/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

NEAL BOUTIN 

$24,928

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0020 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

NEAL BOUTIN 

$24,931

NH ST DEPT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0070 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

THOMAS PRYOR 

$44,868

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0038 

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

1

08/31/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$50,000

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0060 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$127,600

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0122 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

2

08/26/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$78,852

NJ ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0122 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

3

09/19/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$71,797

NJ ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0122 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

08/24/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ALISHA GRIFFIN 

$150,000

NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0055 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

HELEN NELSON 

$217,667

NM ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0055 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM ( AREA IV) 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

HELEN NELSON 

-$217,667

NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0136 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CYNTHIA D FISHER 

$99,320

NV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0136 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration 

2

09/27/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CYNTHIA D FISHER 

$74,671

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

1

09/16/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBERT DOAR 

$187,640

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ROBERT DOAR 

$188,000

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

12/29/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ROBERT DOAR 

$0

NY ST OFFICE OF TEMPORARY & DISABILITY ASSISTANCE 

90FD0021 

STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT AGENCIES Demonstration 

2

09/24/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ROBERT DOAR 

-$375,640

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0142 

OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

12/10/2009 

93564

OTHER 

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

ATHENA RILEY 

$0

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0142 

OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ATHENA RILEY 

$50,000

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0152 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

12/10/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

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

CARRI BROWN 

$0

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0155 

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

1

09/23/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARRI BROWN 

$60,000

OH ST DEPT of JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0174 

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

1

09/24/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

ATHENA RILEY 

$85,000

OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0142 

OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CARRI BROWN 

$50,000

OH ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

90FD0152 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARRI BROWN 

$104,663

OH STATE SEC. OF STATE 

90FD0095 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANTS 

1

09/18/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CARRI L BROWN 

$50,000

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

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

1

02/27/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

-$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0022 

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

2

02/27/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAUL BOWERMAN 

-$38,382

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0084 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

09/01/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

HARRY BENSON 

$79,750

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0084 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

02/16/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ANTHONY L JACKSON 

-$79,750

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0146 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

08/28/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$31,708

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0146 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$30,300

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0146 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

04/07/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TERY DESHONG 

$0

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0151 

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

1

09/23/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MS KATHERINE MCRAE 

$36,681

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0163 

1115 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMT MEDICAL REFORM STRATEGY PROGRAM 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

KATHERINE MCRAE 

$37,728

OK ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0167 

GET PAID! COLLABORATE TO COLLECT 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

ANTHONY JACKSON 

$100,000

OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE 

90FD0135 

EMPLOYER PORTAL 

1

08/30/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

BECKY L HAMMER 

$87,483

OR ST DEPT of JUSTICE 

90FD0135 

EMPLOYER PORTAL 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

BECKY L HAMMER 

$61,347

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

90FD0023 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

SHIRLEY IVERSON 

$72,500

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

90FD0023 

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

1

04/05/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

SHIRLEY IVERSON 

-$72,500

PR ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT 

90FD0046 

SECT’n 1115 

1

08/30/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MIGUEL A VERDIALES 

$145,000

RI ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0153 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SHARON A SANTILLI,ESQUIRE 

$105,000

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0024 

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

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

BOB BRADFORD 

$17,998

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0024 

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

2

09/02/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL THIGPEN 

$14,835

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0024 

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

3

08/09/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL THIGPEN 

$15,050

SC ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0056 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

R. ROSS JOLLY 

$106,801

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

1

09/08/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARK JASONOWICZ 

$145,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

2

09/18/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$145,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

2

01/19/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

3

09/15/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$145,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

3

02/07/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0081 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT 

3

11/22/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0150 

CHILD SUPPORT PROJECTS TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ELLEN DURNAN 

$103,221

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0161 

MICHIGAN MEDICAL CHILD SUPPORT STRATEGIES 

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

PAMELA G MCKEE 

$50,000

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0170 

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

1

01/07/2011 

93564

OTHER 

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

ELLEN DURNAN 

$0

STATE OF TENNESSEE 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$82,853

State of Louisiana, DEPT of Social Services 

90FD0125 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-2) 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBBIE ENDRIS 

$59,983

TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

07/20/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$108,112

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0077 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 

1

08/26/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$60,000

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0102 

TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/16/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

LINDA CHAPPELL 

$62,300

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$101,427

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

07/27/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$100,688

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

03/06/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0108 

TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

02/24/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/20/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$54,612

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

08/09/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$52,034

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

07/12/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

05/13/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/01/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$50,000

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0129 

SECT’n 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

05/18/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0139 

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

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$100,000

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0139 

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

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$71,240

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0139 

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

2

03/14/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0148 

TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$49,300

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0148 

TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

09/01/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$49,300

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0148 

TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 

2

03/14/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MR CHARLES BRYSON 

$0

TN ST DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0171 

BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CHARLES BRYSON 

$85,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0052 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

WILLIAM H ROGERS 

$105,254

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0052 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

WILLIAM H ROGERS 

-$8,058

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0064 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CYNTHIA BRYANT 

$71,630

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0073 

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

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0073 

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

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

MICHAEL HAYES 

-$6,976

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0078 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5 

1

08/26/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$80,040

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0085 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 

1

08/26/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$60,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

08/29/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

WILL ROGERS 

$196,555

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/27/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PATRICIA CAFFERATA 

$196,555

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

01/08/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

KAREN HENSON 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0088 

SECT. 1115 Demonstration GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

08/16/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

KAREN HENSON 

$196,555

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0092 

TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

1

09/09/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL D HAYES 

$125,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

07/27/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$108,400

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

03/19/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

06/26/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

07/31/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$108,400

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0113 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

06/27/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

GILBERT A CHAVEZ 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

1

08/29/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

HAILEY KEMP 

$60,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

2

08/11/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TED WHITE 

$60,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

3

09/01/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TED WHITE 

$50,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0124 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 (PA-3) 

3

03/30/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TED WHITE 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0134 

OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER 

1

09/29/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$703,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0137 

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

1

08/16/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

KAMMI SIEMENS 

$100,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0137 

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

2

09/07/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$75,000

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0137 

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

2

01/13/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$0

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

90FD0169 

URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT 

1

09/25/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MICHAEL HAYES 

$85,000

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

90FD0049 

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

1

08/31/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$167,748

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

90FD0141 

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

1

09/01/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$99,348

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

90FD0141 

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

2

09/19/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MARILYN R SMITH 

$75,000

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

1

09/01/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

JOHN BERNHART 

$150,000

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

2

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$75,000

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

2

08/10/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOHN BERNHART 

$0

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

2

06/15/2011 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JOHN BERNHART 

$0

US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

90FD0115 

COLORADO DEPT of HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 

3

08/31/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOHN BERNHART 

$75,000

UT ST DIV OF AGING 

90FD0104 

UTAH DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

MARK BRASHER 

$120,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0029 

NEW APPROACH TO COLLECTING ARREARS 

1

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$96,396

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0032 

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

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$80,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0050 

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

1

09/06/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$70,265

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0051 

SECT’n 1115 

1

08/30/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG 

$50,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0063 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG, JR. 

$100,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0074 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL YOUNG 

$150,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0074 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

NATHANIEL YOUNG 

-$6,421

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

1

08/29/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. 

$200,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/17/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD W ARESON 

$200,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

2

09/22/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TODD W ARESON 

$0

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/15/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD W ARESON 

$200,000

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0082 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 1 

3

09/22/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TODD W ARESON 

$0

VA ST DEPT of SOCIAL SERVICES 

90FD0087 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT, PRIORITY AREA 5 

1

08/27/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

NATHANIEL L YOUNG,JR. 

$81,000

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

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

1

09/11/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JEFF COHEN 

$72,500

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JEFFERY COHEN 

$72,500

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

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

2

01/27/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

JEFFERY COHEN 

$0

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0025 

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

3

08/25/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JEFFERY COHEN 

$72,500

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

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

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

JEFF COHEN 

$199,941

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

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

2

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

$199,941

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

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

2

09/08/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

$0

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

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

2

09/15/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

-$42,007

VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0053 

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

3

09/12/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CINDY GRIFFITH 

$199,941

VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES 

90FD0106 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 4 

1

06/29/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ROBERT B BUTTS 

$118,607

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0027 

DETERMININGTHE C0MPOSIT’n AND COLLECTIBILITY OF ARREARAGES 

1

09/07/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$75,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0031 

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

1

09/14/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

ELLEN NOLAN 

$80,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0031 

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

1

03/12/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

ELLEN NOLAN 

-$47,987

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0035 

A STUDY OF WASHINGTON CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS 

1

09/07/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$50,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0079 

DEMON. AND EVAL. OF CENTRALIZED MEDICAL SUPPORT ENFORCEMT 

1

09/10/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

STEVE STRAUSS 

$80,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

1

08/23/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$60,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

2

08/13/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$60,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

09/20/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$50,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0123 

OCSE SECT’n 1115 

3

01/21/2010 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0131 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration – PRIORITY AREA 2 

1

09/24/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$30,000

WA ST DEPT of SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0172 

BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES 

1

09/26/2010 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

MICHAEL HORN 

$85,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$200,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

08/31/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$200,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/12/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$200,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0058 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

03/22/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$91,381

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

2

11/06/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

3

07/31/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

CAROL WELCH 

$91,390

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

3

05/26/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

CAROL WELCH 

$0

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0138 

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

1

09/24/2009 

93564

OTHER 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$100,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0138 

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

2

09/02/2010 

93564

OTHER 

Non-Competing Continuation 

MICHAEL HORN 

$75,000

WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 

90FD0138 

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

2

02/08/2011 

93564

OTHER 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SARAH KOLLIN 

$0

WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES 

90FD0107 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROJECT 

1

06/23/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

CAROL WELCH 

$108,400

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

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

1

09/08/1997 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

RONI HARPER 

$72,500

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

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

2

09/18/1998 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SUSAN MATHISON 

$72,500

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

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

3

08/31/1999 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

SUSAN MATHISON 

$72,500

WI ST DEPT of ADMINISTRAT’n 

90FD0026 

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

3

06/30/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

SUSAN MATHISON 

$0

WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

TODD KUMMER 

$166,619

WI ST DEPT of INDUSTRY LABOR & HUMAN RELAT’nS 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAUL SAEMAN 

$175,871

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

02/04/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

PAUL SAEMAN 

$0

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0054 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRQAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/23/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

PAUL SAEMAN 

$172,724

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

1

07/11/2005 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

SUE KINAS 

$108,400

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

TODD KUMMER 

$0

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

2

07/31/2006 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD KUMMER 

$108,400

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

3

09/26/2007 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

TODD KUMMER 

$108,400

WISCONSIN DEPT of WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

90FD0105 

PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS 

3

07/07/2008 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

TODD KUMMER 

$0

WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0039 

“PARENTHOOD AND YOU” (PAY) 

1

09/05/2000 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

SUSAN HARRAH 

$50,000

WV ST DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES 

90FD0103 

WV DEPT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

1

09/22/2004 

93564

Demonstration 

NEW 

ELIZABETH JORDAN 

$43,000

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/15/2001 

93563

Demonstration 

NEW 

NANCY Q ROBERTS 

$124,993

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

1

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

HOLLY CLARK 

-$4,377

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/15/2002 

93563

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOANNE MADRID 

$102,511

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

10/01/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

HOLLY CLARK 

$0

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

2

09/22/2009 

93564

Demonstration 

OTHER REVISION 

HOLLY CLARK 

-$11,272

WY ST DEPT of FAMILY SERVICES 

90FD0061 

SECT’n 1115 Demonstration PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I) 

3

09/23/2003 

93564

Demonstration 

Non-Competing Continuation 

JOANNE VERMEULEN 

                               $ 71,967

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

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

SSA logo: link to Social Security Online home

(a)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How in heck can a non-expert understand these systems? Well, Behold, the humble Human….

leave a comment »

??  Some friends of mine asked for a visual on how to keep the players AND organizations AND associations AND fundings straight.  Well, at least they asked me for some diagrams of what I’ve written here.   I’m graphically challenged, but we can visualize systems we do know, to get a grasp on the complex goings on in the courts (and around them) we don’t, so well.

The best way to understand something strange is in terms of something else familiar.  So here we go:

Imagine the human body.  To get from the head to the extremities there are a variety of networked systems, such as for Blood (old, & new)  and muscular activity of course helps.  We know that the heart pumps and that movement of the legs help also.  Also that blood is oxygen rich or oxygen depleted — going through the lungs changes this.

I guess the “heart” of the Family Law System might be called two basic private, nonprofit organizations, (left ventricle, right ventricle — whatever), let’s say for example, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) & the Children’s Rights Council (CRC).   Both these organizations have:

  • Founding members, with often two agendas:  One, declared to the public, Another, which their actions show
  • For example, AFCC is often positioned IN government, i.e., membership includes judges and/or those who train judges.
  • A financial history for these nonprofit corporations.
  • A FUNDING history for these nonprofit corporations — where is the income stream?
  • A chronological growth & expansion history — how did they grow, where are members positioned in society?
  • Areas of special emphasis and a courtesy respect not to overlap too much.
  • Relationships to certain branches of the US Government
  • International / Global aspirations which they are fulfilling
  • A common desire to get access to certain kinds of traumatized children for coaching or rescuing purposes
  • Complementary functions  — for example, getting a contract  (with Government) & fulfilling a contract.
  • Seemingly/allegedly separate organizations with members in common.  This is telltale.
  • A mouthpiece in the firm of professional publication
  • Tend to hang out and self-refers with related associations of professionals in the fields, for example, APA, ABA,AAML, etc.
For example AFCC might be lobbying, teaching, and policy-setting, including pushing for access/visitation centers.   CRC is among the network of Access/Visitation center providers (and the originator of the term).
Another set of related organizations (with some members) may include, for example:
Center for Policy Research (CPR) a NONprofit in Denver — a small, but real influential group, a  Policy Studies Inc.  (PSI) a FOR profit in Denver, also in Oklahoma, where it facilitates the Healthy Marriage project.    If CPR is the brain , PSI is nervous system  CPR is positioned to and gets the contracts (and apparently suggests, evaluates, etc.) PSI fulfils them.  PSI terms itself “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”  Obviously, they are getting contracts with the (US) Dept. of “HHS.”  So the “squeeze” comes from federal funding [and the IRS/Office of Child Support Enforcement (US Gov’t, under HHS), for example, would be the muscles.]
A few different types of circulating body systems:

Arterial:

  or if you will or

http://www.nutrientgarden.com/cardiovascularsupport.aspx

But as we know, human bodies have a nervous system, for example, and a lymphsystem.  The lymph system has no pump.   It’s a very important system, though:  “

The lymphatic system is an extensive drainage network that helps keep bodily fluid levels in balance and defends the body against infections. It is made up of a network of lymphatic vessels that carry lymph — a clear, watery fluid that contains protein molecules, salts, glucose, urea, and other substances — throughout the body.

The spleen, which is located in the upper left part of the abdomen under the ribcage, works as part of the lymphatic system to protect the body, clearing worn out red blood cells and other foreign bodies from the bloodstream to help fight off infection.

About the Spleen and Lymphatic System

One of the lymphatic system’s major jobs is to collect extra lymph fluid from body tissues and return it to the blood. This process is crucial because water, proteins, and other substances are continuously leaking out of tiny blood capillaries into the surrounding body tissues. If the lymphatic system didn’t drain the excess fluid from the tissues, the lymph fluid would build up in the body’s tissues, and they would swell.”

{{BEST THING I HEARD TO HELP — Rebounding.  Jump up and down a lot, there’s something about this.  }}

The Human Nervous System. Red is CNS and blue is PNS.

And of course respiratory & digestive systems, i.e, the alimentary canal has sometimes been called the second “brain”.    All of these have to work together, and when one is overstressed, it affects the others, and requires compensation.   The skeletal system. . . . .  Muscular system, etc.

And the organs to go with various systems, i.e., lungs, brain, heart, liver, etc.  Unbelievably detailed, complex and functional, but with similarity of origin (we all started with ovum & sperm.  All that power and those systems from such a tiny start).

(Psalmist, psalm 139, reflecting on this:  “O LORD, You have searched me and known me.. . . Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And 
that my soul knows very well.

Like the human body, the court system (etc., etc.) not only has a static diagram of its various components (like the dry drawings above, as if no movement happened), but it most certainly also has a history.  A moment of conception, when a gleam in the eye happened, and then took action.

However, the family law system, the courts in which family law is practices, is actually a graft.  It grafted in the marriage counselors, the “fixers” the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, mental health professionals, resulting in the HYBRID form called “Therapeutic Jurisprudence”  — where Mental Health Vocabulary meets written statutes,  and after years of association, neither is itself again, or remembers what previously existed.  Unlike, say, basic human reproduction, this set of systems, associations, networks, and laws, was NOT a natural development. It was absolutely sold, promoted, and lobbied for by the very people whose professions depend on the forcing of counseling (and other consumption of products & services) upon parents who separate and disagree on who does what.  And many of its origins can be identified.

  to   

(Drawing of single fetus URL = Wikipedia on “fetal movement”)

(Fetal Growth image URL)

(“The statue of David was started by a different artist, Agostino di Duccio, in 1463. He picked out a rather narrow piece of stone, which was customary for artists of his denomination. If you are an art expert, you can see from the side that this is not a piece that Michelangelo would have picked. It is too thin. The front [not shown] however, did not come out too bad…”)

(This bronze resin sculpture:  woman standing, back may be for sale, see link:  “Zhang Yaxi” )

DIFFERENCES between these system and the Family Law system:

Living things, with nourishment, tend to grow to the point of no return, and have a sort of “set point” beyond which they don’t expand, with certain exceptions.  For example, there are all heights of human beings, but so far, the range doesn’t go beyond 10 feet tall, does it?   There seem to be some inherent limits.  While affected by various things, they have a certain common DNA, overall, and are not going to stray TOO far from this, I believe.

Unnatural, but networking and growing fauna & flora, continue to take over the landscape, strangling previous or healthier indigenous plants.

Unlike human life, which can either reach its term limit through old age, or be shortened any number of artifical ways, Family Law seems to have no inherent “term limit” but is continually expanding; children are born daily.  Many of these children will have divorcing or separating parents.   It doesn’t run into natural boundaries, like skin, or the force of gravity, or lack of balance, in which a too-obese person simply cannot stand up.  It grows by conferences, internet-disseminated information, watered by grants and foundations and institutes, and populated by trainers, professors, and promoters.   While some of these may grow old, they at least replace themselves by coaching from the University level up, (at a minimum).  It will NOT likely run out of clients (barring a boycott — possibly a good idea) unless enough mothers and fathers get smart enough (couple by couple) and simply don’t go through its doors to start with.  The way a family generally “terms out” of the family law system is the children age out, or someone gives up, or someone is killed, or they simply run out of energy & money — in which case, if the children haven’t been removed into foster care yet (for which federal incentives exist), no more use for the family.

By law, any time a couple (married or unmarried) has a custody dispute — my understanding is, the COURT has jurisdiction.  If there are married couples NOT fighting or separating — but a grandparent is upset about visitation, or the couple is not mainstream enough, there’s always the possibility of engaging CPS, which has happened both when parents seek alternate treatment for, say cancer or asthma — or when their children are not in the local public school, and they aren’t rich.

This is likely why one writer (quoted below) titled a piece “Court Cancer Metastasizes.”  Something changed, and began rapidly reproducing.

FAMILY LAW VERSUS REAL FAMILIES / HUMAN BODY:

Thinking about this, there’s a history, an origin, a conception.   Just like a child could be started with a number of motives, or excuses for (insert birds & bees discussion) — the fact is, sperm, egg, fertilized, happens SOMEWHERE (in vitro, out of vitro) and growth.

You cannot understand this system unless you understand at least a few things about the AFCC (as it’s now called):

  • Someone passed a law to enable it.  See “Roger & Meyer,” section, below….
  • The goal included getting people in front of counselors.
  • Mental health perspective was in from the START and has really gotten out of hand now.
  • No matter how I look at this, or others, several people understand quite clearly that what is now the world-famous and highly positioned “AFCC” began:
  • as a private, nonprofit, judges’ association hiding in the Los Angeles County Courthouse and using its EIN# (Tax ID) without accounting for funds properly.  As such it was an insult to the integrity of the judicial system.
  • Seemed to have little conscience about shape-shifting, incorporating in state, out of state, name-changing, and FINALLY getting caught up with and becoming “legitimate” as a nonprofit, supposedly a “new” one.
  • From what I read, no sooner did it finally register legally as a “new” nonprofit (outside California) than the original founder, Meyer Elkin, took over the leadership.  Review at:  “Beware AFCC” from “stopcourtorderedchildabuse.org — or read my post, “Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an oxymoron“.  As late as 1979 (one source says) the one form (“Conference of Conciliation Courts”) got suspended by the Franchise Tax Board.
  • AFCC members of course do not see it this way; as I saw yesterday, a woman in Minnesota attended a conference called “Solomon’s Surrogates”

Roger (Alton Pfaff) and Meyer (Elkin):  Dynamic Duo in Family Law

(searched..outside the mutual-adoration of the AFCC circles…)

I found a 1966 TIME article, revealing . . . . . .    it reads:

What the U.S. really needs is something far more drastic: a complete new approach that totally banishes “fault” and all its sleazy consequences. The most sensible solution would be a system that readily grants divorce only after skilled clinicians confirm that a marriage is beyond repair. In many cases, divorce might be harder to get; in all, it would be far more humane.

(Marriage as a sick puppy needing a good vet…..)

While insisting that divorce be made a more rational process, most marriage experts also believe that many of the divorces that now take place can be prevented. One of the most effective, though not yet widespread, ways of helping to prevent divorce is the conciliation court. Eighteen states have already set up more than three dozen such courts, many of which try to mend marriages with the aid of full-time staff psychologists and social workers. The courts have an overall record of intact marriages in 33% of the cases voluntarily brought before them. They try to get the couple to communicate with each other once more, to concentrate on what they have in common rather than what separates them and to analyze for themselves the problems that are interfering with their marriage.

hence the name “Conciliation” as in “REconciliation.”  So much for “irreconciliable differences”!

Psychologists and Social workers still doing this today.

In Toledo, [Ohio] Judge Paul W. Alexander’s much-admired conciliation court averts divorce in 44% of the cases it tackles. In Los Angeles, Judge Roger A. Pfaff’s conciliation court gets 50% of its business from lawyers who refer unhappy spouses even before they file divorce suits. With the aid of eleven highly trained counselors who must have at least ten years’ experience, Pfaff’s court helps more than 4,000 volunteer couples a year, gets 60% of them to make up and sign detailed “husband-wife” agreements that have the force of law. “Divorce courts throughout America are burying marriages that are still alive,” says Meyer Elkin, Pfaff’s supervising counselor. The success of conciliation courts proves that it is perfectly possible to create a rational divorce system that saves as well as severs—if the U.S. wants it

Conciliation court as receiving referral business from divorce attorneys.

Pfaff was the Judge, Elkin the counselor.  Get it?  Oh yes, the 1966 comments:

Mating at Random

Another reason for a more realistic appraisal of divorce laws is a deeper understanding of what causes marital breakups. While sex, money and incompatibility are the traditional reasons for divorce, a mobile and changing urban society has loosened many of the bonds that once held marriage together, depriving men of their absolute dominance, giving women a large measure of economic independence and weakening the sense of kinship (i.e., men’s absolute dominance + women’s utter economic dependence = stronger kinship = good?)

and a nice religious reference (TIME, 1966…)

“The divorce rate is a social symptom of increased respect for personal freedom and for genuine marriage commitment.”

That is a far cry from Christ’s unequivocal condemnation of the Mosaic right of Jewish husbands to banish their wives at will: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1

Marv Byer (“Johnnypumphandle.com”) had quite a different opinion of Elkin & Pfaff, especially after spending $100K to help his daughter retain custody.  In his 1998 Tort claim, he calls (the ring of judges) an “underground mafia posing as the City of Los Angeles.”  He says …

and of Elkin & Pfaff:  

CONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN  (paras. in reverse order)

The ACCUSED are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.

But for general purposes the typical “Mutt & Jeff” combo in the family law arena is going to have — at a minimum

  • One Judge or representative from the legal profession
  • One Social Worker, Mental Health Professional, Psychiatrist, etc.
  • At least ONE nonprofit with some typically shady origins, or which the Judge, Social worker (or close cohorts) just happen to have started.

ALSO, (by the way) as Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net describes this dynamic duo:

  • Meyer Elkin, co-founder of AFCC, was also a CRC co-founder. Both organizations are heavily cross-affiliated. 
  • The AFCC runs front companies which develop, implement and evaluate federal facade programallegedly assisting troubled families and children

here is a 1982 Article by Meyer; the abstract shows he wants a complete change to the system.  Note:  His buddy was a judge, but he was a counselor.

Abstract

Challenging the traditional and outmoded approach to divorce, the author, using a systems approach, proposes interrelated changes (the missing links) in the divorce process and related legal practices. {{INTENT TO CHANGE LEGAL PRACTICES}}
The resulting new and interprofessional structure for the divorce experience would provide for a more humanistic approach to divorce,  {{i.e., Elkin & his ilk, not being in the legal field, could thereby get in there…}}
create a system of non-adversarial practices that would enable the law itself to become a more effective support system, maximize client self-determination, redefine the role of the judge and attorney in divorce, and would recognize that parents are forever and families are forever.
The new structure is designed to enable divorcing families to grow with the divorce experience {???} rather than be defeated by it. In his presentation, the author stresses the need for greater interprofessional cooperation between the law and the helping professions, as well as the, need for judges and attorneys to recognize that, in divorce, feelings are also facts and that the search for truth involves both the objective facts and the feeling facts.

That was 1982.  This is 2011.  Would you say that theory has changed yet?    No.  And it’s not going to, either. Because the STRUCTURE and INTENT of this type of court is what it says it is — a search for “feeling facts” and the “parents forever, families forever” being forced.

2004 Summary lists names, organizations, and intersections:

Another summary (from an on-line family law discussion group) dating to 2004.  “Custody Corruption Summary/Liz Richards”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/16472

This is a pretty good read because at the bottom it lists many of the “Associations” (as in of Family Mediators, or of Matrimonial Lawyers, or of Family & Conciliation courts, etc.).  There are some weird characters in the text.  In case the link ever breaks, I’ll also copy it into my url (so it could be read by a “hover” over the link).  This version also begins to incorporate various nonprofit leaders’ government connections, and mentions Fathers Rights.

Now that there is a little introduction here (from same source)

see if you can read 3 paras here, with some of my comments, and understand a few connections of WHO was in various nonprofits, associations, and connected with which arm of the U.S. state of Federal Government.  It will also bring in the “grants” theme:

PARAGRAPH 1:

The A/V Program, began in 1988, with grants to Iowa CRC Iowa Chapter Director and Fathers for Equal Rights, Dick Woods, through the backing of Sen. Harkin, then Senate Chairman for Appropriations Subcommittee for HHS, and Bonnie Campbell, then IA Attorney General, currently Director of DoJ Office for Violence Against Women.

Now, isn’t that interesting!

While the stated objective of the program has been to assist visitation enforcement for non-custodial parents, in practice, the program acts as a kick-back scheme for CRC litigating members and their AFCC affiliated court professionals.

And once one gets in the door, like dust, or fleas, or other not-natural-to-the-habitat flora — they multiply.   We have identified the practice now — and this is how AFCC started — as an UNDER the radar, tax-evading nonprofit slush fund — from what I can tell..  Not to mince words…..

A/V grants are steered {{Grants / Steered}}  to CRC chapter members or their allies. AFCC affiliated judges, attorneys, psychologists and given financial incentive to favor the CRC litigating members who get their civil litigation attorney fees paid from A/V funds.  Gardner, Underwager and other members of the pro-pedophilia psychological movement are used as expert witness for custody and child abuse evaluations.

So far in this post, I didn’t bring up Gardner, or pedophilia or any of that.  However, it’s at the center of the strife along with the money incentive.

PARAGRAPH 2:

Center for Policy Research (CPR), officials, Jessica Pearson (also an original incorporating officer of the AFCC) and Nancy Thoennes, did the evaluations for the (A/V)  and Child Access demo project, developed in associated with Dick Woods, IA – a state chapter director for the CRC.  Wood’s material relies heavily on Gardner’s work and he is known to refer cases to Gardner.

Notice next sentence — this is the CPR/PSI connection and that dynamic duo is Jessica Pearson & Nancy Theonnes (both CPR).  Theya re going to come to one conclusion in their evaluation — but practice the opposite:

While CPR’s Nancy Thoennes, was the author of the federal granted study which discredited PAS and Gardner, both Thoennes and Pearson have been actively involved in the CRC’s promotion of the A/V programs.  CPR conceals all their pro-CRC, pro-Gardner affiliation when making public statements about custody and child sex abuse.  Policy Studies, Inc. (the for-profit arm of CPR) has also been involved in these programs since inception.

{{I believe at one time I saw another CPR member (or founder), “Jane Venohr, Ph.D.” working at PSI.  Here is one link:

Jane Venohr
Dr.
Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D.

Since 1984 PSI has conducted cutting edge research in the area of child support. An economist with years of experience dealing exclusively with child support issues, Dr. Venohr will discuss the economic basis of the “income shares formula” and will discuss the assumptions made in guidelines across the nation. She will also discuss the details of the Nebraska guidelines and engage in a panel discussion on joint custody and provide us with better understanding of the joint custody calculation. Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. Over the past 10 years at PSI, Venohr has provided technical assistance on the development and revision of child support guidelines for over 30 states. Since completing her doctorate in economics in 1997, Venohr has assumed primary responsibility for all PSI guideline projects.

Well, she “just so happens” to also be CPR.   See?

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Director                         jspearson@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Pearson has 30 years of experience conducting demonstration and evaluation projects dealing with a wide range of social issues including divorce mediation, responsible fatherhood, access and visitation, educational reform, child support enforcement, and self sufficiency. Dr. Pearson has authored many reports and publications on these topics and is a regular presenter at local, state and national conferences for practitioners and policy makers.

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Associate Director         nthoennes@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Thoennes has more than 30 years experience in the design of surveys and data collection forms and conducts large-scale statistical analyses using SPSS. She is a leading expert on child protection and the courts, as well as in the field of child support.

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.

(Back to “Paragraph 2” from the FamilyCourtReform group post):

Joan Kelly’s Northern California Mediation Center conducts training courses in PAS, and is a past President of the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) another AFCC affiliate.  A/V grants are administered primarily by DHHS-Office of Child Support Enforcement.  Current Director of that Office (since 1993) is David Gray Ross, former Prince George MD judge and CRC regular speaker.  Friends of  Judge Ross say he became an early CRC participant as a result of his own divorce/child support problems and may be a CRC member.

PARAGRAPH 3:  {NOW, it gets interesting — the HHS, Federal Government, gets involved)

The A/V demo project was turned into a mandatory program in 1996, when Ron Haskins, an original CRC official (mis)used his authority as Ways & Means Subcommittee Staff Director, slipped the program  into the final language of the Welfare Reform Bill without the knowledge of most members – even of his Subcommittee. 

Besides the “conflict of interest” theme, how about “abuse of privilege”??  This is what established a $10 million per year program which inserts a “desired outcome” to the family law process, and in the process, some of the means by which this is accomplished will include (in CALIF, for example), can you say Mediation (AFCC is heavily pushing mediation, and many of its members are mediators), can you say “Parent Education” — can you say “Kids’ Turn, Kids First, Children in the Middle, For the Kids’ Sake (Canada)” and so on (and on, and on…..) ???

NOTE:  The A/V program is administered through the Federal Child Support Enforcement agency, “OCSE.”   CPR & PSI real active in child support arenas too (see their sites) and if you google Jane Venohr, she is all over the US presenting on the topic, or has been at least.     Now, here is Ron Haskins  in 2001— no longer HHS, but ovrer at “Brookings Institution,” showing his funding (Annie E. Casey Foundation) and expounding to the Committee he used to be on, about Child Support and this same program… “Hearing on Child Support and Fatherhood   June, 2001”  It has charts, and lots of text.  Just for a looksee….

Besides the A/V program – Judge Gray’s federal OCSE has created multiple clone programs for assistance of non-custodial parents, usually labeled as assistance for family with domestic violence, or disputing families.  Most of these programs are steered to AFCC ring allies in state social services agencies or state courts.  Other information shows the Clinton Administration issued a directive in 1995 ordering all departments of the government to establish fatherhood programs, which also are misused for protecting bad fathers.  CRC leaders solicit membership with promises to obtain custody before judges who are guaranteed to rule in their favor.  The CRC member cases are referred to AFCC judges, who in turn appoint court professionals who are also members of the extended ring.   Lawyers are frequently members of The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) while evaluators, counselors, mediators and supervisors belong to other affiliated groups such as Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) or Supervised Visitation Network.  [“Hence, the word “ring” is appropriate.]

OK, that’s enough for now.  Understanding that there will be:

  • Certain Influential People
  • Purpose — Parents Forever, Y’all need counseling…
  • Generally, a Nonprofit
  • Associations that work with each other often in individual cases.
  • The stage is often set OUTSIDE the courtroom in the Child SUpport offices, or elsewhere..  The 20 minutes of fame in a custody hearing (my state at least) will leave an individual who does not understand some basics of this system distraught, betrayed, immobilized with shock, perhaps, or caught in endless rings of trying to “explain” to a judge (or mediator, etc.)  that they just don’t understand the facts of the case.  (Who said the facts were relevant?  Where’d THAT idea sneak into the counseling agenda?)
What results, collectively, is either a SEMBLANCE of a real court (see Toronto experience, my last post), or a kangaroo court.  This is serious, it’s problemmatic — it’s a lack of an impartial judiciary AND lack of accountability as to whose money went where.  Legislation, and legislators absolutely DO get involved.

GOING BACK TO THE HUMAN BODY ANALOGY:

For what it’s worth — notice that the various diagrams may be about different systems, with different colored diagrams, and different labels — but some things are similar.  Let’s talk about that:

  1. The “vessels” carry fluids.  What are the vessels themselves, and what is the fluid?
  2. The network is continually growing and expanding (consider blood vessels, for example).
  3. What’s pumping the information through and through?
  4. What are the fluids?
A few suggestions — mine, just ways of thinking about it.  First of all, understand that the people involved are taught to think of it as a system, so we might as well, also…. Because it is.
  1. Vessels include:    Associations, Nonprofit Corporations.  Vessels include the INTERNET (by which communications and downloadable information is circulated).  These connections are sometimes funded by “Technical Assistance” grants.  The “Technical Assistance,” from what I can tell, is to set up the structures to carry certain information (fluids).  For example, websites with links and information on them.  For example hiring staff, making connections, and so forth.
  1. Another “Vessel” is a publication.  Can be on-line.  For example, the voice of the AFCC appears to be the Family COurt Review, among other things.
  2. Another “vessel” is established curricula which can then be marketed, i.e.  “Kids Turn” is the nonprofit, but the classes themselves are the material.
  • By “Train the Trainer” sessions, things are disseminated.  The funding is deductible sometimes as Continuing Education (MCLE, etc.).
  • The HeartBeat of the Family Law — AFCC conferences and trainings (associated, state, and annual).  And others
  • WHAT ARE THE “FLUIDS?”
I feel its very helpful to think in terms of ideas — and monies — as substances flowing.  I”m going to say some of the “fluids” are the rhetoric, the terminology of family law.  Other things that obviously flow are funds, finances. and so forth. Grants systems.
This is enough for one post.  If this has been helpful, please comment.     Obviously several elements are missing BUT if you can get a good system of labeling — THIS is an association, THAT is a nonprofit, THIS nonprofit is taking federal grants and foundation monies, and so forth — it will help.
After a time, I noticed the personnel talk so similar that you can just about predict — this is a highly-placed AFCC member.  THAT idea came from San Francisco, THIS one from Los Angeles, THAT one from washington, D.C. — HHS, or the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Bush Presidency.
I also forgot to mention the role of the universities and institutes in all this.  An “institute” is likely to be a portion of a university that certain “foundations” said, “study this, I”m going to fund it, we want this policy to be set in motion.”
Really, mastering any field — or language — has a lot to do with mastering the basic jargon.  Then it’s a matter of application.
To cut to the point,. given what I’ve seen (or looked up) in the last few months about the Domestic Violence Field, I believe that people should simply not mention it. Why? any time you burp, f*rt, or drool the word “DV” — it’s going to end up somehow or other being handled by an organization that has been centralized, diluted, and may LOOK like a battered women’s advocacy group — but probably no longer is.  They’ve become large.  It’s going to be about the money somehow, some way and the thing (individually) is to get a grasp of where it is in YOUR case and YOUR county/jurisdiction.
I have often wondered  why the good, decent, ethical, honest judges don’t just “out” the AFCC-CRC Mafia.  I’m not sure whether they’re too busy to understand, or too smart to speak up.  Or they forgot what it meant to have a nontherapeutic judicial proceeding.  Or they have threats on their lives for doing so, which is not inconceivable.
PS.  In a human body, if one set of pipes ruptures and leaks its contents out into another area of the body — particularly an area without its own drainage — serious problems can result.  Consider:  Hernia, or Hemorrhage.    Consider if you gut leaks (“Leaky Gut Syndrome”).  The contents of the alimentary canal shouldn’t be in your body cavities.  If a lung has a puncture, how can you breathe?  If an AORTA has a puncture, you’ll die, pretty much, right?
Well guess what — the US, IRS-enforced currency has cancer — to start with, let alone when more money is being printed.  It’s a permanent debt situation, and Obama is still, like preceding Presidents, recommending more money to areas that few people report on, while talking scarcity in other areas.
But as to the family law system, it began off-center, and it’s has sprung a serious “language” leak.   The language of law is important — it echoes the language of the constitution.  It’s part of the container of the ideas, including the Liberty idea.  If practices undermine the ideas, then the liberty goes.  
If the courts are to dispense therapy and “help” couples so misled as to actually wish to separate  — and this is the case, at least so the professionals imply in the conferences, for example, in how to deal with ‘flawed parents..”  — then they are desiring to function as the HEAD (without taking responsibility for it).
They take charge of the problem-children, i.e., the adults & parents coming to the courts.  They seek to counsel, guide, lead, reform, advise, and therapize.  Right?
That’s the function of the brain.  So here’s what I have to say about this type of attempt to Train others Brains:
(Soundoff:)First of all, it helps to understand the elitism behind the introduction of a multitude of “experts” into the divorce arena.  The language one hears is of a helpless populace, helpless parents, helpless children, and justice that isn’t streamlined and centralized enough.  Baloney!  Phooey!   That’s the wet dream of an underemployed therapist concerned about retirement.  People are not all idiots, helpless, numb, dumb, and so forth — except for those with a membership in a certain set of professional associations that sit in the family court oak tree.   People (both parents & kids) are human beings that are born and raised in a variety of institutions, and now SOME of these have been around long enough that its’ quite possible that the family law itself contributed to major, ongoing, generationallytransmitted problems that will continue to bring the next set of fighting over kids parents into these halls again.(end, soundoff:)
After this, we can go through some basic AFCC Vocabulary.  Another day.  Probably starting with this one:

AFCC Vocabulary, Pt. 1:  “High-Conflict”

Family Law Modeling Behavior — In which Toronto Copies USA.  Why, again?

What’s Money got to do with it? This is about love, helping kids, protecting gender expression, right?

with 2 comments

Yesterday, I almost got lost among AB 887 (redefining gender) and the backgrounds of its sponsor, after my recent post about the attempted (in 2002) AB 2263, suggesting that our top Judicial organization in the state (California Judicial Council) get paid — assuming it could also find other funding — to judge the mental health efficacy of Kids’ Turn, excuse me,  (this is the sanitized version)”

projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their 
families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or legal separation... [[not mentioned -- this process can and does often take years -- like 10, 15, 18...]]

and which measures, among 5  standards, 3 which deal such hard data as “degree of conflict,” “mental health of children,” and “change in (parental) attitude”:

(1) Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding custody issues, as reported by the parents.

(2) The mental health of the children, as measured by their attitudes before and after participating in the project or program.

(3) Any change in the attitude of the parents who participate in the project or program.

Conflict is obviously bad — this is why, the US never engages in wars abroad or at home, such as on terror, drugs, homelessness, poverty, or fatherlessness.  Conflict is Bad.  Having the Judicial System involved in receiving public monies to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral modification programs (run by family law professionals and supported by millionaires and billionaires — see my posts, it’s true!) — is, per our Legislators (in 2002) Good.  All they wanted was $50,000 — plus matching funds. In the cleaned up version…

Original version was more direct – but someone thought better of that and reworded it from the original, as reported May, 2002:

AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.

I think we should know who those 23 people sitting on the Appropriations Committee that said YES were:

FYI, for a perspective Assemblypersons in 2011 have salaries ranging from $95,291 (most) to $109K (one) and a few $102K.  Judges outrank them by ca. 50% as to salaries.  Kids’ Turn is a judges project (if not slush fund..)  Judge are always being so helpful, because they love kids.

One legislator (Atkins) had previous been chief staff of the other former assemblyperson, now Senator legislator (Kehoe), it turns out and both were “out” lesbians (hardly unusual for California, but sometimes even I forget).  Another Sunburst Youth Housing Project has Atkins & Partner/Wife’s name on it.

 January 2005, after more than 3 1/2 years of hard work, The Center announced the creation of an innovative youth supportive housing project. This cutting-edge program is one of the first projects of its kind in the United States. The Youth Housing project provides 23 units of affordable, supportive housing for youth between 18-24 years of age, with a special focus on LGBTQ+ youth. These high-risk youth were living in the streets or in public spaces after having been ejected from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

This project has been made possible by the leadership and vision of Rev. Tony Freeman, Dr. Heather Berberet, San Diego City Councilmember Toni Atkins, Jennifer LeSar, The Center and its project collaborators — YMCA Youth and Family Services, San Diego Youth and Community Services, Metropolitan Community Church, Walden Family Services and the Chadwick Center at Children’s Hospital.  We opened our doors to youth at the beginning of February 2006.

Oh yes, and the AB 887 sponsor’s wife was caught — well reported — exploiting the homelessness problem in San Diego to turn a nice penny as consultant for herself ($225/hour) by farming out the work to others, while her wife (Assemblyperson Atkins) was photographed with the volunteers counting the homeless.

2011, SanDiegoReader seems to be keeping tabs on these conflicts of interest:

Why Was Toni Atkins Consulting for Developers Vying for Redevelopment Dollars After She Was Elected to State Assembly?

By historymatters | Posted January 27, 2011, 3:51 p.m.

Why was State Assembly Majority WHIP Toni Atkins working for LeSar Development Consulting firm as the Senior Principal of Housing Policy and Planning even after she was elected to State Assembly? Toni was consulting with developers and helping them lobby to get these redevelopment tax dollars for their projects. So how in the world can she vote objectively as a State Assembly member let alone State Majority WHIP to freeze this redevelopment money and return it to schools and other state resources when she has a definite financial stake in seeing that the money remain in the pockets of developers like her wife and their clients.

How is it that Atkins and her wife Jennifer LeSar are continually allowed to financially benefit from the affordable housing gravy train. Affordable housing is a multi million dollar issue with a multi million dollar bounty at stake to the most cunning and shrewd land developers and Atkins is voting on this issue despite her personal financial stake. LeSar served as a CCDC Board Member for years while Atkins simultaneously served on City Council and voted to approve millions in redevelopment funds.

Meanwhile, Hunting for the Homeless (2011 Feb. Press article)

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year's numbers were up.

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year’s numbers were up

I’m starting to like this blogger, “historymatters” — who seems to be on top of the issues — not that anyone seems to be stopping this flagrant wearing two hats at once while selling projects (contracts to cronies — or partners (nepotism?) — which are to help the public, allegedly).  San Diego is not my area — except for the reputation they have in messing with parents around family law, and the infamous “Family Justice Center Model” (Casey Gwinn retirement program), same general idea.  Our public servants are I guess to busy working on (and dreaming up, or expanding) projects to help the rest of us that it slipped their minds to report who was getting the contracts for those projects.  During an era of increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, closing libraries, thousands of California prisoners being released due to overcrowding, and such — it’s very important to sell educational programs to parents undergoing divorce (and measure whether they worked) — and of course SOMEBODY has to go hunt up the homeless (while, during the daytimes, they are encouraged to keep moving….)

In “I’ve Got Issues” (I’m starting to like this blogger):

Jennifer LeSar was on the Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC) from 2002 to 2009. She started her development consulting business in 2005 consulting many of the same developers she was working with on CCDC. http://lesardevelopment.com/about-us/ CCDC recently asked the City Council to approve the contract extension with redevelopment money, yes that same redevelopment money that Atkins as State Assembly WHIP will vote on in Sacramento….sound like a conflict of interest?

2009 Article stating that Kehoe is going to back her former staffer, ex-City-Councilwoman Atkins for State Assembly( which we can see, she obviously got).

2010, January — The GayandLesbianTimes protests politicking by this duo (Kehoe & Atkins) (control of a nonprofit board? stacked — under threat to the organization if it didn’t comply?)

Former board resigns, San Diego Democratic Club appointed by Kehoe to take over Pride
The reconstituted Board of Directors of San Diego LGBT Pride met Wednesday, Jan. 27. The first order of business was to accept the resignations of board members Philip Princetta, Co-chair and Mike Karim, Treasurer. According to Pride, the new board members are fully committed to transparency and will honor the duties and responsibilities of the organization and continue the mission of San Diego Pride. However, the first meeting was closed into executive session soon after it began.
At a special meeting held last Saturday, attended by City Councilmember Todd Gloria and former San Diego deputy mayor Toni Atkins, State Senator Christine Kehoe demanded that San Diego LGBT Pride board members Chair Philip Princetta, Treasurer Mike Karim, Secretary Carl Worrell either resign or she would place the organization into receivership – a court action that places property under the control of a receiver during litigation – according to an anonymous source at the meeting.
Kehoe, Atkins and Gloria packed the San Diego Pride Board with a crossover of supporters, donors, and endorsers of their political campaigns – appointing the San Diego Democratic Club to take over Pride.
Community members are questioning if they have legal authority to take such actions under the Brown Act….
In a letter, obtained by the Gay & Lesbian Times, Worrell said, “I don’t know that I have ever before found myself in a situation where every alternative solution is wrong. But, in my opinion, that is the situation now. After the unconscionable bullying we took from Christine Kehoe, Todd Gloria and Toni Atkins; it is obvious that my involvement in shaping the future of Pride must end.
In addition to demanding that the three current board members resign, Kehoe also stated that all Pride board meetings would be attended by a representative from both Kehoe’s and Gloria’s offices. She ordered a hiring freeze and said all Pride business must go through her office before any actions were taken, according to the anonymous source.

One reason I steer clear from nonprofits.  Another reason is that I learned the hard way that they are answerable to their funders more than the clients they serve.  I would NEVER deal with a nonprofit (If I were you) anymore without knowing who is on the board of directors, and who is footing the bills.   Moreover, nonprofits can have their boards taken over and start firing staff, totally change the character of any organization which may have started out well.

So, I’m interested why these people would be so interested in controlling the nonprofit here San Diego LGBT Pride and looked it up.  “Year Founded:1974 Ruling Year:1995” (meaning actually showed up as a nonprofit 21 years after it started…  Wow, kinda like AFCC, which took forever to incorporate properly and start reporting income and paying taxes…).   Income they deal with listed at $1.47 million…   Purpose:

Foster pride in and respect for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

and Transgender communities locally and globally.

(See yesterday’s post on the gender expression bill.  Guess some real progress has been made there.)

Guidestar’s IRS form 990 for the year 2009 shows only the 3 ousted officer, plus Exec. Director Ron deHarte earning $113K, and the main activity rallies, festivals, etc.  (and operating in the whole).  The income is mostly “program service revenue.”

Whether or not this type of behavior and leadership qualities is played out in the LGBT community or not, it seems common in these combos, I have noticed:

  • Legislator Connection
  • City level control (Councilmen, Councilwomen), and  County Level Supervisors
  • Redevelopment Connections (real estate developers, or those financing it)
  • Favored nonprofits controlled by one of the above to provide services
  • Cronies getting the contracts, or cronies/spouses getting to be Exec. Director of the favored Nonprofit/agency  (Example:  “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys — Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s (3rd) wife gets coveted $90K job over a $3million-grant-initiated “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (I think was the title) whose actual benefits to the public are questioned (if ever proved).    The process by which this Executive Director was appointed took the cooperation of County Supervisors, helped by the early resignation of a (as I recall) District Attorney (rather than waiting out is term to let the appointment happen normally:  i.e., From Orloff to Nancy O’Malley.
For an example, here’s a quick summary (I also blogged it — but it was someone else who researched it):
SEPT 2009 (article shows an Oakland City Council person deluged with protests about constituents being whammed with parking meter increases, and slammed with violations…which is affecting business for the local retailers…   So the City Councilperson is often between a rock and a hard place, meaning the collaboration between other already tightly bonded parts of local govt:

Case closed: One big reason the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to name retiring District Attorney Tom Orloff‘s handpicked successor, Nancy O’Malley, to the plum job was her role in helping launch the Alameda County Family Justice Center – a federally funded program that helps victims of domestic violence.

Not only are Supervisors Gail Steele and Alice Lai-Bitker big supporters of the program, but its executive director is Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer – the wife of longtime East Bay pol Bill Lockyer.  Nadia is also running for supervisor.

Both Steele & Lai-Bitker have a reputation for being really concerned about domestic violence, and Steele, even for this crisis in the courts.  HOWEVER — has that justice center actually helped as many people as it says it did?  And if they’re so concerned about the bottom segments of society (and kids, of course….) — why not set a better example, and let the heads of major nonprofits receiving a FAT federal grant – be picked legally, instead of voting to minimize public awareness, and public comment ?  A “Steve White” (Indymedia) blogged this in 2006.  I can’t see that the practices have changed much, over time.  I blogged it, too:
There’s a certain truth (though not as intended, I’m sure) in the testimonials from this Justice Center’s site:

This is really changing the way the system is responding to victims.”
-Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney

“We use business principles to address social problems and build lasting solutions.”
-Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq., Executive Director

Well, well — the Sneak Peak of ACFCJ finds out that Ms. Nadia is going to take retiring County Supervisor Gayle Steele’s place — very appropriate, because Supervisor Steele probably could have — but like Lai-Bitker, chose not to — protest the improper propelling of this woman to the head of the ACFCJ to start with (see the articles i’ve linked to).  TWO county supervisors protested swishing the appointment past the public improperly.  THREE County supervisors (including those two) did not.  So here we are —

Congratulations and Thank You, Nadia Lockyer

On November 2, 2010, Nadia Lockyer was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to fill the seat vacated by retired County Supervisor, Gayle Steele. Nadia’s last day as the Executive Director of the ACFJC was December 31, 2010. We wish to thank Nadia for all she did for the ACFJC and we wish her well in her new position. We know she will continue advocating to ensure the safety and health of all children and families in Alameda County.

Senior Deputy District Attorney, Kim Hunter, will be the Acting Director of the ACFJC. She and Cherri Allison of FVLC will work together to provide leadership until a new director is installed.

And of course a blurb in this ACFCJ newsletter celebrates the inauguration of Nancy O’Malley, who helped get this ACFCJ started:

District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, Sworn in at ACFJC

The Inauguration Ceremony of Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attor- ney, took place at the ACFJC on January 3, 2011. Approximately 250 people gathered on the 2nd floor to hear an introduction by Chief Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Dunleavy, and the Oath of Office administered by Cali- fornia Supreme Court Associate Justice Carol Corrigan. Nancy ended the ceremony with a touching speech that thanked her mentors and family. A reception immediately followed at Z Café.

Congratulations Nancy!

While most Centers & Units  under this County’s DA’s office have addresses basically at the courthouse (1225 Fallon St most common address listed), “Child Abduction” and “Domestic Violence” have been exported to a different address, or “Center” here — 427   27th Street, Oakland.  (I developed a recent habit — looking up street addresses of nonprofits to see who else is there).
Convenient for the providers, not necessarily the best for the clients.
While I’m here (on that Alameda County Family Justice Center) — FYI
Guidestar, the address shows a nonprofit “Bay Area Women Against Rape”BAY AREA WOMEN AGAINST RAPE

Also Known As:

Physical Address:
470 27TH St
Oakland , CA 94612 
2008 IRS Form 990 (contains warning notice on potential errors in this version)
EIN# 942300454
This group’s budget is small fry among big fry (Grants $650,000) and its Executive Director, Marcia Blackstock has something worth hearing about this group and practices in general:

If you’ve got ears, listen up to this one:

Biography

Blackstock is the Executive Director of Bay Area Women Against Rape, which was founded in 1971 and is recognized as one of the first three victim assistance programs in the nation.

Initial Involvement in the Crime Victims’ Movement

Marcia Blackstock became involved in Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) as a volunteer in 1978. BAWAR had been formed in 1971 by an outraged foster mother whose high school-age daughter had been treated badly both by the police and the emergency room staff after she was raped.

Context of the Era

BAWAR had a “huge adversarial relationship” with law enforcement, hospital personnel, mental health professionals, and the judiciary in the early days. Blackstock remembers that BAWAR’s views were not trusted, nor did BAWAR trust anyone in the system to appropriately assist sexual assault victims. “It was a lot of upheaval, a lot of anxiety, and frustration,” Blackstock recalls. On the other hand, there was substantial community support from the local universities and other collective groups such as the Berkeley Free Clinic and the Women’s Health Collective that were also working and organizing to see that people were treated with dignity and respect and that their needs were met.

Greatest Challenge

Looking back, Blackstock believes that the greatest challenge was establishing credibility among professionals in the various fields that dealt with rape victims. The therapists, law enforcement officers, judiciary, and hospital personnel considered themselves the “experts” and maintained an adversarial relationship with BAWAR mainly because of its grassroots origins. The BAWAR advocates were not considered to be “professionals.”

“We were coming from a peer-support, community-based, grassroots organization that brought in a huge variety of people from a variety of backgrounds and education and ideas, but all coming together and focusing on a common goal. But we were considered ‘peer’ and not ‘professional’, at best paraprofessional and rarely that.”

One of the problems that BAWAR faced was that licensed counselors who felt that they were more knowledgeable had no experience at all working with sexual assault victims.

Or course, professionals and experts know better than grassroots advocates (or victims of crime) what’s best for them, and should be paid accordingly.
In looking up another Board of Directors of BAWAR, (Candace Archuleta)  the “Rakheem Bolton” case (Dallas, Texas) comes up, in which a cheerleader who was held down, locked in, raped — and whose rapist got off with a handslap — took a real stand.
In fact when she was supposed to be jumping up and down and shouting encouragement to him, she just stood.
She refused to cheer for him when he was back on the basketball court.  She didn’t call names, throw things, threaten, or anything.  She just stood, silent.  And for this, was punished
(WHY does this remind me of battered mothers who have some resistance to co-parenting with identified abusers or child molesters?  Family Courts have a hey-day with that obstinance….) 
Oh boy — none of that lack of “spirit” in the school! — and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

A high school student who refused to cheer on her “rapist” has been ordered to pay $45,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. Where’s the justice in this?

By Cord Jefferson
Posted: 05/05/2011 02:54 PM EDT

I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she told reporters in 2009. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”

To that end, HS refused to cheer for Bolton when he stepped up to take some free throws during a game in January 2009, four months after he had pleaded guilty to the attack. When she folded her arms and stood silently, however, her school’s superintendent, Richard Bain, ordered her outside and told her she had to cheer for Bolton. When she refused again, HS was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

(How much money, fame, press does a good basketball team attract to a school?)

HS later sued the school for kicking her off the team, but the results of that lawsuit have time and again gone terrifyingly against her.

(What’s Gender got to do with THAT situation?  Or, money? –or Justice?  The rapist paid $2,500, and she has to pay the school district $45,000 for protesting —  not with violence, but with silence?)

 

Now — think about it.  BAWAR is at this area, and getting small amt. of funding compared to the larger scope, yet rape and assault is a major part of domestic violence.    Yet Guidestar shows this “Alameda County Family Justice Center” at the same address — which we know is a major project — it has a physical, building presence — and yet it’s listed on Guidestar AS IF a nonprofit, incorporation 2010 (we know, formed much earlier) same address:

ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC   [EIN#  26-1141080]

Also Known As:

Physical Address:
470 270TH StOakland , CA 94612
At A Glance
Category (NTEE):
Human Services / (Victims’ Services) 
Year Founded:
2010  Ruling Year: 2010 

I’m looking at a 990 signed this past February by Harold Boscovich.  (You can too — it’s free).  There are no officers, no income, and no officer, it says, was paid.    Now THAT’s an unusual tax return!   “The purpose of this corporation (not nonprofit?) it “to provide comprehensive collaborative professional services to victims of domestic violence and their children, to victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation; to victims of elder abuse, and to victims of child abuse, at no cost.

WAIT A MINUTE!  Aren’t these the legitimate functions already of governmental (not nonprofit) agencies?  Such as the District Attorney’s office?
The books of this corporation are in the possession, it says, of D.A. “Nancy O’Malley, 470 270th Street, Oakland 94612″ (deliberate typo?  Oakland has no 270th street; see address) and the corporation’s contact# is the same.”
 We already know that Ms. Nadia’s salary was paid by the DA’s office (per indymedia blogger & local commentator, Steve White — see links)  It is classified as a “community trust” (line 8, Part I, of “Schedule A”) I guess IRS Section 170 (b)(1)(a)(vi).
Huh?
I’m a novice and maybe you are.  A SF Law firm summarizes / explains (Thank you, Adler & Colvin, a Law Corporation, 235 Montgomery, Ste. 1220, for this link and information):

QUALIFYING FOR PUBLIC CHARITY STATUS: The Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1) Test and the Section 509(a)(2) Test

Tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a charitable organization to pay no tax on any operating surplus it may have at the end of a year, and it permits donors to claim a charitable deduction for their contributions.

There is a further division in the world of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, classifying them into private foundations and public charities.

The private foundation laws impose a 2 percent tax on investment income, limit self-dealing and business holdings, require annual distributions, prohibit lobbying entirely, and restrict the organization’s operations in other ways. Also, large donors to a private foundation have a lower ceiling on the amount of deductible gifts they can claim each year. In most circumstances, public charity status is preferable to private foundation status.

And it appears that this Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACFJC” as I might refer to it again), started by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, hand-picked by the retiring one TOm Orloff as a shoo-in (or to be the incumbent shortly before he retired) whose connections I’m sure helped get the $3 million grant to start this particular ACFCJ — and who then helped get another connected individual, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq. become Executive Director and at once get a 50% increase in salary, to just below what a California Legislator (Assembly) typically gets ($90,000 / $95,921)….

Well, back to our IRS stipulations / qualifications link:

To determine the charity’s support base, (we might as well look at this….)

Gifts, grants,(Footnote 3) contributions, and membership fees received.

Gross investment income (e.g., interest, dividends, rents, royalties, but not gains from sale of capital assets).

Taxable income from unrelated business activities,4 less the amount of any tax imposed on such income.

Benefits from tax revenues received by the charity, and any services or facilities furnished by the government to the charity without charge, other than those generally provided to the public without charge.

{{Hmmm….Does this rule have anything to do with why a new location was needed for the Center?}}

Footnote 3 In some limited circumstances, an unexpectedly large grant may be excluded from both public support tests as an “unusual grant” described in Regulation § 1.170A-9(e)(6). These technical rules are beyond the scope of this memorandum.

 

Not becoming a Private Foundation — Well, if there’s a whole lot of wealth involved, this could be annoying.  Also, if you want very large private donors to support you, they deductible for those donors is also lower, which may make them wish to contribute instead to  501( c)3s as “Public charities” — like the Kids’ Turns of the family law world?

A Section 501(c)(3) organization can avoid private foundation status, and thus be classified as a public charity, in any of three ways: (1) by being a certain kind of institution, such as a church, school, or hospital; (2) by meeting one of two mathematical public support tests; or (3) by qualifying as a supporting organization to another public charity. In this memo, we discuss the two mathematical public support tests.

The Public/Governmental Support Test of Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1)

This public support test was designed for charities which derive a significant proportion of their revenues from donations from the public, including foundation grants, and from governmental grants. The test has two variations. If an organization can satisfy either of the two variations of this support test, it will qualify as a public charity under Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1).

The first variation is known as the one-third test. A charity can satisfy this test if public support is one-third or more of the total support figure. Nothing more is needed if this mathematical fraction is attained.

The second variation, known as the 10 percent facts and circumstances test, has two requirements. First, the charity’s public support must be at least 10 percent of its total support. Second, the charity must demonstrate, with reference to facts and circumstances specified by the IRS, that it is operated more like a public charity than like a private foundation.

For “Program Accomplishments” it says “See Schedule O.”  One year, the return simply had the organization’s title in there; the next year, it again restated the organization’s purpose.  These are hardly “program accomplishments.”
As it’s a certain kind of public charity, I’d like to see the IRS letter of Determination
Now — When I googled this Inc’s name (ACFJC) 3 and 3 groups only came up.  This (also Oakland-based) is the second one.     (The third is the Bill Wilson Center in LA? area).  This is where the money seems to be recorded — the Family Violence Law Center  (EIN# 942527939)
Income: $3,250,900
Also known as: FVLC
Oakland, CA 94623
Category: I71 (Spouse Abuse, Prevention of); P43 (Family Violence Shelters and Services); P62 (Victims’ Services)Physical Address:PO Box 22009 Oakland , CA 94623Web Address:www.fvlc.org  Telephone:(510) 2080220 Facsimile:(510) 2083557 Contact:Ms. Cherri N. Allison, , Esq.cherri@fvlc.orgExecutive Director(510) 2080220 x32
This amount seems closer to the grant mentioned for the spanking new ACFJC a while back.  NOtice different address (like a PO Box….) and although ACFCJ actually has a web address, Guidestar doesn’t list it for some reason.
2008 Tax Return says that
GRANTS — Prior Year, $318,322,
THIS year $1,386,008
Program Service Revenue  — last year:   1,680,748,
THIS year $1,867,703
Given that part of domestic violence is economic abuse — the victims are not usually flush with funds — I’m going to hazard a guess that they are selling trainings and products to other nonprofits, or to agency professionals whose trainings are paid for by public funds.  That’s just a guess.  Unless you know a slew of domestic violence survivors that can pay this kind of money to help support the group.
I’d say collaboration works, eh?
Here’s a current job advertisement for “youth program director” — will earn perhaps a bit less than half what the former ACFCJ Exec. Director did, at $42K – $48K per year.  Children are being born daily (hence no shortage of Youth in the area) and the former clients that ran through ACFCJ are probably dealing with high-conflict custody cases, wondering where their child support went, and figuring out how to co-parent with whoever this group helped them get a protective order on earlier.   Meanwhile, their lives having first justified grants to this organization, will now be justifying grants for “access and visitation,” a cause which essentially undoes what the first round did — protection.
Their mission statement, history, accomplishments, and who they collaborate with is listed clearly here:

Mission Statement

Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) has been working to end domestic violence in Alameda County since 1978, when a small group of abuse survivors founded the agency. To advance our mission of ending domestic violence, FVLC employs a holistic approach that integrates a comprehensive service model with dedicated efforts to address and change institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors within the legal, health, education, and criminal justice systems.

Yeah, “holistic” and “comprehensive service” are definitely the keywords these days.  Please notice carefully (underlined) which systems it tries to address and change “institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors” within — it specifically does NOT mention within the Judicial system, and it most definitely does not mention anything — at all – about the “FAMILY LAW SYSTEM” although it’s title says ‘Family Law Violence Center.”

Go figure, huh?  And how telling.  The most critical information people coming through “stage one” of leaving domestic violence, assuming kids are involved, is what is coming up next — which IS the “family law system.”.

After looking at the 990 (as usual, I often go straight to the officers’ page), and notice the Executive Director is being paid a modest (for this size of operation) salary of $90K year, and her name is:

ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Cherri N. Allison, Esq. is the Executive Director at FVLC. A lifetime resident of Oakland, Ms. Allison has more than 7 years of legal non-profit management experience. Ms. Allison also has over 12 years of experience as a family law attorney.

Prior to coming to FVLC, Ms. Allison was the Director of Programs at the Alameda County Bar Association. In addition to Ms. Allison’s expertise in non-profit management, she has experience in board development, program development, grant writing and investments. She currently serves as the President of the Board for the Women Lawyers of Alameda County, is a former member of the FVLC Board, and is a member of the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and the Charles Houston Bar Association.

In 2008, she is (not inappropriately, I’m sure) awarded by the Bar Association for the work with this Community Organization, along with other judges, attorneys, etc., as it says (tickets, $125),

2008 Installation and Distinguished Service Awards Dinner

Join us on Thursday, January 17, 2008, as we swear in our Officers and Directors and honor the recipients of our Distinguished Service Awards while we enjoy a delectable dinner buffet and cool jazz. The festivities will take place at the Claremont Hills Resort & Spa, majestically resting on 22 acres of beautifully landscaped gardens in Berkeley.*

(*starting to sound like some of the wonderful AFCC, or for that matter, Kids’ Turn promoting retreats and seminars.)

(the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” is a grants recipient, from my understanding, through HHS and is where CPEDV went….).   WELL, I guess that FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE may tell us why this group doesn’t seem to educate its clients about the family law process, and what’s happened to it since, say, 2001 (Bush, faith-based), or even 1998, 1999 (US Congress passes resolutions on fatherhood).  However, it’s clear Ms. Allison must be informed about the intersection of DV & Family Law; she has written about it:

Domestic violence remedies in California family law cases, 2008. Cherri N. Allison, et al. (CEB, 2008)  KFC 115 D664  not accessible to general public, unless you are in L.A.?

Get this (2009)

Women Lawyers of Alameda County (WLAC) honors Exec Director  of ACFCJ, District Attorney (who helped fund and start ACFCJ) who also honor a retired woman judge (Hon. Peggy Hora., Ret’d.) who pushed “therapeutic jurisprudence”  – a VERY problemmatic practice in the judicial field, and also endorsed by AFCC.

How sweet — aren’t these professionals all close friends with each other then?  (Except the women driven homeless through family law system and twice-thrice-and ongoing-abused (Legal abuse syndrome) through its practices, or while (out of state — MD — another state pushing Therapeutic Jurisprudence through Univ. of Baltimore School of Law “CFCC”) a pediatrician mother (is that professional enough?) lost 3 children, drowned in a bathtub on a scheduled visitation, although she warned, pleaded, and asked for visitation to be curtailed based on the prior mental health history and state of the father.  (“Cabrillo”).

WLAC “Honor Roll”

This Issue’s Honor Roll:

Cherri N. Allison, Executive Director of the Family Violence Law Center of Alameda County, was recently named “Woman of the Year” for the Justice Category of the Alameda County Commission on Status of Women and will be inducted into the Alameda County Women’s Hall of Fame on April 25, 2009.

I think that instead of professionals honoring and decorating themselves in nice ceremonies (Sun Myung Moon and the U.S. Senate mock coronation ceremony comes to mind) instead some of the women who DIED because of stupid family law rulings, sometimes along with their children or in front of them, in scheduled exchanges with the father for co-parenting purposes — THEIR names should be honored.

I do not live in this county and so am not familiar with which is most dramatic, but how about honoring the mothers who, having left an abusive relationship (or possibly separated because of the abuse) thereafter, by complying with family court orders to fork over their children to an ex-batterer or abuser, ended up dead.  

If this is too many low-income people to consider at once, then why not go for someone closer to the legal profession’s social class — Hans Reiser.  Why not honor his wife, Nina.   I’m not sure which county this case was in, but sounds like her body was unearthed Alameda County.

And whoever is recommending Batterers Intervention Programs gets my “dunce award of the year; here’s why from “Sagaria Law” — they don’t complete the programs anyhow!  Or, (in one high-profile case) they complete the programs and then walk back and kill the woman anyhow (Scott McAlpin).

The programs draw funding  — is there something too hard to spell about that?

I started this blog to warn others!   after years of the rollercoaster (downhill slide, overall) of the family law system that no one who was involved warned me about when I separated from the abuser.  In retrospect, it might have been better to ask for self-defense lessons, mace training, and just utilize it, so I could communicate directly to this person that was is and is not acceptable is, in marriage, a two-way street, and wives are people, too.

FVLC’s services include both protection initiatives for people currently experiencing abuse and prevention initiatives to eliminate future abuse. Today, FVLC is recognized as a leader in the community in both delivering exceptional services to abuse survivors and in advocating for long-term social change for victims.

Maybe I should go find these people  — a list of clients with children who then went into “high-conflict custody battles”– and start interviewing them to see if the perspective holds — and if they then lost their kids to the abusers, because doing something about that issue is not, er, under FVLC’s 501(c)3 goals….  Abuse survivors with custody cases need not apply — go see your local family law attorney….
Well, I recognize that someone else has to tell about the Access Visitation Factor, the Child Support Incentives, and that that whatever groups like these WILL instruct people about, the functioning of the family law system is not on the curricula.    We had to learn the hard way that if our problems were not going to attract major funding, we could just go deal with them ourselves.  THESE types of programs, however do get the moulah:
How much easier to teach, coach and (allegedly) prevent — than to scrutinize, analyze, and dis-assemble destructive institutions which result in family wipeouts — but which are already entrenched…

During FY 07-08, FVLC achieved the following accomplishments [(accomplished the following)]:

  1. Provided legal services (representation, paperwork preparation, and advice and counsel) to 525 clients, for a total of 2,250 contact hours and 692 court orders.
  2. Provided crisis counseling and safety planning to 2,823 clients, for a total of 3,250 contact hours.
  3. FVLC’s HEAL (Healing Emotions and Loss After Domestic Violence) Program provided intensive parent/child psychotherapy to 31 children and their primary caregiver, for a total of 900 contact hours.
  4. FVLC’s RAP (Relationship Abuse Prevention) Program provided intensive leadership training to 56 youth and violence prevention education and outreach to 1,008 youth.

FVLC has set the following goals for the current year (FY 08-09):

  1. Continue to strengthen collaborative relationships with other agencies co-located at the Alameda County Family Justice Center with FVLC.  This includes the Oakland Police Department, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and numerous other community-based agencies.
  2. Engage in policy work around domestic violence by playing a leadership role on several state and countywide task forces, including the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Alameda County Family Violence Council, Domestic Violence Advisory Council for the Social Services Administration of Alameda County, and Alameda County Teen Dating Violence Task Force (formed and led by FVLC).
(As you can see, it’s now fashionable to say the words “domestic violence” and form task forces to do something about it, allegedly.  Look at the variety of groups that do:  The ABA, CPEDV, and something from Alameda County itself I can’t even find (yet), as well as a SSA “Domestic Violence Advisory Council.”   How many of these talk to victims they helped 5 years down the road or so?
  1. With our collaborative partners Youth ALIVE! and Youth Radio, expand leadership training and policy work around teen dating violence at Oakland middle schools through various classroom, after-school, and summer activities, effectively reaching approximately 1,600 adolescents.  This is made possible through a generous four-year, $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

(Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is very big into funding fatherhood materials. )

These are recommended reading to pick up on the patterns, and alliances.  It almost gives one a headache (for non-politically-minded individuals who just do their jobs, obey the law, pay taxes, volunteer locally, probably contribute locally, etc.) to conceive of the extent of deceit and collaboration that is simply government.  And then all the public press about how poor we all are, and how it’s time to tighten our belts — and cut back on the social service infrastructure.  And (in California) release from 30,000 to 40,000 prisoners.

This is simply taxation without representation, and totally unacceptable in my book.

And I’m not a Tea Partier.

It sheds a whole different light on the “social contract” that most of (what remains of) the middle class has bought into.  If they stick to their jobs, neighborhoods, kids, and planning for leisure & retirement (and don’t ask too many questions about the top layer) — then the top layer will structure society so as to kind of leave them alone, and of course (this goes without saying) make sure the rabble doesn’t get out of control.

 

FAMILY  JUSTICE CENTERS, per IRS search (on the name):

Name City StateSorted Ascending Country
Code
ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Oakland CA USA
ANAHEIM FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Anaheim CA USA
FRIENDS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Riverside CA USA
NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE San Diego CA USA
SOUTH BAY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Torrance CA USA
STANISLAUS FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION Modesto CA USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC. Tampa FL USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION OF IDAHO Nampa ID USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY INC. South Bend IN USA
THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF BOSTON INC. Boston MA USA
ESSEX COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Roseland NJ USA
CENTER FOR FAMILY JUSTICE Albuquerque NM USA
TRI-COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF NORTHEAST NEW MEXICO INC. Las Vegas NM USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ERIE COUNTY INC. Buffalo NY USA
YOUTH AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. New York NY USA 4
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY Georgetown SC USA
KNOXVILLE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Knoxville TN USA
BEXAR COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION San Antonio TX USA
FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER San Marcos TX USA
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MINISTRY FAMILY SERVICES CENTER Woodville TX USA

to Be Continued…