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.
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….)
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:)
- 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.
- 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.
|
Award Number = 90FM
Showing: 1 – 50 of 70 Award Actions
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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 “
- 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
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.
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.

Carolyn Curtis
Director


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 …

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:

(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 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECIPIENT SEARCH RESULTS
Recipient EIN = 204384330 No matching awards found.
| 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 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 EducationFindings 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.
|
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.
- a June 1, 2000 letter from Florida Secretary of State showed Ph.D. Lori Gordon how to incorporate;
- 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 Hurt: Turn 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
USAWebsite: 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:
”
|
|
||
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:
| 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”)

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.
- Dr. Phil McGraw
- Marriage Boot Camp
- Smart Marriages (Diane Sollee, goes way back)
- Because Of Me
- California Healthy Marriages Coalition (good luck tracking this one, but one of the staff members IS a Moonie// link not active)
- First Things First (out of TN, and a definite HHS/ACF grantee collaborating with other such grantees to get those TANF funds….)
- Beyond Affairs Network
- Dimensional Journey
- Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (the Garcia’s from Arizona I’m trying to trace, click to get “Page not found.”)
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:
|
San Diego “Fictitious Business” registration shows 3 trademarks of this group:
But they want to sell me further details (forget it!)
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),
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Carolyn Curtis
Executive Director and Founder, Healthy Marriage Project
- Sacramento, California Area
- Nonprofit Organization Management
- Current
-
- Executive Director at Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Marriage Project)
- Past
-
- Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice
- Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice in Psychotherapy (Self-employed)
- Education
-
- Alliant University
- California State University-Sacramento
- University of California, Davis
- Connections
-
437 connections
- Websites
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)
Today Was A Very Special Day In California
Bento Leal
November 30, 2001Today 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
510.333.3478Bento 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Related Documents |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Prerequisite Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IRS Return Data | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
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.
|
![]() |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
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….

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]
ELIZABETH’s NEW LIFE CENTER BUSINESS FILING — see dates. |
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
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 DirectorVivian 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 |
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 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.

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 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
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
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 “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.
- Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood – Click to see that OK had one, “Inhofe”)
- Congressional Task Force on 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]
Post title with short-link (and to explain the 2011/2017 references in the title):
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…

Image from my 8/31/2011 post, complete with some typos and more sarcasm.
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.
| 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 — 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.
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.
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
. . .
Donor Advised Funds
Donor 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).
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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Organization Details | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| EIN: | 952942582 | ||
| Name: | The San Diego Foundation — Google | ||
| Location: |
2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92106 |
||
| 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 11520-1152411520. 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
|
|||
|
|||
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:

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: Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, San 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 SKILLSAdvisory 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 MOREAdvocacy
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
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
-
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
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 MonitoringIn 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 Maxwell, LCSW, Ph.D.Karen Oehme, J.D.authors commissioned by
Copyright © 2001 Violence Against Women Online Resources
AbstractThe Evolution of Supervised Visitation: From Child Welfare to Domestic Violence Case VisitationRecognizing Common Batterers Behaviors In Supervised Visitation SettingsStrategies to Improve Supervised Visitation in Domestic Violence Cases
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 | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
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?
(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 32207ServicePhone:
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: Yes; sliding 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.
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 | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| 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:
Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women
women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached1223 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 …
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223–King–St–Jacks… – Cached
Family Division and Office of Child Support
Vermont Office of Child Support
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
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.
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. Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, 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

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.

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.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
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 AFCCARTICLE: 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. StrausExcerpt
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”
![]()
Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.
| RSJ CORP. Summary Screen | Help with this form |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
Excerpt
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 possible. 3 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 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 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 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, 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):
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
[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 …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….
66% to 34%, “Undistributable Child Support Collections,” and why HHS/OAS is more concerned about its share, than kids getting theirs….
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 (PRWORA, Pub.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 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.
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
- Subpart 1—Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
- Subpart 2—Promoting Safe and Stable Families
- [Part C—Repealed.]
- Part D—Child Support and Establishment of Paternity
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 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?

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.
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 | % 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.orgUndistributed 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 Paying
Child“Family” SupportHowever, 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
electedappointed 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 SUPPORTUNDISCLOSED 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 defenseIt 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 SUMMARYBACKGROUNDThe 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!)OBJECTIVEOur 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 PMTHE GAZETTEThe 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:
” 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, 2007
Under 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
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
4/4/09Darwin 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.
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.
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?
“Is Darwin Deason a Crook?”
Posted in the ACS – Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Forum
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.)
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.
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) |
- Disappearing Documents
- Data Goes Missing
- Latest ACS Breach Puts 2.9 Million at Risk
- ACS Data Breaches top 4.6 Million
- ACS Named Among Top Companies Shipping US Records Overseas
- CalPERS Asks ACS to Investigate Stock Option Issues
- Cities may owe millions for vendor collected tickets
- Cops Face Charges They Took ACS Bribes {{THIS IS IN CANADA AND RELATES TO THE RED-LIGHT CAMERAS, I.E., TRAFFIC}}
- Down the River with Darwin Deason
-
Darwin Deason, I have a confession …
- Title Examiner Discovers Documents Missing from Online Database
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.
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:
April 20, 2009|By Mary Shanklin, Sentinel Staff WriterAt 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 2007, Tennessee 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
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. 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 TimeMAXIMUS 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:
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 2007, Tennessee 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
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”:
(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?
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.
- 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.
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.
R-KIDS Issues and Concerns
- The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.**
- The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
- Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.**
- Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
- The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
- Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well. **
- The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
- Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
- Accountability for the use of child support.
- 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 COMMITTEEMonday, June 22, 1998
Roughrider Room, State Capitol
Bismarck, North DakotaRepresentative 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“
Let’s Talk Child Support — HHS series “90FD” Grants to states: (Research and Demonstrate)
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:
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, 2011Support 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 LawMaximus, 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.
Submitted by Robin Mathias on Mon, 12/16/2002 – 5:21pm. Fraud Cases | Medicaid Fraud CasesRayonne 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.
09/13/2007 | 06:00 amMaximus 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 . . . . .. )
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 ofpsychologypseudoscience 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 INITITIATIVE |
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 ORDERS |
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 PROJECT |
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!”
(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 2, 402, 454, 1002,1402, 1602, 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 3,455, 1003, 1403, 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…~ ~ ~
What’s Money got to do with it? This is about love, helping kids, protecting gender expression, right?
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.
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
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 PrideThe 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.
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.
Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center
Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT
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!
Convenient for the providers, not necessarily the best for the clients.
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# 942300454This 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.
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 JeffersonPosted: 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?)
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.
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.
Income: $3,250,900
Also known as: FVLC
Oakland, CA 94623Category: 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
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.
During FY 07-08, FVLC achieved the following accomplishments [(accomplished the following)]:
- 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.
- Provided crisis counseling and safety planning to 2,823 clients, for a total of 3,250 contact hours.
- 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.
- 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):
- 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.
- 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?
- 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. )
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 State 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…










![Violence Against Women Online Resources [logo]](https://i0.wp.com/www.mincava.umn.edu/images/comdoclogo.jpg)


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










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.
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.
This author has a B.A. from Stanford and a J.D. from Georgetown and is a Senior Policy Analyst at a Progressive organization.
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.
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:
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”:
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:
{{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…}}
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:
FEB, 2011 article by this justice defending himself against a newspaper attack:
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:
Here’s a nice 2007 Continuing Legal Education Commission schedule, from the Kentucky Bar, giving thanks for contributors:
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!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)
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 Techniques; December 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:
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
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:
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……)
(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:
Teresa’s Vision:
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:
(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:
www.etfrc.org They have the solicitation part of the website all nicely set up:
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.
**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 / $$
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:
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):
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. ”
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
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: ///
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 26, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Child Support, CPR Center for Policy Research, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC)
Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, CFDA 93593 Child Suppt Enforcmt, CFDA 93594 Child Suppt Research Demo, CFDA 93601 Child Supp Spec Projects ("90FI" series), Child Support, family law, fatherhood, HHS-TAGGS grants database, Kids' Turn, social commentary, Supervised Visitation, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., USASPENDING.GOV database