Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family (and/or "Conciliation") Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Archive for the ‘CPR Center for Policy Research’ Category

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

with 2 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – – The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  (If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

Concern #2:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESS RELEASE LIST OF GRANTEES:

After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.  My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

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

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

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

NATIONAL

RESOURCE CENTER for

STRATEGIES to

PROMOTE 

HEALTHY MARRIAGE.

= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Institute, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?  Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

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


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


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2009 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 2 ACF 06-15-2009 072648579 $- 702,966 
2009 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-18-2009 072648579 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $- 202,966 Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]

In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]

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

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 0 ACF 09-21-2007 072648579 $ 882,080 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 882,080


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

  

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

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

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

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS in Fairfax, VA

Fairfax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.

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

(notice its name shows different here, too).

USASPENDING.GOV:

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

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

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

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

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

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

Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT for this NRCSPHM:

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

Summary

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

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT-99-07

ISSUED: April 28, 1999

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

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

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

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

REGULATORY REFERENCE: 45 CFR Parts 303.109

DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

__________________________
David Gray Ross
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

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

In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .       To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption INcentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

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

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

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF CHILD ACCESS PROJECTS 

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

Purpose

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION:  PROMISING PROCEDURES

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

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

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

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

INTRODUCTION

More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Initiatives Grant

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

Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

David Price, Ph.D.

Policy Studies Inc.

999 18th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 863-0900

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

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

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

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate

jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the last two:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program 

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

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

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

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

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

WEBSITES

www.coloradodads.org
www.familiesfirstcolorado.org

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

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

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

Circle of Parents

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

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

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

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

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

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

Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

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

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

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

Revenue (that year):

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARTNERS FOR KDS:  GETTING FATHER-READY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Smart Start?

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

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

CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr)

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

  • Total Dollars:$3,900,000
  • Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
 However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.
The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)
ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.
Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

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

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

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

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

SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

What legislation supports CBCAP?

The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

Why were CBCAP programs created?

CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.

 

 

 ** For “expert” read “head shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

 Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them.  It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.

FYI — we can speak.  Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak.  most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation.  They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost.  Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level.  They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).

(NORTH CAROLINA:  Years, All   CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series).  Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . …  ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/21/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/17/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 405,528
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/26/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 525,161
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 490,465
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 06/06/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 0
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 530,482
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0001NCSAVP SAVP 2000 08/22/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0101NCSAVP SAVP 2001 08/23/2001 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 08/06/2002 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 23,880
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/11/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 30,070
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0401NCSAVP 2004 SAVP 09/15/2004 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0501NCSAVP 2005 SAVP 09/14/2005 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0601NCSAVP 2006 SAVP 09/19/2006 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 268,587
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0701NCSAVP 2007 SAVP 07/20/2007 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 278,157
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0801NCSAVP 2008 SAVP 01/30/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 271,792
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0901NCSAVP FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 12/23/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,258
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1001NCSAVP FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 11/25/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 279,933
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1101NCSAVP FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 10/08/2010 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 286,100
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 05/31/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 12/02/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 216,494
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 01/04/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 205
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 09/01/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 02/24/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 08/16/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 02/25/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 132,019
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 08/24/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/25/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR LINDA ROBINSON $ 514,308
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 519,625
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ELIZABETH CARROLL $ 548,181
OFA Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. Other Social Services Organization 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 09/27/2011 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 375,685
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/16/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 538,524
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 550,000
Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

(THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state). 

 

“PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one:  There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . .  Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme.  When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them!  An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.”  Builders are not the house, they are outside the house!   The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan.  However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections.  The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural).  Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above  . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).  

This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr).  Contact your local affiliate to buy it:

Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”


[furniture/logo.gif] with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

 (It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest  funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):  

Parent Trust for Washington Children 9/10/2010 $15,000.00 support general operating expenses. 

EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least):  recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  SEATTLE WA 98101 KING $ 50,000

(“Mutual Support” programs?  How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1998 90CA1648  DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 0 ACF 09-14-1998 $ 50,000 

There are thousands of “90CA” awards.  To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards.  Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name:  Here we go, from TAGGS:

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
1998  CB  CAL ST LA UNIV AUXILIARY SERVICES, INC CA 90CA1589 PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – FIELD INITIATED RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW MITCHELL EISEN, PH.D. $ 9,750
1998 CB CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION & FAMILY SUPPORT DC 90CA1614 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOYCE N THOMAS $ 100,000
1998 CB D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND DC 90CA1645 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW CAROLYN S ABDULLAH $ 50,000
1998 CB EDGEWOOD THE SF PROTESTANT ORPHANAGE CA 90CA1599 PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFARE SYSTEM 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION LILLIAN JOHNSON $ 199,464
1998 CB FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC CA 90CA1608 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ASCENCION HERNANDEZ $ 100,000
1998 CB FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY AREA CA 90CA1587 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PATRICIA CHAMBERS, PH.D $ 150,000
1998 CB KITSAP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WA 90CA1609 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ELIZABETH S BOSCH $ 100,000
1998 CB LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPT OF CHILDREN’S SRVS CA 90CA1594 PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFAR 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION SHARYN L LOGAN $ 200,000
1998 CB MARY’S CENTER OF MATERNAL & CHILD CARE DC 90CA1586 PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – HEALTHY FAMILIES DC 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOAN YENGO $ 150,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS  CA 90CA1592 PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – NATIONAL NETWORK OF MUTUAL SUPPORT/SELF HELP PROGRAMS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TERESA RAFAEL $ 350,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS CA 90CA1646 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW LISA PION-BERLIN $ 50,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  WA 90CA1648 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW SYLVIA MEYER $ 50,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW TANYA PHAM $ 100,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TANYA PHAM $ 100,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, FOUNDATION CA 90CA1566 PRIORITY AREA 1.02R – CONSOR- TIUM FOR LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PROJECTS 4 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ALAN LITROWNIK $ 250,000
1998 CB STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CA 90CA1601 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW HAROLD R DEARMOND $ 54,725
1998 CB WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WA 90CA1590 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW SHERRY C BRUMMEL $ 197,471
1998 CB WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WA 90CA1590 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION SHERRY C BRUMMEL $ 195,092

I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations?  Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much?  Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2) CLAREMONT CA 91711 LOS ANGELES 090749326 $ 2,828,196
PARENTS ANONYMOUS   (THIS GRANT IS 2010….) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA 119833135 $ 792,550
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (THIS GRANT, 1999) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF BUFFALO & ERIE COUNTY  BUFFALO NY 14206 ERIE $ 750,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.  PRINCETON NJ 08540 MERCER $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF PENNSYLVANIA  HARRISBURG PA 17102 DAUPHIN $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.  CHARLESTON SC 29416 CHARLESTON $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS ORG. OF MASS., INC.  BOSTON MA 02116 SUFFOLK $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  SEATTLE WA 98101 KING $ 50,000

 

Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:

  • Total Dollars:$697,225
  • Transactions:1 – 2 of 2
One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group  leader???) – 2010
and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities
Description:
NATIONAL PARENT HELPLINE
Date Signed:
August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount: 
$500,000
and
Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)
Date Signed:
July 02 , 2007 

Obligation Amount: 
$197,225

“parents anonymousa inc.”??  This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:

Obligation / Action Date  07/02/2007
Starting Date  09/30/2006
Ending Date  09/29/2008
R

BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:

  • Total Dollars:$18,936,970
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 25

This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess).  There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX0001: 03 (Grants)
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
CLAREMONT
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Description:
STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
Date Signed:
August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount: 
$3,000,000

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX000104 (Grants)
Recipient: PARENT ANONYMOUS
CLAREMONT
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Description:
STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount: 
$2,993,400

They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).

In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program:  they got $2.7 million

cfda 16;541 comes under ”

CFDA Program Title  JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION_SPECIAL EMPHASIS AND T/A

(OK, I finally looked up the project title).   The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs!  This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!

Here they are seeking donations:  Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000).  They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . ..    Contact “Meryl Levine.”  I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing).  The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)

DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?

CALSWEC Standing Committee

Return to Home  

Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:

Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.

CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).

Ms. Levine is on the “CHILD WELFARE STANDING COMMITTEE” (representing PARENTS ANONYMOUS(tr):
Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.

Committee Chair
Charlene Reid, Director
Division of Social Services
Tehama County Department of Social Services
Staff
Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC
Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development
Parents Anonymous Inc.
Viola W. Lindsey
Department of Social Work and Social Ecology
Loma Linda University
Kristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
F&E Steering Committee
California Department of Social Services

David Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of California
Mark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services

Kate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
Department of Social Work
California State University, Northridge

SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE ASSOCIATING WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO GET CHOSEN FOR MAJOR GRANTS . . . . 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Seal and Site Header

http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California

Report No. GR-90-04-013
August 2004
Office of the Inspector General


Executive Summary
The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.

(WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):

Sort by date/ Sort by relevance

DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
 At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
Incorporated, Audit Report GR9004013, August 2004. 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

Audit Report
 Claremont, California. Report No. GR9004013 August 2004 Office of
the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached

Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.

AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material.  There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization:  . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.

Note:  California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent.  Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program.  It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.

In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.”  The top Ten Recipients included:  #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”

Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002

1. PARENT ANONYMOUS$2,700,000
2. DARE AMERICA$2,475,000
3. CALIBER ASSOCIATES$1,999,480
4. WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOC$1,851,050
5. GIRL SCOUTS OF USA$1,800,000
6. WAYNE CNTY DEPT OF COMMUNITY JUSTIC$1,800,000
7. LOS ANGELES CITY OF$1,800,000
8. SAFE AND SOUND$1,496,700
9. PUBLIC / PRIVATE VENTURES$1,375,000
10. AN ACHIEVABLE DREAM$1,350,000

Do their state registrations show?

AZ as charity,- yes:

ID NAME DBA
12810 *PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ARIZONA, INC

(at the same street address, as a “dba” also)

ID NAME DBA
24105 CPLC SOUTHWEST, INC. PARENTING ARIZONA

in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name:  “PARENTING ARIZONA:  SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).

Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.

CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF:  Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1239568 02/22/1984 DISSOLVED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY CARRIE PUGH
C0896252 08/30/1978 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY
C1023786 04/13/1981 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. PETER A BUCK
C1259155 10/18/1984 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. BARBARA RAYNARD
C0606551 09/03/1970 ACTIVE PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. LISA PION BERLIN
C0816640 05/27/1977 DISSOLVED PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST SHELLY TAYLOR

Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area:  Every other term is trademarkeed…

http://www.parentsanonymous.org/pahtml/pressExpert.html

Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).

Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing

The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.

With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.    

(in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)

(Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse.  In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..)  The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved.  This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:

Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders

Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.   

In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.  

Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.

OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant.  TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding…  The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address:   ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center

I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin  teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver 

 

 

Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother.  IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.

Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily

Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.

I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.

(OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website.  I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).

“The Shared Leadership”  plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good.  But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way.   Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.  

As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow.  They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help.  The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side.  Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.

Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups.  Only the main one survives, as we can see:

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY 056591 Charity Dissolved SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Charity Not Registered MISSION VIEJO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. 057939 Charity Inactive REDDING CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. 015477 Charity Current CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST Charity Not Registered CULVER CITY CA Charity Registration Charity
As1

 

AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad:  EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here  

Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-01
Total Assets: $502,908.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $4,312,507.00
RRF Received: 21-FEB-02
Returned Date:
990 Attached:
Status: Accepted

2009:

Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
Total Assets: $1,775,724.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $1,584,661.00
RRF Received: 12-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

 As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity).  Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half.  (2009:  $

667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.”  (which their tax form will explain).  The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc.  (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).

  • “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”

Got this business model yet?   . .. by our accredited network organizations.    What do they do?

  • Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families.  Expenses $1,302,041

This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and  another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.

Other earnings (revenue)  660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees.   No royalties show up …. 

 

And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):

  • Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
  • VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
  • Sec  Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
  • Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
  • Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
  • Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
  • Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
  • Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
  • Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
  • Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201

 In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)

If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.

Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.

THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.

 Some of the incorporators:  Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately: 

Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor

Obituaries | PASSINGS

April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Judge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.

Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division.  Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.

{{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc.  “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}

She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness.   She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.

 

 THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of:  “

  • The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
  • To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
  • • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.

 By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”   

(Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.) 

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

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

For additional information, on this program choose an option below.

What services we offer!View our classes! Contacts!Your resources!Find out what you need to know!

However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO

Parent Opportunity Program

In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.

(the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)

POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.

To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.

Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.

(An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county.  An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:

El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…

Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.

Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.

That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.

“We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.

ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants.  In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department.   Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project

The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”

They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:

Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)

Submitted to:  Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*

Submitted by:  Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org

(the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)


September 2007

[Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.

Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).

Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.

Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):

This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Address Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
OCSE CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1575 SHERMAN STREET Welfare Department 90FD0096 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 125,000

I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….

Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for.  Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits):   Interesting!  At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was:   “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program”   If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently!    Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….

(I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored.  I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).

Executive Summary

The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:

␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;

␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and

␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide.  Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50).  I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010.  There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?

Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0004 PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 1 09/16/1997 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 72,500 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0028 NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES  1 09/14/1999 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 75,000
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0069 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 1 09/15/2002 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 100,000 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0080 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 1 09/10/2003 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 55,023 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0096 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1 09/14/2004 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 125,000 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0111 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PA 2 1 07/12/2005 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 114,741
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0126 AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 1 09/20/2008 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 99,815
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0132 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 1 09/20/2008 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 30,000
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0166 PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS 1 09/27/2010 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY OTHER NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 52,443
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0168 TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS 1 09/25/2010 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY OTHER NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 84,783
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 90FD0033 COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS 1 09/14/1999 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 80,000 Abstract Not Available
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

Abstracts include:

Grant 90FD0111:  “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)

In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities.   Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.

JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.

I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe:  They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:

History

The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.

The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.

Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.

In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.

In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:

Thank You, Vendors

Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.


LabCorp

Orchid Cellmark

PSI

Systems & Methods Inc

WICSEC

(upper right).  (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).

IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Colorado Family Support Council CO 2010 $44,401 990EZ 8 84-1180995

 

 

 

 

This post could go on indefinitely.  I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:

My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):

Organizations/COrporations:

  • ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC.  — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others).  The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.
  • Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
  • Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me?  Who are they, really?
  • where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
  • This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
  • PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County.  Again, $18 million is a lot of business.  Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
  • CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System.  This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
  • (though I knew this already)  REMEMBER TO CHECK  — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at.  Example:  PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR.  Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .


  • ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND EXAMINE A TAX RETURN OR TWO, SEARCH THE STREET ADDRESS, AND WHERE LIKELY TO BE PRODUCTIVE, SEARCH THE CEOs or other Board of Directors’ associates and affiliates.

  • LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate.  I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.
  • Prior to looking at this last ground of grantees, and a bit more at the CHMC, I would’ve been less prone to saying this, but the evidence is accumulating quickly.  I believe its possible that the entire programming is designed simply around high-emotion terminology (families, Dads, Kids) to enable hiding federal funds disbursed to, for lack of a better word, cronies.  This is not “taxation with representation” but taxation without it.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The amazing Suspended, Dissolved, Terminated, Forfeited, Delinquent, perchance Active-Status (re)Incarnations Family Court Stakeholders (Phew!)

    with one comment

    Well, I’m breathless keeping up with them.  Someone very, very tech-savvy should design a 3D chart.

    The X-axis could be years, the Y axis perhaps States of incorporation.  A 3rd dimension could be either $$, or Board of Directors Personnel in common Profit/Nonprofit or perhaps %/# of public law & court-related employees among incorporating personnel.

    Actually no matter how I look at it, the human mind can’t keep up with such level of detail, and I don’t see any databases that are, although there are plenty of databases that track almost every other level of detail, including books signed out from local public libraries by users.

    My cursor / fingers are so trained they can get on auto-pilot, or otherwise just about effortlessly over to the state (usually my state’s) “Business Corporations” search page, and then the “Registry of Charitable Trusts” search page – in approximately 5 seconds or less, without bookmarks.  The computer is trained to go there also.

    Business Entities (BE)

    To spice it up a bit, I took a little detour to the link underneath “Business Search” — and to “Disclosures.”  (California Secretary of State link)

    No, this isn’t the judges’ statements about their financial holdings (Form 700s in my state — what about in yours?) — but Public Traded Stock corporations doing business in (my state).   This is another angle of the child support enforcement (and other) businesses we tend to overlook.

    There are shareholders – not just employees — invested, literally, in the success (profit) of for-profit organizations whose business is to put liens on your assets and garnish your wages if you’re a delinquent in support payments person.  Or, sometimes, when you aren’t.  Or sometimes, as it comes to certain groups, when you don’t even have a minor child by the name they are putting into the system.  Or paid already (and so forth).

    So, before posting Maximus’s disclosures (speaking of which) my Secretary of State site very helpfully posts the relevant business codes for anyone – meaning any foreign (out of state) corporation doing business “intra” (within) the state.  These are for the protection of the stockholders, and us.

    For example:

    2105. (a) A foreign corporation shall not transact intrastate business without having first obtained from the Secretary of State a certificate of qualification. To obtain that certificate it shall file, on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, a statement and designation signed by a corporate officer stating:
    (1) Its name and the state or place of its incorporation or organization.
    (2) The address of its principal executive office.
    (3) The address of its principal office within this state, if any.
    (4) The name of an agent upon whom process directed to the corporation may be served within this state. The designation shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 1502.
    (5) (A) Its irrevocable consent to service of process directed to it upon the agent designated and to service of process on the Secretary of State if the agent so designated or the agent’s successor is no longer authorized to act or cannot be found at the address given.
    (B) Consent under this paragraph extends to service of process directed to the foreign corporation’s agent in California for a search warrant issued pursuant to Section 1524.2 of the Penal Code, or for any other validly issued and properly served search warrant, for records or documents that are in the possession of the foreign corporation and are located inside or outside of this state. This subparagraph shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a party or a nonparty to the matter for which the search warrant is sought. For purposes of this subparagraph, “properly served” means delivered by hand, or in a manner reasonably allowing for proof of delivery if delivered by United States mail, overnight delivery service, or facsimile to a person or entity listed in Section 2110 of the Corporations Code.
    (6) {{[(a)??}} If it is a corporation which will be subject to the Insurance Code as an insurer, it shall so state that fact. (b) Annexed to that statement and designation shall be a certificate by an authorized public official of the state or place of incorporation of the corporation to the effect that the corporation is an existing corporation in good standing in that state or place or, in the case of an association, an officers’ certificate stating that it is a validly organized and existing business association under the laws of a specified foreign jurisdiction. (c) Before it may be designated by any foreign corporation as its agent for service of process, any corporate agent must comply with Section 1505.
     

    This is going to become VERY interesting when it comes to nonprofits with the word “COURT” anywhere in their name.  The ethereal re-incarnations and multi-state addresses are really hard to keep up with.

    But, thankfully, MAXIMUS was forthcoming and disclosed, twice, in California (remind me to check EVERY state):

    Corporation Number
    Corporation Name
    Disclosure Filing Date
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 07/17/2006
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 03/05/2004

    Sorry to give it that ugly format, but the more picturesque versions (which drag an image) tend to not show in different browers.  So you get the warhorse version, with live links (I hope).

    I then went right back to the “Business Search” (as in yesterday’s post) and typed in “C1618100” (easier than the whole name), remembering to check “Entity#” and got this:

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C1618100 06/30/1988 ACTIVE MAXIMUS, INC. CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

    Well perhaps THAT’s why we can’t keep up with all these stakeholders in the mediation (etc) and businesses of law — they have a faster than light incorporating service. . . . . .

    CSC LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

    8040 EXCELSIOR DR, STE 400
    MADISON,  WI  53717-2915

    Also at that address:

    VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, 8040 EXCELSIOR DRMADISONWisconsin 

     VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC. 8040 EXCELSIOR DRSTE 400MADISONWI 53717-2915 
    Maximus (see narrow bar, above) has been doing in business in california since before welfare reform, and was in fact involved in it.  I think that a contract with Los Angeles was one of the earliest one’s in the company’s history in this business.

    Benefit from our Child Support Expertise

    MAXIMUS professionals manage 40 percent of the privatized child support caseload in the United States and Canada today. All our services are supported through a team of CSE experts, which includes former state and local IV-D directors and others with significant child support legal, policy and operations experience. Our more than 660 CSE specialists have a shared passion and dedication for helping children and families obtain the resources they need.

    As the local IV-D directors also (through fatherhood grants, etc.) have some say in child CUSTODY matters, this can get fairly interesting . . . ..

    Child Welfare

    MAXIMUS is committed to improving the welfare of the nation’s most vulnerable children by providing SSI Advocacy Services for children in foster care and providing Title IV-E, TANF, and Adoption Assistance Eligibility services for our government partners.

    We partner with government clients and tailor our services to meet child welfare program goals. We are passionate about advocating for vulnerable populations, and our team brings a unique blend of knowledge, skills, and experience, which is unmatched by any other firm.

    And partnerships with various regional nonprofit child support directors associations (see my recent posts for who is paying for that . . . . . )

    Extending our reach through our valued partners (Affiliated Associations)

    As a corporate member of several civic associations across the nation, MAXIMUS is dedicated to the business areas and communities in which we operate.

    Child Support

    Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association   (ERICSA)
    National Child Support Enforcement Association   (NCSEA)
    Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council  (WICSEC) (active in California also, although our state one is “CSDA”)

    About that 1988 incorporation date in California:

    From wikipedia (just a reminder), Maximus started in 1975, in a garage in McLean Virginia:

    History

    MAXIMUS was founded by David Mastran, a Vietnam veteran and former government worker, in 1975 and was first incorporated as a privately held company in 1975. Mastran founded the company from his garage in McLean, Virginia.[10]The company eventually went public on June 13, 1997.

    So, it incorporated in California probably in order to do this:

    Employment services

    MAXIMUS began providing welfare-to-work services in 1988 with Los Angeles County’s decision to award the first welfare-to-work privatization contract in the nation. Today[when?]MAXIMUS operates TANF programs in Los Angeles County; Alaska; San Diego; Orange County, California; Wisconsin; Maricopa County, Arizona; Nashville, Tennessee; and Cleveland, Ohio.

    The company also runs One Stop Employment Centers, Veterans Employment Programs, and WIA Summer Youth Programs.[14]\


    Public obviously meaning it trades its stock, “MMS,” openly, and not just restricted to shareholders.  Right now, that’s worth about . . . .

    Last Price $37.69  Day Change (up) 0.89|2.42 %  that’s literally 8/23/2011 1:19pm, thank you “Quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=MMS

    (. . No, I don’t know stocks either, just looking)

    However, in 2007, it apparently was doing better, until it had to pay that $30 million in settling a whistleblower lawsuit from one of its own employees.  This is a whistleblower law blog:

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

    “Helping the Government serve the People” is the tagline of Virginia based Maximus, Inc., latest corporate citizen entangled in a Medicaid fraud scam.

    Unfortunately, this company needs a new tagline. The DOJ announced today that Maximus has agreed to pay $30.5 Million to settle qui tam lawsuit. The company admitted to their part in submitting fraudulent Medicaid claims for children who may not have received foster care services. Last September, at the end of their fiscal year the company reported earning $700 million in revenueand predicted a rosy forecast for 2007. Today the Maximus stock closed at $42.05, only down a slight 5% from earlier trading.  I wonder, how they will project next year’s forecast, in wake of this scandal.  It is a scandal, because the good name of this organization has been tarnished due to a few “greedy” and “unscrupulous” workers.

    Thanks to the brave whistleblower, Benjamin Turner, a former division manager at Maximus, the acts and deeds of the corporate wrongdoers, did not go unpunished. In recognition for his efforts, Mr. Turner will receive $4.93 million as a result of filing a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit under the provisions of the False Claims Act. There are times when a whistleblower gets compensated for his brave actions. And there are times when the whistleblower gets nothing, even after going to the Supreme Court, as in the case of Rockwell v. United States, as mentioned here previously on the Whistleblower Law Blog.

    I’m just putting that in for reference, before posting this Disclosure from my state.  I was talking about what it takes (financially, salaries) to run the SF Superior court a post or so ago.  Well, here are some of the profits — including in both salary and “options” (that’s stock options, which have higher leverage and potential profits than plain stocks) for the executive directors.

    California Secretary of State site shows:

    Corporation Number
    Corporation Name
    Disclosure Filing Date
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 07/17/2006
    C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 03/05/2004

    The first filing showed one set of Executive Directors:

    CORPORATION
    Corporation Name: MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC.
    Corporation Number: C1618100
    Document Number: 0990969
    Disclosure Filing Date: 07/17/2006
    Bankruptcy: NO
    Legal Proceedings: Material pending legal proceeding(s) – YES
    Legally liable in any material legal proceeding(s) – NO
    INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
    Prepared most recent auditor’s report: ERNST & YOUNG
    Employed by the corporation as of the date of the statement: ERNST & YOUNG
    DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
    Name Title Compensation Shares Options Bankruptcy Fraud
    BELIVEAU, RUSSELL A. DIRECTOR $ 37,500.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
    HALEY, JOHN J. DIRECTOR $ 45,000.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
    LEDERER, PAUL R. DIRECTOR $ 55,500.00 0.00 1,823.00 NO NO
    MONTONI, RICHARD A. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    POND, PETER B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 12,570.00 NO NO
    RUDDY, RAYMOND B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 8,519.00 NO NO
    SEYMANN, MARILYN R. DIRECTOR $ 56,500.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
    THOMPSON, JAMES R. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 4,954.00 NO NO
    WEBB, WELLINGTON E. DIRECTOR $ 43,500.00 0.00 2,141.00 NO NO
    FRANCIS, DAVID R. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 425,120.00 2,413.00 80,000.00 NO NO
    MONTONI, RICHARD A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 565,000.00 6,500.00 15,000.00 NO NO
    WALKER, DAVID N. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 218,500.00 0.00 280.00 NO NO
    LOANS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
    Name: NONE

    and the next filing, a bit earlier, a different set, with the exception of Mr. Montoni is still there, showing the increase in salary in just a few years.

    CORPORATION
    Corporation Name: MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC.
    Corporation Number: C1618100
    Document Number: 0655844
    Disclosure Filing Date: 03/05/2004
    Bankruptcy: NO
    Legal Proceedings: Federal security law violations – NO
    INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
    Prepared most recent auditor’s report: ERNST & YOUNG
    Date of last report: 12/16/2003
    DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
    Name Title Compensation Shares Options Bankruptcy Fraud
    BELIVEAU, RUSSELL A. DIRECTOR $ 101,612.00 0.00 15,000.00 NO NO
    DAVENPORT, LYNN P. DIRECTOR $ 426,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 NO NO
    HALEY, JOHN J. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 3,899.00 NO NO
    LEDERER, PAUL R. DIRECTOR $ 30,000.00 0.00 5,656.00 NO NO
    MASTRAN, DAVID V. DIRECTOR $ 395,155.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    POND, PETER B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 9,083.00 NO NO
    SEYMANN, MARILYN R. DIRECTOR $ 30,000.00 0.00 2,068.00 NO NO
    THOMPSON, JAMES R. JR DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 3,475.00 NO NO
    WEBB, WELLINGTON E. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    BOYER, JOHN F. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 350,000.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    FALLON, ROBERT J. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 390,000.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
    GRISSEN, THOMAS A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 414,500.00 0.00 5,000.00 NO NO
    JOHNSON, DAVID M. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 511,523.00 0.00 100,000.00 NO NO
    MONTONI, RICHARD A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 374,333.00 0.00 15,000.00 NO NO
    LOANS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
    Name: NONE

    I may have posted this before, but a brief bio of Mr. Montani is here from people.forbes.com

    Richard A. Montoni

    Chief Executive Officer, President and Director

    Maximus, Inc.

    Reston ,  VA

    Sector: SERVICES  /  Business Services

    Officer since March 2002
    59 Years Old
    Richard A. Montoni has served as Chief Executive Officer, President and a director of MAXIMUS since 2006. Previously, Mr. Montoni served as our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Montoni served as Chief Financial Officer for Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, during April 2006 before rejoining MAXIMUS and his appointment as Chief Executive Officer and President. Before his employment with MAXIMUS, he served as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President for Managed Storage International, Inc. in Broomfield, Colorado from 2000 to 2001. From 1996 to 2000, he was Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President for CIBER, Inc., a NYSE-listed company in Englewood, Colorado where he also served as a director until 2002. Before joining CIBER, he was an audit partner with KPMG, LLP, where he worked for nearly 20 years. Mr. Montoni holds a Masters Degree in Accounting from Northeastern University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from Boston University.
    (notice, steadily increasing, and the stock awards also.)
    Salary $700,000.00
    Bonus $0.00
    Restricted stock awards $1,800,000.00
    All other compensation $58,409.00
    Option awards $ $0.00
    Non-equity incentive plan compensation $700,000.00
    Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $0.00
    Total Compensation $3,258,409.00
    Just for a point of reference.

    Faster than thought:  AFCC, in Illinois, Los Angeles, and Colorado (simultaneously):

    NOW IT’S A LITTLE LATE IN THE DAY, BUT JUST FOR REFERENCE:  At the end of the last post, I was re-posting some comments about what (the heck) is going on at 111 Hill Street in Los Angeles, and what has been — regarding the history of the AFCC.
    If someone would like some proof or what is said at “Beware AFCC” (google it) and that Jessica Pearson, of Center for Policy Research, has organizational connections to the AFCC, which itself has direct connections of SOME sort, to the Los Angeles County Courthouse (at least the one at 111 Hill Street), I’ll give you this one:
    Entity Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS 
    Entity Number: C1091990
    Date Filed: 10/01/1981
    Status: SURRENDER
    Jurisdiction: ILLINOIS
    Entity Address: 1720 EMERSON ST
    Entity City, State, Zip: DENVER CO 80218
    Agent for Service of Process: MARGARET LITTLE
    Agent Address: 111 N HILL ST
    Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012
    Margaret Little (Ph.D.) in 2006 shows up on a Judicial Council Task force report (about abuses in probate conservatorships!) as this title:

    Dr. Margaret Little

    Family Law and Probate Administrator Superior Court of California,

    County of Los Angeles

    Topic of the report (which I just linked to), dated 9/18/2007 about how the courts responded to  not internal controls, or complaints from litigants, but an expository (series?) from the Los Angeles Times!  May there be a similar one on these topics in my lifetime!  . . .   Notice how “lack of resources” (rather than, say, corruption and inappropriate alliances between probate judges and public guardians) is cited as a cause of the troubles.  I hope that by quoting this you don’t lose sight of the tri-state corporate identity of (AFCC), above, or its significance:

    Final Report of the Probate Conservatorship Task Force (Action Required)

    Issue Statement

    The administration and management of probate conservatorship cases in the state of California was recently placed under scrutiny through a series of Los Angeles Times articles that raised concerns that some conservatees were being subjected to abusive practices. Of particular concern were the inappropriate granting of temporary conservatorships on ex parte petitions, lack of proper oversight of accountings, abusive practices of private professional conservators including improper billings, lack of sufficient notice to conservatees and their families, and inadequate protections of the rights of conservatees. Although there are courts and counties with exemplary programs, many others do not appear to be able to provide the services and oversight necessary to ensure that conservatees are protected and receive proper care and treatment. This inability is often due to a lack of resources and, in some cases, gaps in existing statutes, rules, and guidelines.

    Recognizing these challenges, in January 2006 the Chief Justice established the Probate Conservatorship Task Force and charged it with conducting a top-to- bottom review of the probate conservatorship system in California

    Dr. Margaret Little is involved in Family and Probate Courts, and was the registered agent (if anyone had started a lawsuit, she’d have received the paperwork) for ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS with ILLINOIS jurisdiction and DENVER place of business, probably while back then also on the public payroll for the County of Los Angeles.   Makes you think, huh?  Since then (2010) she was a member of the “Elkins Family Law Task Force” as Senior Administrator (in the same area), and was cited by a 2001-licensed Child Forensic Psychologist (Marlene Valter, Psy.D.) as having conducted the following training (it’s a “vita,” I searched for “Margaret Little”).  Note the following seminar listed, same year and who sponsored it!:

    2003 Domestic Violence Training for Child Custody Evaluators and Mediators; Los Angeles, CA; January 23; Coordinator: Margaret Little, Ph.D.; Sponsored by Los Angeles County Family Court Services. (4 hours)

    2003 Managing Parent-child Reunification in Alienation and Abduction Cases. Burbank, CA; September 25; presenters: various; Sponsored by Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts. (3 hours)

    If we look at this Pepperdine-trained person, it’s clear a lot of her work life has been in the los Angeles County System, not to mention around AFCC, heavily so:

    CHILD CUSTODY FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING:

    2008 AFCC-CA Annual Conference: Abduction, Risk, and Response; Ethical and

    Effective Coaching of One Parent During a Child Custody Evaluation; Domestic Violence;

    MARLENE W. VALTER, PSY.D.

    PAGE 2Private Life, Public Parenting-Is a Parent’s Sexual Behavior Relevant?; The Impact of Celebrity

    on the lives of Children; Therapeutic Interventions. Santa Monica, CA; Sponsored by AFCC and Los Angeles County Superior Court. (12 hours)

    2008 Domestic Violence Training for Child Custody Evaluators; Santa Monica, CA; In collaboration with AFCC/CA Chapter. (4 hours)

    2007 Annual Update for Custody Evaluators: The Steve Frankel Group, June 19. Online Presenter: Philip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP. (8 hours)

    (Philip Stahl is straight PAS-promoter, and quite AFCC, currently in Arizona…)
    As far back also as 1991, here is an article by Margaret A. Little, funded in part (it says) by a grant from the “California Judicial Council” (too bad the TAGGS.hhs.gov database doesn’t go  back that far), published in the “FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW.”  Other than giving a background history of Hofstra University in NY which helps publish this with AFCC, I don’t know how much more plainly I could point to who is running the family court services basically around the country..
    The Impact of the Custody Plan on a Family:   A Five-Year Follow-up
    (for what Trish Wilson has to say on this, in 2002 (the 11-year followup?) see HERE at “The Liz Library” it appears to be commenting on the same article, in re: joint custody.)
    1991 – 5 = 1986 – 5  = when the above-listed California “foreign” corporation, predecessor of AFCC, had to surrender its business license.  I imagine these people know exactly what they are doing corporately in moving fro in-state to out of state.  I can’t say the same for every young proselyte that graduates into the system, whether through Fuller Theological Seminary,** in the area, or Pepperdine, also in the general area (Malibu) or wherever
    (** this mini-section added 8/25, and I am posting some material on Fuller today as well.  Both are Christian-oriented groups who have really pushed into the business realm surrounding the courts, through graduate psychology, marital studies, and as to Pepperdine University School of Law’s emphasis on Dispute Resolution, churning out professionals at a high rate that my research keeps running into as I chase down nonprofits, delinquent and active both).
    Think of the ramifications if AFCC is indeed the shape-shifting, tax-evading, court-controlling group it certainly appears to be!

    SO WHEN MARV BRYER RAVED ABOUT AFCC’S ROAMING INCORPORATION HISTORY . . .

    So when Marv Bryer, raving almost, states “incredulous” things (like, over a decade ago) like this (quoted from Liz Richards NAFCJ site this time) . . . .

    In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

    . . . He’s not nuts.  I just showed you.

    Also, looks like they had to give it up.
    NB:  i showed you the Los Angeles County Judges’ Association last post.  Wasn’t it still out of 111 Hill?
    Jurisdiction, Illinois (OK . . . . . )
    1. Endnotes – The Future of Children –

      futureofchildren.org › Home › Publications › Journals – Cached

      by JR Johnston – 1994 – Related articles
      May 17, 2011 –  is presently under research in a multisite national study (J. Pearson, Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson St., DenverCO 90218). 

    2. Colorado Model Office Project EVALUATION OF COLORADO’S DRIVER’S 

      ancpr.com/myth.htm

      Center for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street DenverColorado 80218 303/837- 1555. Quotes from this study indicate clearly that so called “Deadbeat Dads” 

    3. Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases – Google Books Result

      books.google.com/books?isbn=0471167525John E. B. Myers – 1997 – Family & Relationships – 600 pages
      Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson StreetDenverCO 80218. Phone: (303) 837-1555) [hereinafter Tjaden & Anhalt]. 332 Tjaden & Anhalt at 1. 
    4. 2309 Emerson StDenverCO 80205 Directions, Location and Map 

      http://www.mapquest.com/maps?…2309%20Emerson%20St…DenverC – Cached

      Our interactive map lets you view, print, or send to your phone directions to and from 2309 Emerson StDenverCO 80205, and view the location as a 

    5. CHILD SUPPORT IN THE UNITED STATES: THE EXPERIENCE IN COLORADO 

      lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/321.abstract

      by J PEARSON – 1992 – Cited by 2 – Related articles
      Center for Policy Research1720 Emerson StreetDenverColorado 80218, USA. The research reported in this article was developed under grants from Hunt 

    6. Child Support Improvement Project: Paternity Establishment; Final 

      by J Pearson – 1995
      Sponsoring Agency: Colorado Dept of Social Services United States. Sale: Ctr for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street DenverCO 80218. United States 

    Of course it’s now moved — and shows up at 1570 Emerson Street:
    Center For Policy Research
    1570 Emerson Street  (google maps view)
    Denver, CO  80218
    Phone: 303-837-1555
    Fax: 303-837-1557
    And legally registered as a trade name and nonprofit at http://www.SOS.state.CO.us:
    Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
    # Name Address Type Count
    1 PEARSON, JESSICA 1570 EMERSON, DENVER, CO
    80218-1450, US
    Trade name Registrant 1
    2 PEARSON, JESSICA S. 1570 EMERSON, DENVER, CO 80218, US Registered Agent 1
    Also in Denver, NCADV Main Headquarters (the other office listed being in Washington, D.C.) which apparently just moved here, no kidding, on April 1, 2011:
    NCADV’s Main Office (as of April 1, 2011)
    One Broadway, Suite B210
    Denver, CO 80203
    and

    1899 Wynkoop Street # 300

    Denver, CO 80202-1092 map

    (personnel in common, and often publishes under HHS grants with CPR).
    Also (note address):

    COLORADO CHILD HEALTH PLAN PLUS-ANTHEM

    1899 Wynkoop #300
    Denver, CO 80202
    (800) 234-5147
    Company Website: www.chpplusproviders.com

    In fact, trade names for PSI, I should probably just list here — there are plenty for this 1984-incorporated organization, several of which relate to this blog:
    Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
    # ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
    2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
    5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
    10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM
    and the last two, Parent Opportunity Programs, you “know” are going to show up fatherhood-hhs-sponsored:
    Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
    # ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
    12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
    From fatherhood.hhs.gov, the descriptions:

    Colorado

    Noncustodial Parent Programs

    • Boulder County Parent Opportunity Program (POP) Policy Studies Inc. has operated a Welfare-To-Work (WtW) program for non-custodial parents (NCP) in Boulder County since 2002. The program helps NCPs who are unemployed, underemployed, or having trouble meeting their child support obligations. The POP helps these parents overcome barriers to employment by linking them with services in the community or through allowable WtW funds. The program has been instrumental in helping clients increase their wages, child support payments, and visitation with their children. Primary Contact: John Mahaney, .
    • El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP) This program is in its seventh year of operation. During the first three years, it operated under a federal grant to develop an innovative approach to create a strong community effort serving noncustodial parents who lacked the means to support their children. The POP now operates as a partnership between the El Paso County Department of Social Services, Policy Studies Inc. (PSI), the Center on Fathering and Goodwill Industries. These partners work in coordination with other community agencies to provide services including employment and training, mediation, parent education, child support assistance and community referrals to unemployed and under-employed non-custodial parents and their families. Recently, POP has partnered with the Pikes Peak Workforce Center to help them serve noncustodial parents eligible for WtW services. An evaluation of the first three years of the program is available upon request. Primary contact:Chad Eddinger, Project lead, El Paso Department of Human Services .
    Guess who was probably paying (now that I’m on that web page, which comes generally speaking under HHS == tax distribution agent of the U.S. Government) for these:

    Faith-Based and Community Organization Activities

    • On October 1st and 2nd, 2004, The Colorado Collaborative for FatherHood and Families, and the Fatherhood Coalition of Metro Denver co-sponsored a kick-off training conference called Journey to Manhood, attended by nearly 30 local fatherhood providers and fathers interested in training. Presenters included James Rodriguez of the Arizona Fatherhood Collaborative and ACF staff. This was the opening session of a one-year certificate program in Fatherhood to be offered by Red Rocks Community College.
    • Also on October 1st, 2004, the Fatherhood Steering Committee of the Colorado Department of Human Services, with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, held a Stakeholders Forum. Many excellent presentations were offered by local fatherhood experts on how to make organizations more father-friendly, and how to address barriers that keep fathers from full participation in child welfare organizations.
    • The 14th Annual Expanding the Visions Conference was held on March 20, 2004. This event, sponsored by the Denver African-American Leadership Conference, was attended by approximately 1,000 boys and their dads. Several hundred packets of ACF-related information were distributed to attendees. This information focused on how to be a great dad and strategies for avoiding divorce.
    • Colorado Springs, Colorado: Approximately 200 dads and daughters participate annually in the Father-Daughter Purity Ball. The centerpiece of this evening of formal dinner and dancing is always the reading of a pledge by the dads to model purity and integrity for their daughters and to do all they can to protect their purity.
    • In Douglas County, Colorado, Extension Agent Rich Batten has established a monthly e-mail letter for those interested in fatherhood advocacy and committed to increasing the probability of every child being intimately connected to an involved, responsible and loving father or father figure.
    • The Denver Indian Family Resource Center has begun a Young Men’s Sweat Lodge project, which includes fathers and male mentors. Seven sweats have been held so far.

    For a REAL eye-opener, go to the SOS Colorado business search page, click on “Advanced Search” and then type in “Fatherhood”!

    Sorry, this post was less about the title’s Suspended, etc. — but bet it was informative.  Namely, the appearance of detachment and belonging to separate entities (when one awards and compliments the other) dissipates when the connections between associations are traced at the corporate level.
    Since then, AFCC has straighted up and incorporated in a California Chapter.  At least the “incorporated in California Chapter” part I can vouch for:
    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C1587819 05/15/1987 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER LULU L WONG
    C1091990 10/01/1981 SURRENDER ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS MARGARET LITTLE
    Entity Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER
    Entity Number: C1587819
    Date Filed: 05/15/1987
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 1336 N MOORPARK RD #185
    Entity City, State, Zip: THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360
    Agent for Service of Process: LULU L WONG
    Agent Address: 1303 JEFFERSON ST STE 710B
    Agent City, State, Zip: NAPA CA 94559
    NAPA is wine country, just north of San Francisco.  Remember Karen Anderson’s grants money was used to host an art & wine seminar up there? (see johnnypumphandle’s account, I DNR exact details…..).
    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 068671 Charity Current THOUSAND OAKS CA Charity Registration Charity
    1
    Too bad I wasn’t checking here in 2010 and earlier; looks like they got their 2011 warning letter too!  if it doesn’t show here, go to the site and read it, bottom document under “first delinquency notice.”     Cute!

    It got slapped up on the site crooked.  Looks like someone was in a hurry!
    Just a reminder:  They are addressing an organization comprised of judges and attorneys, etc.  Isn’t that sweet, reminding them of the law?
    You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
    Full Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER FEIN: 770238347
    Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1587819
    Registration Number: 068671
    Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
    Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2012
    Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 2/7/2011
    Date of Last Renewal: 3/3/2011
    Address Information
    Address Line 1: 1336 N MOORPARK RD #185 Phone:
    Address Line 2:
    Address Line 3:
    Address Line 4: THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360
    Annual Renewal Information
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-04
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-04
    Total Assets: $23,332.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $59,598.00
    RRF Received: 01-FEB-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-05
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-05
    Total Assets: $28,259.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $62,923.00
    RRF Received: 10-FEB-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-06
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-06
    Total Assets: $25,101.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $66,748.00
    RRF Received: 10-FEB-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-07
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-07
    Total Assets: $31,241.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $106,426.00
    RRF Received: 16-MAY-08
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-08
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-08
    Total Assets: $76,048.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $135,317.00
    RRF Received: 13-MAY-09
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
    Total Assets: $73,765.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $120,592.00
    RRF Received: 26-FEB-10
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
    Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
    Total Assets: $80,200.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $103,725.00
    RRF Received: 11-FEB-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Related Documents
    00003B29 Founding Documents
    00003B2A RRF-1 2009
    00003B2B IRS Form 990 2009
    00003B2C RRF-1 2008
    00003B2D IRS Form 990 2008
    00003B2E RRF-1 2007
    00003B2F IRS Form 990 2007
    00003B30 RRF-1 2006
    00003B31 IRS Form 990 2006
    00003B32 RRF-1 2005
    00003B33 IRS Form 990 2005
    15310 1st Delinquency Notice
    Prerequisite Information
    No Prerequisite Information
    IRS Return Data
    Founding documents, 1987 (AFCC began apparently in Los Angeles somewhere around 1962?) are full of love and appreciation for children and conciliation, etc.
    Notice the inclusion of “BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS.”   Got to get them in there.
    Notice (below) the span of the state (in fact, west coast) represented in directors, starting with a LA County Judge at 111 Hill Street, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and up north, our beloved San Francisco:
    \

    HAVE A SWEET DAY….

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

    with 5 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Families Lose in Child Support Case

    By Joy Moses | June 22, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support cases. The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting. Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing. Compliance with the program requires making weekly child support payments as well as attending a twelve (12) week class.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ABOUT THE HANDBOOKS AND PRESENTATIONS ␣ Handbook materials are the result of the combined efforts of numerous dedicated professionals from around Kentucky, and elsewhere. The KBA gratefully acknowledges the following individuals who graciously contributed to this publication: AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination  (the link is a Google search, it brings up my posts on the topic as well as of course a course selling information at a discount to AFCC members on how to implement “parenting coordination” (translation — how to steer a family court case against mothers, I kid you not….), how to basically CHANGE courts, and a potpourri of other AFCC agendas  They really are a marketing outfit….  Parenting Coordination Task Force (a concept pushed by this group) consisted of:   The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

    Overview and Definitions

    Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution [ADR] process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan** by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs,*** and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
     

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

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

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

     BACK to Ms. Moses’ article though:

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

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

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

    CFDA Prog. No.

    OPDIV

    Popular Title

    Number of Awards

    Number of Award Actions

    CAN Award Amount

    93.563

    ACF 

    Child Support Enforcement (CSE)  

    180

    1,037

    $3,604,010,339

    Page Total

    180

    1,037

    $3,604,010,339

    Report Total

    180

    1,037

    $3,604,010,339

     

    Same category, FY 2011:

    CFDA Prog. No.

    OPDIV

    Popular Title

    Number of Awards

    Number of Award Actions

    CAN Award Amount

    93.563

    ACF 

    Child Support Enforcement (CSE)  

    170

    713

    $3,258,225,288

    Page Total

    170

    713

    $3,258,225,288

    Report Total

    170

    713

    $3,258,225,288

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

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

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

    CFDA Prog. No.

    OPDIV

    Popular Title

    Number of Awards

    Number of Award Actions

    CAN Award Amount

    “2010”

    93.601

    ACF 

    Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

    118

    257

    $17,306,652

    93.601

    CDC 

    Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

    1

    1

    $601,234

    Page Total

    119

    258

    $17,907,886

    Report Total

    119

    258

    $17,907,886

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

    Program Office

    Grantee Name

    {Yr “2010”}

    City

    State

    Award Number

    Award Title

    Budget Year

    CFDA Number

    Principal Investigator

    Sum of Actions

    Award Abstract

    OCSE 

    CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

    DENVER 

    CO 

    90FI0098 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

    2

    93601

    JESSICA PEARSON 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

    DENVER 

    CO 

    90FI0098 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

    3

    93601

    JESSICA PEARSON 

    $50,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Circuit Court for Baltimore County 

    BALTIMORE 

    MD 

    90FI0057 

    OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5 

    1

    93601

    PETER J LALLY 

    -$1,215

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office 

    CLEVELAND 

    OH 

    90FI0093 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    2

    93601

    KENT K SMITH 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

    DENVER 

    CO 

    90FI0094 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    2

    93601

    BEN LEVEK 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

    DENVER 

    CO 

    90FI0094 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    3

    93601

    BEN LEVEK 

    $24,300

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Florida State University 

    TALLAHASSEE 

    FL 

    90FI0107 

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

    1

    93601

    KAREN OEHME 

    $100,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

    DES MOINES 

    IA 

    90FI0095 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    2

    93601

    JOE FINNEGAN 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES 

    DES MOINES 

    IA 

    90FI0095 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    3

    93601

    JOE FINNEGAN 

    $25,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Kern County Department of Child Support Services 

    BAKERSFIELD 

    CA 

    90FI0097 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    3

    93601

    PHYLLIS NANCE 

    $25,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

    MILWAUKEE 

    WI 

    90FI0103 

    IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION 

    2

    93601

    JANET NELSON 

    $25,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES 

    RENO 

    NV 

    90FI0082 

    2005 SIP GRANT 

    2

    93601

    JOY LYNGAR 

    -$1,203

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 

    NEW YORK 

    NY 

    90FI0092 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

    3

    93601

    MICHAEL MAGNANI 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

    OKLAHOMA CITY 

    OK 

    90FI0100 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

    2

    93601

    KATHERINE MCRAE 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

    OKLAHOMA CITY 

    OK 

    90FI0100 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

    3

    93601

    KATHERINE MCRAE 

    $24,170

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM 

    HERNDON 

    VA 

    90FI0102 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    3

    93601

    DAVID P POPOVICH 

    $22,816

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

    SAN JOSE 

    CA 

    90FI0101 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

    2

    93601

    RALPH MILLER 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs. 

    SAN JOSE 

    CA 

    90FI0101 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) 

    3

    93601

    RALPH MILLER 

    $25,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency 

    AKRON 

    OH 

    90FI0109 

    OCSE DEMONSTRATION 

    1

    93601

    JENNIFER BHEAM 

    $83,330

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

    AUSTIN 

    TX 

    90FI0091 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 

    2

    93601

    MICHAEL HAYES 

    $0

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families 

    COLUMBIA 

    SC 

    90FI0105 

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

    2

    93601

    PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN 

    $50,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. 

    TUSCALOOSA 

    AL 

    90FI0108 

    CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY 

    1

    93601

    TERESA COSTANZO 

    $100,000

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

    BOSTON 

    MA 

    90FI0106 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    2

    93601

    DENISE M FITZGERALD 

    $48,995

    View Abstract

    OCSE 

    URBAN INSTITUTE (THE) 

    WASHINGTON 

    DC 

    90FI0096 

    SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

    3

    93601

    SANDI CRAWFORD 

    $33,052

    View Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Teresa’s Vision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Grantee / Program / Source / $$

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

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

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

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

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

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

    County gets almost $45,000 for fatherhood program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Check presented in the amount of $103,400

    Linda HodgeThursday, Dec 02,2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative

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

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

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

    Grantee Name

    Grantee Address

    City

    State

    County

    Grantee Type

    Award Number

    Award Title

    Budget Year

    Action Issue Date

    CFDA Number

    Award Action Type

    Sum of Actions

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    0804AK4004 

    2008 OCSE 

    1

    12/17/2009 

    93563

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

    $217,656

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    0904AK4004 

    2009 OCSE 

    1

    12/07/2009 

    93563

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

    -$471,245

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    0904AK4004 

    2009 OCSE 

    1

    12/21/2010 

    93563

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

    $154,695

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    09/23/2009 

    93563

    NEW 

    -$1,435,990

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2009 

    93563

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

    $2,971,304

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    11/23/2009 

    93563

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

    $873,529

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $3,370,981

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    03/05/2010 

    93563

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

    -$113,038

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $3,857,781

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/29/2010 

    93563

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

    $423,527

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    07/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $2,558,010

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1004AK4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    08/06/2010 

    93563

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

    $522,227

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2010 

    93563

    NEW 

    $2,394,674

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    12/09/2010 

    93563

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

    -$666,335

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $3,766,654

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    01/24/2011 

    93563

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

    $807,328

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $3,424,624

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    04/26/2011 

    93563

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

    $1,270,146

    AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION 

    550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR 

    ANCHORAGE 

    AK 

    ANCHORAGE 

    Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

    1104AK4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    07/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $3,564,608

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    0804AL4004 

    2008 OCSE 

    1

    12/17/2009 

    93563

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

    $443,330

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    0904AL4004 

    2009 OCSE 

    1

    12/24/2009 

    93563

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

    -$1,870,128

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    0904AL4004 

    2009 OCSE 

    1

    12/21/2010 

    93563

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

    $3,563,098

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2009 

    93563

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

    $12,878,920

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    11/23/2009 

    93563

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

    $2,738,775

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $10,666,800

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    03/05/2010 

    93563

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

    $270,313

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $9,294,300

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/29/2010 

    93563

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

    -$609,699

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    07/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $9,197,264

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1004AL4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    08/06/2010 

    93563

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

    $384,262

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2010 

    93563

    NEW 

    $12,437,200

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    12/09/2010 

    93563

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

    $17,670

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $9,295,520

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    01/24/2011 

    93563

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

    -$6,975

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $9,514,100

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    04/26/2011 

    93563

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

    -$816,471

    AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES 

    50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B 

    MONTGOMERY 

    AL 

    MONTGOMERY 

    Planning & Administrative Organizations 

    1104AL4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    07/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $8,712,928

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    0804AR4004 

    2008 OCSE 

    1

    12/17/2009 

    93563

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

    $606,262

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    0904AR4004 

    2009 OCSE 

    1

    12/21/2010 

    93563

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

    $882,220

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    09/23/2009 

    93563

    NEW 

    -$1,081,749

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2009 

    93563

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

    $11,336,191

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    11/23/2009 

    93563

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

    $954,627

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $11,324,393

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    03/05/2010 

    93563

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

    -$781,215

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $11,779,830

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/29/2010 

    93563

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

    -$2,503,484

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    07/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $14,637,460

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1004AR4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    08/06/2010 

    93563

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

    -$75,008

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2010 

    93563

    NEW 

    $9,824,903

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    12/09/2010 

    93563

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

    -$1,897,250

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $10,537,998

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    01/24/2011 

    93563

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

    -$3,644,995

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $8,733,689

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    04/26/2011 

    93563

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

    -$1,761,165

    AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM 

    PO BOX 1272 

    LITTLE ROCK 

    AR 

    PULASKI 

    Other Social Services Organization 

    1104AR4004 

    2011 OCSE 

    1

    07/01/2011 

    93563

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

    $8,481,843

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    0804AZ4004 

    2008 OCSE 

    1

    12/17/2009 

    93563

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

    $424,427

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    0904AZ4004 

    2009 OCSE 

    1

    12/21/2010 

    93563

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

    $687,232

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    09/23/2009 

    93563

    NEW 

    -$7,236,581

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    10/01/2009 

    93563

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

    $11,991,382

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    11/23/2009 

    93563

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

    $3,324,572

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    01/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $10,682,219

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    03/05/2010 

    93563

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

    -$1,350,417

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/01/2010 

    93563

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

    $12,093,961

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal ) 

    1004AZ4004 

    2010 OCSE 

    1

    04/29/2010 

    93563

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

    -$2,748,400

    AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA 

    POST OFFICE BOX 6123 

    PHOENIX 

    AZ 

    MARICOPA 

    Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )