Archive for the ‘Parent Education promotion’ Category

“The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019 [Updated (shortened) July 2-5, 2019].

THIS POST IS: “The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019. (shortlink ends “-9Aj”)

Published April 19, 2019, last updated July 2-5, 2019.** Approx. 10,000 words including the index (table of contents) to the blog merger. (Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-9Aj.”). Check back here periodically for which of those 47 indexed reports (post & pages) have been re-published on this blog (some with updates or reiterations of relevance to current context). (**Major deletion of prose, bringing index close to the top). See also SOME HELPFUL FOOTNOTES below the Index.

… [2021 update: I never merged the blogs; the other one still seems functional, so links provided here should work… It’s still good to know about…//LGH]

2020 FORMAT UPDATE: THIS POST EXISTS TO PUBLISH A TABLE OF CONTENTS REPRESENTING THE MERGING OF ANOTHER OF MY non-WordPress BLOGS into this one to preserve its contents. I assigned short-links to the posts in anticipation of publishing them here, on my main (major) blog. However, as of July 28, 2020 (this update) most of them aren’t yet published (Life’s been busy…), and they may, or may not still be available in on prior blog. At the time, I had some messages that domain was going down and so moved quickly to preserve content by moving it here.. Here’s a partial image of that table. There’s a lot of explanation matter up front, for example, of why each title appears twice. (links to old blog also preserved here).

The visuals will be clearer than shown on this image from the post below//LGH

A snapshot of the table on my sticky post with short-link ending “-9Aj” published April, 2019…

[END, July 28, 2020 Update, to add this image].

This post may not be the best one to jump in on for a general blog overview. It’s actually an overview of a blog I merged into this one in 2019, having written it several years earlier, while the material is still relevant because the practices (and organizations pushing them, such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or similar entities) are still pushing similar programming, and the same federal agencies (U.S.) continue also to fund programs, and have expanded scope and quantity, it seems affecting family court (and “human development”) outcomes.

A historic look from a different perspective (which mine still is!) is always helpful. If the concepts are new, the index below still shows post titles as a kind of overview, but I have not written this post for the purpose of re-summarizing everything (or this blog). I wrote it, as the title says, to merge two blogs and retain the record of post titles separately from my normal tables of contents.

This post is sticky because it serves a specific purpose for which I didn’t want it buried among all posts, however it’s only on [now, “near”//LGH July 28, 2020] the top (if it still is when you’re reading this) because it was published last. If you need less complicated visuals, or more plain text and fewer section titles, I recommend start at the top right sidebar, or just continue scrolling further down on this page to browse tables of contents, or current post titles. In mid-2019 I’ve been working on re-organizing and some streamlining of the blog, while continuing to write, and still many people just do not speak ‘economic’ when it comes to this subject matter, or in general, so explaining it gets a bit cumbersome….
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 19, 2019 at 7:31 pm

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, History of Family Court, Lackawanna County, Mental Health Movements + Orgs, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Parent Education promotion, Vocabulary Lessons, warfare: strategic, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with "The Family Court Franchise System" (Blogger.com) 2012-2014, "thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com" merged, 40 posts & 7 Pages Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here, Index of merged posts from my other 2012 blog "FCFS", The Family Court Franchise System" (=TheFamilyCourtMoneyMachine.Blogspot.com" disappearing soon)

Certifiably Irregular Behavior among Certified Specialist Associations, and other Dispensers of Training…

leave a comment »

Warning:

Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest.*

(*cite, and this quote again, below)

INSPIRATION FOR THIS POST:

WAS THE “ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW PROFESSIONALS.”

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1955108	12/04/1995	ACTIVE	ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC.	LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

NOT JUST THE CONCEPT OF CERTIFYING A FAMILY LAW PROFESSIONAL TO START WITH, BUT THE CONCEPT OF A CERTIFIED SET OF ASSOCIATES THAT SEEM BELIEVE PSYCHOLOGY IS SCIENCE, AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, ISN’T, WHICH INCLUDES A CRIMINAL DEGREE OF PROFIT FROM PROMOTING SPREADING THIS “COGNITIVE DISSONANCE” AMONG OTHERS, WHILE QUITE CONSCIOUS OF THE PROFIT IN SO DOING.

First, the public face — clearly this is a hot shot, and professionally alert group:

See?

Welcome, from the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists in California, an independent association of California attorneys who specialize in family law.

ACFLS was formed in 1980 following certification of the first group of Family Law Specialists under the “pilot” program, now a permanent program of the State Bar. ACFLS monitors administration by the State Bar of the specialization program, legislation and court rules, develops and promotes Family Law practice skills, and provides advanced educational programs for the bar, judiciary and public.

In the 28 years of ACFLS’ existence, membership has grown to 490 of the approximately 982 California Certified Family Law Specialists, 50% of those certified by the California State Bar Association. . . .

This means one’s chances of hiring an ACFLS member in California is approximately 1 out of 2; 50%. I wonder who certifies the other 50% of family law specialists?

Membership in ACFLS requires Certification by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California, and payment of the annual dues. Members receive all ACFLS Newsletters, notices of meetings, are eligible to participate in ACFLS activities (including seminars at reduced cost), and are listed in the ACFLS Referral and Membership Directory published each year and on our web site: www.acfls.org.

It is the Mission of ACFLS to promote and preserve the Family Law Specialty. * * * To that end, the Association seeks to:

Advance the knowledge of Family Law Specialists;

Monitor legislation and proposals affecting the field of family law;

Promote and encourage ethical practice among members of the bar and their clients; and

Promote the specialty to the public and the family law bar.

**notice nothing is mentioned about the best interests of the children.

They have monthly meetings and occasional regional conferences. Attorneys know how to through nice conferences, and I’m sure these do too. For qualifications (of membership) notice:

Because couples who split up also must deal with custody of their children, family law practitioners must also understand child development and other topics touching on emotional and psychological concerns of families. Part of the certification requirement involves psychological and counseling education.

(which can get written off where? and is provided by whom?)

There is a link for attorneys on Domestic Violence issues — the website intro claims to have “culled the best.” After the disclaimer, the site says:

Domestic Violence Sites on the Worldwide Web

By Leslie Ellen Shear

Any search engine will turn up thousands of Domestic Violence sites on the internet. I spent many hours culling some of the best. These web sites represent many different perspectives and resources on domestic violence. **(Please note that sites appear, disappear, change or move to new locations regularly. If the link doesn’t work, try searching for a key word or phrase from the description.

** OK, let me review this. ON a page by an association of lawyers addressing lawyers whose work likely influences where children will live after domestic violence has been reported, Leslie Ellen Shear’ believes that a few hours on the web will sufficiently inform her to post a resource for — lawyers? (Some of who are abusers, or have been victims of this too, no doubt). This was put up when? A clear look at the link shows that she’s basically posted parts of references beginning with the letter “A” (with one or two exceptions). Many links, yes, are inactive, or domain name has been sold.

Every web page needs a list of benefits to readers from plowing through it, right? So the one on Domestic Violence for Attorneys from this great group, has 20 bulleted points (unprioritized and some of them ridiculous) — of which point# 17 reads “keep your client alive,” thankfully at least one or two higher priorities than “write a great appellate brief,” and — naturally — right next to an ALMOST acknowledgement that some serious risk is involved, “prepare a competent defense to false or inflated allegations” See?

Keep a client alive.

Prepare a competent defense to false or inflated allegations.

Write a great appellate brief.

fourth DV link is:

Access to Visitation Grant (which redirects to the AOC courtsite, and a persistent person might be able to locate the information on this program).

It’s important, yes, to know about this grant program,which has profited some attorneys of fathers saying “false allegations,” and which, on the other hand, has made it possible for some children to be murdered through its premises, and financial incentives to ensure noncustodial parent contact, even if that noncustodial FATHER is in jail, and also supervised visitation (a tool useful in silencing mothers who report abuse, by forcing them to pay to see their kids). Yes, I believe that any family law specialist, being psychologically trained in child development, should know about this grant system — but it belongs under “endorsing” domestic violence.

Other than that, what’s with this one?

A.P.A.R.T. The website reads “parentalabductions.org” the Banner reads “Wives’ Tales’ and it’s simply about single-parenting tips.

A big deal is made about the ACFLS role in the (if you’re from a custody case in California, this should ring a bell) Elkins Family Law Task Force. I was a standby witness to how little value on actual parental feedback was desired during this task force; read who was on it, and concluded that a task for is a task force is a task force. Parents are not considered “stakeholders” and a mothers’ group was contacted after the fathers’ group had already been heard. One could show up and speak for maybe a minute in public, or submit comments on-line (which is not anonymous) while engaged in an active case. However, their nicely laid-out newsletter goes into great detail on the AFCLS response to the Task Force Recommendations. Predictably, which includes this:

(paragraph 1, to set the tone — and the time here, 2009):

ACFLS’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted the group’s Family Law Reform Committee’s Comments on the Elkins Family Law Task Force Draft Recommendations. The action came on December 5, 2009 at the last meeting of the 2009 Board of Directors, chaired by 2009 President Joseph J. Bell.

(many ACFLS members were on this task force, as it says):

Since the formation of the Elkins Family Law Task Force, ACFLS has been proactive in contributing to the develop- ment of recommendations for reform of California’s family courts. Diane Wasznicky (2010 ACFLS President-Elect) chairs the Family Law Reform committee. Members are David Borges (Ex-Officio Director, Central Coast), Sharon Bryan (former Past President), Vivian Holley (Director at Large, North), Frieda Gordon (Director at Large, South), Michelene Insalaco (Director-Elect, North), Lynette Berg Robe (Legislative Coordinator) and Leslie Ellen Shear {{WHOSE suggested Domestic Violence links on the ACFLS site I just reviewed; unbelievable that an adult would take the intro — or the set of links — seriously. It shouldn’t pass a 12th grade essay standard, or even 10th!}}

On page 16, they get down to recommending co-parenting education (can’t miss that, can we?):

Parties to contested custody disputes should receive education about parenting plans and co-parenting. Every county should offer the following FCS services in contested custody- visitation cases:

1. Confidential mediation of custody disputes–including cases in which there is no family law action pending.**

**not to get boringly monotonous, but there’s potential for double-billing around access/vistation grants, county-appointed & paid mediators, and possibly even charging non-indigent parents for this. Of course it should be offered in every county. That’s standard AFCC (who are a mediator-promoting group if anyone is….). . … And it’s also been shown repeatedly that domestic violence advocates — earlier, when the word “grassroots” meant something — FOUGHT AGAINST forcing mediation on DV victims. See Barbara J. Hart writings from the 1990s on this. Having been through that gauntlet — I have to agree. There aren’t enough options once a crooked mediator (or a lying one) (or one breaking rules of court) gets that recommendation in.

The next paragraph is utterly ridiculous, as applied in real situations:

2. Same-day emergency screenings for high risk cases.

3. Prompt,brief assessments with recommendations for cases or issues that are not resolved in mediation.

MAYBE this would be tenable IF FIRST — all cases involving abuse and violence were completely removed from the family law jurisdiction, and either handled in criminal court — where they belong, and should be PROSECUTED, after which assuming the abuse really did take place, there should be NO joint legal custody, no overnight visitations, and there should be prompt prosecution of any and ALL violations of court orders by the offending parent, in the criminal venue, not the civil and not the “family.”

This is not going to happen — because this family law exists primarily to defuse and derail people seeking to protect children, or themselves, from physical molestation, violence, threats, and severe destruction that by a stranger would likely lead to jail time.

I had my children stolen and held truant during an UNsupervised visitation — after I’d requested this and been turned down (being female) because “there’s no money” for it (meaning, in our parents). years later, absent my kids, I learn about the A/V grants stream (and that one of my judges was on the Kids Turn board, too). Now that it was clear to their father that he was above the law, but could attempt to throw it at me, I had to go again to the same mediator — or not get in front of a judge to get the kids back, knowing that police wouldn’t either. Basically, nobody gives a damn if a potential program fund could be called into play somehow.

In the subsequent YEAR, after first permanently eliminating child support for our kids (My income was trashed, and his current obligations ceased — within 30 days, and no action on arrears for over a year, and the arrears was significant to the family), the court managed to recommend counseling for the children (both of who said they weren’t interested), which was a friend of a friend of one of the parties who stole them. Then a court-appointed attorney was called in after yet more noncompliance by the father and complete cessation of visitation, holiday times together, and even phone calls — add a little stalking in there — and we’ve got some serious situations at hand. This attorney’s apparent role (other than getting paid) was to finish putting the nail in the coffin of my ability to get legal protection in any form, or retain a relationship with my children, having asked the court to state its reasons for switching custody and having that question first mocked, then derailed (never answered).

In other words, zero legal or factual basis was ever stated for switching custody, and I was not given an opportunity in court to cross-examine the father on his allegations, to counter them in writing, and being in a state of shock a few months later, unable to speak (in pro per — what else?) in the matter, my kids lost their mother and all I had to offer them, and had been. Shortly after, they lost their father too (it happens) in the household, meaning not one legal safeguard to their lives (or mine) existed.

In situations like this — and believe me, they are common — no one needs a damn co-parenting education class. Co-parenting and joint custody have often been tried. People who separate from abuse are trying before separation to co-parent with criminal behavior. So why let them out, then force them back in just to please the court and someone who couldn’t get business in a free, competitive market otherwise?

(I’m sure you feel my heat in the matter . . . . ) ACFLS newsletter continues:

In other words, after co-parenting education, the parties in each contested custody-visitation case should go on to confidential parenting plan mediation. Where the parties fail to resolve all or some issues, they should move on to a brief assessment and recommendations by a different FCS staff member before the matter is adjudicated. Same-day screen- ing should be available for emergencies – such as safety or abduction risk issues.

Waiting times for appointments for mediation and brief assessments need to be very short – the long delays at this stage of custody cases are damaging to children and destabilizing to families.

(hypocrites! The long delays free up more grants, and justify not disbursing collected child support, too. Long delays are what the courts feed off!)

Mediators are not engaged in a systematic process of gathering and assessing data for the purposes of making recommendations. Either they compromise mediation or their recommendations are an afterthought. Mediating parents behave differently when they think their bargaining will influence a recommendation.. . .

and of course, market expansion into downloadable modules assembled by existing family court nonprofits is desirable:

It may be helpful for the Center for Families, Children and the Courts to develop a uniform curriculum for the co- parenting education programs, and to make on line classes available. Many parents cannot afford childcare or time off work for these programs. Others are out of state or out of the country. It would be helpful to offer these programs in many languages. The programs could also have various modules addressing children of different ages, long-distance parenting and relocation issues, domestic violence and child abuse, and special needs children. * * *

If domestic violence and child abuse issues impact on “Parenting!” can be handled in downloadable curricula, then why is California paying ONE nonprofit contracting out of Sacramento over $6 million a year for all kinds of counseling and interventions for victims of child abuse, trauma, and for sex addicts, drunks, and victims of crimes? See Terra Nova Counseling (meaning — see their tax returns and charitable registry page, which shows this).

I wonder what Marcia Fay might have to say about that one.

(* * *In case you didn’t get it, that was the ACFLS’ plug for more Kids Turn stuff, since Gov. Gray Davis vetoed legislating this a few years earlier, which I blogged in “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post. It’s interesting how many visitors to this site are following “Let’s Get Honest about Kids’ Turn and Judges’ Profits” yet still miss the follow up post there…

OK — so I added this intro on 12/8/2011 before posting what I wrote probably last week:

Here’s where the proof hits the proselytizing:

Statement: ACFLS was formed in 1980

Actuality:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1955108	12/04/1995	ACTIVE	ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC.	LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

It’s the same group. Here’s a nice letterhead, with board members all along the left side, of ACFLS wish to get involved (i guess) with a certain marriage case: http://www.acfls.org/uploads/files/ACFLS_ltr_to_JaffeClemens-4.pdf, “In re marriage of Valli” (August, 2011). They are writing to rally to (addressees) who had some objections to writing by (see above) Leslie Ellen Shear who is head of the Amicus Brief Committee of this wonderful group).

OK, so now I’m really curious how anyone with a legal mind could’ve in their right minds put up that webpage suggesting that a few hours on-line (apparently going alphabetically on “Abuse” and not getting past the letter “A”) would qualify someone to write a great appellate brief, protect innocents against false allegations of domestic violence, (above that,) draft a supervised visitation plan, educate one’s experts — and “oh, yeah, I better include this for appearance’ sake”) “Save your client’s life.”

This is a section of what turns out to be a Super Attorney’s Bio, the same person, from the site with url “custodymatters.com”

Selected as One of Los Angeles Magazine L.A.’s SuperLawyers (2004-2011)

PRACTICE EMPHASIS

Family Law Trial Court Proceedings

Representation and consultation in complex child custody, complex parentage and assisted reproduction, interstate and international jurisdiction (including Hague Abduction Convention and UCCJEA) cases.

Representation of children in family court by court appointment.

Consensual Dispute Resolution

Trained in mediation, parenting plan coordination (child custody special master), collaborative family law.

Why doesn’t this next part surprise me — at all?

Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (ACFLS). Current Past President; President 2010; various board positions including Newsletter Editor, Technology Coordinator and Secretary from 1997). Author of many ACFLS amicus curiae briefs, current co-chair of Amicus Committee.

Editorial Board and contributor, Journal of Child Custody, published by Taylor and Francis.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC),** Past Board Member, California Chapter, director at large, co-chair 2001 Statewide Conference, steering committee 2003 Statewide Conference, frequent speaker at state and international conferences. Contributor to Family Court Review.

** File under “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, certain things (like evidence of DV) roll right off its back, probably is a duck”

Fellow, International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Faculty member, 1981 Vallambrosa Retreat: Mediation of Child Custody and Visitation Disputes (trained statewide court staff mediators for California Courts following enactment of mandatory custody mediation legislation)

Which probably explains (i live in California) why my mediator, under such auspicious culture of mandated mediation and calling serious issues “disputes” — consistently ignored court-order-breaking and otherwise felony behavior by the father of my children, and countless others. He was employed over the span of my entire case, and when I requested a less biased one (post-abduction) none was available, so it was either forget seeing your kids again (while they were MIA) or go to this dude, again.

ANYHOW — I just showed you — this group incorporated in 1995. That means that unless they had some other corporate identity, their own website has falsified the record by FIFTEEN YEARS, aka, lied. And the head of the Amicus Brief Committee of ACFLS, Ms. Shear — is considered by her colleagues a Super Attorney (does this mean, excellent and articulate liar? Wouldn’t be the first one I know (which comment I put in for said attorney), and by me, a person who doesn’t know squat about domestic violence, but considers such knowledge good enough to advise attorneys on it on-line. Another Super Attorney (Jennifer Jackson) out of SF area came up, apparently, with the concept for kids turn and helped a family law judge set it up, too, in the late 1980s)

Is this personal (except the one I said I know?) — NO. But I see what product they are putting out regarding situations I’ve lived and know others who have also lived. Obviously, it’s a matter of viewpoint! This is why (a long time ago) i contrasted the court’s opinion of a judge I didn’t even know (The Hon. Slabach) with the “Silenced Mamas” (see poormagazine.com) feedback on the same judge. (That’s how I habitually get in trouble on this blog, but that’s what blogs are for, i.e., airing differing points of view).

How about we go take a look at their registration as a nonprofit — after all this is a membership organization set up by people already working in, and sometimes FOR the courts, and messing with other people’s custody matters through Amicus Briefs (remind me to read in re: Valli and what the ACFLS objected to, in said letter I linked to above).

(AFCC & proud of it on Ms. Shear’s website): work includes:

Ohmer v. Superior Court (1983, 2nd District) 148 Cal.App.3d 661 Child custody evaluations, due process. Validity of former Los Angeles Superior Court policy barring custody litigants from cross-examining child custody investigators, and prohibiting custody litigants from obtaining and presenting evidence of investigator’s lack of mental health education and training. Affirmed. (Appellant)

That sounds like an interesting one… Here (2008) is more evidence of pushing Parenting Coordination. Like my post says, these people are pretty pushy:

In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass- roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute, 5 Journal of Child Custody 88 (2008)

A few years into a custody dispute, and most mothers couldn’t afford to keep current with this journal, if they even know enough to do so, in their own best interests of knowing what they’re up against… This is recent, cited all over, and I recommend MOMS read it! Obviously it’s not displayed in proper format below — see that link. Randy Rand v. Board of Psychology and the other attorney involved in the brief is Stephen Temko from San Diego.

CASE NO. C064475 SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

LESLIE ELLEN SHEAR, CFLS,* CALS* SBN 72623 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Floor 7 Encino, CA 91436-2403

Telephone: 818-501-3691 Facsimile: 818-501-3692 lescfls@earthlink.net

STEPHEN TEMKO, CFLS,* CALS* SBN 67785 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-2792 Telephone: 858-274-3538 Facsimile: 619-238-0851

Attorneys for Amicus *State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization

Curiae ACFLS

Paragraph from the amicus brief shows that FIRST parenting coordinators are appointed, then a clamor to legitimize it occurs. Sounds (at first look) like the amicus wants only professionals already licensed somewhere else in on the show — but in classic “we want to have our cake and eat it too behavior), they don’t want those professional boards to have disciplinary power (What, are there some NON-AFCC or CRC powerhouses on any of those associations?) because ‘parenting coordination’ is quasi judicial and the best entity to discipline them would be — like, the family court that appointed them (sure, THAT”S a bias-free basis for some real ethical accountability! ) SO we’d best read this one all of it — and I do mean “we.”

“California has failed to adopt legislation and court rules governing parenting coordination despite the growing use of these service models in our family courts.** This leaves parents, parenting coordinators, courts, and licensing boards without clear directives about what practices are required or prohibited.”

**perhaps even California, in heart, agrees with Gov Jeb Bush of Florida’s (2004) objections to the practice of parenting coordination. I know I sure do! I read that PCANH handbook, apparentl lifted from Indiana practice? (nice touch throwing the word “parents” in that sentence about “lacking clear directives!” as if that was the concern!

(the site I chose to post the link from was Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D.’s site called (appropriately) “californiaparentingcoordinator.com” (got the message yet?) and says of him:

Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist (California Lic. # PSY10214) in private practice in Palo Alto, California, who specializes in forensic** child and family psychology. He has been in private practice in Palo Alto for 20 years, specializing in Forensic Family psychology.

He is a pioneer in the field of Parenting Coordination, which he helped develop in Santa Clara County more than 15 years ago,*** and has led the development of Parenting Coordination across the U.S. He is one of the most experienced Parent Coordinators (called Special Master in California) in the country. Some of the other roles he serves for families going through divorce include:

**Child psychologists are frustrated child psychiatrists, some of who are probably frustrated MD’s. They love to throw around the word “forensic” to lend credibility.

***Since he helped develop the field, he might want to rethink posting Ms. Shear’s amicus which states the field basically emerged.

{{Like most AFCC material does when describing some program AFCC has devised and wants legislated & mandated for VERY potentially high-conflict case (i.e., cases where someone — possibly a mediator trained b the sam people — made a really bad custody recommendation, which was enacted, and is having consequences, such as the other parent protesting it. Voila! ! We have high-conflict, so we get to do parent coordinators, and maybe even some federal grant streams, too!)}}

OK, now that the very active ACFLS cannot ? show its origination, as claimed, in 1980 as a legitimate California corporation, but rather it was incorporated in 1995 (at least the one with “, Inc.” after its name is the only one I could find on SOS site) here’s the Charitable Registration:

From the California Office of Attorney General (Charitable Registry Search Site) — YES ! ACFLS DOES exist and at first glance, it’s charitable status is labeled “Current”:

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC.	EX548531	Charity	Exempt – Active	SAN RAFAEL	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

which is odd – because if one the looks inside — no EIN# has been assigned yet, it has never filed any IRS or RRF reports (annual requirement for CA nonprofits and for corporations too, for that matter). Allegedly, per this record, their charitable status was issued in 1990 (10 years after they claim they started, and 5 years before the Secretary of State admitted that they did). (or perhaps this is just the boilerplate charitable registry BLANK format?).

They have NO EIN# and apparently ever bothered to register — NO founding documents are viewable – and obviously if the association is charging its (ATTORNEY) members any dues, they aren’t producing (all 490 members, all those nice monthly meetings and annual regional conferences involving hotels, golf, etc.) any income worht reporting? And though they are actually selling stuff from their blog — they aren’t producing program service revenue enough to require reporting to the IRS?

Yes — and I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge I wish to sell, also.

Full Name:	ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC.		FEIN:
	Type:	Mutual Benefit		Corporate or Organization Number:	1955108

Registration Number:	EX548531
Record Type:	Charity	Registration Type:	Charity Registration
Issue Date:	12/31/1990	Renewal Due Date:	5/15/1991
Registration Status:	Exempt – Active	Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:

Address Information

Address Line 1:	15 CORRILLO DRIVE	Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4:	SAN RAFAEL CA 94903

Annual Renewal Information

+ + + + + + +

I have a question. In fact, several questions:

Have you, has a family member or friend, been operated on recently? Was your doctor officially vetted by the hospital, and is his or her degree valid?

Is the institution from which your doctor graduated, or was, it a real institution?

When they are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, UCBerkeley, Stanford, etc. — there aren’t that many questions whether or not the schools actually exist, and are “accredited,” for what it’s worth (and it is worth something, as to colleges!). The only question becomes, did your particular professional actually go there, and has the school not, to date, disowned or otherwise dishonorably discharged them.

Generally, we expect more of Medical Doctors, although this is sometimes not delivered. See “California prison doctors get millions while not working“, Associated Press article posted 11/29/2011. Who wants to actually think about a government paying anyone over $226K per year to sort mail while figuring out whether this person was mal-practicing or not? Not a thought good for the average digestive system, or blood pressure, probably….

At least 30 physicians and mental health professionals collected an estimated $8.7 million since 2006 as they went through a lengthy appeals process to determine whether they should be fired or reinstated, the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/vOJLlY ) reported Monday. The newspaper cited records from a court-ordered receiver now in charge of the state prison system.

Doctors who were alleged by colleagues to have committed negligence or misconduct — in some cases involving patient deaths — received their full six-figure salaries, even though they were not allowed to treat prisoners. Some did menial work [like, sorting mail…]

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me, either the original system, or attempting to “clean up” the systems.

But what is it about the fields of family law and psychologists that attracts people who LOVE to form nonprofit, trade-promoting, dues-paying (membership) associations which:

don’t even file tax returns, especially with the state they are registered in, after getting tax-exempt status? or, alternately
don’t file period, and/or
cite each others names proudly on websites and on biographies in long strings of apparent officialdom before ording one parent into a situation doomed to bankruptcy, another child to go live with a molester he or she has already reported on, extort fathers into starting a custody battle they didn’t want — or, if they are in arrears somehow — into participating in some ridiculous (psychoeducational) program, typically in 6 to 10 sessions that someone pays for, no one would otherwise take if there were an alternate choice besides going back to jail?[FN1] Before adjusting upward or compromising downward child support for a noncustodial parent without notifying the custodial one of the discussion (or programssssssszzsss, plural) that led to this backroom deal? and/or
hold conferences to figure out how to expand their profession, which profession exists at all over public distress and at public expense, i.e,. those who practice are already on state (judges) or county (county commissioners, family law commissioners, child support commissioners — and ANYONE among the support structure of the entire local child support agency, including attorneys, directors, specialists, clerks, data entry people (presumably) and office staff for derailing parents who want a direct answer about their own case. This also includes court transcriptionists, court clerks, etc.
Bill attendance at these conference, and travel to/from them (wherever possible) to their current employer, usually a county or county-level court [FN2])

How is it that people who graduated from an institute that gave a degree to an imaginary cat can actually be practing and making custody recommendations for young children? This literally is true, and a lot more than one thinks. Surely Dr. Doyne must be a qualified professional (WHAT profession was it, again?) because he got a degree from this place. However at least one man (see Request to file Amicus Brief in Tadros v. Doyne) decided to challenge (see Tadros v. Doyne; in fact this link summarizes and actually shows the “Specialty Diplomate” and how both the person who issued it, and the court, are retaliating against this M.D. for reporting it! Many mothers and fathers know already about the “Zoe the Cat” fiasco, but still the custody mill (and other association-certification-mills) continue, one of which I found recently, hence today’s post.) How can one be silent in the face of material like this?

(1). . .

for $350 dollars, Robert O’Block, who honored a Specialty Diplomate to a house cat named Zoe (which states on the certificate Zoe has a PhD), and who also granted a Specialty Diplomate to Custody Evaluator Stephen Doyne, is threatening to sue the co-founders of California Coalition for Families and Children (CCFC) with a defamation lawsuit seeking penalties of 1,000,000 Dollars. Robert O’Block is seeking to shutdown The Public Court for exposing the truth about the “cat credentialed?”

If Dr. Tadros and CCFC do not keep quiet or “shut down” public exposure about Zoe the Cat getting a PhD and Diploma, they will be sued for this huge sum of money?

To the solid fact that Zoe the Cat is Dr. Tadros’s best witness, he is left with no other choice than to pursue the timely filing against Robert O’Block’s owner of the ACFE, who according to Professor carol Henderson issued a house Cat with “Diplomate (and Phd)” certificate, (read below) with the filing of Tadros MD vs. American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI), dated January 10, 2011…

(2) . . .Well, here, from, the News Article on Doctor Doyne, but “thepubliccourt.com” is informative*

Custody Evaluator’s Credentials Questioned In Lawsuit

Dr. Stephen Doyne Has Been Involved In 3,000 To 4,000 San Diego Custody Cases

Lauren Reynolds
10News I-Team Reporter

POSTED: 7:10 pm PDT July 7, 2009

SAN DIEGO — Dr. Stephen Doyne, PhD, is widely used in the San Diego Family Court as a custody evaluator. His job is to advise the court on where children of divorce should live, which parent is more fit. The evaluations can be costly, both in emotion and dollars. Clients told the 10 News I-Team they paid Doyne between $5,000 and $30,000. (That’s per evaluation — do the math)

“A child custody evaluator has tremendous power and influence,” said Marc Angelucci. He’s an attorney representing Dr. Emad Tadros in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Doyne alleging fraud and negligence. . . .

Dr. Doyne is one of a dozen custody evaluators repeatedly used by San Diego Family Court. The court had no response to the allegations against Dr. Doyne. The court also clarified that it does not verify the professional licenses or the resumes of the custody evaluators.

Apparently, per this article, he also falsely claimed to be an adjunct professor at UCSD (University of California, San Diego). Reminds me of this Sandra Brown, M.A. (Liberty University) I was looking up recently, and her “IRHPE” (Institute for Relational Harm and Pathology Education”), not to mention the “Relationship Training Institute,” also (coincidentally) at San Diego where she was listed as a Guest Lecturer (to my recall), this RTI being a business which takes business from the courts, also. Speaking of which, …

The “Relationship Training Institute” (EIN# 470942805), which you can (and should) look up on the California Attorney General’s site (http://ag.ca.gov/charities/, and select “Registry” on left side) where charitable organizations are required to register and then file ANNUALLY, and where one can look up their EIN#s) — registered here in 2006 (File issued date) and from the IRS, evidently it’s clear it showed assets of $1.5K and Revenue of $90K in 2005, and by 2010, assets of $13,569 & revenue of $271K. In 2011, their assets went down by over $4K, but their revenue went up to $291K — and finally, in August 2011, the OAG decided to slap them on the wrist (who knows why), with a letter saying, you didn’t file your fee.

However, in the section where EVERY charity required to register under state law is to file 3 things (that I know of) (two of which the public should be able to look at, right here): (1) a State return (RRF), (2) a copy of their IRS 990 return which the OAG can upload, and (3) a ‘Schedule B”* which lists their contributors’ names and addresses. This is also to come with (4) an annual fee, which varies by size of the group.

(*which public doesn’t see, but the OAG, whose purpose here is to prevent Californians from being scammed by tax-exempt organizations and false fundraisers, i.e., professionally organized thieves, public financial predators, and money launderers, etc. SPeaking of which, did I mention that a previous attorney general (Bill Lockyer) had his (3rd) wife installed, on pay from the DAs office, as the CEO of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” — an idea from San Diego City Attorney’s Office Casey Gwinn plus the DV Council, Gael Strack, J.D. (as I recall) — which, somehow in the process of hiring the first CEO, got the slated salary moved from $65K to $90K, and the appointment process of which looks a little slimy (thank you, investigator Steve White, aka boatbrain or similar quirky username). Nevertheless, we hope and expect the OAG to keep a lid on these things for our (public’s) sake. They even went after the San Diego based Kid’s Turn for its charitable status, right?

Organizations larger than the RTI have been noticed by the same OAG for failing to file fees and schedule B of contributors. The far larger Futures Without Violence (formerly, like until 2010, Family Violence Prevention Fund, EIN# 943110973) received one notice in 2010:

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

and another, August 2011, under separate cover, in stern terms, this time writing reflecting the corporation’s name change:

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

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

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

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

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service

Futures Without Violence, now ensconced at the San Francisco Praesidio (a high-profile address to locals and international visitors), does big business: In 2010, per information the California OAG apparently gets from the IRS (as opposed to the organization), it reads:

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10

Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10

Total Assets: $36,603,585.00

Gross Annual Revenue: $17,118,149.00

RRF Received: 14-JUN-11

Returned Date:

990 Attached: Y

Status: Rejected

I would ask too. 2010 is an increase in ASSETS of roughly $5.5 (million) and in INCOME of $10.5 million. As Dolly Parton quipped once (possibly in a movie), “it takes a lot of money to look like this!” Yet FVPF has been fairly regular in filing — up til 2008, anyhow. Its primary program purpose, as of the last available 990, reads:

Significant activities: TO PIONEER NEW STRATEGIES TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT HOME AND ABROAD.

“FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” SETS ITS EYES “Abroad”

And well it might — having continued to ignore a steady stream of violence against women, and children (including some that results in deaths, a relentless litany, the background to their wonderful conferences and PR campaigns, and training institutes about “Fatherhood” as tool practitioners can wield against family violence. Sure, OK. So, MOTHERS lveaing abusive relationships safely (and this group helped get VAWA enacted in 1994), still can’t — because of family court in USA is trending towards sharia law, at least in its “logic” and priorities.

Speaking of “Going Abroad”. . . .literally and allegorically

(I warned you at the top of this post…we are going to talk about defecation, and allegorically, why some nonprofits constantly need to shift localities, names and WHERE they are p*ssing on people’s due process rights, and covering up evidence of this in the family law system, lest they step on the wrong local toes, or bite the han)

The phrase “going abroad” in previous times meant going to take a whizz outside the camp, or home, where one eats and sleeps, so as not to pollute it. When encased in a wood shelter over a large pit, with or without a porcelain chair, this progressed to the “Outhouses,” topic of many comedies and eventually we progressed to indoor plumbing, which can then get backed up and require a plumber to fix. The practice of sitting UP to do this, I gather another Western creation, has helped create health problems too, per some.

I’m late reporting this – as it seems November 19th was “World Toilet Day” according to an article, “What would you Do without a Loo?” and another historical discussion points out that civilization and the development of sanitation go together; Rome, for example, could not ignore the problem.

The Medieval Ages (plus emergence of Fundamentalist RC theories related to original sin, and the nobility of suffering, including if necessary in filth, had their impact). I hope you scan that — it’s a quick read. “The massive deaths by reason of the plagues had some people rethinking hygiene” (year 1210) . . .”Since the 1820s there have been no fundamental changes.” (parallel — when was the last time any change in what to do about death-causing domestic violence actually surfaced, i.e., that wasn’t “treatment, intervention, publication, and training”?)

Meanwhile, it’s just as healthy not to use “the throne.” In Fact, Bill Gates is working on re-inventing the toilet (how did my thinking go here? It’s easy — the phrase “going abroad” — and I believe it’s necessary to use symbols and one systems of meaning to understand another, although if one gets STUCK in a symbol system (i.e., DV as a sickness, conflict as bad, professionals as actually helpful, etc.) the society and its process of observation, labeling, and logic (reasoning) can get, well, “constipated.” So, I have a little fun connecting the absurdly different (a highly respected organization with an annual revenue of around $36 million and lofty claims to basic human functions that MUST be needed, and if not heeded with sanitation (and sense) can wipe out a civilization, i.e., plague. Or, for example, we are told that the early settlers in the US didn’t wash in the ocean, and didn’t dig for clams or catch much fish — yet certainly that would’ve fed them and cleansed them.

Bill Gates Seeks to Reinvent the Toilet

Analysis by Nic Halverson
Tue Aug 16, 2011 09:11 AM ET

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently launched a “Reinvent the Toilet” competition and have already awarded $3 million to researchers at eight universities to redesign the porcelain throne. The challenge? Develop an economical toilet that is doesn’t need to be connected to a sewer system, or to any water or electricity grid.

Healthcare Districts, Associations of Healthcare Districts and their Watchdogs:

This blog is not about water, healthcare, or for that matter school boards. However it IS about use of taxes. I got derailed into matters of “Water” simply by comparing one Domestic Violence Funds proposition that we (taxpayers) collectively support its $36million plans to create Futures Without Violence Abroad to the practice of pissing outside one’s home area, which of course (how my mind works sometimes) got me on just how complex it becomes when people are crowded together so closely that there IS no backyard to go piss in, at least not for years on end, and thus the community pools its funds to elect people to take care of their shit (literally). I believe that assaults and violence could (generically speaking) be lumped in that category, as the (stuff) of overcrowding and too many people codependent on others to protect them, feed them, educate their young (handle their money), regulate their parenting practices (?) and in general, nurse them from womb to tomb. Perhaps that model is a little over-rated, as this example I hope proves.

SUPPOSE BILL GATES DEVELOPS SUCH A TOILET THAT COULD BE USED IN URBAN AREAS TOO? HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS BELOW WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB?

AND WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE’S FALL HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH LEAD IN THE PIPES? ….

I mean, why the chair portion? Consider how complicated it gets; from a travel article:

How to Use a Squat Toilet (Frank Burres in Worldhum, 9/25/06)

“Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest”

Background: Squatting is an ancient practice, but knowledge of it has recently been lost in the West. The flush toilet wasn’t even invented until 1596. And toilet paper didn’t become popular until the 1900s. According to the Toilet Paper Encyclopedia, pre-TP, humans used corn cobs, Sears Roebuck catalogs, mussel shells, newspaper, leaves, sand, hayballs, gompf sticks and the end of old anchor cables on ships. Ouch!

But the good folks at the TPE seem blissfully unaware that most of the world’s people still use neither toilet paper, nor western sit-down crappers. Nor do they use corn cobs, gompf sticks or anchor cables. Because, while most of us in North America and Europe sit, people on just about every other continent squat, using water and their left hand. In much of Africa and Asia you can be hard-pressed to find anything else besides the squatter.

Beginning Squatting: I called Doug Lansky, a traveler and travel writer who knows the hardships of squatting. “It’s difficult,” said Lansky, who edited a book called, There’s No Toilet Paper on the Road Less Traveled.

I wish Bill Gates well in his exploration of alternates to the water systems that make the economy go whirr and hum, some of which so reduce people’s self-reliance (and thinking about the basics of life) that they willingly allow commissions associations, agencies and task forces to try and keep up with the agencies (and commissions) to take their hard-earned (or, easily earned) income (taxes) and, such that they need a “Local Agency Formation Commission” (I kid you not) to study whether to dissolve another agency — which no longer has a hospital, but is still collecting funds. I cannot find this particular agency (maybe it’s been dissolved?) as a corporation or trust anywhere in the state — and the attorney which was hired to determine whether to dissolve the nonexisting entity — who was in 2010 head of an Association of (such) Agencies — which does not exist as either a corporation or charity in California, meaning, if anyone is getting paid for this association of (unregistered entitites), it’s not reporting to the public without a FOIA request, WTF (that’s an acronym for an expletive) it’s doing, financially.

Association of California Healthcare Districts — and where is this “Mt. Diablo Healthcare District to start with? I don’t know (I don’t see it registered as nonprofit or corporation), but here comes a news reporter to inform us that the attorney hired to decide whether to dissolve it doesn’t follow the rules either. So rules were changed accomodate his inability to handle a $5,000 services cap. Weird:

Mt. Diablo Health Care District lawyer billed beyond board limit

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 11/28/2011 04:15:57 PM PST

An outside attorney hired to help save an imperiled Contra Costa public health district billed the agency nearly three times more than what was authorized.**

Heavily censored invoices obtained through the California Public Records Act show Sacramento lawyer Ralph Ferguson billed the district for 52.3 hours totaling $14,000 in September and October. The district capped his pay at $5,000 when it hired him.

It’s the latest development in the increasing scrutiny of the Mt. Diablo Health Care District, an agency that lost its hospital 15 years ago but has continued to collect and spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. Roughly 200,000 residents in Concord, Martinez, Clyde, Pacheco and portions of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill live in the district.

It hired Ferguson three months ago as its liaison with the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission, which is studying whether to dissolve the agency.

**Note: He’s an attorney. So this surprises us, why? Same reporter, earlier this month (11/5/2011), in “Riding in to Rescue a Flailing Agency”

The lawyer behind the strategy to rescue the ailing Mt. Diablo Health Care District will be remembered as a visionary or an opportunist.

Ralph Ferguson, the former chief of the Association of California Healthcare Districts and Mt. Diablo’s new attorney, believes the embattled public agency could model itself after the successful Beach Cities or Camarillo health care districts.

By way of background, a regulatory agency could dissolve the taxpayer-funded Central Contra Costa health care district. It has been criticized by four grand juries and others for its failure to do little more than pay its overhead and keep up the health insurance for a current and a former board member.**

Like Mt. Diablo, two Southern California districts no longer operate hospitals.

**perhaps this is what many agencies are for to start with? Remember the Phoebe Factoids and the problems with Georgia’s chain of nonprofit hospitals, that stiffed uninsured parents and kept huge profits offshore? Then apparently had enough clout to personally threaten the family of two men reporting on this?

This Commission to control Agencies and “Special Districts” really does exist, and has authority and a staff. This authority seems to relate largely to taxes, incorporation, annexing or detaching land to one city or another, and things that relate to things we need — like water, schooling, healthcare, and such. Authority:

▪ Annex land to cities or special districts,

▪ Detach land from cities or special districts,

▪ Consolidate two or more cities or two or more special districts,

▪ Form new special districts and incorporate new cities,

▪ Dissolve special districts and disincorporate cities, — WOW. And the commission has six people. Only.

▪ Merge cities and special districts,

▪ Allow cities or special districts to provide services outside of their boundaries.

I hope that the term “SPECIAL DISTRICT” is required, by law, to be taught in all K-12 Special Unified School Districts so that, as adults, they can know who helps determine what low-income jobs global marketplace their education is preparing most of them for, which will increase their odds of becoming part of the welfare caseload (or target in a drive-by- shooting) they will be able to work at, decrease their odds of giving those who know what a special district is — and how to obtain control over it — and cities. After all, their JOBS provide tax income for these people to hire pricey lawyers to investigate waste of their own taxes. . .

I don’t know any individual that has the time to write “FOIA’s” (Freedom Of Information Act letters, requesting, obviously, information) – for every entity that is affecting that indivual’s personal, well, — Freedom. Do you?

So JUST PERHAPS if a Bill Gates and friends can figure out that the rest of the west never needed the white throne, either (toilets) — we might be able to figure, as much of the non-Western, Pre-AFCC world, in fact Pre-1913 world — how to live life without a parenting class. And that would put enough administrative and bureaucratic educators, and real estate, out of work to make OCCUPY THIS look like a children’s birthday party.

Why? Because once people develop the habit of thinking, non-drug-induced, about HOW their world is run, the habit is catching, and many more taken-for-granteds will topple.

Put that next to a recent news article with the title “Agency in hot water over fees.” This turns out not to actually be attorney-exaggarated fees on a Health Care District, not about water — however this one, “An End to Padded Water Bills (Metropolitan Times, Los Angeles, 2009) IS. This 2010 notice by “Californians Aware” on ” Subject: Notice of Strict Enforcement Concerning Certain Common Brown Act Violations is addressed to people at four different associations involved in basic business of — living — in California. It is from another association, “Californians Aware” — the Center for Public Forum Rights.”

League of California Cities
Association of California Water Agencies
California School Boards Association
California State Association of Counties, and
Association of California Healthcare Districts, Ralph Ferguson, Executive Director (see next)

In a very well-fleshed-out-website, the group’s (or lack of a better word reflecting their tax & incorporation status) mission is stated: “The Association of California Healthcare Districts serves and advances the diverse needs of all California Healthcare Districts through advocacy, education and member driven services. “

The “Association of California Healthcare Districts, INC.” is “Not Registered” as a California Charity (or corporation, that I can see) and “Ralph Ferguson” is the attorney in question mention as overbilling (etc.) in the article “Agency in hot water over fees” I linked to, above. Go figure!

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS, INC.		Charity	Not Registered	RANCHO CORDOVA	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

The Secretary of State Site shows zero listing for the same Association. IN fact, when I searched on only the words “healthcare District” there only 3 local ones showed, one o whose corporate status had been suspended. If so, why a need for an Association of Healthcare Districts to start with? Either have them — and force them to expose their corporate status– or don’t have them, at all, and quit playing games with the public. I believe (?) the word “District” here means a region of people/residents who can be sold on the idea of accepting a tax to support, er, “Healthcare.”

Which of course, have been the topic of some scandal as to use.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1993854	11/05/1996	ACTIVE	BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION	HELEN WALSH
C2439485	03/11/2004	SUSPENDED	HEALTHCARE DISTRICT INSURANCE AND MARKETING SERVICES, INC.	JAMES L. BEYERS
C2858426	02/21/2006	ACTIVE	THE CLOVERDALE HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION	JAMES F DEMARTINI

While the phrase “healthcare district” on a charitable registry search produces zero results, which leads me to speculate that this multiple field search site does not have the ability to search phrases in the middle of the group’s name – unlike other states’ corporate searches. For such a large state, California has a lousy corporation search website!

So I looked up “Bear Valley Community” on the OAG (Charity) site and find SIX charities (and one raffle) beginning with those three phrases. TWO of the sex are not registered, but our 1996 one (above) is. One of the “not registered” charities is “Bear Valley Community Hospital.” If I lived in Bear Valley, California — I’d get on this quick. The BVHC District tax return of 2002 lists $13K of government funding, of 2004, $26 of public (but no government) and apparently the charitable registration didn’t start until 2006. Since I’m a nice person, I”ll list what Bear Valley Community anythings are still around (the church — active as a charity — is no longer active as a corporation, but they began in 1946. Besides (see row one, below).

Entity Number

Date Filed

Status

Entity Name

Agent for Service of Process

C1137770

03/24/1983

ACTIVE

BEAR VALLEY CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL ENRICHMENT, A RELIGIOUS SCIENCE COMMUNITY

CAROLYN DAWLEY

C0208456

08/02/1946

SUSPENDED

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH

DONALD FOOR

C2233852

05/08/2000

SUSPENDED

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

TERRY WOODROW

C1993854

11/05/1996

ACTIVE

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION

HELEN WALSH

C1287435

09/30/1985

ACTIVE

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

DOROTHEA SCHWAIGER

C0306083

07/07/1955

DISSOLVED

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL FUND, INC.

C1604740

01/19/1988

SUSPENDED

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC.

VI COLUNGA

C0482507

12/16/1964

ACTIVE

BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY NURSERY SCHOOL

AMY PREY

C3189110

01/30/2009

ACTIVE

BEAR VALLEY SPRINGS COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES FOUNDATION

MARGARET WANGLER

C1764347

05/30/1995

ACTIVE

BIG BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY ARTS THEATER SOCIETY

KAREN SARGENT RACHELS

Bear Valley appears to be a Ski Resort area. Cloverdale has a multitude of corporations, this is only a sample. Notice the “Status” column:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C0978805	03/28/1980	SUSPENDED	CLOVERDALE BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION, INC.	DONALD SATO
C0175845	06/02/1938	SUSPENDED	CLOVERDALE BRIDGE CLUB
C0412712	04/18/1961	ACTIVE	CLOVERDALE CABANA CLUB	NOE LONGORIA
C1602586	12/18/1987	ACTIVE	CLOVERDALE CABINETS, INC.	ARNOLD M. HAUG
C3098377	05/05/2008	ACTIVE	CLOVERDALE CANINE ALLIANCE, INC.	MICHAEL P CAMPBELL
C1235613	01/11/1984	SURRENDER	CLOVERDALE CASTINGS INC.	C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
C0576616	07/31/1969	SUSPENDED	CLOVERDALE CB-ERS
C0767052	04/02/1976	SUSPENDED	CLOVERDALE CHAPTER #2430 OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, INC.	DIANA TREANKLE
C0772429	06/24/1976	DISSOLVED	CLOVERDALE CHILDREN’S CENTER, INCORPORATED
C1934975	05/15/1995	SUSPENDED	CLOVERDALE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP	JACK REGO

Cloverdale is in Sonoma County (California Coast, wine country) and in 2010 had a population of 8,618 in 2010, and is in California’s 1st Congressional District (FYI)

Cloverdale is located in the northern portion of Sonoma County, and is the farthest city north in the San Francisco Bay Area, about 85 miles (135 km) north of San Francisco. U.S. 101 runs through the town, as does State Route 128.

The city has a total area of 2.6 square miles (6.7 km²), all of it land.

Cloverdale is located in the Wine Country, being part of the Alexander Valley AVA.

(Thank you, Wikipedia)

That’s a whole lotta business for a population of 8,000….

Californians Aware: The Center for Public Forum Rights (who warned the above 4 association heads (at least one of who is an attorney) to mind their legal compliance on the Brown Act as to closed-door meetings) registered as a corporation in 2004, which indicates they filed articles of incorporation and paid a fee, and have a board of directors of at least one person. THey probably even have a bank account.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2646702	04/16/2004	ACTIVE	CALIFORNIANS AWARE: THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC FORUM RIGHTS	EMILY KATHLEEN FRANCKE

They even dutifully filed with the IRS for years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, with a VERY modest budget (under $50K) and then stopped filing, meaning as of 8/23/2010, they are Delinquent as a charity. However, their letter to the 4 association heads was written in November, 2010. They do not appear to ever have sent anything to the OAG at all (either IRS return or RRF):

ull Name:	CALIFORNIANS AWARE: THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC FORUM RIGHTS		FEIN:	201008855
	Type:	Public Benefit		Corporate or Organization Number:	2646702

Registration Number:	125817
Record Type:	Charity	Registration Type:	Charity Registration
Issue Date:	12/31/2006	Renewal Due Date:	5/14/2008
Registration Status:	Delinquent	Date This Status:	8/23/2010

They apparently lost a leader very recently, but are still collecting donations — possibly illegally — from their website, not that this would put them in different company than groups they are reporting on, who financially I’m sure leave this group in the dust. The foundation number shows no (none whatever) returns under this EIN# above, but the California OAG has information from somewhere that is posted. Then again, neither does the “Association of California Healthcare Districts” show its face — at all under this name, on the foundation finder. How could it, without even an EIN# to go on?

Notice: The IRS has announced processing errors on electronically filed Forms 990 for filing years 2007-2009. Learn more»

Search criteria: ( Name: association of california healthcare districts State: CA )
0 matching documents retrieved (0 displayed)

Be that as that may, their board of directors is scheduled to meet this week, December 2, 2011.

The Brown Act in California deals with closed-door meetings on actions of public interest.

Perhaps in this case, the term applies. Futures WIthout Violence has outgrown its britches, and I will not cease reporting on this.

(They’d better go abroad, because word is getting out — principally from me, that I can see — is that media campaigns don’t result in character transformations, and failing to report on the family court scams, and DV organization sell-outs is still getting families killed. Last one — in the same general locality as this group — is a recent headline — a San Jose Policeman and his wife, apparent murder-suicide, and they have two teenagers. (Not sure about this incident, it looks almost staged from the reporting, and the word “apparently” shows up a lot. I also note it was a second marriage (or, he had a stepson). San Jose is not too far from San Francisco, however in the Bay Area there are drive-by-shootings hitting young people (recently a one-year old child) and in more than one neighborhood. I believe that a $36 million annual revenue, even after subtracting several salaries over $100 million and Esta Soler’s of over $200 million (per year) should demand — not just suggest — some proof of effectiveness before getting one more cent — and this every five years at a minimum. FVPF (FVW) claims to have begun in 1980. If the Washington, D.C. corporations search bears this out, then it did — but in SF at least, it only began in 1989, meaning, a company that (now) specializes in media based campaigns and trainings, has been lying in its own self-descriptions. 1980 v. 1989 = nine years’ difference in reporting incorporation is not a minor issue, and I hope my suspicions on that one prove wrong.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2583174	05/17/2004	ACTIVE	RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE	DAVID B WEXLER

Surely Relationship Training Institute (which falls under this category) also has to — but not one RRF or IRS hyperlink has been uploaded to the public website for it) while – there is not one single RFI filing from 2006 – 2011. And the OAG somehow, hasn’t commented on this, and the charitable status remains labeled “Current.” I figure this means someone is receiving money somewhere, and the “slap you on your wrist” letter may have indicated said someones wasn’t paid their (kickback, or payoff) this time. Whether this is instinct, speculation, or error will not be known until other facts are known.

I certainly don’t buy that no one in the criminal branch of California Government (with the Attorney General being the top) knows about this group, for one, on their “About Us” page (including the “Guest Faculty list with Sandra Brown, M.A. (Christian “Liberty University” with on-line degree programs) and no known bachelor’s degree, plus CEO of her group whose corporate and charitable (if any) identity isn’t know either), not to mention “Brian Erickson, Esq., San Diego City Attorney’s Office )(do a FOIA, get the payroll and reimbursements!), says:

The Relationship Training Institute is approved by the San Diego County Probation Department to provide clinical training for all authorized county domestic violence treatment programs for court-ordered offenders.

and it (RTI) is running certification programs for “Domestic Violence Providers,” probably receiving some help (whether as direct or subgrantee) from an OVW STOP program grant:

The STOP Program: Understanding & Treating Domestic Violence
40-HOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TREATMENT PROVIDER CERTIFICATION COURSE

May 3,4,5 & 11,12, 2012

Domestic violence is not a crime, but a disease that can be treated. Sounds like the AFCC plan to transform language is indeed working….)

So, it just seems odd that this group doing quite a bit of business with the California legal and judicial systems (cf. “court-ordered” “Probation”) has somehow escaped the OAG’s radar as to filing its annual statewide returns. Unlike many sites, I don’t see any claim of when they started (“ask me no questions, I will tell you no lies”), but from the registration site it’s been fully 4 years, from the Secretary of state site (above), fully let’s say 6 (allowing for the 2011 year to end) of its not doing anything. Does this make you go hmmm? in context? (it should).

I think I know “what is it” about this — it’s simply that the profits from these practice are pretty hard to profile (trace).

I’ve heard it said (NOYB where) that a psychiatrist is a would-be physician, in other words, the field has a bit of an inferiority complex, even though they can indeed prescribe medications. And psychologists are would-be psychiatrists, there is a professional jealousy, hierarchy and wish for glory. I think the evidence supports this characterization, don’t you? They like to pronounce, but without enough trade promotion, who’s going to give a hoot about what they say?

When psychologists begin to rule a nation – which FYI has already happened — it’s just about gone. Not much difference from when religion does, which I think is my point in the ridiculous term “faith-based” with which we are now drenched in the field of social service, thanks to President Bush, President Clinton, and a while back (like 1994), Congress slipping up and letting a single HHS grant go to jumpstart the National Fatherhood Initiative, which story EVERy parent (male or female) should know in detail. This now has morphed and multiplied to HHS funding groups with six-letter acronyms (and only one vowell, or none) like:

NRFCBI

GOFBCI

NCJFCJ

or 5-letter ones such as I’m going to profile today

ACFLS (“Inc.”)

Respectively, “National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity Building Initiative” (translation, more HHS funds and a Certfication College), Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (this is in Ohio; translations — grabs more HHS money, in the form of TANF funds, for starters), National Center for Family and Juvenile Court Judges (HHS and DOJ supported, in Reno, NV), and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (as opposed to what kind of Family Law Specialists?) based in California.

Here’s a glimpse at the purpose and method of the “NRFCBI” — think Wade Horn, Don Eberly, Don Blankenhorn, Institute for American Values (another nonprofit), etc. Thanks to the web and well-trained trainers fo trainers (and not a few on the Congressional Legislative Task forces of NFI, see its site), one can simultaneously be meeting behind closed doors with a new Governor or head of the Social Rehabilitation Services for an entire state — and be training others, and get a whole dang lot of this soaking up public funds to do it.

About NRFCBI

In partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance,National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) has designed the National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative (NRFCBI) to aid grassroots and community-based organizations through a series of capacity-building grants.

These grants will empower community-based organizations by:

developing each recipient’s organizational infrastructure

enhancing its leadership; introducing sub-awardees to new programming recommendations, and

improving each awardee’s connections in the community-at-large

Ultimately, the NRFCBI aims to strategically improve sub-awardees’ capacity to provide services to local fathers and families.**

The NRFCBI was developed with funds and support from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance. Each awardee receives a one-time $25,000 award to strengthen fathers and families in communities throughout the United States.

** local mothers — including those dealing with said fathers, to their risk — can go jump in a lake. Particularly if they hope to actually get the access visitation local sub-grantee, which allegedly is for noncustodial parents (not exclusively men) when there are problems with — access and visitation.

What — really, when you examine it, IS this National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative? If you had to explain it to an alien, new to earth, new to the financial system, barely understanding the Internet, and someone who thinks instead in more concrete (versus “virtual” wordy) terms — what would you say?

Let’s try:

And most of these are “nonprofits,” which of itself means ??

Think about it: Tax-Exempt = an IRS Perk that lets others pick up the “Social Services”

Tax-exempt status implies (this isn’t actually true, but the theory goes) one is providing a legitimate public service, so this group should be exempt from the indentured service the people they serve (theoretically), that actually results things the public can use — cars, food, steel, paved roads, clothes — things that wage-earners labor at for their business employer, some of which the public actually needs (like homes to live in). (I omitted the public school system in their intentionally).

Most of my close look at family law fields comes down to the same point:

The presence of the IRS and the accumulation of wealth, per capita (unless people know or figure out how to become tax-exempt or work under the table, which we know happens) — has enabled more inflated programs, initiatives, institutes, centers and for that matter has simply centralized wealth in the wrong hands — in the hands of people with global aspirations, historic to their family (Bush) and associations (Project for a New American Century, Family Research Center, etc.). Billionaires and millionaires with apparently time on their hands (boredom – “let’s go find someone else to abuse,” and “play dominoes with countries”) and worlds to change, or as it may be starve into oblivion, attack without cause (Iraq), colonize — although supposedly the USA was “independent” of the empire on which the Sun never set, or simply blow off the face of the globe.

No wonder at the individual and family level, such societies have trouble with so many people who do this at the local and family level. Perhaps it’s the “trickle-down” effect. The wealth didn’t trickle down, but after enough decades of abuse and deprivation of rights, angry crowds assemble, without sufficient outlets, and they explode — or go home and kick the wife. Or husband. Or child.

One guy in France recently, just murdered his three-year-old son in a washing machine, allegedly for misbehavior (he was THREE!) at pre-school. He was 33. The mother, of seven (age 25), tried to cover for him. The neighbors knew of prior abuse in fact the five-year old sister of the three-year old knew, and reported (probably at the same time). I cannot pardon this mother for lying — but I sure do wonder what conditions had her marrying at age 19 (married to get away from abuse at home) and having one child a year, approximately, with the bastard. Now the surviving six are going to be in foster care. I sure hope THAT Grandma won’t put up a fight for custody, after no reporting in time to save her grandson’s life.

I cannot give an answer articles like this (as a mother, I tried), but I sure did notice that the AMERICAN article, reporting on this — had 89 comments, and the summary made no mention of where was the mother. Only 1 in 10 comments (about 8-9 maximum) even mentioned the mother which (to me, not having read all the links) for all I know was not in the picture. She wasn’t in the reporter’s picture. Those who mentioned the mother verbally crucified her along with the Dad. Others debated contraception and abortion. A Dad or two got on to say, hey, c’mon, we’re not all bad! And I couldn’t do a 1500 word response, because more than 1500 word circumstances led to this situation.

What good did the preschool do? Did it have any concept of abuse going on of a little kid at home, or were traumatized, or acting-out little kids so normal to them, or shut-down emotionally ones — who knows? Perhaps — barring families like this — preschool just isn’t an appropriate place for three-year olds; maybe they need to be taken care of by the Moms, not by the state, or parochial schools, or daycare centers. Maybe if there weren’t such a push for early childhood systems (YES< I know this was France, not the USA, but think about it), there’d be more money for other social services — like FOOD — to help support even married or cohabiting mothers while they take care of their children.

What really bothers me was a comment from a woman in Atlanta, Georgia — “don’t they have children’s services in France?”

Don’t they have awake citizens in Georgia? So many problem situations lead back to there, including people who began in GEorgia and now are so problemmatic in (Scranton), PA area that some parents who began reporting, and getting payment records from one of the dynamic duo of parent coordinators (Boyan, Termini — Boyan was the Georgia connection, but both are among professionals recommended — from Kentucky Courts — in:

Active Parenting Publishers

www.activeparenting.com/

Active Parenting programs are built to help educators create successful parent … Active Parenting Publishers has provided award-winning, video-based parenting classes for helping professionals since 1983. …Kennesaw, GA 30144-7808 …

These professionals (on that roster and others), one of them was so “helpful” that between her, a local judge and a local GAL, apparently, the FBI went and raided the courthouse, walking out with evidence — before a man who’d filed a lawsuit against inappropriate use of public funds could complete the lawsuit. The thread is here:

http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/t45346544/family-courts-co-parenting-coordinator-ann-marie-termini-vs-/?page=4

These parents and activists banded together on a forum, and have posted things such as a questionable professional’s contracts, payment vouchers, and made connections, for example (one post) Oct. 4th, from user “Toss Ross” (meaning — see below) — noticed (from the payments posted, presumably):

Is this just a coincidence or was there a natural huge spike in Termini’s income with the county?

January of 2008 is $2,320.00 total for her services.

January of 2009 is $3,220.00

January of 2010 is $4,110.00

January of 2011 is a huge increase to $7,050.00

Isn’t 2008 when Chet started appointing cases like crazy to Ross?

And all of a sudden Termini sees over 300% increase in business since Ross got all those case? Did Termini get all of Ross’ cases. Wow, if that’s the case Termini sure got lucky.

Coincidence? I think not Mr. Fed. I think not.

How about LiBassi? Did he get lucky, too? Thank you, Mr. P. What a treasure of information. I hope the investigators note the luck and the coincidences.

Ross is the GAL, and Termini the Parenting Coordinator. He noticed a payment spike in 2008. Well (coincidence?) in Georgia in 2008 a Boyan-Termini Business lost its incorporation status (National Association of Parent Coordinators), etc.

not here (note: “0 comments”)

FBI searches Lackawanna County (Pennsylvania) court administrator’s office

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)

Published: November 15, 2011

FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide Times-Shamrock newspapers a copy of the search warrant.

The visit lasted less than an hour. . .

A source familiar with the visit told the newspaper the search warrant was related to the county’s guardian ad litem system.

The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ross.

As we have been talking about groups which are not filing consistently with the State (of California, mostly) for their Charitable Returns — or not doing so correctly — while doing sometimes (Futures without Violence) mega-business within the state — it seems appropriate to remind us about the strange financial relationship between KIDS TURN (SF) and the SFTC:

As below:

Record

Date

Document

Doc Type

E/R

Name

Show Name Detail

Show APN Detail

12/14/2010

J099605-00

NOTICE LIEN

KIDS TURN

Show Name Detail

Show APN Detail

12/14/2010

J098917-00

NOTICE LIEN

KIDS TURN

Show Name Detail

Show APN Detail

12/11/2009

I887047-00

NOTICE LIEN

KIDS TURN

Show Name Detail

Show APN Detail

01/27/2004

H647258-00

NOTICE LIEN

KIDS TUR

You can see the four dates. Every single one of them shows that “SFTC” actually has a LIEN on Kids Turn, meaning (apparently) that at some point in time, the nonprofit Kids Turn RECEIVED some money (or other thing that would be due back) from the SF Courts. They now owe this to the courts, creating a Recorded Lien (?). This has happened in 2004, 2009 and twice in one day in 2010, generally around the end or beginning of a year (Dec/January). Was this for tax reporting purposes as well?

A BIG — very big — stink was made in California about Judges — who are to be paid by the state — receiving payment from the states, and not counties. Legislation was passed to retroactively immunize the state of California’s Judges from prosecution for this (after Richard Fine casework) let the entire judicial system have to be shutdown. Then they got back to disbarring the honest man, and throwing him in jail improperly, not to mention somewhere in there cutting off his legitimately earned fees as an attorney. We should review this from time to time as a reminder of JUST who one is dealing with in the august legislators and judicial authorities of the state with the largest court system in the country, and which is looked to as a model. I fear that Big Brother in this case has been setting a lousy example, and I cannot hold common Californians responsible for having high-conflict families, either, or being “flawed,” problemmatic, or most recently, having multiple personality problems troubling the court professionals (Bill Eddy High Conflict Institute language, etc.) as we are so often described in AFCC conferences.

KT was founded and “board-ed” as we know by judges, attorneys, and supported by foundations, donations, and of course some of the attorneys and judges on the board at times no doubt also contributed to Kids’ Turn) — which is a parent education model that tried to get iits name — SPECIFICALLY — written into California Law as THE standard, and which model has been followed in other states.

OK, let’s do a hypothetical situation here. Again, I’m speculating — which so far, is not seditious, it’s simply expressive and cogitational. I do not believe this is prohibited activity (other than we’ve already discerned that reporting criminal activity against one’s self or one’s kids, including kidnapping, assault, battery, molestation, stalking or other threats — is a self-defeating in the family law forum. The ROI is just not worth it! You will be labled and ordered into parenting services, and have another court professional assigned to your high-conflict-parent self.

But let’s just suppose: At any given time (given the rotating board membership of Kids’ Turn), let’s suppose that a presiding judge, commissioner, or other person is ALSO involved in litigation on a specific case, and a parent, or a parent’s business, makes a nice fat donation to Kids’ Turn at the time. Money is clearly changing hands between this group and the courts (not to mention, it also showed up as a nonprofit vendor in the City and County of SF 2007, 2008 & 2009) — wouldn’t that compromise the integrity of any ruling?

And because the general public doesn’t have access to the list of contributors in any timely fashion (the OAG does), unless the ruling judges were scrupulously honest (something they don’t exactly have a reputation for) how could any parent wishing to check impartiality, once aware of this particular financial relationship, protect his or her custody case? Without access to the information. As we can see below — (I think it was San Francisco) one of the groups had had its corporate license suspended, but now is reinstated (after I reported….):

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

Here’s the previous version, as I blogged Aug 31, 2011 in “Chasing Down Charitable & Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits”:

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

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania (which is working on also passing a Faith-based initiative; I hope the bill stalls in suspended animation) civil rules of procedure were amended to specify REQUIRED use of “Kids First” (a fictitious name registered to Chet Muklewicz) a Kids’ Turn knockoff (same idea, same setup basically, different name); only this time, some of the locals caught on, reported, and in comes the FBI. Believe me, I’ll teach them everything I know in the noble effort. These are some seriously “high-conflict” parents (they have a serious conflict with court corruption) and may they never settle down, at least in that regard.

The forum was even shut down inappropriately without notice to the moderators, but the resulting suit pulled in the ACLU and up they went again

TIt’s self-evident that (given how simple it is to incorporate) the average “consumer” (litigant or “client” of any Family Court Services setup — even if they become aware of their local professionals’ addicition to forming nonprofits, & related for-profits marketing what the nonprofit sells, and memership associations to sell franchise opportunities for the same — while taking public funds as county employees, or contractors (etc.) — there is no way to keep up.

Nor should we have to — or be forced to spend the valuable ours of our lives as parents — or anyone else — tracking down crooked behavior on behalf of our own government that can’t (or doesn’t) keep up with it!

Just as certain parties wish to legislate their pet parent education (or abstinence education, for that matter) into mandated status — I believe that anyone who disagrees with this better think about how to get some legislating that starts with “JUST SAY NO!” to allowing ANY court employees or County employees staffing the courts, to form, be employed by, or be on the boards of, ANY nonprofit to which the court, jails, or county — will defer business.

The kazillions of diversionary programs presume that the US population has simply become unmanageable, riotous, incapable of monitoring themselves, dangerously volatile, horrible to children (universally, judging by how popular the foster care and adoption industries are) and in general incompetent idiots incapable of managing themselves or their neighborhoods.

I do not share this view. Yeah, it applies often enough — but I have a problem with the parties stating this so often having been the ones riding herd for decade after decade anyhow — so this should be taken into account. Starting with the public education system. Talk about handing over one’s children to the current Administration the moment they go through the doors, and/or metal detectors. No sir! This is an institution that doesn’t handle competition very well, and the more centralized it gets, the less freedom the US has, and we’re pretty far down the fascist road already (referring to centralizing control and setting policy without going through Congress). The more it fails, the more money it demands to compensate.

Taken as a whole, it is quite similar to the family court system, which people universally like to say is “broken” –but it seems to be working according to plan from what I can tell. It’s the PLAN I have issues with — and which needs to be changed, if it cannot be tolerated by the public any longer.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, Vocabulary Lessons, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with "Californians Aware" (Watchdog nonprofit) status suspended after only 2 years for nonfiling (but see RTI), "In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California", ACFLS & Elkins Task Force, ACFLS-Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (CA), Active Parenting Publishing (GA), Bogus ACFLS (not filing Charitable returns in CA) group LOVES to file Amicus Briefs and help Reform the Courts, Boyan/Termini Combo, Futures Without Violence (FVPF) 2010 return $11mil revenues $36mil assets rejected-Sched B omits names&addresses of contributors, Kids' Turn Incorporations -then & now, Leslie Ellen Shear-ACFLS AFCC, mediation, NRFCBI National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity Building Initiative=HHS/OFA (taxpayers) fund Train the Trainers to spread the gospel (of fatherhood) at public expense, Parenting Coordination, Ralph Ferguson-Mt Diablo Healthcare District, Relationship Training Institute (San Diego) does bus with courts-neglects to file state Charity returns for SEVEN years - slap on wrist in 2011!, Scranton Political Times forum, Special Districts in Govt (Isn't that "special"?), Stephen Temko San Diego, Tadros v. Doyne & Zoe the Cat, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., WHat's AFCC got to do with it?

ABOUT THIS BLOG (@11/2011) There’s (still) No Excuse For Abuse, Including Economic Abuse of Taxpayers to Allegedly ‘EndAbuse.’

leave a comment »

A Few FAQs, but first

let me invite readers to something normally beyond my social media skillset: a Tuesday Night Blogtalk Radio show

My email alert said

“It’s going to be a hell of a show.”

(it was).

This is not your typical Battered Women’s Protective Mothers–Reform CPS–Involve More Fathers show.

(Nor is my blog typical)

Like me (nowadays) I don’t want to hear it. For one, we already tried (to cite a Bible reference) the

“widow and the unjust judge” theme, the “two women before King Solomon” theme,

and many also tried actually reporting to what we considered the proper authorities such things as:

Violations of Court Orders, Domestic Violence (or threats, stalkings, etc.) against us, violations of due process,

and in some cases, M.I.A. children the context of an ex who had threatened to run off with them.

ALSO this 64/34 effect show is NOT about

~ ~holding Congressional Hearings and Rallying in front of the White House in hopes that

the residential Change Agent (President Obama) will please help our cause ~ ~ ~ do something ~~ do anything! ~~ just make us feel heard!!

(As some have felt might be more effective the the representative form of government called one’s state & federal legislators)

NOPE. It is different. So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):

THIS TUESDAY NIGHT @ 9pm, Abuse Freedom Presents: The 66/34 Effect Radio Show,

Funding in the Courts

With Host Athena Phoenix

November 15, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. EST

This week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED welcomes our newest team member, Athena Phoenix to help us improve the justice system by bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and federal governments.

Dear Abuse,

(From the Show Description, continued):

Have you ever wondered why the justice system and the media ignores some predatory CPS or child support enforcement programs which target and exploit families? Are courts and the Department of Children and Families receiving financial incentives from the Federal government to increase conflict in family court cases by awarding custody to unfit and unwilling parents, and even taking kids out of good homes and into the system?

Abuse Freedom Radio invites you to tune in this Tuesday night at 9:00 EST to welcome Host Athena Phoenix to the AFU family and support our newest program, The 66/34 Effect: Funding in the Family Courts with host Athena Phoenix. Guests this week will be:

LIZ RICHARDS, Founder of National Alliance for Family Court Justice (www.nafcj.net) For over 20 years, Liz has been a pioneer in the mother’s rights movement a national expert on HHS funding research, fraud, and political reform.

FRED SOTTILE, President of the LA Chapter of Fathers 4 Justice, author, radio host, and a prominent TANF Title IV-D abolition activist.

JACK KELLY, Democratic party political activist, Boston based blogger and columnist who wrote about the Penn State scandal.

See Jack Kelly’s article here:

A Message To PennState Prez

Rodney Erickson: Clean House!

November 12, 2011

By Jack

Find out from special guest Fred Sottile why father’s rights groups are joining the fight to cut $5 billion in wasteful spending on IV-D TANF programs, including fatherhood programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. Also learn about Fred’s work on judicial reform and transparency with activists like Richard Fine, Full Disclosure Networks, and Judicial Watch.

Liz Richards will educate listeners on the politics of HHS Fatherhood and Healthy Families program funding, and how these funds are used to effect the outcome of court cases. Are grant programs administered through child support enforcement agencies, such as Responsible Fatherhood programs and Access and Visitation programs meeting their funding and accountability requirements? Is there a connection to the Penn State scandal and Occupy Wall Street?

Please join us, and feel free to call in and join the discussion as we find ways to improve the system.

Sincerely,

Jane Boyer & Josie Perez

Abuse Freedom United

IF HHS PROGRAMS ARE FAILING FAMILIES, WHY DO WE KEEP FUNDING THEM? What can we do to reform them?

Why is child support enforcement creating TANF programs which waive due process, collecting billions in child support, then fail to disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit? How much does your judge know about HHS funding and family services? How much of your tax dollars is being used to support programs like CPS, foster care, The Second Mile nonprofit, and Penn State who failed to protect the children raped by Coach Sandusky? Tune in and find out.

Join Athena Phoenix
Tuesday Nights at 9:00 p.m. EST

GUEST CALL-IN #
(646) 595-2134
PRESS #1 TO SPEAK WITH GUESTS OR ATHENA

9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

4:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time

5:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time

6:00 p.m. pacific Standard Time

7:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time 8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time

Or tune in on the web http://www.blogtalkradio.com/abusefreedomlive

I believe this 11/15/2011 show is now available to hear, and it will be weekly (though with which guests, I don’t know). However, the “64/34 Effect” — which has nothing to do with what most “expose the impact of domestic violence” or Train The Judges to recognize it — movements talk about. That 64/34 effect, however, has had greater influence in preventing families from getting out of it.

You’ll also note that there are both men and women on the show, and (for the record) that’s not men and women who are all pro-feminist, or pro-father. Rather, at least some people have started figuring out it’s time to stop playing the Good Cop Bad Cop (Men v. Women) themes that have been fed us by media campaigns — and instead look at some of what I have begun to (for some years now) report on this blog. I report on organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and funding behind the policies that messed with my family (yes, even my ex, who was also a batterer) and compromised our futures –badly.

(I hope the show is helpful//for the record, I’m not a regular listener and don’t know about previous episodes), or the hosts Boyer & Perez)

NOW —

ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)

I am What I am, which is changing with time. . .. (so is the blog, only it’s an it).

I don’t tag consistently, so if you’re hunting for something, use the search field.
I don’t proofread, copyedit, and once the thing is off my chest and published, usually that’s it’s format (love it or leave it).
I know — and deduce, from who’s watching it — that this blog has information on it you will NOT typically find elsewhere. I know that, because I’m a diligent person and voracious reader, and I explored the usual alternatives –consistently and hard — during a seven-year period (and thereafter) between filing a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, and watching my children have a custody-switch overnight (not getting to say goodbye to them, or vice versa) after which they basically disappeared out of my life. This was a planned event, and an enabled event — and in this blog, I am going to talk about the CONTEXT in which planned and enabled events of this sort take place.
I quit dealing with nonprofits, or asking them for help, after I realized who they are actually answerable to — and that’s their funders, NOT their clients, who represent warm bodies that come and go through their doors, justifying the funding. This includes all kinds of nonprofits.
The most important things needed for a mother (specifically, but it can also help nonabusive fathers) to know in the court system — to possibly stop getting screwed with (pardon the French) will NOT be found on domestic violence prevention sides, family court self-help sites (naturally), or even protective mothers sites.
I can document a family law case (Sacks v. Sacks) that had all of the above type groups backing it from Florida to the Supreme Court of the USA (where it was declined for a hearing) and back, which chose to ignore what I blog, and think that the case was “about” their individual judges, custody evaluators, attorneys, or situation. It’s not. Get over it. Deal with it. Grow up. What happens in the courtroom — in the bottom line — is NOT about you, and in many cases, the outcome is often settled before you get there (if you have the privilege, which some don’t).

(Sample of the language — notice the drama — and people are supposed to write the judges about all this:) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

WE ARE ALL WITH YOU LINDA MARIE

We thank you Linda Marie for your courage, faith, and strength to speak for those who have been silenced by their abusers and the courts.

CASE UPDATE: JUNE 27, 2011 CASE

US SUPREME COURT: “WE DONT DO FAMILY LAW”

THE US SUPREME COURT DENIED LINDA MARIE SACKS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN SACKS V SACKS. WE ARE DISSAPOINTED BUT NOT SHOCKED AT THE US SUPREME COURTS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. DESHANEY V WINNEBEGO, CASTLE ROCK V GONZALES, TITELMAN V TITELMAN ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF OUR NATIONS HIGHEST COURT IGNORING THE PLEAS OF PARENTS TRYING TO FIND JUSTICE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE SEVERELY ABUSED OR MURDERED. OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE STATE SUPREME COURTS AND THE US SUPREME COURT REFUSE TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND POLICE THEIR OWN. WHY HAVE SUPREME COURTS THAT ARE DEAF TO THOSE MATTERS THAT REALLY COUNT. IS BURNING OUR FLAG, STRIP SEARCHING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, SCHOOL PRAYER, AND THE LIKE-MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM ABUSE AND MURDER?

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN: FACTS FOUNDER ADELE GUADALUPE INTERVIEWS LINDA SACKS ABOUT HER CASE

Click on this link and then go to bottom of blue page to download and read full petition to the US Supreme Court

Battered Mothers-A Human Rights Issue

READ MORE www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

Write the judges in SACKS V SACKS

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ All the groups involved should thank her for free (negative) publicity at her children’s expense. However, ignorance — and this WAS ignorance, and pigheaded refusal to smell the coffee – – – – is no excuse, either. (I wouldn’t say this, but tried to present information to this mother as well.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This Petition for Writ of Certiori, i.e., to be heard by the US Supreme Court under “Other Authorities” cites Dr. Phil and the O (Oprah’s) magazine, a SF online weekly, a radio interview of Linda Sacks, and basically a laundry list of the nonprofits and individuals that did NOT inform this parent about what just happened to her. Or why a Supervised Visitation Center — or having a person on her case (Dr. Deborah O. Day) who just happened to be a founding board member of the Florida AFCC, and a Certified Family Mediator and is big on Munchhausen’s by Proxy — might relate to the problems she, like others, has been having. Instead, she focused on being “squeaky clean” and how unfair the system was to her — rather than studying the system. The groups cited (see the writ) don’t talk about AFCC, either, nor does a recent tome called Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (see the groups listed).

Meanwhile — in Lancaster, Pennsylvania very recently– a forum exists “Expose Corruption” exists, which reports on its local courts and potential corruption, and the moderator (I think it’s the moderator) simply sent off a “Right to Know” information request on one of the court personnel, and got payment vouchers,* (*it doesn’t look like Ms. Sacks ever did this) discovered no contract exists for the person in question, found out what a nice living she is making at public expense, as either Guardian Ad Litem or Parenting Coordinator. She sued him for inadvertently posting SS#s that the responding officials “forgot” to redact on the vouchers, and the game’s on. But it began with someone noticing that judges were steering cases to certain profiteers, and inquiring about the profit.

FBI searches court administrator’s office

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)

Published: November 15, 2011

FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

Mr. Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide The Times-Tribune a copy of the search warrant.

The visit lasted less than an hour. For a while, as agents worked in his office, Mr. Mackay was required to stand in a waiting room outside the suite that houses his office. An FBI agent stood near Mr. Mackay guarding the entrance to the suite. Eventually, four men dressed in plain clothes, only one of whom acknowledged being an FBI agent, walked out, with one carrying a box with white papers sticking out of the top.

. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.

Now THAT’s how you investigate!

Funny how Sacks’ coaches and/or centers of reference: Battered Women’s Custody Conference, Barry Goldstein, The Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Judicial Excellence, etc. But ordinary citizens (well, perhaps some “extraordinary” is involved here) on a forum can pick up:

(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are. Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008. Coincidentally? The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge). now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.

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

On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting. I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way. I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add

I’m longwinded. The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else. I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts. It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record. The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems. And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s. That frees up a lot of thought time .. … ….
Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here. But only the main page, generally, is added to. It’s structured like this. I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts). When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”

Whatever I am saying, visits are steadily coming from state & county & city governments, various court systems, law firms, the California Judicial Council,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Alaska Court System (209.165.166.194) [Label IP Address] 0 returning visits
Anchorage, Alaska, United States

		(No referring link)
16 Nov	13:00:29

– – – – – or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:City & County Of San Francisco (204.68.210.39) CA CityCnty of SF – KT artklReferring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page:

familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/

– – – – -or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:American Lawyer Media (208.8.241.6) [Label IP Address]Referring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit /

– – – – – or …

State Of New Jersey (12.195.10.99) NJ State of (undistrib CS) 0 returning visits

(No referring link)

16 Nov05:35:30

familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/66-to-34-undistributable-child-support-collections-and-why-hhsoas-is-more-concerned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs /

Total Visits:

South Amboy, New Jersey, United States Show Full URLs

1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United States

IP Address:Psinet (38.112.73.146) [Label IP Address]

Referring URL:(No referring link)

Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/tag/parents-day-comes-from-true-parentsunification-church /

[[that post has a lot of corporation / charitable regisration lookups on some well-known California Marriage Promotion groups — more on that later]]

or, ..

County Of Los Angeles(159.83.4.157)[Label IP Address] 0 returning visits

(No referring link)

15 Nov14:02:52

familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/pc278-5-arresting-moms-at-least-for-felony-child-stealing/

Long Beach, California, United States

or … (i’m not sure if this is good news, or not good news….).

Executive Office Of The President Usa (198.137.240.197) WDC EXEC OFC PRESIDNT! 9/2/11 0 returning visits
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep	08:55:24familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/page/18/?pages-list
(No referring link)
15 Nov	05:53:57familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/

Executive Office Of The President Usa(198.137.241.197)WDC Exec Ofc Pres!198137241197 0 returning visits

Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Show Full URLs

(No referring link)

2 Sep

08:55:17 familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/category/wheres-mom/page/2

(No referring link)

15 Nov

05:53:55

familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/

– – – – – Or (just one last one!):

Calnet2 St Of Ca Judicial Council (aoc San Francis(63.202.171.143)CA SF CalJudiCouncil SFAOC 0 returning visits
San Francisco, California, United States Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
26 Jul	12:23:39familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/whats-money-got-to-do-with-it-calif-legislators-judges-at-play/
(No referring link)
4 Aug	11:34:38familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/afcc-coordinates-parenting-coord-and-the-courts-democrats-spearhead-next-fatherhood-legislation-hr-2193/
(No referring link)
18 Aug	14:28:21familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/how-nonprofit-status-all-nonprofit-status-large-small-leads-to-abuse-of-individuals-money-flows-towards-the-visionary-dictatorial/
(No referring link)
14 Nov	09:22:46familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/say-no-to-sb-557-contd-local-connections-faith-focused-ovw-grants-all-in-the-family-but-whose/

(I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at. Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what? For profit? For someone’s career track? To bring world peace or solve world poverty?

(besides which it was seriously difficult to get those stats into the WordPress margins… )

IN THE BOTTOM LINE, THE QUESTION BECOMES — WHOSE LIFE IS MINE? WHOSE MONEY IS THE MONEY I EARN?

WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN? IF A MOTHER AND FATHER HAVE CHILDREN AND A CUSTODY DISPUTE, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?

By law, the ANSWER is here, and the answer is NOT his or hers….

The UCCJEA talks about which STATE has jurisdiction, when it’s a multi-state custody matter. But what about within a single state?

JURISDICTION:

So what is jurisdiction? It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject. Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions.

What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).

No, seriously …..

WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)

Conciliation Courts

California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.

(taken from Robert L. Lewis site; San Jose Family Lawyer)

How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think. NOTE: I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)

Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:

(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):

FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)

1814. (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is
established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family
conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In
counties which have by contract established joint family
conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting
counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision.
(b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following:

(1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings
in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning
the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court.
(2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the
counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation
court may direct.
(3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept
as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct.
(4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be
required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make
investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the
intent of this part.
(5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both
parties are underage.
(6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided
in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the
authority provided the probation officer in that code.

(7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator.
(8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.
(c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appoint,
with the consent of the board of supervisors, associate counselors of conciliation
and other office assistants as may be necessary to assist
the family conciliation court in disposing of its business.

Which, for the record, may or may not relate to YOUR business or intents in being there.
In fact, the two purposes are often at odds.  But did you know what its business was to start with?
This is not told you in the basic self-help legal center, but it appears to be so....

The associate counselors shall carry out their duties
under the supervision of the supervising counselor of conciliation
and have the powers of the supervising counselor of conciliation.
Office assistants shall work under the supervision and direction of
the supervising counselor of conciliation.
   (d) The classification and salaries of persons appointed under this section shall be determined by: 
(1) The board of supervisors of the county in which a noncontracting family conciliation court operates.

(2) The board of supervisors of the county which by contract has the responsibility to administer funds of the joint family
conciliation court service.

OK, Let’s review this: COUNTY (financial) vs. STATE (pays judges) responsibilities and associations:

And State to Federal ….

The county commissioners (or, “Board of Supervisors of the County”) in which a conciliation court operates appoint the classification and salaries of people helping there work. Got that? (Judges, in California, are to be paid by the state — not the counties).

SO — when here comes the United States (federal) Child Support & Welfare System and says — “we will fund you, only it’s a $2/$1 relationship (or the 66/34% effect), …

provided you follow our rules — some of which includes, we want to do social studies on your families, (Just whatever the Head (Secretary) of HHS says to ….)

and we also believe that you should be running some marriage, fatherhood promotion, abstinence education, supervised visitation, mediation, counseling and parent education classes too, or other “access/visitation” programs — to reduce the overall divorce rate, which WE assert relates to the overall POVERTY RATE for which we are (see?? ) giving your state $XX b/million per year — if you want it that is…”

— GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STATES (AND COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF CONCILIATION COURTS) ARE GOING TO LISTEN.

AND JUDGES ARE LIKELY TO ORDER SERVICES — THAT’S HOW WE GET THE INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOME OF THESE NONPROFITS AND INDIVIDUAL JUDGES ON SPECIFIC CUSTODY CASES THEY ARE TO HELP PARENTS SETTLE THEIR “DISPUTES,” and this JUST — PERHAPS — MIGHT INVOLVE FORCING THAT COUPLE TO GO SIT IN FRONT OF A COUNTY-PAID COUNSELOR (OR MEDIATOR), OR TAKE CLASSES BY A JUDGE- LAWYER-RUN PROGRAM THAT QUALIFIES FOR SOME OF THE GRANTS. . .

.Which may explain why American Lawyer Media — (or quite a few others visiting the same site) are somewhat interested in my post on “Kids Turn” . . . or why the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts (perhaps) may be interested in my reporting on the A/V grants, or OCSE — or “AFCC” which includes personnel with a penchant for ordering a whole lot of these types of income-producing programs:

(CODE, continued — but in more normal print so it will wrap to the margins right):

1815. (a) A person employed as a supervising counselor of conciliation or as an associate counselor of conciliation shall have all of the following minimum qualifications: {{NOTICE THE FIELDS}}

(1) A master’s degree in psychology, social work, marriage, family and child counseling, or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships.

(2) At least two years of experience in counseling or psychotherapy, or both, preferably in a setting related to the areas of responsibility of the family conciliation court and with the ethnic population to be served.

(3) Knowledge of the court system of California and the procedures used in family law cases. {{notice this is qualification #3, not #1}}

(4) Knowledge of other resources in the community that clients can be referred to for assistance.

(5) Knowledge of adult psychopathology and the psychology of families.

(6) Knowledge of child development, child abuse, clinical issues relating to children, the effects of divorce on children, the effects of domestic violence on children, and child custody research sufficient to enable a counselor to assess the mental health needs of children.

(7) Training in domestic violence issues as described in Section 1816. {{notice this is #7, not #2, although DV issues do result in disputed custody situations that come before this court!}}

(b) The family conciliation court may substitute additional experience for a portion of the education, or additional education for a portion of the experience, required under subdivision (a).

(c) This section does not apply to any supervising counselor of conciliation who was in office on March 27, 1980.

Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?

NOW — a voice from 1977. I notice that it was published in the National Council on Family Relations.

Who are they? Well not in this post, but this is the grant they got recently from our government (HHS) to keep marriages together or help persuade more people to marry

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MINNEAPOLIS	MN	55421-3900	ANOKA	078679974

$ 1,286,457

(click on name to see what the grant 90FM0001 was about, from 2004-2008)(then click on the grant# and see that its 2011 continuation for only $785,612 was continued at Utah State U. Utah appears to be a very marrying state, one might think, given the prevailing religion..

“CONCILIATION COUNSELING: THE COURT’S EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING VISITATION AND CUSTODY DISPUTES“

(excerpt)

The Family Coordinator © 1977 National Council on Family Relations

Abstract

Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth.

(Excerpt): “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change. With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine). PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION….

At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service. (etc.)

That’s how the counselors get in there. . . . Note the date –1972. The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975. No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America…. This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….

WHAT I WAS NOT TOLD — EVER — BY ANY COURTHOUSE I ENTERED< ANYWHERE< OR ANY MEDIATOR:

WERE YOU? WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?

WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF YOU HAVE A CUSTODY DISPUTE?

THIS IS A 2009 blog from an attorney who works in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. It’s not hard to understand, it’s fairly clear — but were you told?

L.A. Divorce Blog (Nov. 24, 2009)

When a controversy exists between spouses, or when a controversy relating to child custody or visitation exists between parents (regardless of their marital status), and the controversy might otherwise result in divorce, annulment, legal separation, or the disruption of the household, and there is a minor child of the spouses or parents whose welfare might be affected thereby, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the parties to the controversy, and all persons having any relation to the controversy. Where the controversy involves domestic violence, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, whether or not the parties have a minor child.

The purpose of filing a Petition for Conciliation is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to preserve the marriage, to effect a reconciliation of the parties, or to amicably settle the controversy to avoid further litigation over the issue.

While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated. Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:

(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.

AFCC was originally established in California as the means to enact Conciliation Court Law (CA Family Codes 1800-1852), an obscure set of codes used to prevent divorce in counties where the court itself deems it necessary to “promote the public welfare by preserving, promoting, and protecting family life and the institution of matrimony“. [15] While the Conciliation Court identifies children’s rights to “both parents”, it is used only to assist fathers take custody away from mothers and/or to otherwise gain inappropriate or illegal “access” to children.

Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children, Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]

PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]

The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases.

She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts. As also explained (again, long ago) on

Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral

practices in the court

… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below.

To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.

To people who file civil restraining orders — this information is not shown them (last I heard), but if children are involved, they are then escorted (at least in my area) to a quick run by the local family mediator –who just happens to be in this conciliation court. The place looks, acts, and sounds like a courthouse, but in fact it is a support service, under conciliation law, to a conciliation court. Funny that, when divorce actions sometimes read “irreconciliable differences” — and yet someone is going to give it a try, for public benefit. Or at least pretend to. Heck, it’s a job, right?

I know many women who filed for safety and ended up in this court before they knew what hit. Sometimes the actions are consolidated Ex Parte to get them into this venue. Then we wonder why, when we talk about matters of law, due process, (particularly DV law), or even crimiinal matters, the judges, GALs, and evaluators jsut cannot hear — and talk a different language (as above, see the code).

The entity which lobbied for conciliation code to start with, in California, is known as the AFCC (association of family and CONCILIATION courts — get it?). Their job is to extract as much wealth as possible for as long as possible (this may include from extended family, foster care situations, adoptive families, you name it) and try to convince — or force — you to believe that this is in the best interests of what you think are YOUR children, but they know (by knowing about this section of code) are actually NOT your children — not until you and the Dad can agree.

Your judge or lawyer is bad? Your ex done you wrong? Start a blog and unload there — but I am more interest in system change and reporting how systems have changed over time. When I feel I’ve said this well enough (or as well as I can on this blog), then I’ll stop saying it. Don’t hold your breath.

SO, ABOUT THIS BLOG:

Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…

This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.
[2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.
Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.
A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).
Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.

I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files. The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom. It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned. Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.

Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.

My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.

Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.

And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”

NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds. (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators). NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:

Key Issues

NOW’s Top Priority Issues: (the top 6, and the “other important issues”)

Other Important Issues:

Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them. I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait. But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists). It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads. But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).

LIKEWISE:

The NCADV and Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have no excuse. Stop SELLING stuff (including conference attendances, memberships) and start reporting — for free– on welfare reform and what it did to battered women who are also mothers’ chances of EVER getting completely free from such dangerous relationships. You do NOT speak for mothers who have their lives or kids’ lives on their line.

Family Violence Prevention Fund is now “Futures Without Violence” (facelift, namechange, physical move to the SF Praesidio). I went up down and around the SF Bay Area looking for help, only to find out (once I got regular internet access and knew to look) that you, too, believe that the real way to prevent violence by men against women is to take funding from wealthy foundations who believe that the way to stop violence against women is to make sure that there is a man in all their homes, and a father in every abused child’s life. Then I learned you were a resource center for women like me, and I know lots of us in the area.

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	94103-5177	SAN FRANCISCO	618375687	$ 22,368,114
Family Violence Prevention Fund	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	94103-5178	SAN FRANCISCO	618375687	$ 31,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2005	90XA0109	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT	1	0	ACF	08-03-2005	618375687	$ 496,000

That’s from Health and Human Services. Overall (not that this site is usually complete) USASPENDING.GOV shows the OVW funding as well:

Total Dollars:$41,512,886
Transactions:1 – 25 of 92

$34 million of this was straight grants, some was contracts…..

Somehow (when I check “Grants/HHS” at USASPENDING.gov — only $13 million shows up)

so often, “Discretionary”:

Program Office	Recovery Act Indicator	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
CB		90XA0109	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT	1	08/03/2005	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	DISCRETIONARY	ESTA SOLER	$ 496,000

Used to write up a report on yourself?

Title: International Center to End Violence: Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report to: DHHS/Administration on Children, Youth and Families under CAPTA. Grant Number 90-XA-0109. October 31, 2007.
Published: 2007

Available from: Children’s Bureau
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20024

Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.

Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.

by Philip V. Scribano, Pediatrician

and here:

New International Center for Family Violence Prevention Fund

(in case graphic doesn’t show…)

“Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait . .. and we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women,

we empower our greatest resource fro development; mothers raising children; lawmakers in parliament;

chief executives; negotiators; teachers; doctors; policewomen; peacekeepers and more.”

..Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General, United Nations

And we were the first to engage men – as coaches, mentors, and positive role models to boys.

New Home, new name – in the SF Praesidio (while – in this area — I know women who went homeless after custody-switch in the family courts; I almost did. That’s partly a child support matter, and a child support motivation. Where’s your blog — your website — your publication of how child support and the state of the OCSE/welfare reform affects custody decisions?? Which, in the case of women leaving violence — affects their and their kids’ safety and well-being?)

Montgomery Street Barracks

Built in the 1890s, the six red-brick Montgomery Street Barracks that frame the Main Parade have become Presidio icons. All will be rehabilitated and will feature activities and services for visitors, such as restaurants, galleries, and cultural institutions. Activities will spill out on to the Barracks’ expansive front porches and the Main Parade Ground. The Walt Disney Family Museum opened in one of the barracks in fall 2009 and the International Center to End Violence will open in another in spring 2011.

(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)

Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon: Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.

I saw the funding surge behind the change of tune, too:

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.

In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers

Did you train whoever trained Scott McAlpin? Scott DeKraii? Cody Beemer?

(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?

in 2011, it’s up to $3,000,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2011	90EV0401	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	2	0	ACF	08-04-2011	618375687	$ 250,000
2011	90EV0414	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES	1	0	ACF	09-17-2011	618375687	$ 1,100,000
2011	ASTWH110025	PROJECT CONNECT: A COORDINATED PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN	1	00	DHHS/OS	08-26-2011	618375687	$ 1,650,000
Fiscal Year 2011 Total:								$ 3,000,000

Never-Ending Education . . .

2010

ASTWH090016

FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

DHHS/OS

11-17-2009

618375687

$ 1,500,000

And taking money and direction from Annie E. Casey Foundation, which virtually ensures that NONE of your media campaigns are going to tell women such as myself the relevant facts about 1996 Welfare Form, of the existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative (from the start, 1994, same year as VAWA) or how these funds have been used in family court situations. It sure has changed the tune — if, indeed, the tune ever was anything other than media campaign, technical assistance, and training since about 1997ff… While I am very thankful to be informed that strangulation, for example, is a high indicator of lethality, as a mother experiencing it in the home, I had that figured out (particularly in contexts of the talk that went along with it). Or that my dentist should’ve reported or further questioned (he didn’t) a certain suspicious & bloody incident involving my teeth.

Sample Annie E. Casey Fatherhood program (this is a small one)

“On Thursday, October 20th, eighteen men graduated from the Newark Y Fatherhood Program. Funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 167 men have participated in our workshops during the past year. …A major highlight of theFatherhood Graduation was the presentation of awards from President Barack Obama to the Y’s CEO, Michael Bright and the Director of the Fatherhood Program, Daryl Brown. ThePresidential Award was given in recognition of their “devotion to service and for doing all you can to shape a better tomorrow for our great Nation.”

FVPF Program purpose (from the tax return, the 2009 Form 990, below):

“1. TO PREVENT VIOLENCE WITHIN THE HOME, AND IN THE COMMUNITY,

TO HELP THOSE WHOSE LIVES ARE DEVASTATED BY VIOLENCE BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREE OF VIOLENCE.”

4. Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:

INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE – THE FVPF HAS HELPED CRAFT LANDMARK FEDERAL LEGISLATION, CO-FOUNDED A NATIONAL NETWORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST IMMIGRANT WOMEN , AND CONTINUES TO MUSTER THE FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RESOURCES TO SAFEGUARD IMMIGRANT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN – AMONG THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THE FVPF HAS FORMED PROGRAMMATIC PARTNERSHIPS AROUND THE WORLD IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS TO EXCHANGE WISDOM, IMPROVE HEALTHCARE, AND RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS.
HEALTH – THE FVPF HAS HELPED EXPOSE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HISTORY OF ABUSE AND CURRENT HEALTH,** FURTHER SPOTLIGHTING THE CRITICAL NEED FOR SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION, AND ADVOCACY IN CLINICAL SETTINGS. THE ORGANIZATION PROMOTES A HEALTHCARE RESPONSE THAT CONSIDERS THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN AND THAT INCLUDES PREVENTION. THE FVPF OPERATES THE NATION’S HEALTH RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION TO THOUSANDS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND OTHERS EACH YEAR. THE ORGANIZATION HAS ALSO DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED STATE-WIDE PLANS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

**astounding. And this was figured out when? …..

(this is the “We Got Fatherhood Funding” segment) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. {{yes, but this is 2009!}} NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2009	$26,157,567	990	16	94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2008	$22,018,363	990	31	94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2007	$17,917,034	990	33	94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2006	$13,612,574	990	33	94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2005	$9,114,506	990	31	94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2004	$7,045,197	990	24	94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund	CA	2002	$6,261,569	990	22	94-3110973

EIN# 94-3110973

Also described by them at

Grants — $11.5 million

Program income — $181K

Salaries this year — $4 million

One resource is ERI (Economic Research Institute or “http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com”) which runs comparisons on non-profit organizations salaries;

the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million. It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.

Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded. They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.

Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6 others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .

killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser). Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature. I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??

Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-10
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-10
Total Assets:	$36,603,585.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$17,118,149.00
RRF Received:	14-JUN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Rejected

(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989. To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

C1648791 08/30/1989 ACTIVE FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE ESTA SOLER

September 10, 2010 notice from California Attorney General — they forgot their fee:
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 383 RHODE ISLAND STREET, NO. 304 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5133

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

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

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

LETTER from California Attorney General, who handles charitable registrations:

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT (August 26, 2011)

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

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

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

Must’ve just forgot — I’m sure they can afford $225.

Another notice says they forgot to attach a list of contributors; also 8/26/2011.

FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129

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

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

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

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

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

I think that along with this many people earning over $100K per years, someone should’ve taken – I did — maybe an hour of their precious PR time to read some of the material put out by UNpaid mothers who have watched and documented what the family court systems is doing to their current safety levels. It’s not as though we aren’t on the web and aren’t talking !!!

2009 SALARIES OF FVPF, or, currently the ICEV: (Salary to left, “estimated other compensation from other organizations”) to the right of each name

$234,229 ESTA SOLER PRESIDENT + $71,069

$168,216 THOMAS FERGUSON CFO,CAO + $14,717

$ 166,265 DEBBIE LEE SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $34,928

(also a program director for a joint project with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Start Strong, Building Healthy Teen Relationships”)

“Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationships is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in collaboration with Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Blue Shield of California Foundation* are investing $18 million in 11 Start Strong communities across the country to identify and evaluate best practices in prevention to stop dating violence and abuse before it starts.

Or — take a look at the assemblage of personnel on the campaign to end teen pregnancy, underneath this study of “What Research Tells Us about Latino Parenting Practices and their Relationship to Teen Pregnancy” starting with Thomas Kean, Chair of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and former Governor of NJ). These are, basically, the rich studying and categorizing the poor — by ethnicity and about every other category — in order to better manage the population. They are particularly interested in breeding habits, which I think is borne out of fear of being outbred (take a look at the U.S. Congress by ethnicity and gender, and make an educated guess why….)

$ 163,251 LENI MARIN SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $50,806. (That would probably, with creativity, feed & house 3 families in the Bay Area on those benefits alone….)

$ 196,620 RACHAEL SMITH DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR + $21,418

$ 148,996, BRIAN O’CONNOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC COMMU + 13,426

$ 148,841 MICHAEL RUNNER DIRECTOR OF LEGAL PROGRA + $20,176

$ 136,681 KIERSTEN STEWART DIR OF PUBLIC POLICY PRO + $18,891

$ 125,685 LONNA DAVIS DIR OF CHILDREN’S PROGRA + $16,601

$ 112,139 COLLIN CASEY DIR OF ADMINISTRATION + $29,491 (any relationship to the Annie E. Casey people?)

In addition, contractors over $100K included:

LAURA HOGAN, PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., (WASHINGTON, DC), DEBORAH KARNOWSKY

@ $144,737. $143,855. $139,731. == for respectively: Project Building, Project Building, and Campaign Building.

Other projects on the 990 — grandiose in scope — described on Schedule O:

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4D, OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES:

WORKPLACE – THE NATIONAL WORKPLACE RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE FVPF, EMPLOYERS, AND UNIONS AROUND THE NATION THAT HAS REACHED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. THIS PROJECT MAKES POSSIBLE EMPLOYER AND UNION DISSEMINATION OF HELPFUL, EASY-TO-FOLLOW INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES AND UNION MEMBERS ON PREVENTING AND REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE POLICIES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND WORKPLACE SUPPORT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIMS. THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES RESOURCES ONLINE THAT GIVE WORKPLACE LEADERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE EXPERT ASSISTANCE.

EXPENSES $ 110773.

and for “CHILDREN / YOUTH / YOUNG FAMILIES: EXPENSES $709,895 (no description) and “PUBLIC POLICY / NEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” exp. $80,900.

and the plan to end all plans:

INTERNATIONAL CENTER TO END VIOLENCE – THE ORGANIZATION IS CREATING AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN SAN FRANCISCO AS A HUB OF EDUCATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO ADVANCE US TOWARD A VIOLENCE-FREE SOCIETY. THE CENTER SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE VALUES OF RESPECT, EMPATHY, AND RESPONSIBILITY; EXPOSE THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD; ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN EXAMINING ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AND ITS INTERCONNECTIONS TO BIGOTRY AND HATE; AND ROUSE INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE, HATRED and BIGOTRY.

EXPENSES $ 220,101

and of course: another expense was “LEGAL $501,366

Well, I’ll find some of the descendants, if any, of the women mentioned above and tell them they didn’t die in vain, the

International Center to End Violence has a plan...

I believe a better use of time would for be for these directors to go hang out in homeless camps and at soup kitchens and ask the people how they came to be homeless, and in need of eating at soup kitchens. In the years that FVPF funds were doubling and increasing, I have noticed more and more women in those lines. Preach for hire in an open marketplace– not at their expense! While this group is not actually (that I can see) taking money direct from money dedicated to welfare, they ARE taking a helluva a lot from the HHS pot to forward the fund’s personal (shared by others, but it is personal to the fund) belief (or assertions) that more training will stop violence. Really? You just want my children and future grandchildren, currently this is in the USA, to fund your vision about fixing the WORLD? While in the entire time of their childhoods here, I can’t identify ONE thing that this group did to stop the battering in my home, or the family court gauntlet that followed. (And under what name is it doing business in San Francisco, anyhow?)

Incidentally (see TAGGS grants) — many of the grants which would otherwise go to shelters are going to this type of “training and technical support” activity – it’s lumped under the same labelThen.

To be fair, here is a 2010 statement with a California Assemblyperson naming FVPF (Futures without Violence) founder Esta Soler his 2010 Woman of the Year. It also says the organization was started — with a federal fund — in 1980 30 years ago. Perhaps in DC or Washington – the charitable and sec of state records in California both say about 21 years ago (as of 2010), i.e. 1989 – 1999 – 2009 -that’s 20 years.

Assenblymember Ammiano Names Esta Soler as ‘Woman of the Year‘

Contact: Quintin Mecke @ (415) 557-3013

Sacramento, CA – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) chose Esta Soler, the head of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as his 2010 Woman of the Year.

“I am proud to announce Esta Soler, one of the world’s foremost experts on violence against women and children, to be Woman of the Year for Assembly District 13”, said Ammiano. “Esta is a pioneer who founded the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) nearly 30 years ago and made it one of the world’s leading violence prevention agencies.”

Under her direction, the FVPF was a driving force behind passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 – the nation’s first comprehensive federal response to the violence that plagues our families and communities. Congress reauthorized and expanded the law in 2000 and again in 2005.

“It’s a tremendous honor to receive this award from Assemblymember Ammiano, a wonderful friend to all of us working to end domestic, dating and sexual violence and help victims,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “At a time when state funding for domestic violence programs is in peril, we especially appreciate champions like Tom Ammiano.”

Esta Soler first established the organization with a federal grant in 1980.

This 1980 is commonly cited — BUT unless it’s in Washington, D.C. (a corporations search page I can’t seem to sign into yet), the SF one was definitely 1989 — and thus the 1980 statement is an exaggeration. If the grant was received in 1980, I’d like to know how much, from which department and under what name. Most on-line databases don’t go back that far. I hope to research this a little further perhaps to better understand this organization.

It has become the nation’s leading expert on violence against women and children, the source of numerous trailblazing prevention and intervention campaigns, and a major force in shaping public policies that prevent violence and help victims in the U.S. and worldwide.

Soler, along with the honorees, was recognized today in the 2010 Woman of the Year ceremony. Each year, members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate honor a woman from their district who has distinguished herself in service to her community.

MINNESOTA-STYLE DV ORGANIZATIONS

The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works. And, it doesn’t. I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) — developing (and selling) programs,

Not stopping domestic violence

and some pretty good grants behind that business, too….

STATEWIDE COALITIONS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Standardized & co-opted, used as heat shields for marriage entitites, didn’t include enough mothers leaving violence in their plans. DIDN’t PUBLICIZE FATHERHOOD COMMISSIONS, FAITH-BASED OPERATIONS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. Didn’t teach women the 1996 welfare reform information in its context.

This sounds harsh, so here’s an example:

Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans through a Kansas Open Records request.

The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.

Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.

Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.

And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues. This affects mothers AND fathers:

Brownback program promotes marriage

Brownback is pushing a program to increase wedlock, cut divorce rates

July 2, 2011, Tim Carpenter, the Topeka-Journal

(listing attendees)

Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.

Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.

This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.

Any idea what this exposes women to? (read on). They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets! This does not protect women or children!

Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.

Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”

California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”

This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas? Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !! She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way? Listen to some ex-married women, girl!

It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.

Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.

SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.

*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.

Siedlecki hired Richard Marks, the Jacksonville, Fla., director of the Marriage for Life, to join SRS and be involved in the initiative

(A little QUICK research on my part here See the URL above: He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.” EIN#562283483. This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved. This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.

“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,

we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed

to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”

That’s a creed — not an incorporation!

“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”

I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse). Getting there was not easy; they were night-times. Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives? I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY. At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….

He also had a role in Florida Government: Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.” That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:

The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.

The new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.

From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent. It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children. Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids). So, is this progress? But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.

The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector

The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:

383.0115 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The Legislature finds that:

(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.

(b) There are many problems facing families.

(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there. I provided the link).

. . .

(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.

. . .

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

(a) There is created within the Department of Children and Family Services, for administrative purposes, a commission, as defined in s. 20.03(10), called the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives. The commission is independent of the head of the department. The commission is authorized to hire an executive director, a researcher, and an administrative assistant. The executive director shall report to, and serve at the pleasure of, the commission.

This “independence within a department” is key to steering grants to cronies. I’ve seen it in Ohio and we’re (above) witnessing it in Kansas, 2011, as we speak.

To understand some of this subculture — and after I’d been looking at the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative website for a good long while I finally noticed who was pushing the statewide Marriage Initiative, starting with at GRAB of TANF funds, and this was held up to other states as an example . . . .

I noticed “Jerry Regier” — and, for an example, here is the Wikipedia Timeline of his Job Descriptions. He came from OK in 2002, and by 2003, Florida is voting for a Commission on Marriage and Families within the Children and Family Services. (Mr. Regier eventually had to quit this post in FL under some scandal about steering grants to his, as I say, cronies — but ended up, for our purposes, in yet a worse place — back at HHS as Assistant Secretary of the ASPE (evaluates things) where he presided over glowing reports about his former work in Oklahoma. That’s how the Bush-based Babies Cookie-cutter commissions (etc.) generally crumbles. Scandal, scoot to another state, repeat… So look at this chart with some care, OK?

Jerry Regier
Florida Secretary of Children and Families
In office 2002–2007
Preceded by	Kathleen A. Kearney
Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services
In office April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002
Governor	Frank Keating
Preceded by	Ken Lackey
Succeeded by	Howard Hendrick
Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
In office April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002
Governor	Frank Keating
Preceded by	Ken Lackey
Succeeded by	Robert E. Christian
President of the Family Research Council
In office 1984–1988
Preceded by	Post created
Succeeded by	Gary Bauer

So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001. Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).

In Kansas (this is yet another article on the same issue):

SRS says Faith-based initiatives are still around, just not getting as much attention**

Oct. 23, 2011 by Scott Rothschild in “LJworld.com”

**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters. You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).

In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.

Are you getting a feel for this yet?

Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.

. . .

Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.

But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.

Kansas Health Initiative published the list of who attended. Recommend Memorizing. Coming to your state (or what’s left of it) soon. What’s kind of funny — Occupy Wichita made an appearance in the middle of a speech by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. (Protestors Disrupt Governor’s Poverty Forum (apparently, today 11/16/2011, KHI News service. I’m starting to like KHI…)):

Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.

One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.

The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.

Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.

That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas: (article links to this):

By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Nov. 14, 2011

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Reducing the number of children born to single mothers is the most effective way to combat childhood poverty.

That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.

. . .

Strong reaction

Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.

“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”

Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.

“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.

Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage. (The information has been available on the web since 1993). For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform. The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies ! (in other words, it has severely racist overtones). To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!

The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”

OH? How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.? How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education, — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?

Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW,

on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

Kari Ann Rinker is the President of the Kansas chapter of NOW and she joins us to talk about the budget problems in Topeka that led to end of prosecuting domestic violence cases.

Listen or Download Audio MP3

The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***

“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.

(***search her name on my blog. She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas…. I commented on this).

The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored. It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.

I remember this site from a long time ago on the Heritage Foundation.

POWER ELITES: THE MERGER OF RIGHT AND LEFT

A. K. Chesterton once said: “The proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens could be understood.”

He added: “These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.”

Chesterton described those agencies: “Their goal was to work through such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations–Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford — provides an infallible means of recognizing them.”

The Rockefellers made $200,000,000.00 from World War I. Henry Kissinger’s brother Walter heads the Allen Group. The super-wealthy (with the exception of some Du Ponts and the Fords) have long supported the Republican Party — the party of plutocratic oligarchy. “If not kings themselves, they are king-makers.” They have quick access to the White House no matter who is President. Other super-rich, such as the Rockefellers, affiliate with the Democratic Party. Politics in the U.S., no matter what party, is under the control of the super-rich, large corporations and the international bankers.

A 1995 Wall Street Journal observed the formidable influence of the Heritage Foundation on government policies since the Reagan era:

“WASHINGTON — With the Republicans’ rise to control Congress, think-tank power in the nation’s capital has shifted to the right. And no policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“When GOP congressional staffers met in June with conservative leaders to help map current legislative efforts to cut federal funding for left-leaning advocacy groups, the closed-door meeting took place at Heritage headquarters. The group’s involvement wasn’t unusual. ‘Heritage is without question the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas.’ House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this year.

“Think tanks have long churned out studies that have wound up in official policy proposals. During Democratic times of power, the more liberal Brookings Institution has been a leading player here. Now, the 21-year-old Heritage Foundation, which rose to prominence in the Reagan years, is taking academic involvement to a new level.

“Over the first 100 days of the current GOP Congress, Heritage scholars testified before lawmakers 40 times–more than any other organization, Hill staffers say. Its scholars are credited by congressional members and staff as key architects of the House-passed welfare-overhaul plan and with inspiring some provisions in the GOP balanced-budget plan. ‘They talk to me sometimes 12 times a week,’ said Heritage budget analyst Scott Hodge earlier this year, explaining his ties to the staff of the House Budget Committee. ‘We–I mean House members–are putting together a final list of cuts.'”(5)

FACIST CONNECTIONS
Paul Weyrich – considered the architect and mainstay of the conservative revolution – calls for “reclaiming the culture” and a “second American Revolution.” A look at the inflammatory, extremist rhetoric with racial and Inquisitorial overtones on the Free Congress Foundation web site should alarm Christians as to Weyrich’s real intent:

(etc.)

I encourage people to read this write-up on The Heritage Foundation from “SourceWatch.org” and understand (as I am beginning to)its relationship both financially and in purpose (ending TANF completely and eliminating the public education system in the United States) follows up on some serious international influence in the 1980s and 1990s. It took me a while to keep running across the information and understand it — but the Heritage Foundation, The Unification Church and its leaders’ intent to establish ONE world religion with him at the top (yep!) and the means by which the “faith-based operatives” (as I call them) move in and out of state-level, national-level posts and agencies, restructuring them IMMEDIATELY upon being hired (as happened with the Kansas SRS, above) – these are related. The fight is on. Read a segment — but don’t forget to go to the site and consider the international influence in covert wars by the US as well:

HERITAGE FOUNDATION – SOURCEWATCH

The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.

In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.

The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:

(Dick Armey being a Texas Republican during the “Contract with America” years. Below this quote…**)

Liberation is at hand…. A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s – from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer – the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning…. But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture – indeed, the entire human outlook – will change…. Once this shift takes place – by 1996, I predict – we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including…. radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.”

(**Contract with America

In 1994, Armey, then House Republican Conference Chairman, joined Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in drafting the Contract with America. Republican members credited this election platform with the Republican takeover of Congress, rewarding Gingrich with the position of Speaker and Armey with the number two position of House Majority Leader. Gingrich delegated to Armey an unprecedented level of authority over scheduling legislation on the House floor, a power traditionally reserved to the Speaker. Armey has been accused of being involved in a 1997 attempt to oust Gingrich as Speaker,^[7] something Armey has strongly denied. In 1995 Armey referred to openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, as “Barney Fag“. Armey said it was a slip of the tongue.^[8] Armey and his staff, especially spokesman Jim Wilkinson, took the lead in spreading the idea that Al Gore claimed to have “invented the internet.”^[9]^[10]^[11]

then-President CLINTON had to do something to respond to the Republican “Contract with America” — and 1996 TANF (Welfare Reform) was what he did — or at least signed. This 1996 TANF is a major topic of the post and has affected custody situations for years in “Conciliation Court.” It is also affecting the economy, diverting welfare money to support needy families into more and more brutal and upfront declarations that women should marry their way out of poverty — when many women are poor and single because they fled domestic violence in the home, which might have resulted in their deaths (and sometimes still does, after separation) had they stayed, valuing “marriage” good enough to satisfy these people. So, important to understand some of the context. More on Armey from Wikipedia (as the above segment was):

Focus on the Family

According to Armey, he also sparred with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson while in office. Armey wrote, “As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to ‘deliver’ for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so.” Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, “Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the ACLU.”^[20]Armey has also said that “Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies.“^[21]

Yes they are! Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:

They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”

(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother, does not exist.…)

Whereas the truth is a lot closer to this:

2009-02-2

God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows

The Washington Post | On Faith blog

by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

Evangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.

Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”

In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giantMicrosoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). ^[2]

Historical funding

Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Scaife Foundations: Sarah Mellon Scaife, Scaife Family, Carthage

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

Castle Rock Foundation

It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.

When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth: Look at the amounts:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Focus On The Family	CO	2006	$94,999,184	990	45	95-3188150
Focus On The Family	CO	2005	$97,414,767	990	59	95-3188150
Focus On The Family	CO	2004	$107,423,724	990	38	95-3188150
Focus On The Family	CO	2003	$102,442,464	990	35	95-3188150
Focus On The Family	CO	2002	$98,175,843	990	37	95-3188150
Focus on the Family	CO	2010	$79,825,383	990	53	95-3188150
Focus on the Family	CO	2009	$90,996,703	990	61	95-3188150
Focus on the Family	CO	2008	$93,072,558	990	45	95-3188150
Focus on the Family	CO	2007	$92,427,223	990	43	95-3188150
Focus On The Family Action	CO	2008	$3,565,169	990O	23	20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action	CO	2007	$2,452,377	990O	20	20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action	CO	2006	$3,035,923	990O	21	20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc.	CO	2009	$3,953,111	990O	39	20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc.	CO	2005	$4,286,071	990O	19	20-0960855

RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:

Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.

Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.

In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.

James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.

James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.

Read PFAW’s in-depth report on James Dobson.

The Family Research Council (nndb listing of who’s on the board.)

Erik Prince Business 6-Jun-1969 Founder of Blackwater Worldwide

Military service: US Navy (SEAL Team Officer, 1993-96; Bosnia, Haiti)

Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.

His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.

Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire)

Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:

Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.

Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.

(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)

He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Well, he was raised with abuse at home, and bullying, and has grown up basically the same, as Dick Armey said.

or ….

Kenneth Blackwell	Government	`28-Feb-1948`		Ohio Secretary of State, 1999-2007
Elsa Prince Broekhuizen	Relative	`c. 1932`		Conservative financier, mother of Erik Prince

Under Blackwell:

State Treasurer Ohio (1994-98)

Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow
(etc.)

Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes. The principles of

LIFE
LIBERTY
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Bear a slightly different tone when one is dealing with the corporate giants and conservatives complaining that the republican congress and presidency they’d helped deliver weren’t delivering their constituency enough of the “goods” they wanted. While these people (most of the time) themselves have become unbelievably wealthy through corporations, foundations, or simply being born into it (Erik Prince, for example) — the society they are structuring is how to create “responsible fathers” who are willing (like them) to tweak the judicial AND legislative process, go get jobs — most likely low-paying ones — in (whose???) corporations and make sure they don’t let their females get too uppity. When legislative restrictions get in the way, they figure out an end-run around them. I have been seeing this in state after state (thanks to the internet, and networking with others).

I also witnessed this philosophy completely destroy 3 generations of my family line when I fought for the right not to be battered in the home AND the right to work independently to support what was left of this household in a profession of my choosing and for which both my own parents sacrificed to get the college training in. Throughout the court craziness — that would put any normal business underground within a year, without being propped up artificially — I had situations where a 20 minute hearing, or a short rubberstamping by an official who didn’t know our family, obviously hadn’t read the court record, and didn’t respect the existing laws (or court orders), even ones in his own hand — would completely restructure my, and my children’s lives.

We should be aware that the act of going before a “Conciliation Court” is going to expose people — your family & friends — to this treatment.

We should be aware that the act of taking ANY form of welfare (whether for food, cash aid — or, Moms, child support) is also exposing you to the same thing. I tried to get out – -and was pulled back in, as are others. We need forms of living which enable us to fight back against the complete undermining NOT of “Family Values” but of the US Constitution (which is probably in suspension by now, but it should not be so easily forgotten).

The public pays — and I have blogged this, after becoming aware — for public employees to pay membership in private nonprofits designed to help them run the child support business. At these meetings — in my state it calls itself a “COALITION OF EXPERTS COLLECTING BILLIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN” — the collaborate and plan how to EXPAND the welfare state, not reduce it. They look for ways to have more families become “Title IV-D” families, which brings on the programs, brings program funding to the counties, and etc.

It’s a ridiculous state of affairs — and as far as I can tell the groups in this chart below have not been reporting on it or doing anything about it:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	MONTGOMERY	AL	36101	MONTGOMERY	004344078	$ 3,793,073
ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Phoenix	AZ	85012-1263	MARICOPA	867401366	$ 3,204,336
CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	EAST HARTFORD	CT	06108	HARTFORD	088978429	$ 3,204,334
D.C. COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	WASHINGTON	DC	20013	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA		$ 35,000
DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	WASHINGTON	DC	20001	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	942435124	$ 3,204,341
DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	WILMINGTON	DE	19899	NEW CASTLE	025256293	$ 5,391,930
FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	32301-2756	LEON	053274101	$ 7,878,370
HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HONOLULU	HI	96819-2391	HONOLULU	160292587	$ 3,214,275
ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	BOISE	ID	83712	ADA	129850590	$ 4,104,341
ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	SPRINGFIELD	IL	62703-1716	SANGAMON	168547040	$ 3,204,337
INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	INDIANAPOLIS	IN	46202-1002	MARION	024387230	$ 1,184,809
INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	INDIANAPOLIS	IN	46205-2460	MARION	105913375	$ 2,019,532
IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Des Moines	IA	50312-5259	POLK	942559469	$ 3,204,336
KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Topeka	KS	66603-3706	SHAWNEE	179971957	$ 5,646,199
LOUISIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	BATON ROUGE	LA	70879-7308	EAST BATON ROUGE	837763630	$ 3,204,339
MICHIGAN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	OKEMOS	MI	48864-4209	INGHAM	027986889	$ 7,025,767
MISSISSIPPI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	JACKSON	MS	39296-4703	HINDS	927529420	$ 3,204,340
MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Jefferson City	MO	65101-7801	COLE	184477318	$ 2,438,927
MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Jefferson City	MO	65101-7801	COLE	868492646	$ 718,239
MONTANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HELENA	MT	59624	LEWIS AND CLARK	036541035	$ 5,648,340
NEW MEXICO COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Albuquerque	NM	87102-3842	BERNALILLO	847508405	$ 3,274,336
NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	ALBANY	NY	12206	ALBANY	009343934	$ 5,453,061
NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	ALBANY	NY	12206	ALBANY	790031702	$ 1,814,609
NH COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE	CONCORD	NH	03303	MERRIMACK		$ 35,000
NORTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	DURHAM	NC	27701	DURHAM	957020266	$ 5,926,704
Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.	HEMPSTEAD	NY	11550	NASSAU	947923397	$ 381,000
OREGON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE	PORTLAND	OR	97202	MULTNOMAH	790033500	$ 2,921,826
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HARRISBURG	PA	17112-2669	DAUPHIN	156527558	$ 39,965,461
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HARRISBURG	PA	17112-2669	DAUPHIN	166527558	$ 945,000
RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	WARWICK	RI	02888-1539	KENT	025869715	$ 5,688,523
SOUTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	COLUMBIA	SC	29202-7776	RICHLAND	035406367	$ 3,204,339
SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Sioux Falls	SD	57103-7029	BROWN	556435980	$ 718,239
SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Sioux Falls	SD	57103-7029	BROWN	614771058	$ 2,486,098
SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PIERRE	SD	57501	HUGHES		$ 34,271
TENNESSEE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE	NASHVILLE	TN	37212-0972	DAVIDSON	787712454	$ 3,204,339
WASHINGTON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	OLYMPIA	WA	98501	THURSTON	059534409	$ 3,254,000
WEST VA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	CHARLESTON	WV	25302	KANAWHA	192491629	$ 3,204,338
WISCONSIN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	MADISON	WI	53703-3517	DANE	171537392	$ 6,931,703

(this has been rather an exhausting page to put up… but… it may prevent some detours in understanding the FAMILY courts specifically — which, after all, are really conciliation courts.)

Just a few words on the NCADV which is a Denver, Colorado-based nonprofit, and what they are marketing:

http://www.ncadv.org/membership/MembershipBenefits.php

(http://shop.ncadv.org/)

It is a membership organization (you don’t see it on the above states list, right?). It has sliding scale membership fees — but the public IS paying its dues, because the state organizations pay by % of their budget or — well, as it goes:

State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum) . . .

I think you can deduce at least some things they are selling, along with memberships — and it’s information and conference attendance, plus some other perks:

Programs and Agencies:

Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)

15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise

Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings

NCADV electronic newsletters

Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement

One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)

Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans

Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates

Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services

Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website

Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise

Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings

(etc. etc.) Great deals — if you’re in the business. As you can see, they are marketing to DV PRACTITIONERS. . They also do the conferences, where more speakers can also cross-market to attendees. Here’s 2012:

NCADV’s 15th National Conference Domestic Violence
and
NOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and Masculinity

Preserving Our Roots While Looking to the Future

July 22-25, 2012
Denver, CO

Special Keynote Speaker: Ellen Pence

The fact that Ellen Pence is speaking (who is a Duluth person) shows the similarity of approaches.

Denver Registration: NCADV has been around since 1992 in Colorado (as a “foreign” corporation):

Found 1 matching record(s). Viewing page 1 of 1.
#	ID Number	Document Number	Name	Event	Status	Form	Formation Date
1	19921036251	19921036251	NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	Application for Authority/ Entity Name	Good Standing	FNC	04/07/1992

and in 2008 picked up another trade name (good to check out where one can):

#	ID Number	Document Number	Name	Status	Form	Effective Date	Comment
1	20081544805	20081544805	Domestic Violence Protection & Prevention Coalition	Effective	FNC	10/13/2008 03:53 PM

I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.

WHAT I WiSH TO SAY:

Our kids were not your kids to bargain their rights away for supervised visitation, batterers intervention, parent education classes, or for that matter the more recent “Family Justice Centers.” I personally am recommending a boycott of Verizon (which helps fund these) for that very reason, after a season of being unable to even obtain a single cell phone to help replace the last lost job through the “HelpLine” or anywhere locally that promised this.

I am not very hopeful for the USA, but I live here, so this is part of my contribution as a citizen to report, and part of the legacy I could NOT leave my daughters because they were taken overnight, illegally, and with no remedy: primarily to satisfy someone’s too-large ego, and enabled by what law enforcement, in our case, was not. What was the price? They don’t even have all the facts in their own case, yet, or why society wouldn’t let me simply live and let live after throwing out, or why pro bono legal services for women basically won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole; they are focused on the low-income noncustodial males, and their career tracks, while enabling the rich ones to torture insubordinate exes through the courts. (Note: not my situation, but I see the cases).

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

November 17, 2011 at 9:36 pm

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, CRC Childrens Rights Council, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Lethality Indicators - in News, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with "Responsible Spouse" law, Access-Visitation, Check TAGGS Database!, CHECK YOUR 990s!, DV agency sellouts, Family Research Council, fatherhood, Feminists, Focus on the Family, FVPF becomes Futures without Violence, Healthy Marriage perks for Healthy Marriage promoters, Heritage Foundation, Heritage Foundation (DeVos funded), HHS-TAGGS grants database, Kansas SRS Scandals, NCADV, Robert Rector (Heritage), Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

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

with 3 comments

….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

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

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

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

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

Concern #2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PRESS RELEASE LIST OF GRANTEES:

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

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

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

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

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

NATIONAL

RESOURCE CENTER

for

STRATEGIES

PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE

= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM)

Fairfax

$1,500,000

			Award Title	Sum of Actions
2011	ACF	I C F, INC	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE	$ 1,500,000

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

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

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

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

ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract

02/1/2011

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

ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract

12/25/2010

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

ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract

09/30/2010

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

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

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

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

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

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

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

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

Total of all award actions:

$ 3,656,370

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

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

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

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

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

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

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

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS in Fairfax, VA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

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

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

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

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Faith-Based Community Organization (FBCO) Collaboration

With our strong research capacity and experienced practitioner-consultants, ICF is improving state and local TANF services by connecting local programs with high-performing FBCOs already serving similar populations.

Welfare Peer Technical Assistance (WPTA)

ICF administers technical assistance to WPTA, which facilitates the sharing of information between and among States, Territories, Tribes, and localities and helps establish linkages between organizations serving the needs of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) participants.

National Healthy Families Technical Assistance Project

ICF supports OFA and its technical assistance teams in providing seamless, comprehensive technical assistance (TA) to support the needs of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Education grantees.

National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC)

ICF leads content management and direction for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, which serves as a national repository and distribution center for information and research relating to responsible fatherhood programs, initiatives and activities.

Office of Family Assistance (OFA) Targeted Technical Assistance

ICF provides technical assistance planning and delivery, research, writing, training, and wraparound product development to OFA Targeted Technical Assistance, an innovative technical assistance and project support contract.

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

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

ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.

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

(notice its name shows different here, too).

USASPENDING.GOV:

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

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)

Recipient:	ICF INTERNATIONAL INC. 9300 LEE HWY , FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:	75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency:	Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)
Product/Service Code:	R408 : Program Management/Support Services
Description:	CHILDREN’S BUREAU CLEARINGHOUSE SERVICES

Date Signed:
September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount:
$9,481,719

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

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

By Matthew Weigelt

Mar 15, 2010

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

Kaitlin Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT for this NRCSPHM:

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

Summary

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

Post Date:	06/28/2011
Application Due Date:	07/28/2011

Description

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

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

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

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

Apr 28, 1999

AT-99-007

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

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

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

AT-99-07

ISSUED: April 28, 1999

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

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

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

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

REGULATORY REFERENCE: 45 CFR Parts 303.109

DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

__________________________
David Gray Ross
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal/Anecdotal re: Mediation:

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

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

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

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

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

“This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”

This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count. Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010. There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder. It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.

Why? Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.

Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide. GUESS WHAT: THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay). If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?

IF they do persuade/encourage/facilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their children in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —

ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF CHILD ACCESS PROJECTS

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

Purpose

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION: PROMISING PROCEDURES

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

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

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

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

INTRODUCTION

More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.

Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access

Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.

Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children

Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.

␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**

ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Initiatives Grant

A Profile of Former-TANF and NON-TANF Clients in the IVD Caseload
Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., 01/24/2000.

A Study Of Interest Usage On Child Support Arrears State Of Colorado Final Report
Jane Venohr, Ph.D., David Price, Ph.D., Esther Griswold, M.A., 06/01/2000.

County Policies and Attitudes Towards Incarcerated NCPs
Esther Ann Griswold, M.A., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 04/24/2000.

Longer Term Evaluation of Colorado’s Driver’s License Suspension
Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 02/24/2000.

Survey of State Child Support Policies, Procedures, and Programs for Incarcerated Parents
Esther Griswold, M.A., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Christine Allison, M.A., 09/24/2000.

The Effects of Repeated Driver’s License Suspensions Among Parents Who Owe Child Support
Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 09/24/2000.

Updated Colorado Staffing Standards for Child Support Enforcement
Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D., David A. Price, Ph.D., 07/28/2000.

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 #	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	Address	Type	Count
1	POLICY STUDIES INC.	1515 WYNKOOP ST STE. 400, DENVER, CO 80202, US	Trade name Registrant	12

[Next 2>]

1 2

Found 12 matching record(s). Viewing page 1 of 2.
#	ID Number	Document Number	Name	Status	Form	Effective Date
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 Number	Document Number	Name	Status	Form	Effective Date	Comment
11	20021223054	20021223054	BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP)	Effective	DPC	08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12	20021223055	20021223055	EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP)	Effective	DPC	08/13/2002 12:00 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

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

Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated. The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

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

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

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

WEBSITES

www.coloradodads.org
www.familiesfirstcolorado.org

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

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

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

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

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

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhood

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!

Local Governments Slash Funding for Domestic Violence Survivors (Gender Issues,Law)

[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.

Bryce Covert

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

PARTNERS FOR KIDS: GETTING FATHER-READY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“What is Smart Start?

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

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

CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr)

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

Total Dollars:$3,900,000
Transactions:1 – 4 of 4

However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.

The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now. (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)

ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.

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

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

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

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

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

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

What is CBCAP?

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

What legislation supports CBCAP?

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

Why were CBCAP programs created?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

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

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

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

“

“Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”

with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

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

Parent Trust for Washington Children

9/10/2010

$15,000.00

support general operating expenses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

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

Total Dollars:$697,225

Transactions:1 – 2 of 2

One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group leader???) – 2010

and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:

Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

Reason for Modification:

Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families

CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities

Description:
NATIONAL PARENT HELPLINE

Date Signed:
August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount:
$500,000

and

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)

Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT

Reason for Modification:

Program Source:

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFDA Program : 93.136 : Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs

Description:
ENHANCING CHILD MALTREATMENT PREV INITIATIVES THROUGH PARENTS ANONYMOUSA INC.

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:

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

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

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 ServicesStaff
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 UniversityKristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco StateÂ UniversityChristine Mattos
F&EÂ Steering Committee
CaliforniaÂ Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of CaliforniaMark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
Department of Social Work
California State University, Northridge

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

Sort by date/ Sort by relevance

DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
… At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
Incorporated, Audit Report GR–90–04–013, August 2004. …
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

Audit Report
… Claremont, California. Report No. GR–90–04–013 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.

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	View Abstract
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	View Abstract
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	View Abstract
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	View Abstract
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	View Abstract
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	View Abstract
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.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

October 20, 2011 at 7:58 pm

Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, CPR Center for Policy Research, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, PSI Policy Studies Inc, Vocabulary Lessons, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with Circle of Parents® EIN 800106957, David A. Price (PSI co-founder see also the nonprofit CPPS=Center for Public Policy Studies, HHS-TAGGS grants database, ICF International, Jane Venohr, Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes (1998 Stanley Cohen Awardee + Denver-based CPR), NRCSPHM=National Resource Center for STRATEGIES to Promote Healthy Marriage, Parents Anonymous, PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support | also aka "El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program"), PSI=Policy Studies Inc (Denver) (Acquired by Maximus in 2012), USASPENDING.GOV database

70 New Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood Grantees for 2011, series “90FM” (And Why Let’s Get Honest is NOT amused….)

with 2 comments

After an exhausting, bloodhound-trail-following attempt to get the “REAL” California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (complete with whoever is running it) to Please Stand Up (on-line, in the form of a historically coherent, traceable set of incorporations, nonprofit registrations, and if I”m lucky, even 990s filed on-line), I determined to post the entire list, and talk about some of them. Which is below. I am also starting a new Page here to start profiling these BUSINESSES, AGENCIES or DEPARTMENTS (see grantee types) one by one. I disclaim all responsibility for any actions readers may take on what’s below before fact-checking themselves; I think the dizzying re-incarnations of a certain two (basic) California groups may have resulted in cross-referencing one with the other at times,

For my birthday, I would also like to see the articles of incorporation of EVERY SINGLE one of the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood Grantees, so the public can know which of them used to be (or still are) working for:

(1) The Department of HHS/ACF (who it seems would be approving the grants), &/or :

(2) Local Court system or other County Public Employment, with potential influence on who steers the contracts that these nonprofits are going to take advantage other, in the booming business of “parent education” “marriage education” ‘Fatherhood promotion” and what’s apparently another one, “RELATIONSHIP SKILLS DEVELOPMENT.”

I also would like a chart (it’d need to be 3D at this point) cross-referencing Board of Directors in common. As most normal people are not this anal-retentive, or “could care less,” I’ll likely produce that birthday gift myself.

Any of those terms can be used to suck money out of the Title IV-A (welfare) and Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement) funds, plus some others, like child welfare, which is synonymous with a child going to sleep with a biological father in the home, apparently (judging by some of the programs being promoted around the term “child welfare.”

Moreover, when scrutinized, the financial — business – profit is actually going to any company that has developed a marketable curriculum. This is not only in the form of money, but also in the form of reputation, and anything that would help them keep their place in line for more federally-sponsored business promotion. Meanwhile, one or both of the parties being forced or induced to consume their material — or divorce in front of judges who believe they should, and have some stake in some of those nonprofits or for-profits — are most likely losing finances and reputation.

In that regard, these guys put AFCC to shame. AFCC markets quit a bit of its own material, including the usual Conference CDS, DVDs) including BOOKS — and does this through mandated participation via family law system. But I think they have to work a little harder at keeping it going — in other words, it takes a court order to force someone in front of a parent educator, parent coordinator (unless they can be induced to do so voluntarily under duress) and into a parent education classes aimed at a 5th grade mentality and taking up one’s dwindling resource of TIME.

But it does NOT take a court order for the manufacturers of a marriage curriculum to get their local pastors, priests, and the occasional rabbi or imam,* to (1) form a corporation with profits anticipated and grants to set it up and (2) set up a website soliciting business, after they understand of course that step one is to join a coalition and then buy into being trained to market membership in the same corporation. Brilliant. Of course, AFCC’s preparatory work in wearing down couples and pushing for legislation, and forming associations to endorse each other’s policies while pretending independence, is going to be helpful overall publicity….

(no relation, but interesting reference: I.M.A.M. organization, incl points 1& 2 out of 5:)

To be a central resource for the Shia Muslims in North America and their religious and spiritual leadership (Marja’iyyah) in all that pertains to matters of their religion and beliefs away from any political or party influence.

To organize matters of the Shia Muslims in North America in relevant areas such as worship, marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, or other religious legal matters.

No, if we want to eradicate poverty in this country we should teach someone to set up a corporation selling healthy marriage curriculum, and trying to persuade teenagers not to have sex. We are not likely to run out of sexually active teens (or for that matter, mature adults) and I don’t think divorce is going anywhere — so there is definitely a market niche. Too bad some us didn’t get in on it in the 1980s, but judging by the 1990s and 2000s, there’s hope for newcomers if they buy in, imitate the business model, and don’t rock the boat.

Ideally, this curriculum should be completely self-promoting and self-executing by internet download. That way, more is left over from the grants gotten to promote it — not including whatever is lost in the black hole of “No accountability,” several of which are showing up, the closer one looks.

The names of this curriculum tend to run in cutesy-sounding acronyms, one summary of which shows up here:

MML, LoveU2(tr), PREP, PREPARE/ENRICH, “PAIRS” (and so forth), plus a whole variety of BootCamps

MML — “Mastering the Mysteries of Love”; PAIRS – “Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, PREP – “Prevention and Relation Education Program”

(link shows that PREP is hoping to adapt a version for Muslim Couples, working with a group in Qatar).

Some of these hearken back to University Institutes and research/demonstration grants previously funded by the US Government. One of these days, if they get enough TANF participants (and others) forced through these classes, they may come up with the right formula to create the perfect human relationship. Alternately, they can continue working on producing the perfect human being through Early Headstart, the K-12 public education system, and whatever other sources are around.

Officer/RA Name	Entity Name	Entity Number
EISENBERG, SETH D	THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC.	N00000003614
EISENBERG, SETH D	411-KIDS, INC.	N04000002485
EISENBERG, SETH D	UST INTERNATIONAL, INC.	P96000094023
EISENBERG, SETH D	THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC.	N00000003614

Award Number = 90FM

Showing: 1 – 50 of 70 Award Actions

Page: « Previous 1 2 Next »

Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 36849

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

Recipient: AVANCE, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 77092

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LGH notes on this group: (Needs to be a separate post, but here’s a teaser):

SEARCHED THIS GROUP BY ITS EIN# (Simple “Recipient” search on TAGGS”) — there are two series, note DUNS#s….

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	LEUCADIA	CA	92024-2215	SAN DIEGO	003664535	$ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	LEUCADIA	CA	92024-2215	SAN DIEGO	361795151	$ 7,142,080

The heading (when you click on the title, above) shows the street address. Note: LEUCADIA, and in SAN DIEGO area.

Recipient:	California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Address:	1045 PASSIFLORA AVE LEUCADIA, CA 92024-2215
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	SAN DIEGO
HHS Region:	9
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

However, from the official HHS/ACF Grantee award announcement, HERE, there is no entry for “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.” How could there be, in 2011, as the outfit no longer exists. Instead, it’s called (latest corporate name incarnation I could find, may not be the most current):

(From the ACF site, not TAGGS: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html. As TAGGS information is supplied by the agency in question (see description on the site) the information should match, and public should be able to sort by an identification number. That’s basic common sense — IF the intent was transparency).

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

$2,500,000

What on TAGGS (and on the public website) is “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” is now called, “Healthy Relationships California.”

This is why the TAGGS database, which possesses EIN# and DUNS#, could easily have put that field in any report generated, but chose to omit EIN (would probably show up a lot of grantees who never bothered to get one) so we could follow the career & grants-allocations track of a nonprofit that keeps changing its corporate name, something that only checking at the State (not federal) level would otherwise show. And Healthy Marriage Grantees are notoriously (when examined) shape-shifters.

So I check out this nonprofit name on the Charitable Trusts registration, California STate Office of Attorney General:

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	CT0149740	Charity	Delinquent	LEUCADIA	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

This is the detail. For some reason no “Address Line1” is entered (matching the Secretary of State entry for this name)

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information

Full Name:	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	FEIN:	680606790
Type:	Public Benefit	Corporate or Organization Number:	2746528

Registration Number:	CT0149740
Record Type:	Charity	Registration Type:	Charity Registration
Issue Date:	3/3/2009	Renewal Due Date:	5/15/2011
Registration Status:	Delinquent	Date This Status:	3/17/2011
Date of Last Renewal:	3/17/2011

Address Information

Address Line 1:	(SAME AS ABOVE)	Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4:	LEUCADIA CA 92024

Annual Renewal Information

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-05
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-05
Total Assets:	$48,225.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$60,606.00
RRF Received:	23-MAR-09
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

NOTE: The $48,225.00 was probably a “Compassion Capacity-Building Grant” to start with. Google “990 finder” and search by EIN to get the Federal Fillings:

Here, the amount $48,225 shows under “CHMC.”

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
California Healthy Marriages Coal	CA	2005	$48,225	990EZ	10	68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	2008	$328,871	990	24	68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	2007	$340,894	990	19	68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	2006	$148,062	990	21	68-0606790
California Healty Marriages Coaltion	CA	2009	$334,155	990	22	68-0606790

Looking at the 2005 EIN, one reads purpose: “CHMC has begun (in 2005) a 17-month federally-funded project

to offer training and technical assistance

to marriage-support organizations (including coalitions) throughout California.” EXPENSES: $41,709.

Two Directors (only) are listed: Dennis Stoica (at a PO Box in Cerritos, CA), and Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D., at a street address in Sacramento. Remember the names;

they will show up in several other related organizations / associations, including with another name-changing organization (getting millions) in Colorado.

Modest salaries are only $10K (Stoica) and $7K (Curtis). Curtis seems to have better luck staying incorporated than STOICA:

(Secretary of State)

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2629035	11/08/2004	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ((Oakland addresss)	CHRIS GRIER
C2896098	06/01/2006	ACTIVE	FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION	ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911	03/07/2001	DISSOLVED	HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION	ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION	DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473	10/04/2006	SUSPENDED	RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745	05/12/2004	ACTIVE	SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304	05/29/2009	ACTIVE	SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238	03/02/2006	ACTIVE	STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION	JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354	08/13/2007	ACTIVE	YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	WILLIAM F JENS

“ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION” (Stoica, see above) never bothered to register with the Attorney General as a Nonprofit:

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION		Charity	Not Registered	SACRAMENTO	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

which may have something to do with why it got suspended. Alas, because that makes the EIN# harder to get at. Mr. Stoica flew off (at least via internet) to Florida

and has started (as of 2010) an association of Marriage Educators, nevertheless, called “NARME.” Moreover, for how many people refer to the Orange County Marriage group, one would think it’s still legitimate. But I’m focusing on the other ones, today.

2011 News Release, announcement by Calif. Congressman Doris Matsui features Dr. Curtis and the “Relationship Skills Center,” from Matsui.house.gov:

Congresswoman Matsui Announces Nearly $800,000 for Local Family Development Services

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-5) announced that the Relationship Skills Center, a Sacramento-based relationship education non-profit, has been awarded $798,825 through the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide relationship and family stability educational services.

Awarded through the Administration for Children and Families-Healthy Marriage Initiative, this funding will be used by the Relationship Skills Center to provide evidence based relationship education classes and case management services to help families improve their marriage and relationship skills, achieve career and economic stability, and connect families with a variety of community resources.

“We are thrilled to receive this grant. In the last five years we have helped 735 couples form healthy, stable, safe families,” said Carolyn CurtisHISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. She discovered that communities across the nation were organizing and reducing their divorce rate by up to 50%. After a successful career as a therapist helping one couple at a time, Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region. HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund

Ph.D., Executive Director of the Relationship Skills Center.

The “Relationship Skills Center” (per Curtis’ LinkedIn profile) was “Formerly Healthy Marriage Project” and Dr. Curtis has worked there since 2004, “7 years 8 months” OK…. Looking at the list of ACF grantees, this organization name does not appear. However it has the same street address as “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project,” including the suite#.

RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PAGE “CONTACT US,” URL: “http://www.skills4us.org/Contact%20Us“

Address
9719 Lincoln Village Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95827

CHARITABLE TRUSTS: “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT.”

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information

Full Name:	SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	FEIN:	134280316
Type:	Public Benefit	Corporate or Organization Number:	2650745

Registration Number:	130981
Record Type:	Charity	Registration Type:	Charity Registration
Issue Date:	12/31/2005	Renewal Due Date:	2/15/2011
Registration Status:	Current	Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:	8/10/2010

Address Information

Address Line 1:	9719 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR, SUITE 205	Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4:	SACRAMENTO CA 95827

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	130981	Charity	Current	SACRAMENTO	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

Moreover, if one looks at the details, it’s clear that “EIN# 134280316” has been a going concern (both assets and income) from Day 1 (2005-06 year), but has not provided the annual required RRF forms, or iRS reports, regularly, as required by law. Finally in 2010, they got a slap on the wrist from the Attorney General:

(in the chart here, below the words “Fee Notice” are several entries indicating professional fundraising for the organization by “EXPRESSIONS.” Professional Fundraisers also are required to register, and hand over evidence that their profits were received by an officer of the nonprofit they are raising funds for…. I’ll quote from the Fee Notice, which is a red flag for the public of something out of order for a nonprofit).

Fiscal Begin:	01-OCT-08
Fiscal End:	30-SEP-09
Total Assets:	$37,781.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$670,305.00
RRF Received:	20-JUL-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

Fiscal Begin:	01-OCT-09
Fiscal End:	30-SEP-10
Total Assets:	$64,938.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$598,785.00
RRF Received:	08-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Rejected

Dennis Stoica teaching a webinar on ACF grant announcements June 17 for NARME members

On Friday June 17 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm (ET), NARME Board Member Dennis Stoica (President of California Healthy Marriages Coalition) will conduct a 90-minute webinar – for NARME Members only – comparing and contrasting the six different grant announcements which are scheduled to be released earlier that week.

GOOD GRIEF: This is Fathers Day, 2011, and STOICA is, despite website, I’d lay a bet, NOT President of “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,” however if he by some stretch of the imagination still is involved with Patty Howell’s “Healthy Relationships California” group (which now owns the CHMC Fictitious Business Name), THAT group appears to be evading taxes. They didn’t even send in $75 with their last registration, and failed to report contact information for which government grants they were getting!” This 2011 announcement indicates that someone who claims to have been working for ACF from 2002-2010 is using (inside information?) to help this faith-based group get a headsup on grants applications before they are announced.

the group NARME was formed in Florida (under STOICA) only in 2010; it is a membership group rejoicing at the diversion of TANF funds for abstinence education, etc.

Hundreds of organizations participated in a similar teleconference that Dennis conducted back in 2006 when the original Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants were released; and many of those participants attributed their subsequent success in being awarded grants to a combination of that teleconference and the subsequent grant-writing tele-trainings that Dennis conducted during that year’s grant-writing period. Since this webinar will only be offered to NARME members, if you have not yet joined NARME you should do that right away by going tohttp://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=881238.

ANOTHER WEBSITE (don’t start bringing out the tomatoes to throw! Just tell me why this site lists Stoica as “co-founder” of “EPISCOPAL CHURCH-OUR SAVIOR” (in Placerville, CA) and the employees just happen to match the CHMC employees!: From SPOKE.com

Dennis Stoica

People named Dennis Stoica

Title and Company:

Co-Founder at Episcopal Church-Our Saviour

Company Address:

Po Box 447
Placerville, Ca 96114

Episcopal Church-Our Saviour’s Employees

Join to view all (9)

Carolyn Curtis

Director

Presenter

Ralph Jones

Master Trainer of…

Dennis Stoica

Co-Founder

K Krafsky

Community Mobiliz…

Bento Leal

Implementation Sp…

Kerri Norbut

Special Projects …

Alison Doucette

Special Projects …

Jakki Penn

GOOD GRIEF!

The “Church OF Our Savior” at this address, is Episcopal, and is a historic landmark (it was not founded by Stoica!), around since the 1800s.

Church of Our Saviour, “Serving God for over 150 years“

2979 Coloma St. // PO Box 447

Placerville, CA 95667-0447
office@oursaviourpv.org

However, among the many ministries it operates IS, indeed, a MARRIAGE EDUCATION ministry:

Marriage Education

Fr. Craig Kuehn

Our Saviour offers several, research based, courses designed to enhance relationships, generically called marriage education. Every couple can benefit by attending at least one marriage education program per year. For more inforamtion, see www.edhealthymarriages.org.

Coalition history

We began under the intiation of the California Healthy Marriages Coalition and we received our initial funding from them (www.camarriage.com). Fr. Craig Kuehn of the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour, Placerville and Meredith Koch of Marshall Hospital, Placerville attended a workshop about grant opportunities promoting healthy marriages. Ever since then, the project snowballed into a coalition of faith-based and community-based organizations interested in and offering marriage and related programs to the people of El Dorado County, California.

We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service.

YES THEY ARE — and one of the few who seems to have kept it up, better than their leaders. As such they are helping market classes and products put out by

some truly conservative groups, who are doing QUITE well and remain close to the government faucet. how nice to know that religious organizations can profit from this also. They can collect their tithes AND their grants, from people who pay taxes towards the grants also, no doubt. SEE THE LINKS LIST: including one I definitely recognize as being marketed through the welfare system, too: PREPARE/ENRICH (a research project out of Minnesota, FOR-profit formed in 1980); “SMARTMARRIAGES.COM” (a FOR-profit) organized by Diane Sollee, with this logo:

(ALSO quite well-informed about the marriage grants system, while shamelessly marketing classes, DVDs, train-the trainers, certifications, and holding conferences to keep this up),

and “Institute for American Values,” PResident, David Blankenhorn (also of National Fatherhood Initiative)

WIKIPEDIA on Blankenhorn confirms this and highlights his “expert-witness” testimony against Prop 8 (anti-Gay, California) as heard in the Supreme Court:

Blankenhorn founded the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank whose stated mission is to “study and strengthen key American values”, in 1987.^[1]^[3] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.^[4]^[2]^[5]Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.^[1]^[2]^[6] As of 2007, Blankenhorn has written “scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two.”^[1] Blankenhorn identifies as a liberal Democrat.^[7]^{[1] “In his decision filed on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Blankenhorn was not qualified as an expert witness, and that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”}^[10]

BLANKENHORN is a Harvard Grad, (BA Social Studies 1977), and a masters in Comparative Social Science from a British University. He was raised Presbyterian in Mississippi.

ANYHOW, as we can see, Fr. (or “Rev.”) KUEHN, above, Incorporated in time to get the grants, and has stayed incorporated:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2856112	03/03/2006	ACTIVE	EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	CRAIG KUEHN

… if not current on the Charitable Registration, for “EIN# 204384330

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	130730	Charity	Delinquent	PLACERVILLE	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

The annual report was filed ONCE, and it appears that no IRS forms were provided to notate who gave it the gov’t grants. TAGGS search on this EIN

comes up:

RECIPIENT SEARCH RESULTS

Printer-friendly Version

Recipient EIN = 204384330 No matching awards found.

Obviously the corporation is operating right out of the church building:

Entity Name:	EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION
Entity Number:	C2856112
Date Filed:	03/03/2006
Status:	ACTIVE
Jurisdiction:	CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:	PO BOX 447
Entity City, State, Zip:	PLACERVILLE CA 95667
Agent for Service of Process:	CRAIG KUEHN
Agent Address:	2979 COLOMA ST
Agent City, State, Zip:	PLACERVILLE CA 95667

But without government funding, it actually went into the hole:

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-09
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-09
Total Assets:	$1,248.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	($583.00)
RRF Received:	12-JAN-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	N
Status:	Accepted

And finally it appears that it filed income taxes ONCE — in 2006 only — as here:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
El Dorado Healthy Marriages Coal	CA	2006	$2,476	990EZ	10	20-4384330

(This form has no signature on Tax Preparers’ line). Line 1 -Revenue — Gifts, contributions, grants — shows $20,500. Salaries, other comp & employee benefits come to $7,428: $3,384 for Pres: Rev. Kuehn + $2,006 for VP: Meredith Koch = $5,390.

By my basic math, $7,428-$5,390 = $1,038 in some form of “comp” (no benefits listed) which I don’t see on the form.

However, we do see $11,144 in “Conference fees & travel, supplies, & organization fees.” There’s likely a membership going to CHMC, they buy material to vend? and they get tax-deductive travel & conference times. Think AmWay…. The tax-exempt purpose is: “PROMOTE AND TEACH MARRIAGE PROGRAMS.”

Somehow, $20,655 (of $20,500 received) was spent to:

Start-up and organizational expenses, capacity building to include six faith-based and community-based organizations teaching marriaged (sic) education. This included training as (“at”) the Smart Marriages Conference and from California Healthy Marriages Coalition, 64 couples received marriage education. (that’s a pretty high overhead…. How much did the marriage education for those couples cost?)

Meredith Koch (retired nurse in the area) is found also teaching “PAIRS” classes. PAIRS Foundation ends up being Federally Funded, too, in South Florida:

Large, Multi-Year, Federally-Funded Study
Finds Enduring Impact of Marriage Education

Findings from a large, federally funded, multi-year study of South Florida couples participating in nine hours of marriage and relationship education found statistically significant improvements in consensus, satisfaction, affection, and cohesion for both distressed and non-distressed participants…

Another way of seeing this — PAIRS is another nonprofit out of Florida helping the US Government run a multi-level marketing setup. It could’ve been cars, toys, or

any other service which would come under Consumer Protection laws; but it just instead happens to be relationship education. One can Be a “Leader,” a “CPAIRS” (Christian — Perhaps later, Jews Muslims, Buddhists, Ba’hai, Hindi, etc. might make it on the radar — but so for those populations haven’t really caught the “marriage education is free money” bug yet, to the extent these religious Christian (churches) have.) One can also be a PTP, MT, or TRAINER. Buy into the system. Might as well – -your taxes have already paid for it, and others like it. See “UNDERSTANDING PAIRS LEVELS” at the site, telling title, “consumer.PAIRS.COM”

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

PAIRS FOUNDATION Weston FL 33331-3642 BROWARD 839942422 $ 4,950,000

(that’s roughly $1 million/year from 2006-2010)

(SIGH. As usual, a combo of for-profit, and not-for-profits under similar names show up. Seth D. Eisenberg of Florida — or is it Virginia? — has got it together now,

and the PAIRS FOUNDATION (Inc.), which merged with PAIRS, Ltd. (his corp from VA) are now in business under EIN# 650629670. With these cohorts, which are visualized (and listed) in CORPORATIONWIKI.Com. This time, the FOR-PROFIT LLC is “Partnership Skills, LLC”

As of March, 2011, a list of (mostly churches) with “COURSE PROVIDER” column mostly blank, included Seth & PAIRS International, LLC,” right after “Okeechobee Missionary Baptist Church” and listed these potential under “COUNSELOR” column: ” I notice the URL shows the Clerk of Records for the local Circuit court for Okeechobee County.

EISENBERG, SETH KOSS, PHYLLIS FARBER, AURORA MINZER- BRYANT,SHARON FARBER, RHETT PARKER, DANA GARFIELD, ANNIE SALYERS, JANET GORDON, LORI SPINOSA, WILLIAM HERRINGTON, PEGGY VALDEZ, SCOTT.

The merger was in May, 2006, and possibly helped getting this, which I am sure also helped: (fromTAGGS).

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90FE0029	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS: PRIORITY AREA 2	1	0	ACF	09-24-2006	839942422	$ 990,000
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 990,000

If I go to USASPENDING.gov and type in the DUNS# and check “GRANTS” only (not “Contracts, Loans,” etc.), and check the tab “TIMELINE” it’s very clear that the above 2006 grant was NOT reported to usaspending.gov, although 2007, 08, 09 & 10 were. In other words, usaspending.gov ain’t reliable.

Also clear (looking at details) from this is that the CFDA is 93086 (marriage/fatherhood ) AND that the source is “75-

Also, (I took the DUNS# and went to “USASPENDING.gov” Prime Award, checked every category except grants, and got 15 transactions:

Total Dollars:$227,754

Transactions:1 – 15 of 15

Recommended to do (est. time — 4 minutes max) — well over $100K of this is contracts from 2011 only. The map above (interactive) shows that half its business (contracts) are from California & Indiana (strong fatherhood state) combined, but also Georgia, Virginia, NOrth Carolina and Florida. Not bad, eh?

And (same search, showing “Timeline” of increase in contracts (by graph/bars) shows about a 5-fold increase from 2009. If you’re IN, you’re IN, in this field.

Nonprofit + related For-PRofit means wider coverage and probably more profits. Simply design a product to match the HHS Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood grants stream! THere’s also a “4-1-1 Kids, Inc.” with his name on it. Seth appears to be 2nd Generation “MARRIAGE EDUCATION” — as it says on “FATHERHOODCHANNEL.com“:

Seth Eisenberg, the youngest son of PAIRS Founder Lori Heyman Gordon, grew up with a front row seat to the birth of marriage and relationship education. He joined PAIRS Foundation in 1995 to help improve business and organizational systems, began teaching classes in 1999, training instructors in 2000, and was elected President/CEO in 2008. Over the past 12 years, Seth spearheaded development of PAIRS’ evidence-based, brief, multi-lingual courses and technologies to make marriage and relationship education widely accessibile to diverse communities worldwide. He has taught classes to thousands of young people, adults and trained more than 1,000 PAIRS instructors who deliver services to tens of thousands. In 2006, Seth’s “PAIRS Relationship Skills for Strong South Florida Families,” proposal was awarded a multi-year, multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The grant program has allowed thousands of people throughout South Florida to participate in free classes, including many low-income, formerly homeless, recovering addicts, special needs populations, immigrants, and veterans who could not have otherwise benefited, while also conducting extensive, rigorous research activities to better understand and validate the impact of marriage and relationship education.

It is “free” to low-income because most likely it was taken from more direct social services to these populations, such as food, housing help, cash aid, or child support enforcement where applicable. Reminder: The Florida “PAIRS” first started (out of several incorporations) as for-profit, and it started in 1994.

I look it up at http://www.sunbiz.org, which is where FL corporations go to register. California needs a site like this.

Officer/RA Name	Entity Name	Entity Number
EISENBERG, SETH D	THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC.	N00000003614
EISENBERG, SETH D	411-KIDS, INC.	N04000002485
EISENBERG, SETH D	UST INTERNATIONAL, INC.	P96000094023
EISENBERG, SETH D	THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC.	N00000003614

From the (top) filing I get an EIN# 521327867

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2009	$313,681	990	25	52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2008	$353,339	990	26	52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2007	$0	990R	2	52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2007	$414,952	990	17	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	FL	2006	$252,096	990	22	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	VA	2005	$306,643	990	16	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	FL	2004	$300,853	990	14	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	VA	2003	$242,249	990	15	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	VA	2002	$63,906	990	14	52-1327867

EIN Watchdog.net describes it as having begun in 1984 c/o “Lori H. Gordon” (which matches his description, above) and last filed in 2007, and with a street address of 2771 Executive Park, #1 Weston, FL. This worries me, because that’s one of the operating addresses of this organization (per USAspending.gov) and was also found in a SEC complaint on REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FRAUD (but no overlap of persons involved that I can see, just the street address). To be clerar, this is a criminal complaint, date-stamped Nov. 15, 2007, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Southern District vs. (various redevelopment agencies)

(COMPLAINT):

SUMMARY

1. Since at least 2002, Webb, individually and through certain entities he owns and controls, -has defrauded numerous investors through a real estate-based investment scheme. During the relevant period, the Defendants have raised at least $8.4 million from more than 80 investors by offering and selling securities in the form of investment contracts to investors in several states, including Florida, California and North Carolina.

(PAIRS had contracts in those states, plus Georgia, Virginia? & Indiana).

The PAIRS Foundation, Ltd. (per watchdog.net) address figures in paragraphs 15 & 30

15. CitiRise NC is a North Carolina limited liability company with its original principal office at 901 Barmouth Ct., Raleigh, North Carolina 27614. At least by November 2005, Citifise NC was reporting on its North Carolina State filings’that its principal office address was at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-3643, the same address used by CitiRise FL

30. Webb and the Webb Companies solicited investment offers in various ways, including through word-of-mouth generated by other investors and through Webb’s personal contact with local church groups, including meeting with local.pastors of such churches. In addition, Webb supervised the preparation of promotional materials advertising alliances with faith-based groups, such as a “partnership” between CitiRise and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Webb and the Webb Companies also, on occasion, used independent sales associates who solicited investors through their personal or professional contacts in exchange for commissions. Webb and the Webb Companies also manufactured publicity in other ways, including favorable newspaper profiles in The Triangle Tribune and Triangle

Business Journal in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina and an appearance by Webb on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes program in December 2005. In addition, one of Webb’s entities, CitiRise, maintained a website (at http://www.citirise.com) fiom at least 2005 to approximately October 2007 that described Webb’s professional biography, the CitiRise business “model,” and reflected theCitiRise “Corporate Headquarters” address at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-an address CitiRise no longer occupied from around the Summer of 2006

PAIRS FOUNDATION, Inc. changed FROM that address (per FL filings) on 1/20/2009, to 1675 Market Street #207, Weston, FL, but didn’t report this until 9/20/2010. In other words, 5 days after filing the 2009 report, it moved. 09/20/2010 — ADDRESS CHANGE

USAspending.gov contracts (15 records from 2009 forward) reflect for some reason both addresses.

a June 1, 2000 letter from Florida Secretary of State showed Ph.D. Lori Gordon how to incorporate;

She didn’t provide original signatures, or addresses (although did mail a check).
The term “Ltd.” is not acceptable.
They apparently then fixed this and changed it to “inc.”

I thought it was common knowledge that “Ltd.” was not a USA corporate suffix; Corporation or “Inc.” (etc.) are. I guess not. The purpose of the nonprofit

“Research, development and training of relationship skills for youth and families and communities. Development of materials and programs to reduce anger, conflict and violence.”

Here is Lori Gordon giving a rave review to (Helping sell) a book by D. Stosney, called “Love without Hurt” in which he explains how abused women can help their men stop abusing them. Rave reviewers also included Dianne Sollee of “Smartmarriages.com”

This is an important book for everyone in every stage of a relationship, to heal and make whole the love we begin with. Give it as a wedding gift, birthday present, parenting gift. This is knowledge and understanding we all need to be able to heal ourselves and preserve our most cherished relationships. — Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D. founder of PAIRS.

(Here’s the book, described): Reviews of Love without Hurt: Turn Your Resentful, Angry, or Emotionally Abusive Relationship into a Compassionate, Loving One

Library Journal
Stosny has put into words the techniques used in his successful Compassion-Power and Boot Camp programs, which help women who have been subjected to criticism, put-downs, or cold shoulders from their husbands or boyfriends. Complete with checklists, case studies, and well-researched information, his program not only shows the damage that verbally and emotionally abusive relationships do to spouses and children but also demonstrates how to change them, with guidance for both parties. For their part, women are directed to practice self-healing skills. Clear, timely, and on the mark; recommended for all libraries. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.

(Usually verbally and emotionally abusive are on their way to physically abusive which, unchecked, goes all the way to “lethal” unless stopped, although not all go the full range. Somehow this is being missed. … And it absolutely the church theme, for the most part, that women are to stop the abuse, somehow, by changing themselves. That’s another reason I protest these programs….)

Looking up “Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D.” I found (yet another) Christian Marriage Association, as they advertised PAIRS training.

Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills(PAIRS)

2771 Executive Park Drive Suite #1
Weston, FL 33331
USA

Website: http://www.pairs.com/

Contact(s)

Seth Eisenberg

Phone: 877-PAIRS-4U

Fax: 954-337-2981

Purpose

Sustain healthy relationships

Description

The PAIRS programs, developed by Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D., provide a comprehensive system to enhance self-knowledge and to develop the ability to sustain pleasurable intimate relationships. PAIRS is located in Reston, Virginia but is a nationally known program

“The Association of Marriage & Family Ministries” ( photo to right appears to be its founders, out of Scottsdale, AZ) reveals that marriage education is a great tool for church growth. So I suppose there’s no harm in having non-believers fund church growth because, what’s good for the Kingdom is surely good for the rest of America?

The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (AMFM) and its members are committed to you, the local Church, the pastor and all those called to this vital area of ministry. There has never been a greater time in history to show the love of Christ than today in serving those marriages and families that God has given us.

Today, there is no greater growth tool for the church than to have strong marriages and healthy families walking out of the church on Sunday (when ever you worship) and walking into the culture on Monday. What a great opportunity to impact our culture for the Kingdom.

…

Blessings,

Eric and Jennifer Garcia
Co-Founders

(Sunday worship post-dated Jesus Christ by a few centuries, last I heard. See Emperor Constantine 🙂 )

LIKe NCADV,NARME, and AFCC, there is a sliding scale of membership. THe more you can afford, the more you will pay.

“Resource Vendors” pay the highest:

Student Membership – $35

Individual Membership – $75

Church Organization Membership – $125 – $450

Resource Membership (Vendors) – $225 – $550

(I.E. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR SPECIAL PAYMENTS )

FORGIVE ME FOR NOT RESISTING THE TEMPTATION TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND RECOMMENDS THE OPPOSITE:

BY CONTRAST, THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HAVING “RESPECT OF PERSONS” AND DECLARE THAT GOD DOESN’T.

JAMES 2:

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

NOT TO MENTION (WHILE I”M IN “JAMES”) A SCATHING COMMENTARY ON RICH MEN, AND FAWNING OVER THEM IN THE CHURCHES:

”

26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

INSTEAD, THESE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY FROM THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOWS, BY TAKING TANF FUNDS TO PROMOTE MARRIAGE EDUCATION TO HELP EXPAND THEIR CHURCHES! . . . IF THEY WERE PREACHING RIGHT TO START WITH, WOULDN’T THEIR MARRIAGES BE IN BETTER SHAPE? SEEMS TO ME THERE’S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE BIBLE ON LOVING ONE ANOTHER, AND A GOOD BIT ON MARRIAGE ALSO (I COR 13, EPHESIANS – – IT’S THROUGHOUT).

SOMEBODY HAD TO DO THIS — why not me? — I looked up their corporate status in Scottsdale. For one, someone from Scottsdale is following my site:

Click on ID number to see the full detail.
ID	Type	Name
12163487	CORPORATION	THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.

Here we go: (date — today, 10/11/11)

Corporate Status Inquiry
File Number: -1216348-7
Corp. Name: THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.

This Corporation is NOT in Good Standing for the following reasons:
DELINQUENT ANNUAL REPORT 09/13/2011
2011 ANNUAL REPORT WAS DUE ON 05/19/2011

Next Annual Report Due: 05/19/2011

Surprise, surprise, lots of Delinquent Reports, and two Dissolved/Reinstated. I can’t paste too much from the AZ corporations site; it positions funny.

Somehow, being delinquent, or even suspended status rarely seems to slow down these groups. I recently ran across another one (with California links) called “ABOVE THE LINE” — they run retreats, and marriage enrichment seminars, and (as I recall) the Tonkins were proud of their association with Dr. Phil.

There is “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.” at the same (residential) address the Garcia’s (of AMFM), which ALSO appears to be not filing, but not yet IRS_suspended. Here are the 990 reports:

EIN# 460496745

ID	Type	Name
10418500	CORPORATION	ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.

It got warnings about dissolution in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. It WAS dissolved the year after it formed — 2003, and reinstated. What a mess — and these people are teaching us how NOT to get divorced?

On 9/27/2005, they provided (finally! Forms are available in a single click on-line, too!) the “Annual Report” for years 2003, 2004 & 2005, and were reinstated.

By 12/11/2006, their status was pending again, but they managed to file a report by the following April, for the year 2006. Three months later, they are again “status pending” and apparently didn’t respond. Another 12 months, another notice, and still they didn’t respond. So in 9/2008 they were dissolved – but got reinstated two months later (11/17/2008) probably by forking over the annual reports for 2007 and 2008.

Is that the type of behavior (even for tiny grants) we want of an organization getting $103,000 of help/grants from the Government?

Administrative Dissolution Date	Administrative Dissolution Reason	Reinstatement Date
	AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R
	AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R	11/17/2008
	AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R	09/27/2005

(But as of 7/2005, the same couple had already formed AMFM, above).

Your query: ( Organization Name: None Chosen , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: 460496745 , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed)

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2007	$5,464	990EZ	15	46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2006	$2,498	990EZ	12	46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2005	$800	990	17	46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2002	$0	990	12	46-0496745

And their 2005 filing explains WHY it pays to look at the IRS 990 filings!

Government Grant (doesn’t show under this EIN via TAGGS) — $103,500

Program Expenses: (neat, eh?) $102,845.

Eric and Jennifer Garcia (husband/wife) are the unpaid directors of “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION INC.”

“Part II line 43” expenses are explained, among other things as (statement 3):

STATEMENT 3 SCHEDULE A, PART II,LINE 2 TRANSACTIONS WITH TRUSTEES ,DIRECTORS, ETC.

THE ORGANIZATION PAID $100,000 TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GARCIA-TOOKER LLC, WHICH IS OWNED BY ERIC AND JENNIFER GARCIA. THE PAYMENT WAS FOR THE SPONSORSHIP OF TWO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONFERENCES DURING THE YEAR 2005.

I find the multiple corporate names in a few short years, and the shoddy incorporation history to be a little suspicious. Where did the initial $103K come from and why is it not listed in TAGGS that I can see (I tried the EIN#)?

Roughly translated, they paid themselves $100K (which is “Expenses”) to sponsor two marriage conferences (not named). Because this is not a major amount, who is about to look it up, or go request the information? But multiply this by how many such organizations are lining up to do exactly the same thing, and there goes our social services funding, nationwide, poured down the gullet of religious tax evaders and delinquent filers.

Garcia-Tooker LLC DID exist, possibly in order to shift money to or from Above the Line . . . and/or AMFM (the 2005forward version). While I think Rev. Craig Kuehn of El Dorado Healthy Marriage (duration, one tax filing in 2006) simply wasn’t up to the corporate filings (he’s a Rev!) — this looks like more deliberate planning to move names and money around — and less honest.

I looked this up. From what I can tell, “GARCIA-TOOKER LLC” (these two) INCORPORATED in JAN. 2004. One month later they changed their name to “ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & MARRIAGE MINISTRIES, LLC.” (may load microfilm image)…. In other words, by the time they’d published their incorporation, it was under a different name. 8 months later an agent resigned:

THIS LINKS TO THE GRAPHICS OF “ABOVE THE LINE” — what they are selling: “http://marriagehelpcenters.com” (see “Dr. Phil” connection).

Their lnks are familiar by now — and some we know federally funded: (photo is “Ron & Tina Konkin”)

Ron & Tina Konkin

Throughout the years that we’ve been providing our seminar and bootcamp services, we’ve aligned ourselves with many organizations and partners who share our commitment to helping people just like you. The following are just some of our affiliations, partnerships, and camaraderie.

Dr. Phil McGraw

Marriage Boot Camp

Smart Marriages (Diane Sollee, goes way back)

Because Of Me

California Healthy Marriages Coalition (good luck tracking this one, but one of the staff members IS a Moonie// link not active)

First Things First (out of TN, and a definite HHS/ACF grantee collaborating with other such grantees to get those TANF funds….)

Beyond Affairs Network

Dimensional Journey

Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (the Garcia’s from Arizona I’m trying to trace, click to get “Page not found.”)

Among other things being sold is an “Exclusive Couples Retreat” (only $4,995) where one can learn to play games designed by Dr. Phil….Intensive Relationship Boot Camp is only $1,225. . (not including hotel, ca $109 group rate). . . . Don’t miss two upcoming in California . . . . .

GUIDESTAR regarding “Above the Line, Inc.,” a red-font alert to left of the listing, writes: “This organization does not appear in the IRS’s most recent list of tax-exempt organizations. IRS records do not, however, indicate that the organization’s tax-exempt status has been revoked. Contact the organization for more information.”

THERE”S MORE TO THIS MAZE:

Apparently, Patty Howell (of “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS as incorporated in 2005) noticed that the “California Healthy Marriage” name was vacant, and registered as the owner of what is now a Fictitious Business name. Or, they were working together, and notified each other, I don’t know. I would never have found this without having gotten irritated enough to continue looking at the county level, where this is registered:

THESE CHANGES happened in 2009 & 2011: http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca/us/services/fbn/search.aspx if the image doesn’t show below:

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/fbn/search.aspx

San Diego “Fictitious Business” registration shows 3 trademarks of this group:

But they want to sell me further details (forget it!)

Records 1 – 3 of 3

Select	Filing Number	Business Name	Owner Name	Document Type	Filing Date
… Certified Non-Certified	2009-019747	CALIFONIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	STATEMENT	7/7/2009
… Certified Non-Certified	2008-033480	CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE	CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	STATEMENT	10/22/2008
… Certified Non-Certified	2009-019745	CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROJECT	CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	STATEMENT	7/7/2009

Notice that the “Coalition” is the “OWNER NAME.” However, I happen to know that in the OAG site, it has a different name. SEarching that, I found (notice dates),

Select	Filing Number	Business Name	Owner Name	Document Type	Filing Date
… Certified Non-Certified	2011-002009	CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	STATEMENT	1/21/2011

TO SUMMARiZE: “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as a BUSINESS was incorporated by Patty Howell in 2005. Think location “SAN DIEGO” (Leucadia).

But as to being a (delinquent) charity, “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” actually resides in SACRAMENTO and is associated with (and credit is taken for it) by Carolyn Curtis.

Yet the HHS/ACF appears to think that it’s still in Leucadia when reporting the 2011 grantees as “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” and “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (associated with Curtis) – as a separate group.

And I haven’t even gotten into “WorldClassMarriage.com” which is also Howell-Jones (who appear together on I forget which Board of Directors…..).

Carolyn Curtis’ LinkedIn profile, however, relates Healthy Relationships (San Diego) with “Relationship Skills Center” (Sacramento), which is getting good press right now.

(FROM LINKEDIN page)

Current

Executive Director at Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Marriage Project)

Past

Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice
Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice in Psychotherapy (Self-employed)

Education

Alliant University
California State University-Sacramento
University of California, Davis

Connections

437 connections

Websites

Personal Website

Looking further at this detail, towards the bottom, its clear this organization is prosperous — both assets and revenues are increasing. However, it is not filing RRFs or IRS forms with the

Office of Attorney General, and FINALLY gets a mild slap on the wrist, dated April 2010 (Four years after it was awarded, and boasted that it was awarded, the largest EVER

Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Grant. I blogged it, too! See this post (scroll down past the large chart):

“LETS HAVE FUN ANALYZING THE ANALYSTS” and learn that the largest-ever grant went to a faith-based organization collaborating with 23 other faith-based organizations.

In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages. Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California (from http://www.camarriage.com/about/index.ashx?nv=3)

Their team includes (per website), Dennis Stoica, Patty Howell, and Ralph Jones, among others, such as Bento Leal (LinkedIN lists only this organization) despite college degree in 1973;

Oh dear, it looks (see this) like he may have some connection with the Unification Church (see URL)?

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Leal/leal-marriage.htm

“Bento Leal is the California Regional Coordinator of the American Leadership Conference, a project of the American Constitution Committee.”

OH DEAR, YES. Interrupting our “regularly scheduled program material,” let me speak to my (money trail / family court reform / blogging mothers) who don’t want to touch this

topic with a 10-foot pole — that the incredible push for forcing marriage education on us DOES have a strong Unification Church origin (see also the CRC history page, website CRCKids.org, which actknowledges involvement). THe phrase TRUE PARENTS” — refers to Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife. I am sorry people don’t wish to touch this with at 10-foot pole, but I wish to nail it to that pole. Does this perhaps answer why so many of these grantees smack of money-laundering traits, like it’s known the UC does? ??

this 2001 Excerpt from Bento Leal (never heard of the guy before) shows how they are going after inner city urban churches. FOr more, go see Rick Ross sites, or others:

UNIFICATION TRAINER IN CHMC . . ..

Today Was A Very Special Day In California

Bento Leal
November 30, 2001

Today was a very special day in California:

Tonight (Thursday, Nov. 29) 800 people heard True Mother speak at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Oakland, CA.

Program: Delicious dinner, songs by the Redeemed Convicts for Christ, then Rev. Jenkins greeted everyone, later he introduced Arhbishop Stallings who gave an uplifting introduction of True Mother, who read her speech with warmth and grace. Afterwards flowers and plaques were given to Mother. Mother then presented 3 of the gold watches to leading ministers and she also presented 8 framed Ambassador for Peace certificates to selected leaders. The program went very well and the audience was very appreciative of the entire event. Afterward, there was a lively victory celebration with hookup to True Father at East Garden for singing and testimony.

Earlier in the day was an afternoon ILC that featured 70 people (40 guests and 30 UC members). Several Ambassadors for Peace attended the ILC. Northern California has awarded 90 Ambassadors for Peace representing clergy, educators, community organization leaders, journalists, and others. Dr. Frank Kaufman presented the IIFWP material very eloquently and professionally and was followed by Imam Qasmi of the Muslim community of Sacramento who strongly praised TPs for their work to promote strong marriages and families, and bring unity among the faiths. Though he is fasting for Ramadan, he drove the 2 hours from Sacramento just to present his 15 minute talk to our group. He immediately drove back to officiate services in his mosque.

We then had a presentation by our local WFWP chairwoman. After the break, a sister read the HDH material on Marriage for our AFC session, which was followed by Rev. Lawrence Van Hook speaking strongly about the importance of a God-centered marriage.

One special feature of the day was a visit by Archbishop Stallings and a few of us with Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland. We presented him with a nicely framed Ambassador for Peace certificate in his office. He was impressed with our work and has fond memories of working with us over the years. He asked us to help him with tutors for struggling students in a military academy for 7th graders that he set up in Oakland. We said that we would help him.

Archbishop Stallings was also able to bring Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland. Rev. Smith is a foremost leader among the clergy in Oakland. This was the first time he had attended a speech with TPs, {{TRUE PARENTS, get it?}} so this was a HUGE breakthrough. Mother presented him with a watch for all of the wonderful work he is doing for the city of Oakland. The door is now open for us to work more closely with him.

CHMC site describes Bento Leal’s background including working with a different set of federal grants in SF: HERE IT IS:

Bento Leal
Implementation Specialist
Bento@CaMarriage.com
510.333.3478

Bento has worked in the field of marriage- and family-strengthening for the past 20 years. Before joining CHMC staff, he worked with Federal grants in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area to provide life skills mentoring to ex-offenders and to help build family-strengthening capacity of small or emerging faith-based and community organizations. Bento is a trainer in several Marriage Education curricula, including Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML). Bento’s primary assignments with CHMC are to teach MML leadership workshops and provide technical assistance to newly-trained MML facilitators so they are successful in organizing and conducting MML classes. Bento and his wife, Kimiko, have been married for 25 years.

Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-09
Total Assets:	$334,155.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$3,232,190.00
RRF Received:	15-MAR-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	N
Status:	Accepted

ADVANCED SEARCH RESULTS

Results 1 to 68 of 68 matches.
Page 1 of 1	1

Grantee Name	State	County	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
AUBURN UNIVERSITY	AL	LEE	90FM0006	ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI)	1	NEW	FRANCESCA M FRANCESCA	$ 2,489,548
AVANCE, INC	TX	HARRIS	90FM0041	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	NEW	MARTHA MARTHA	$ 799,999
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages	TX	DALLAS	90FM0018	ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT.	1	NEW	COSETTE COSETTE	$ 1,514,359
Arizona Youth Partnership	AZ	PIMA	90FM0030	BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA.	1	NEW	DANIEL DANIEL	$ 634,536
BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER	OH	HAMILTON	90FM0029	BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS	1	NEW	NATHANIEL NATHANIEL	$ 799,999
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES	MI	KENT	90FM0011	BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”)	1	NEW	NONYEM A NONYEM	$ 799,996
CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC	CA	LOS ANGELES	90FM0034	MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT	1	NEW	KIMTHAI KIMTHAI	$ 570,000
CATHOLIC CHARITIES	KS	SEDGWICK	90FM0042	PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY	1	NEW	MARTHA L MARTHA	$ 1,445,587
CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON	NJ	MERCER	90FM0016	EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	1	NEW	RONALD RONALD	$ 555,300
CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY	PA	CLEARFIELD	90FM0003	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V)	1	NEW	BONNIE BONNIE	$ 354,714
COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY	PA	BERKS	90FM0044	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	CHERYL CHERYL	$ 787,665
CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER	AZ	MARICOPA	90FM0021	TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ	1	NEW	GUILLE GUILLE	$ 359,796
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	SAN DIEGO	90FM0019	CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	PATTY PATTY{{probably Patty Howell”}}	$ 2,500,000
Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.	WI	MILWAUKEE	90FM0043	CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED	1	NEW	JEANETTE JEANETTE	$ 1,779,393
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	VANDERBURGH	90FM0005	SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS.	1	NEW	JOHN JOHN	$ 799,999
EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN	TX	EL PASO	90FM0045	HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT	1	NEW	LEONARD LEONARD	$ 799,945
ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER{{Abortion Alternatives}}**	OH	MONTGOMERY	90FM0046	MARRIAGE WORKS!OHIO COLLABORATIVE{{known fatherhood collaboration: see below	1	NEW	GREG GREG	$ 2,500,000
FIRST THINGS FIRST	TN	HAMILTON	90FM0048	CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY	1	NEW	DEBORAH DEBORAH	$ 1,070,834
Family Guidance, Inc.{{evangelistic– see 10/9/2011 post}}	PA	ALLEGHENY	90FM0047	TWOGETHER PITTSBURGHPROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION(LLP formed in 2009 to do this)	1	NEW	ROBERT L ROBERT	$ 1,163,684
Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.	NC	WAKE	90FM0009	COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES.	1	NEW	KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY	$ 725,000
Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County	TX	HARRIS	90FM0017	HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT	1	NEW	TIM TIM	$ 698,102
Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	MARION	90FM0027	STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS	1	NEW	ROBERT ROBERT	$ 1,780,000
Future Foundation	GA	FULTON	90FM0013	REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS	1	NEW	QAADIRAH QAADIRAH	$ 685,000
GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES	VA	FAIRFAX	90FM0024	FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS	1	NEW	LAURA A LAURA	$ 799,599
Healthy You, Inc.	AL	HOUSTON	90FM0020	JUST THE FACTS	1	NEW	MARY A MARY	$ 681,956
High Country Consulting LLC	WY	LARAMIE	90FM0049	STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY	1	NEW	KATHLEEN KATHLEEN	$ 535,082
IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION	OR	MULTNOMAH	90FM0015	REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT	1	NEW	LEE P LEE	$ 492,000
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program	CA	IMPERIAL	90FM0061	PROJECT JUNTOS	1	NEW	MARY MARY	$ 799,000
JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY	AR	BENTON	90FM0023	HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	1	NEW	APRIL APRIL	$ 724,428
Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,	FL	SARASOTA	90FM0060	HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN	1	NEW	ROSE ROSE	$ 799,993
KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.	HI	HONOLULU	90FM0012	KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES	1	NEW	MOMI MOMI	$ 798,752
Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.	KY	MADISON	90FM0050	KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	VICKI VICKI	$ 799,999
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	CLARK	90FM0004	THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.	1	NEW	RONDA M RONDA	$ 798,380
MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC	KY	SHELBY	90FM0036	MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM	1	NEW	PAT PAT	$ 344,904
Meier Clinics Foundation	IL	DU PAGE	90FM0051	MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE	1	NEW	NANCY NANCY	$ 2,500,000
Mission West Virginia, Inc.	WV	PUTNAM	90FM0052	N/A	1	NEW	TORRI TORRI	$ 683,935
More Than Conquerors Inc	GA	DE KALB	90FM0053	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	NEW	PHILLIPIA PHILLIPIA	$ 798,798
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	1	NEW	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 899,694
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	2	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 200,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	2	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$- 962,992
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	2	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 699,755
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH	2	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 450,000
NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS	CA	LOS ANGELES	90FM0055	NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	JUNE JUNE	$ 685,308
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY	NM	DONA ANA	90FM0037	NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	ESTHER ESTHER	$ 799,999
NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES	OR	MULTNOMAH	90FM0002	GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT.	1	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	ROSE ROSE	$ 0
NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES	OR	MULTNOMAH	90FM0002	GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT.	1	NEW	ROSE ROSE	$ 1,395,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OK	OKLAHOMA	90FM0032	THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS	1	NEW	MARY JO MARY JO	$ 776,304
OPERATION KEEPSAKE	OH	SUMMIT	90FM0056	MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS	1	NEW	PEGGY S PEGGY	$ 798,054
PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC	NY	NEW YORK	90FM0025	PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS	1	NEW	NAOMI NAOMI	$ 618,768
PROJECT S.O.S., INC.	FL	DUVAL	90FM0033	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	NEW	PAM PAM	$ 672,703
PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC	OK	OKLAHOMA	90FM0026	FAMILY EXPECTATIONS	1	NEW	SAMMYE SAMMYE	$ 2,500,000
Parenting Center (The)	TX	TARRANT	90FM0031	EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT	1	NEW	JENNIFER JENNIFER	$ 797,093
RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.	FL		90FM0028	RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25.	1	NEW	JACQUELINE JACQUELINE	$ 799,230
STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT	MS	OKTIBBEHA	90FM0035	BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES	1	NEW	JOAN JOAN	$ 699,874
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	SACRAMENTO	90FM0059	FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM	1	NEW	CAROLYN CAROLYN	$ 798,825
Scholarship and Guidance Association	IL	COOK	90FM0038	FAMILY LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM	1	NEW	MARTHA MARTHA	$ 794,180
Shalom Task Force	NY	NEW YORK	90FM0008	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN NYC AREA	1	NEW	DANIEL DANIEL	$ 541,633
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS	TX	HAYS	90FM0007	STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS/STRENGTHENING FAMILIES (SR/SF)	1	NEW	W. SCOTT W. SCOTT	$ 617,280
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY	TX	LUBBOCK	90FM0002	NATIONAL HEALTHLY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	1	NEW	JAMES D MITCHELL	$ 512,993
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	ALAMEDA	90FM0010	BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES	1	NEW	CATHERINE M CATHERINE	$ 794,846
TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES	OH	LUCAS	90FM0040	KEEPING IT TOGETHER	1	NEW	DONNA DONNA	$ 799,999
UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES	NY	BRONX	90FM0057	UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES MARRIAGE & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAM	1	NEW	SCOTT SCOTT	$ 799,999
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA	FL	ORANGE	90FM0039	PROJECT TOGETHER	1	NEW	ANDREW ANDREW	$ 2,184,508
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE	TN	KNOX	90FM0022	RELATIONSHIP RX: INTEGRATING A COUPLES INTERVENTION PROGRAM INTO A PRIMARY CARE SETTING	1	NEW	DEBBIE DEBBIE	$ 723,508
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY	UT	CACHE	90FM0001	SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH	1	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	BRAIN J BRAIN	$ 0
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY	UT	CACHE	90FM0001	SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH	1	NEW	BRAIN J BRAIN	$ 785,612
WAIT Training	CO	DENVER	90FM0054	THE COLORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	1	NEW	JONEEN JONEEN	$ 1,605,705
YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC	OK	CANADIAN	90FM0058	SAFE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH	1	NEW	TRACY TRACY	$ 338,367

**”Elizabeth’s New Life Center has a logo: the Elizabeth in question was the mother of John the Baptist, (per Bible), the cousin of Jesus and prophet heralding his coming. Another overtly Christian group, million$$ grant. This one looks pretty Roman Catholic….

http://www.elizabethnewlife.org/

In 1989, Steve and Vivian Koob, along with their church, founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center (ENLC) as a compassionate response and option to the abortion clinic operating in their neighborhood. ENLC opened its first office in the Five Oaks neighborhood of the city of Dayton to serve pregnant women facing unexpected pregnancies.

I am glad that Steve and Vivian Koob founded an organization to follow their vision (I suppose). However, according to the State of Ohio, it was founded as a nonprofit, at least, in 1992, not 1989. The evidence is here: (because of “paste” function, business name doesn’t display. LINK to search is here; remember to include the “S” in “ELIZABETHS”) [Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State Business Name Search]

Entity Number	Business Name	Type	Original Filing Date	Expiry Date	Status	Business Location	County	State
832233		CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT	11/30/1992	11/01/2012	Active	DAYTON	MONTGOMERY	OHIO

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

In 1994, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased a vacant building beside the abortion clinic and renovated it into a women’s center with medical capabilities. The following year ENLC opened its first Mother and Baby Boutique to provide needy clients with material assistance to establish family life, and in 1999 began providing abstinence education services to schools in an effort to expand efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.

Not mentioned: Abstinence education not proven to reduce teen pregnancies, in fact it’s been an abysmal failure from what I hear.

About that same time, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased and renovated a medical building on Forest Avenue in front of Grandview Hospital’s emergency room. That facility currently houses administrative offices, Women’s Center-Dayton, Holy Family Prenatal Care, classrooms, a nutrition center, and a chapel accessible to both clients and staff.

ENLC continued its growth as the youth development department was awarded highly competitive federal grants to provide abstinence education to area schools in 2002, 2005, and 2008. In 2006, Elizabeth’s New Life Center also was awarded one of the largest federal healthy marriage demonstration grants in the country to establish Marriage Works! Ohio and offer marriage education across Southwestern Ohio.

COngress shall make no law establishing a religion. They don’t have to any more. All that’s needed is to fund corporations that did. No Thank You, George Bush!)

“Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued two executive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.”[1]

Government by Executive Order, it’s definitely problemmatic. We’re in it.

I should get this ebook, published 2008, in anticipation of Presidential Election: The Court and the Cross, by Frederick Lane

Front Cover

Today Elizabeth’s New Life Center operates from six women’s centers, three in Dayton and ones in Warren, Hamilton, and Shelby counties. The Dayton boutique (??) continues to operate from the Five Oaks building, and Marriage Works! Ohio operates from a facility on Main Street in Dayton.

TO CLARIFY MY POSITION: My viewpoint on abortion changed considerably after (1) I became a mother, and (2) I had to deal with a jealous relative who’d opted for abortion, then went after my kids. Before then I was far more liberal and neutral. However I STILL do not think we should allow religious groups to take government funding for abstinence education. Then again I don’t think the Federal Government should be in so deep into education either– first of all, because their model is antiquated and based on authoritarianism and designed to slow down children from learning, and to keep the lower castes in place. YES, I believe that. A lot more arts (etc.) education would go further to dealing with literacy and math (not to mention probably violence) issues in the schools, but as fate? would have it, the opposite approach is taken. I see the schools as a caste-sorter, by economics and race, and so do statistics. Be that as it may, this organization has prospered because of then-President George Bush, and his decision to break down church/state.

This organization has several trade names, had a merger or so, and the original incorporator (registered agent) was from a law firm out of “10 Courthouse Plaza” in Dayton. I can’t upload the articles of incorporation (at this point). And I don’t see they are filing in my 990-finder, an E perhaps TAGGS will give me a nice DUNS#, but usually duns# only show on TAGGS if you can search by EIN, which I (haven’t found yet). THey are most definitely soliciting donations on the web. The board of 12 has 3 women on it (only) one of who is the Warren County (OH) Prosecutor Another board member is the County Auditor.

Vivian Koob (one of the two founders) has a bio also showing a connection with State Government (and pro-life activism):

Vivian Koob
Executive Director

Vivian Koob founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center with her husband Steve in 1989. Vivian holds a Master of Education degree as well as a Master in Rehabilitative Counseling. Before founding Elizabeth’s New Life Center she taught high school and spent 12 years working for the State of Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. She also spent years as a stay-at-home mom for her large family of natural, adopted and foster children. The Koobs’ blended family includes 12 living children and 16 grandchildren.

One of their programs listed, “Marriage Works!” (a trade name of this group, its Ohio SOS records say) includes “FE grants,” i.e. clear Fatherhood emphasis:

Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FE0035. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Participation in all Marriage Works! Ohio programs is voluntary.

View Our Privacy Notice
Copyright 2008, Marriage Works! Ohio.

While MARRIAGE WORKS! is a collaboration, This ELIZABETH NEW LIFE center is the “Lead Agency,” according to the website, which is soliciting donations. WHO HOLDS THE EIN#?

Marriage Works! Ohio - About Us

Marriage Works! Ohio is a collaborative effort of diverse organizations united to help build healthy families and healthy communities throughout the Miami Valley of Ohio by providing marriage and relationship education for couples.

SIX Counties are involved in “Marriage Works!” Among the other agencies is a “Family Violence Prevention Center.”

I experienced the religious-based marriage counseling as a response to domestic violence in the home (long ago). I assure the general public (speaking for at least my Northern California urban area), the religious groups are not one iota better addressed to handle DV (or interested in doing so if it’s going to reduce warm bodies in the pews, or tithes by evicting a batterer) than they were last decade. Nor do the religious leaders seem any more inclined to treat it as a reportable crime which it is (and child abuse absolutely is for pastors). So here is what to the outsider looks like a “Family Violence Prevention Center.” and when a person comes in, she will be receiving services provided by a lead agency pro-life Catholic group, whose web and public presence has been funded by fatherhood education. I notice that this FVPC also leads to a “DIVERT” Violence program.

The focus will be on family preservation through treatment, and stopping battering through training the batterer. People get killed that way, but this is how the field of DV has been altered (a sea-change) to accommodate the Marriage/Fatherhood agenda. And as I will be showing NEXT post, the groups doing this are many times chronically dishonest, and sometimes crooks, when characterizing WHO THEY ARE as an organization.

DIVERT: Xenia and County DIVERT crisis response in collaborative partnerships with law enforcement jurisdictions throughout Greene County to offer home and community based services to families experiencing domestic disputes or domestic violence
Jackie Weckesser, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 26
Jennifer Henderson, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 27

Domestic Violence Intervention Program: (DVIP) , therapeutic and educational group counseling for batterers working to prevent future cycles of violence. Fee for service
Cherie Dixon, DV Intervention Counselor, 937-376-8526 ext. 31

At the bottom of this “DIVERT” page are the links showing possibly origins or technical support in setting up the web. I notice NCADV is one. Upcoming post on them, too:

Privacy Policy | Donate | Contact | Apply for a Job | Apply to Volunteer
NCADV.org | NRCDV.org | NDVH.org | ODVN.org

This brochure shows how one organization, when it added considerable funding, became more and more entrenched in the County Government, got a spanking new building in 2000, named after the donor (what takes place in it, who knows) and probably have not YET told any women coming for help, or totally traumatized that in the same approximate year, the Ohio Legislature created a “Fatherhood Commission” and required that it targeted counties with a lot of single-mother households (probably to get access to the TANF funds that go with them).

It began as a shelter, before VAWA and probably many laws against domestic violence had even been passed.

The Greene County Domestic Violence Project began as a two-bedroom apartment in Yellow Springs in 1979 as a project of the Greene County Welfare Department. In 1980, the agency incorporated as a private, not for profit corporation and the shelter moved to its first house in Xenia, which had one staff and several students. The project relocated twice more until 1984 when it settled into its long-term site in a large Victorian House in the Water Street District of Xenia where it remained until 2001.

It morphed into a mental health agency and a new facility:

And, in 1995 the Xenia Police Division and GCDVP collaborated to form a nationally recognized program entitled DIVERT that partners law enforcement with domestic violence crisis workers for home based follow-up. Today, DIVERT services are being made available throughout Greene County and the agency has been able to operate satellite educational programs in Fairborn.

Violence Free Futures….

In 1997 the agency began to set a goal to secure a new facility and requested the help of the community. Seventeen community leaders formed the Shelter Facility Task Force and began to search for a site for the new facility. The Board decided to mortgage the aging property and invest the loan to begin a capital campaign which would require that the agency hire a Development Officer. The Shelter Facility Task force located a potential site, the Xenia Grace Chapel which was up for sale

(“Violence-Free Futures” is echoes of the wording from one of the major resource centers, formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund, now “Futures without Violence.” As such, it focuses on prevention through education [[which has NOT been shown to work]] — which of course it will help provide.)

(reading this brochure, and recognizing what it represents, I am feeling a little sick….)

Or that there was an Ohio Task Force on “Changing the Culture of Custody” which was basically AFCC-central, and even flew membership out to Arizona to take input from such membership, including prominent “Parental Alienation” promoter (and published author marketing books through the courts also), Philip Stahl Ph.D.

It was named after one of the County Commissioners, in fact the President of the County Commissioners:

The Greene County Commissioners The Hon. Kathryn K. Hagler, Pres. 61 Greene Street Xenia, Ohio 45385 (name at bottom of link having been served of a certain notice on a civic project):

Hon. Hagler has been involved with the Governor’s Child Support Task Force. As Child Support — at this point — has been re-tooled and adjusted to accommodate “Fatherhood” (see Clinton 1995 Executive Memo, etc.) — and child support offices throughout the nation, it seems (Indiana comes esp. to mind) to solicit participation in fatherhood programs (see above grantees) under — extortion, at times — in exchange for participating in prolonged custody battles they may not even want — etc. – – – – – This would seem to me a mild conflict of interest, at a minimum.

Here’s the blurb on the woman the building is named after:

KATHRYN K. HAGLER

Kathryn K. Hagler began her 19th year (third year of a fifth term) as a Greene County Commissioner with the start of the year 2001. Prior to her service to Greene County, Mrs. Hagler was a school teacher for 35 years. In 1982, she began a new phase in her life when she became Greene County’s first female County Commissioner. During her time as a Commissioner, Mrs. Hagler helped initiate a program in which retired teachers volunteer their time to assist Greene County jail inmates work toward their general (high school) equivalency diplomas. Awards and recognitions Mrs. Hagler has received include: the Paula J. Macilwaine Award (for her GED program), the Ervin J. Nutter Award (for her service to the community), the Senior Citizen of the Year Award from the Golden Age Senior Citizens Center, and recognition from the Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and the Women’s Hall of Fame. Over the years she has been involved with Greene County United Way, American Business Women’s Association, the Governor’s Child Support Task Force, the Altrusa Club, and Greene County Domestic Violence. Mrs. Hagler is very committed to families and children of domestic violence. Because of that commitment, Mrs. Hagler and her family were the largest donors to the capital campaign for victims of domestic violence. On June 1, 2000, the Greene County Domestic Violence Project named their new facility after Mrs. Hagler for her commitment. The Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Prevention Center is scheduled to officially open on June 12, 2001.

Fathers and Families is very active in Ohio, it says here, and rejoices about advances it has won in the Child Support arena. The article following this one rejoices at a nonpaying mother being thrown in jail for nonpayment, as it encourages the opposite for fathers:

F & F’s Hubin Praises Ohio Child Support Changes in Columbus Dispatch

Monday, September 26th, 2011 by FAF Staff

Donald Hubin, Ph.D., Chairman of Fathers and Families of Ohio’s Executive Committee, was quoted in Child- support changes arrive: New provisions give struggling parents leniency(9/25/11) in the Columbus Dispatch, a 200,000 circulation newspaper in Ohio’s capital.

Under the new Ohio policies, for which Fathers and Families has advocated and supports, child support enforcement agencies will not be able to seize the driver’s licenses or professional licenses of any obligors who are paying at least half of their child support obligations. Given the terrible economy, and the fact that many obligors’ obligations are not being modified downward to accommodate for their lower wages and/or job losses, this is an important measure.

Kimberly C. Newsom, executive director of the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agencies Directors’ Association, (OCDA) said the laws have been flexible and enforcement efforts have changed as the sinking economy made it harder for many parents to pay support.

“As Ohio started going into an economic recession, counties weren’t suspending licenses as much. They were working with parents and trying to assist them with employment or getting them into work programs to try and get them employed,” Newsom said.

In Franklin County, parents are often referred to job training or co-parenting classes, said Susan Brown, director of the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency.

I’ll bet they ARE being referred to co-parenting classes which will definitely help feed hungry children and increase the income in whoever is raising them. (sure, yeah). I’m sure a single mother whose Dad is behind in child support would rather have a co-parenting class (mothers are solicited to attend too, you know!) than the child support. Particularly if there was domestic violence in the marriage or partnership previously. .

My Prior Post with some research on Franklin County, OPNFF, OHIO fatherhood initiative, and more of these matters (Scroll down).

Link at “Columbus Urban League” — A.A.M.I. (African-American Males Initiative) shows some of the partners and funders — and referrers to classes. This is Franklin County:

Father 2 Father

Columbus Urban League
African-American Male Initiatives

Mission
To assist men in becoming the instinctive, responsible, & nurturing fathers they desire to be. While also, educating the general public on the unique, important, & essential role that Fathers play in the development of their children.

Scope of Services
Provide a classroom curriculum that develops the attitudes and skills needed for responsible fatherhood and helping men discover and cultivate their nurturing potential. Assistance with issues regarding child support, visitation, and family law matters, ultimately advocating for policy change/implementation that make these very areas more father friendly.

Partners
Columbus Urban League’s (CUL) – African-American Male Initiatives (A.A.M.I.)
Columbus Urban League’s Head Start
Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OFC)
Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCSEA)
Ohio Practitioners Network of Fathers & Families (OPNFF)
Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Family & Volunteer Services)

Target Audience
Class Curriculum – ‘Nurturing Father’
African-American fathers between the ages of 16-35 referred by CUL Head Start, Franklin County Child Enforcement Agency & Juvenile Court System. There will be a dual class format (One AM – One PM) on 3 month cycles. Each class will consist of 12-15 fathers giving us the ability to serve 100 fathers per calendar year.

Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Center, or No Family Violence Center — GREENE COUNTY is highly involved (and vice versa) with the “National Fatherhood Initiative” (NFI started in 1994 with a cronyism-based grant from Wade Horn before he quit HHS, like JUST before), with the Greene County Child SUpport system, and with Green County Commissioners.

Here’s a recent link to their 2011 goings-on, which was apparently prepared in part with another PR firm who has made it big by going with the Fatherhood Flow: “PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.” (see my post on PSI in Denver vs. PSI in Denver), which runs (I think) the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, in large part.

A Rapid Ethnographic Assessment of Programs & Services (REAPS)

for Fathers in Greene County, Ohio

Prepared By:

With Contributions From:

Public Strategies, Inc. Ohio State University Extension—Greene County

An Initiative of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood

April 2011

In part, it reads:

Introduction

The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OCF) has partnered with National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) in 2011 to assist 12 Ohio counties mobilize around responsible fatherhood. Greene County was one of the 12 counties selected to participate in this Community Mobilization Initiative.

Of course, this is going to start out with the usual blather blaming society’s ills (by omission, by deduction) on single mother households. Not being honest enough to call it this — they call it “father absence” Women exist, as nouns, in this dialogue, implicitly, primarily as the brood mares.

Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.1

As of April 2011, and based on my reading of what these grants are doing (and how they have changed the courts) that poverty could be attributable about as much to the war on single mothers which this rhetoric has waged, as much as not having a Daddy in the home, per se. Some Daddys need to get OUT of the home, because they are violent; others refuse to work while they are living WITH their kids, preferring instead to let mothers do it. There are varieties of families and varieties of Daddy-in-the-home scenarios, as well as a huge variety of Daddy NOT in the home scenarios.

None of this centralization and collaboration (taxation WITHOUT appropriate representation, or informed public consent) accounts for OR allows the true diversity of ways there are to earn a living, raise (and educate) a child, or escape poverty WITHOUT being forced into high-stakes, high-conflict custody litigation, and paying heavily into the system that — by its own words, and I can see plainly by state on-line databases — doesn’t even account for money it takes from children, while diverting child support enforcement monies (that pesky $4 billion) away from actually distributing child support they have collected. I truly do believe that our country would be better off — ENTIRELY — without this whole agency, based on its track record.

If I as an employer had a track record that lousy, I’d definitely be fired. Instead, I was taken repeatedly out of paying jobs where my work was needed and appreciated (as a single mother) to answer frivolous lawsuits in a process where no cause of action was ever proved, let alone most of the time even alleged.

Children who grow up without their fathers are at greatest risk for child abuse. In fact, the presence of a child’s father in the home lowers the likelihood that a child will be abused. Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.9 There were 1,436 new allegations of child abuse/neglect in Greene County in 2009.1

Any allegation is OK when it comest o justifying more county-absed or state-based “interventions” in private lives. The fact is, Dads do abuse children — where in this statement is such an acknowledgment? And where, in the group of “single-parent home” where child abuse was alleged — is the separation of ten these into cases where the child abuse was by the custodial mother (or her boyfriend) — versus the child abuse and/or MURDER (after which child abuse ceases because the child is dead, sometimes along with the father/abuser) — and those where the child abuse happened on a court-ordered weekend enabled by the access/visitation (or other father-involvement) program. Although these children were “living” in single-parent homes, the abuse happened from ONE parent, and the other one complying with court orders — again, at times.

I have been talking here about a Marriage/Fatherhood County grantee — they got $2.5 million in 2011 alone — based in Warren County OHIO, who turns out to e a pro-life, Catholic-based group (adamantly so) that has targeted abortion clinics and hospitals to get their message out. IT turns out that two on the board of this organization work for Warren County, and then the Executive Director has worked for the state. I think that any group getting $2.5 million (or over $1 million) in this economic climate should not only be watched but scrutinized — because that amount indicates the Secretary of HHS and public policy has another “brainstorm” of some idea, and is throwing money behind it.

While this one appears to have stayed legitimate and above-board, many (on the list above here, the TAGGS chart) absolutely have not. We have GOT to stop this ongoing trotting out of fatherhood rhetoric to enable more grants — which are not tracked. EVERY SINGLE EIN# should be posted and public be enabled to find out whether their websites are telling the truth about an organization. FAILURE TO FILE is a red flag I can’t talk about this group yet, until I see an IRS form (even if they have been a church to start with, as an organization taking federal grants, they should have an EIN — and they really should also have a DUNS#, enabling us to look for contracts, too, and outside the HHS).

This one also appears to be heavily networked with a group that believes domestic violence can be stopped through marriage and relationship education (that’s the model). This education is often going to happen through the web, therefore once set up, it will be having a low overhead, and turn profits for someone. We deserve to know WHO, as they go about solving the problems of poor people!

For the record, then, and in light of “Elizabeth’s New Life Center” (Inc. 1992, not 1989, and having several registered trade names also) being the lead agency of “Marriage Works!” a multi-county collaborative, and every single one of their websites (almost) soliciting donations, here is who in Greene County Ohio (where a Commissioner got a building named after her, by donating so much to it), was ALSO collaborating to RAPIDLY MOBILIZE more fatherhood STUFF:

Greene County Leader Focus Group Results

The Greene County focus group on fatherhood was attended by nineteen individuals representing a diverse cross section of the community and included representatives from the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.

The following community sectors/organizations/individuals participated in the discussion (Note: some organizations had more than one representative and some people represented several sectors).

Adult Probation Anderson Williamson Insurance Child Support Children’s Service Board County Commissioner Drug & Alcohol Initiative Family and Children First Council Fairborn City Schools Greene County Career Center Greene County Combined Health District Greene County Community Foundation Greene County Fatherhood Initiative Grant Greene County Public Transit System Greene Leaf Therapeutic Community Program Juvenile Court Parent Education and Support Xenia Association of Churches & Ministries

No one representing the mothers, or custodial parents’ interests when there has been violence — was probably even aware of this meeting, much less present.

The ideas they came up with were predictable, and please note that FATHERHOOD PROGRAMMING was to be incorporated into the FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER (named after a County Commissioner). Also marriage promotion….

When asked what assets or resources existed in Greene County that could be mobilized, expanded or used to promote responsible fatherhood the following were mentioned:

24/7 Dad Breakfast for Dads Churches – particularly if they opened their gyms and facilities for activities Daddy and Me Carnival (Early Childhood Collaborative Coalition) Family Violence Prevention Center programming Graduation Reality and Dual Role Skills – Family & Consumer Science program for pregnant and parenting teens Green County College Success Program The Marriage Resource Center Money Management Classes Urban Light Ministries – InsideOut Dad and other programs, Visitation Center.

The link is here, notice that “fatherhood” is a *.gov proposition:

http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxKCPn6VuPA%3d&tabid=93

This action plan — and the meeting involving it — was straight out of the mouth of the National Fatherhood Initiative; It is a marketing plan. If you do not understand THIS GROUP (and its origins) — you do not understand why $119 million is needed for programming and how that is just to set up an infrastructure to transfer a lot MORE money from child support to programs that reduce, compromise or eliminate child support for our kids — and direct monies instead to those who support and design programs.

MARRIAGE PROMOTION = FATHERHOOD PROMOTION = USUALLY PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

EXAMPLE: PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC. (a PR Firm in Oklahoma).

I have JUST now showed you that Public Strategies is working directly with National Fatherhood Initiative to “Rapidly MObilize” more fatherhood (stuff & programs). See the “REAPS” link, the “Fatherhod.ohio.gov” link — right above here. Now, I probably know Public Strategies a little better than you do, unless you study this topic, live in Oklahoma, or work for them. You can also see them, bolded in maroon font, in the chart above, of grantees of the new “90FM” grant series to promote — what else, marriage and fatherhood.

In fact, they just got another $2.5 million, alongside Elizabeth’s New Life Center, alongside also California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which I am going to flat-out SAY I believe is a fraud (a front group), so I will now have to prove this in subsequent post).

But here is the “OKMARRIAGE.COM” link telling the origins of this Oklahoma Marriage Project (from top-down, Governor, and Department of HHS), choosing the PR Firm Public Strategies Inc. (WHY might be a very good question) and explaining an intention to bypass Commissions to Study, and passing Legislation, but through a “multi-sector” approach to (Ramrod it through). which, as you can see, they are also recommending in Ohio. When the word “mobilize” is used, the idea is obviously that an emergency exists. It is a MILITARY term, that’s what it calls to mind. The intention is to bypass the slower (but more due-process, and more public-input-wanted!) processes designed into state and federal constitutions and instead, get the thing going FAST.

Here’s what they say about their origins and how they GRABBED $10 Million of TANF funding (intended for welfare: Food stamps, cash aid, helping poor families) to set up the infrastructure to funnel more grants to anyone who was of the same belief system (as to the causes of poverty and child abuse), and away from those who didn’t, including families on welfare that probably needed the help. Moreover, the double-whammy is, money is ALSO diverted from Child Support Enforcement at times for similar purposes. Here we go:

Oklahoma Marriage Initiative logo

OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE “ABOUT US“

OMI History

In 1998, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University economists produced a joint study on what Oklahoma needed to do to become a more prosperous state.

And someone probably funded that joint project. Coincidentally, in 1998, the US Congress was passing Fatherhood Resolutions (as in 1999), Welfare Reform had just happened, and nationwide a condition of receiving welfare funding to states mandated that every state create a centralized state distribution unit (SDU), or forfeit their TANF funding. TANF was the welfare reform that changed program funding to block grants to states….It figures in here. Maybe that was coincidental, but I doubt it.

National Fatherhood Initative DOES have congressional and senate contacts / “Task Forces” and has from shortly after its (1994) founding. As it says, here:

(NFI’s) TASK FORCES ON RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

Shortly after its founding, NFI formed Task Forces in the U.S. House and Senate to identify elected leaders who were supportive of the goals of the responsible fatherhood movement. 15 years later, the Task Forces continue to serve as a vehicle to mobilize support for NFI events on Capitol Hill and to generate support for legislation that impacts responsible fatherhood.

Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood – Click to see that OK had one, “Inhofe”)
Congressional Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood

(Back to the OMI About us Page)

Their conclusions included the usual economic analysis relating to tax issues and regulatory reform issues, as well as some surprising results. The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

As evidence of his serious commitment to this [DIvorce leads to poverty and child abuse] issue, [Governor] Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts {{GEE — I wonder which ones! }} advised various aspects of the Initiative. This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. Instead, they decided on a multi-sector approach with both a secular track and a faith-based track. The OMI was to be a public/private partnership, guided by high-level leadership and strong operational, day-to-day management. Its major focus at this initial stage was delivering education services to the public, conducting research, and working with the faith sector to develop marriage-strengthening services.

I would have to characterize this as a State Governor (who is head of the State EXECUTIVE branch) intentionally overstepping his bounds, deliberately avoiding the legislative branch, to push through his own plan, using federal funds that WERE supplied to the state of Oklahoma through legislation. Intentionally NOT having a commission study the issues is suspect. Now read the next part carefully

Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

FORMERLY, AFDC (pre-1996) would have made sure this was to low-income families. But the sea-change to TANF BLOCK_GRANTS TO STATES intentionally freed up the possibility of states doing more creative things with these funds. This was great if you’re into promoting marriage and fatherhood, and probably no accident. Look at who was pushing the 1996 reform, and you have a lot of answers….

Right there you can see it was not restricted to low-income population, but efforts should be made to let poor people know their option to take marriage education (etc.) classes, for their own good, of course.

I just saw on-line an advertisement for a psychologist at Public Strategies firm (Glassdoor.com) The pay was $72K.

Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today. The OMI has made sound decisions-by both policy and political standards-to build on the best [paid-for] research available, to invest in research to learn about marriage and divorce in Oklahoma, and to assess, to the extent possible, the effects of its activities and programs.

From “http://www.okmarriage.org/ProgramHighlights/MarriageProblems.asp” = the “OMI – ABOUT US page”

“PUBLIC STRATEGIES” started in 1990 (site says):

Clients are primarily HHS/ACF and other corporations. Listed under “Corporate” clients is “PREP” which is itself a company that feeds off marriage education policy. Two professors from Denver (also on the advisory board to Public Strategies) co-founded a Colorado Business to produce/sell this product, itself clearly focusing off Marriage Education grants See “PREPinc.com.” Nonprofit clients include The Dibble FUnd (itself also a corporation feeding off Healthy Marriage education policy.

about us

Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members with a client base that included the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team. In a matter of years, PSI became the only firm in the United States to develop and maintain a state-run healthy marriage initiative, which has since become the longest-running and most in-depth endeavor of its kind in the country.PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C. We have a solid success record of client-centered project management and strategic planning services for a variety of clients in the public and private sectors.

Public Strategies is committed to helping organizations and individuals reach their full potential while maximizing their impact on the public good. Our clients represent the impact that PSI has had on an array of fields including education, business, faith, criminal justice, child welfare and human services.

http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2

WELL, enough for one day, eh?

////

///

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

October 9, 2011 at 8:28 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with "Parents Day" comes from "True Parents"=Unification Church, Abstinence Promotion, Bento Leal, Bill Coffin (former HHS/ACF promoting Stoica grant-getting webinars, California Healthy Marriage Coalition, Carolyn Curtis, Center for Relationship Education, Dennis Stoica, Elizabeth New Life Center (OH), Healthy Relationships California, IDEALS, MarriageSavers, Moonies in Marriage Movement, Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & Public Strategies Inc., PAIRS Foundation, Patti Howell, Ralph Jones, Rev Craig Kuehn, WAIT Training

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

with one comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…Just describing what I was seeing…

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

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

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

Kids’ Turn

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

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

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

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

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 20, 2011:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda Brandes

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

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

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

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

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

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

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

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

March 9, 2011

CT FILE NUMBER: 102902

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts

for: KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6/14/2011

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

Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awards nonprofit grants

13 months ago | 449 views | 0

| 2

From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo

CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29.

Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.

And what’s more, they reduce parental alienation, right?

Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.

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

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

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

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

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

Top 10 employers (2007)

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

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

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

www.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org

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

Or, in their own words:

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

1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?

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

4. What is The San Diego Foundation?

Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.

5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?

As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.

DOES IT HAVE TO REGISTER AND FILE TAXES SEPARATELY, WITH THE HELP OF The San Diego FOUNDATION EXPERIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, OR NOT?

6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?

The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.

7. What is an endowment?

(on the SAN DIEGO SITE):

For Nonprofits

The San Diego Foundation is honored to be able to claim $60 million in grants to community causes last year, but we cannot take all the credit. Over ninety percent of our annual grants are driven directly by our donors. These are individuals, families, and corporations recommending grants from Donor Advised Funds to the organizations and causes that are important to them.

In addition to Donor Advised Funds, The San Diego Foundation’s program grants fund nonprofits through a competitive application process. Program grants cover subject areas such as arts and culture, civil society, the environment, health & human services, and science & technology.

. . .

Donor Advised Funds

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

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

Designated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.

With a designated fund, at the outset, the donor designates one or more charities who will receive the earnings on the fund in perpetuity. Grant checks are mailed automatically once or twice a year, with the donor choosing the best time or according to The Foundation’s schedule of March and/or September. Donors may also opt to reinvest the earnings until the fund grows to an amount desired by the donor. Fees associated with the designated fund are particularly inexpensive, at 0.5%.

To establish a designated fund, or to learn more information, contact our charitable giving team at GivingTeam@sdfoundation.org or 619-235-2300.

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

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

Annual Renewal Information

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

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

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

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

In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:

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

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

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

3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors.

The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has

4. The Corporation has no members.

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

INSURANCE CODE
SECTION 11520-11524

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

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

What is an Annuity? Investopedia explains:

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

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

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

Annuity Funding Explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.

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

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

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

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times Reports:

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

By Paul Sullivan

Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.

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

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

They do not like what they see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information visitwww.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(see address).

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

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

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

SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

at least in government circles:

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

[08-09-2006, found under USAToday]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATUS WITH CALIFORNIA (AS OF TODAY)?

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type

TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity

1

and (I searched the EIN)

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type

TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity

1

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

September 8, 2010

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

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

An independent audit states that for 2010:

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

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

MAKE IT MATTER

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

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

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

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

DOWNLOAD OUR 2011-13 STRATEGIC PLAN

OUR MISSION

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

LEAD NATIONALLY BY ACTING LOCALLY

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

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

Service Grant Program

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

Advisory Services

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

Advocacy

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

(July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)

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

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

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

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

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

WHY TAPROOT?

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

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

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

History

Three Generations of Venture Capital

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

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

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

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

Robin Richards Donohoe

General Partner

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

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

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

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

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

OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide

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

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

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

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

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

A service of the National Center for Charitable Statistics at the Urban Institute

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

PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH EDUCATION AND SUPPORT THAT PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN TO HAVE SAFE, CONFLICT FREE ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS THROUGH A CONTINUUM OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES IN ADDITION, THE ORGANIZATION IS DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING STANDARDS FOR PRACTICE OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES, MAINTAINING A DIRECTORY OF SUPERVISED CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS, AND PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES AND FORUMS FOR NETWORKING AND SHARING OF INFORMATION PRINCIPALLY, MEMBERSHIP DUES AND ADMISSION FEES TO THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR ORGANIZATION

And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost: in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.” This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help. (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items. Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.

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

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

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

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

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

90~IZ~~ Part III:

Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development

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

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

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

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

Expenses -$7.700

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

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

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

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

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

California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/A2VLegRpt0304.pdf

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

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

Supervised Monitoring Message List

Reply Message #17218 of 22083 < Prev | Next >

Hi,

I’m in CA. I have had this supervised monitor that stated I’m a danger to my daughter because one time during the summer I was wearing flip flops and gave my daugther a birthday cake for her birthday.

Well, my question is this…now she is constatnly changing the financial agreement we signed several months ago. And she’s now back charging me for phone calls, emails to arrange visits and she doesn’t even respond to most of them. She is now threatening to take me to court if I don’t keep paying her for things I have never agreed to. Additionally, she charges me for cancelled visits and yet doesn’t even notify me that they are cancelled. Isn’t there any law of how she constatnly changes her fees and agreement? Originally it stated that the cancelle of visits is 100% resposnbile for the fees, well last weekend I was 100% resposnbile and she is refusing to credit her account that everyday she comes up with new fees or changes the agreement that was orginally signed. I’m hoping that when she does take me to court that I will not hav to pay for things that I never agreed to and for visits that is clearly stated that I am not financially resposnbile for. She also charges me $5 per min. to discuss any of this on the phone or email. And then she charges me a flat fee ontop of her min incurred fees. Please help me stop this insanity. I also believe that because my ex won in court because of past bribery that he must have also done this upon the monitor. The monitor did state once that the father told her to charge me more and make it exteremly difficult to see my daughter. And the monitor stated that if I wanted this information that I need to pay her for this.

I’ve given up all hope that I’ll be allowed to see my daughter – this justice system provides no justice…because the courts don’t care that they purjed under oath (saying I have a criminal record and a bunch of lies like that..that I can easily prove false), let alone CPS closed the case because it was unfouned..and now that the courts have allowed him to do this to me of taking 50% of all my wages. At least now I’m hoping that I can get this monitor to stop asking me for money that isn’t due and to stop fabricating these charges of $5 per min. to read an email and then her $25 fee to just have it in her inbox (even if she doesn’t read them).

Any suggestions????

THE REPLY is to contact Shelly Glapion (of SVN board of directors, which this person probably didn’t know, and program administrator, via CFCC)

Re: Supervised Monitoring

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

Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?

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

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

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

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

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

Cindy Ross
CA Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice

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

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

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

protection is essential to victims!

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

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

occurred without said programs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other than that —

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guess under what banner I found that:

Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases

M. Sharon Maxwell, LCSW, Ph.D.

Karen Oehme, J.D.

authors commissioned by

Copyright © 2001 Violence Against Women Online Resources

Abstract The Evolution of Supervised Visitation: From Child Welfare to Domestic Violence Case Visitation Recognizing Common Batterers Behaviors In Supervised Visitation Settings Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation in Domestic Violence Cases

Judicial Strategies

Program Strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there anything where AOC excels?

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

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

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

She sarcastically notes:

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

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

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

Search:

1-1 of 1

Search Name:	Starts With Contains
Control #:

Control #	Entity Type	Name	Name Type	Name Status	Entity Filing Date	Entity Status
000454811	NCORP	SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.	Entity	Inactive	09/29/2003	Inactive – Terminated

000454811: Corporation Non-Profit – Domestic

Name:

SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.

Old Name:

Business Type:

Status:

Inactive – Terminated

Initial Filing:

09/29/2003

Formed in:

Putnam County

Delayed Effective Date:

Fiscal Year Close:

June

AR Due Date:

10/01/2007

Term of Duration:

Perpetual

Inactive Date:

01/11/2008

Principal Office:

2804 PARAN POINTE DR
COOKEVILLE, TN 38506 USA

Annual Report
Mailing Address:

1223 KING STREET
JACKSONVILLE, FL 322040000 USA

AR Exempt:

Public Benefit Corporation:

Yes

Assumed Names History Registered Agent

Name	Status	Expires
No Assumed Names Found…

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

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

Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?

Department Homepage | Charitable Organizations Homepage

Tennessee Department of State – Division of Charitable Solicitations and Gaming

Financial Reports for Registered Charities

(I didn’t find out whether or not).

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

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

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

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

Joe Nullet

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

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

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

Joe Nullet, Executive Director
Supervised Visitation Network

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

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

2759 Bartley Circle
Jacksonville, FL 32207 ServicePhone:
Fax: (904) 389-4244
(904) 389-4225

Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.

Services: Information and referral; Other

Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims

Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns

Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7

Fee: Yes; sliding scale for Family Law clients.

Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation.

Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org

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

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

Parent Education

Visitation & Exchange

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

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

SEE ALSO HERE:

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

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

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

Florida Non Profit Corporation

SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.

Filing Information

Document Number	N07000010935
FEI/EIN Number	521831498
Date Filed	11/09/2007
State	FL
Status	ACTIVE
Effective Date	11/15/2007

Principal Address

3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
JACKSONVILLE FL 32205

Changed 01/06/2010

Mailing Address

3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
JACKSONVILLE FL 32205

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

EIN# 521831498

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

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

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

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

Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real …

3955 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
(904) 358-3955

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

Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women

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

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

1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223–King–St–Jacks… – Cached

1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204. Companies at this address: Vision Window Washing, Inc. Alzheimer’s Care, Inc. Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. …

As explained nicely on the VERMONT government site, after one reads about the child support contacts:

Family Division and Office of Child Support

Vermont Office of Child Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Charity Nearly Ruined

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

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

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

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

Registration Laws

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

And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state

And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year

Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both

By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both

(Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)

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

Back to the Division of Consumer Services' Homepage

Solicitation of Contributions
Information for Businesses

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

Gift Givers Guide

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

Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD

Cambridge, MA

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

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

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

Some details about the organization, including its name change:

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

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

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

Entity Type: Nonprofit Corporation

Identification Number: 042199861

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN): 000013371

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors’ Note:

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

April, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135

Author

Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. Straus

Excerpt

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

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

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

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

RSJ CORP. Summary Screen

Help with this form

The exact name of the Domestic Profit Corporation: RSJ CORP.

Entity Type: Domestic Profit Corporation

Identification Number: 043061365

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN): 000312860

Date of Organization in Massachusetts: 09/11/1989

Date of Revival: 05/29/2007

Date of Dissolution: 08/31/1998

Current Fiscal Month / Day: 12 / 31

Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 00 / 00

The location of its principal office:

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

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

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

ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?

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

October, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478

Author

Martha Bailey

Excerpt

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

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

In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible. ³ A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” ⁴ In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …

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

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

David Levy

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

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

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

Margaret Wuwert, CRC's Chief Operating Officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana

October 26,2011

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

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

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

For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE

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

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

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

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

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

AFCC Board of Directors

President

Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL

President Elect

Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA

Vice President

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

Secretary

Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH

Treasurer

Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ

Past President

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

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

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

AFCC Staff

Executive Director

Peter Salem, MA

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

Associate Director

Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT

Program Director

Candace Walker, CMP, CMM

Business and Administrative Director

Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA

Office Manager & Registrar

Dawn Holmes

Program Coordinator

Nola Risse-Connolly, BA

Program Coordinator

Erin Sommerfeld, BA

Administrative Assistant

Jessica Murdy, BS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minneapolis, MN

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

7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time

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

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

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

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

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

[PDF]

SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK (SVN) STANDARDS FOR …

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

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

California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody …

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov › Families & Children › Custody & Visitation – Cached

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

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

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

August 31, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, CRC Childrens Rights Council, History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Budget crisis SF Courtroom Closures, Kids' Turn, Liens to SFTC, Suzie S. Thorn Esq.

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.

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.

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) Ms. Ellis’ book, above is Copyright 2000 by the APA, and has of course a chapter on “Parental Alienation Syndrome: A New Challenge for Family Courts (p. 205)” and by the end, p. 267, she gets around to “Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases.” (Note: PAS is real — see chapter title; but Sexual Abuse apparently is not, because it only surfaces next to the word “Allegations” emphasizing doubt (like Sexual abuse just doesn’t happen in families, or in divorcing families?) — and in the context of how to EVALUATE . . . . ALLEGATIONS. Typical AFCC priorities…..”Lead” with PAS, and then — if forced to — say “sexual abuse” but never as if it were truly an issue.) It is a MAJOR issue….. (The Franklin Coverup) Click on the link summary — the material is very disturbing, though…. Now, let’s reconsider why the AFCC, with it UNTRACKED and EVER-EXPANDING FUNDING AND REVAMPING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS emphasizing instead PROGRAMMING activities (endless trainings……) IS SO URGENT TO DESTROY ANY LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION OF THE HORRORS OF THIS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN, AND AGAINST ONE (OR MORE) OF THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. https://events.afccnet.org/store/online_bookstore Susan M. BoyanAnn Marie Termini: The Psychotherapist as Parent Coordinator in High-Conflict Divorce: Strategies and Techniques; December 2004 Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective CO-Parenting August 1999 WELL, this post was to be a little sample — only — of some places that “child support enforcement” monies (grants/which are incentives) are going to the states.

BACK to Ms. Moses’ article though:

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:

What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been

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

|0 Comme

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804AK4004

2008 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904AK4004

2009 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904AK4004

2009 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,435,990

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$2,394,674

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

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

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0804AL4004

2008 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904AL4004

2009 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904AL4004

2009 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$12,437,200

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

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

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

0804AR4004

2008 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

0904AR4004

2009 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,081,749

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$9,824,903

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

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

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

0804AZ4004

2008 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

0904AZ4004

2009 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$7,236,581

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

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

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

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

$9,547,956

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$10,840,894

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

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

-$4,085,910

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

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

$9,450,246

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

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

-$3,402,213

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

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

$10,570,129

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

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

-$3,960,501

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

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

$11,249,743

BLACKFEET TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TRIBAL OFFICE

BROWNING

GLACIER

Educational Department

10IBMT4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$296,873

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

0804CA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

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

-$2,520,413

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

0904CA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

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

-$6,981,714

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$20,049,309

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

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

$145,968,345

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

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

$38,513,768

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

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

$129,832,458

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

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

-$10,597,780

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

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

$62,305,239

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

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

$107,984,151

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$125,931,992

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

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

-$9,448,771

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

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

$122,438,508

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

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

-$20,997,400

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

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

$129,166,305

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

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

$5,142,721

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

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

$94,719,355

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10ICOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$695,218

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10ICOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

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

$579,348

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10TCOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

NEW

$463,479

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10TCOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$463,478

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$634,920

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

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

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

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

$423,281

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$659,158

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

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

$549,298

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

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

$136,183

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$336,160

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$476,612

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

03/31/2011

93563

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

$97,022

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

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

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

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

$608,870

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$194,631

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

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

$162,193

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

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

$162,192

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$129,754

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$208,457

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

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

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

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

$138,971

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

0804CO4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

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

$271,490

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

0904CO4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

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

$713,994

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,963,471

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

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

$11,858,500

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

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

$792,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

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

$12,057,020

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

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

-$918,244

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

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

$10,702,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

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

$2,404,043

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

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

$10,696,534

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

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

-$1,224,106

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$9,840,330

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

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

$911,350

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

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

$11,499,260

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

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

-$286,137

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

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

$10,561,620

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

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

$689,647

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

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

$10,398,700

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

01/13/2010

93563

NEW

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

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

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$152,137

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$221,058

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

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

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

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

$147,372

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$397,415

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

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

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

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

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$264,942

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWA4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$460,212

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWA4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$383,510

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$134,424

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

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

$112,021

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

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

$119,314

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$91,440

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$159,310

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$165,209

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

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

$132,758

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

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

$73,755

CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES

P.O. BOX 278

PABLO

LAKE

Indian Tribal Council

11IDMT4004

2011 OCSET

12/01/2010

93563

NEW

$238,765

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$143,989

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

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

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

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

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

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

$95,994

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$147,185

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

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

$133,983

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

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

$127,804

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

0804CT4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

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

$1,790,720

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

0904CT4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

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

$609,139

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

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

$10,193,136

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

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

$1,637,365

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

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

$10,408,041

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

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

-$3,266,669

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

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

$4,895,077

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

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

$367,943

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

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

$10,326,324

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

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

-$2,200,208

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$11,887,422

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

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

$2,270,701

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

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

$8,778,199

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

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

-$37,738

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

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

$4,966,424

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

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

-$953,656

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

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

$10,278,236

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0804DC4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

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

$83,962

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0904DC4004

2009 OCSE

10/08/2010

93563

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

$802,300

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0904DC4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

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

$136,662

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

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

$3,593,280

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

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

$1,241,838

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

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

$3,604,840

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

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

$1,217,637

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

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

$4,100,520

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

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

$971,680

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

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

$4,123,940

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

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

-$563,656

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$4,032,033

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

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

$301,643

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

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

$3,597,460

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

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

-$961,498

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

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

$3,479,620

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

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

-$69,798

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

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

$3,672,240

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

0804DE4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

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

$58,246

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

0904DE4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

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

$276,175

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$4,373,359

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

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

$5,935,571

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

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

$201,342

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

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

$8,532,156

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

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

-$1,306,420

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

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

$10,179,132

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

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

-$1,635,337

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

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

$8,889,253

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

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

-$4,432,595

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$7,499,212

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

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

-$5,070,262

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

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

$7,503,364

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

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

-$6,450,993

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

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

$5,230,650

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

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

-$1,116,225

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

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

$9,056,512

EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 538

FORT WASHAKIE

FREMONT

Indian Tribal Council

08IBWY4004

2008 OCSET

10/19/2009

93563

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

-$401,375

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

0804FL4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

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

$1,789,799

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

0904FL4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

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

$1,159,234

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$22,719,061

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

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

$56,042,541

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,179,266

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$53,033,364

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,227,388

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$38,803,054

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$17,299

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$48,079,001

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

07/30/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,556,024

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$56,287,376

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,588,919

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$52,482,981

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,808,111

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

03/17/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,677,187

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$46,465,236

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,538,373

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$51,635,458

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$165,653

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$171,413

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$143,054

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$92,097

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/19/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$21,440

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10TCWI4004

2010 OCSET

06/05/2010

93563

NEW

$59,393

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10TCWI4004

2010 OCSET

08/30/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$567,600

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$179,039

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,359

FT BELKNAP COMMUNITY COUNCIL

FT BELKNAP AGENCY

HARLEM

BLAINE

Indian Tribal Council

09ICMT4004

2009 OCSET

09/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$283,281

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

0804GA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$370,916

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

0904GA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,857,146

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$15,500,754

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,978,898

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$999,477

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$738,535

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,026

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,246,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,015,821

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$20,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$7,174,590

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,008,830

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,049,097

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$24,496,254

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0804GU4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$41,400

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904GU4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$115,246

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$345,101

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$300,126

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

12/09/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,436

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$66,329

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$554,629

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,190

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$156

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$710,340

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$317,016

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$759,911

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$66,203

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$727,644

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$318,769

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

02/09/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$604,521

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$274,696

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$675,165

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804HI4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,504

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904HI4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$346,576

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$382,743

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,942,600

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,895,080

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$242,655

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,798,060

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,994,191

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,236,960

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$525,251

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

09/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$982,476

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$3,090,400

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$948,371

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,962,200

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,092,179

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,530,200

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$713,234

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,001,440

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

0804IA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,034,154

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

0904IA4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,750

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

0904IA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,535,162

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$9,033,996

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,519,024

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,688,235

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,723,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,814,802

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,063,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,992,298

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,357

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,376,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,392,854

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$11,526,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,266,820

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,076,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,690,379

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,213,200

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,496,825

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,776,500

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

0804ID4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$227,639

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

0904ID4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$207,448

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,282,527

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,403,756

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,956

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,987,028

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$471,286

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,325,460

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,925,578

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,861,854

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,715,774

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$4,235,706

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$954,759

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,504,043

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$679,903

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,467,225

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,180,751

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,684,935

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0804IL4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,048,070

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0904IL4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$87,230

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0904IL4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,727,004

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$30,172,273

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,235,953

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$31,611,964

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,853,722

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$34,984,718

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,780,679

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$34,504,934

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,040,629

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$28,644,219

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,935,737

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$28,382,830

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,077,767

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$37,210,017

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,258,566

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$33,507,714

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0804IN4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,046,221

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0804INHMHR

2008 HMHR

10/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$198,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0904IN4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$164,556

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

0904IN4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,868,855

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,487,923

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,041,143

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,324,023

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,952,413

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,629,715

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,602

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,137,408

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,314,548

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

09/13/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,242,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$13,396,113

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,293,314

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,961,368

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,942,425

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,775,367

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,624,634

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,090,305

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$102,908

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$68,604

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GIOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

NEW

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GIOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/12/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GTOK4004

2011 OCSET

07/12/2011

93563

NEW

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$109,717

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,431

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,431

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$78,498

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$65,415

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,606

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$42,261

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11AIMI4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

NEW

$16,660

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$78,904

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,035

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$75,727

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$105,494

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,912

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,653

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$63,551

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$160,536

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$107,025

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 70

MCLOUD

POTTAWATOMIE

Indian Tribal Council

09IIOK4004

2009 OCSET

06/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$263,587

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$95,783

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$63,854

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$104,487

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$69,658

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0804KS4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$279,439

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0904KS4004

2009 OCSE

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$72,200

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0904KS4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$698,875

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$5,270,236

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,631,555

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,803,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,943,573

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$296,186

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,036,770

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,517,041

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,540

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,130,248

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$952,911

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$8,480,533

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$676,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,938,255

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,652,115

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,600,934

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$907,503

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,238,308

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0804KY4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$782,208

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0904KY4004

2009 OCSE

05/11/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,296,286

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0904KY4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,127,059

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$7,394,829

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,256,316

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,047,054

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$896,494

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,485,158

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,579,378

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,267,103

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,038,706

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$5,458,820

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,439,672

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,864,886

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$836,980

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,112,680

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,379,228

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,229,773

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

0804LA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$681,486

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

0904LA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,929,044

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$8,336,935

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$15,790,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,964,952

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,915,563

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,040,488

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,164,782

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,715,603

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,778,349

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,436,578

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$14,405,038

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,573,946

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,881,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,164,059

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,933,756

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$102,845

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,370,140

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE

113394 W. Trepania Road

HAYWARD

SAWYER

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/13/2010

93563

NEW

$242,207

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE

113394 W. Trepania Road

HAYWARD

SAWYER

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWI4004

2011 OCSET

07/12/2011

93563

NEW

$257,793

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$97,241

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$64,828

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$106,825

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,215

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

09IDMN4004

2009 OCSET

03/25/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$223,202

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

11ICMN4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

NEW

$81,077

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

11ICMN4004

2011 OCSET

06/10/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$62,328

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$265,452

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$176,967

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$256,619

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$171,080

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804MA4004

2008 OCSE

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$917,199

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904MA4004

2009 OCSE

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,032,452

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$3,734,789

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,308,292

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$781,695

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,023,485

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,261,339

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,746,540

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,413,634

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,883,799

This is 500 names (at least, the search results were sorted to show 500 names at a time) of approximately 1,308 names. I’m not sure why several years displayed, i.e., why a 2009 date would show up. However, the point is to get an idea of where & how much money is hitting is inbound, at least the state level. As this is PUBLIC money, anyone has a right to find out what is the local public payroll, how grants are being spent, who is allocating them to whom (Subgrants). Some of this can be looked up on-line and some can be formed in a FOIA letter, which by law, has to be responded to in a certain time frame. It may not be, but it is a legal right to request public information. AT ANY POINT — it’s appropriate to ask what are these grants being used for They are Smaller, but they are in positions of influence, including some courts. ALSO notice the ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT / DISCRETIONARY BLOCK category seems the main category (sometimes being adjusted downward). If I looked only at “NEW” grants for (YRS — “All”, i.e., database goes back to 1995). Notice how active Center for Policy Research is — hardly surprising: JEssica Pearson was a co-founder of AFCC (Per Liz Richards) and this Denve

Grantee Name	City	St	Award	Award Title	Budgt Yr	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0047	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALICIA LUCKIE	$200,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	1	08/30/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	2	12/29/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	3	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	3	01/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
Allegheny County Court of Commons Pleas	PITTSBURGH	PA	90FI0065	COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PATRICK QUINN	$99,978
BALTIMORE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES SVCS	TOWSON	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	06/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PETER J LALLY	$150,815
CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	SACRAMENTO	CA	90FI0008	CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE IMAGING SYSTEM AND DATABASE FOR VOLUNTARY PATERNITY DECLARA	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$180,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0059	EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT	1	06/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR JESSICA PEARSON	$99,926
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/31/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$100,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/25/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$24,730
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	09/03/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$198,664
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$124,820
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	02/22/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	06/26/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/04/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$124,829
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	02/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR NANCY THOENNES	$124,863
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	03/31/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	06/20/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$99,908
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	10/23/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	09/18/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	08/02/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	09/25/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	1	08/30/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	1	09/21/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	-$1
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	2	12/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$0
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	3	09/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CANDACE COWLING	$199,323
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CANDACE COWLING	$124,898
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	03/17/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CANDACE COWLING	$0
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CANDACE COWLING	$124,674
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	08/29/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KARROL MCKAY	$124,938
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	DENVER	CO	90FI0044	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$100,000
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES	NESPELEM	WA	90FI0006	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARLA BIG BOY	$32,800
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC	ALLENTOWN	PA	90FI0048	SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PATRICIA W LEVIN	$177,374
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC	ALLENTOWN	PA	90FI0048	SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	05/04/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	PATRICIA W LEVIN	$99,227
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/25/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHERYL BREAUX	$100,000
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHERYL BREAUX	$50,000
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	01/24/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHERYL BREAUX	$0
Christian Family Gathering	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0038	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADVOCACY INTERVENTION TRAINING – SIPS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIA J JENKINS	$99,895
Circuit Court for Baltimore County	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	04/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PETER J LALLY	-$1,215
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	FRANCINE B GOLDBERG	$100,000
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/13/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	FRANCINE B GOLDBERG	$25,000
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KENT K SMITH	$0
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KENT K SMITH	$25,000
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BEN LEVEK	$99,800
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BEN LEVEK	$24,300
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	11/18/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	06/06/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/02/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BEN LEVEK	$24,300
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/16/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
ECUMENICAL CHILD CARE NETWORK	CHICAGO	IL	90FI0026	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA -1	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DEBRA HAMPTON	$50,000
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT	LAS VEGAS	NV	90FI0030	CHILD SUPPORT & DRUG COURT PROGRAM	1	06/27/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KENDIS STAKE	$50,000
Episcopal Social Services, Inc.	WICHITA	KS	90FI0079	RELIABLE INCOME FOR KIDS COALITION (PRIORITY AREA 1)	1	08/29/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR GAYLORD DOLD	$193,600
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	NANCY LUJA	$79,495
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0009	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$25,864
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	03/28/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	NANCY LUJA	-$29,753
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	NANCY LUJA	-$280
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$200,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	3	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	4	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	1	08/09/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	3	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Florida State University	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0107	USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	KAREN OEHME	$100,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	1	08/19/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$100,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$25,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	2	12/18/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$0
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH	PITTSBURGH	PA	90FI0080	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/01/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ERIC YENERALL	$200,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/24/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIE THEISEN	$100,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0045	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 4	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MELINDA ROMAN	$99,090
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0066	CONNECTING CHILD SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SECURE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR CHILDR	1	06/22/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAREN FROHWEIN	$100,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	10/26/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOE FINNEGAN	$0
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000
IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES	SPRINGFIELD	IL	90FI0007	IMPROVEMENT GRANT	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARTIN D SUTHERLAND	$149,686
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program	EL CENTRO	CA	90FI0051	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARY N CAMACHO	$141,858
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JUAN VEGAS	$100,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/28/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PHYLLIS NANCE	$100,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/18/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
LA ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0015	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GORDON HOOD	$50,000
LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MYRNA MAIER	$170,244
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	2	08/04/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MYRNA MAIER	$248,972
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	2	08/08/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MYRNA MAIER	$0
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	3	08/27/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MYRNA MAIER	$249,781
LIVINGSTONE COLLEGE	SALISBURY	NC	90FI0025	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	01/03/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WALTER ELLIS	$49,668
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL	BELLINGHAM	WA	90FI0019	LIBC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DAVID BUNTON	$129,181
Louisiana Family Council	METAIRIE	LA	90FI0060	LOUISIANA FAMILY COUNCIL	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GAIL TATE	$100,000
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	09/14/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DIANA OBBARD	$544,500
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	07/21/2000	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DIANA OBBARD	-$469,500
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DIANA OBBARD	-$38,000
MARRIAGE COALITION (THE)	CLEVELAND HEIGHTS	OH	90FI0054	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SANDRA G BENDER	$199,994
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0010	PATERNITY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GINA HIGGINBOTHAM	$100,312
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0052	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN LANGROCK	$200,000
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0052	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1	1	08/19/2003	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOHN LANGROCK	-$200,000
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/18/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JANE ALEXANDER	$99,792
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JANE ALEXANDER	$24,805
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	09/21/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TANYA LOWERS	$0
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0032	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	06/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	NANCY CHRIST	$187,550
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$37,500
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	11/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$0
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/22/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RICHARD BRANDT	$98,364
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN SHIRER	$99,996
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	05/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DAWN CONTRERAS	$0
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAWN CONTRERAS	$99,952
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT	LANSING	MI	90FI0064	OCSE’S SPECIAL IMROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BILL J BARTELS	$100,000
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	1	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JANET NELSON	$100,000
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	2	09/28/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JANET NELSON	$25,000
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	ST PAUL	MN	90FI0041	INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH LOW INCOME NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS – SIP	1	02/01/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LAURA KADWELL	$300,000
MONTANA SCHOOL DISTRICT	HELENA	MT	90FI0049	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 3	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BARBARA DELANEY	$149,464
MONTEREY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT	SALINAS	CA	90FI0078	MOBILE CUSTOMER SUPPORT	1	09/02/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JAMES HANSEN	$200,000
MUSKEGON COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BOARD	MESKEGON	MI	90FI0050	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BRAIN P MATTSON	$199,772
Massachusetts Probate and Family Court	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	03/23/2011	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$0
Milwaukee County Dept. of Administration Fiscal Affairs	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	1	11/17/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	JANET NELSON	$0
NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION	BOULDER	CO	90FI0055	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 5	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VINCENT L KNIGHT	$199,887
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS	WILLIAMSBURG	VA	90FI0034	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAY FARLEY	$40,000
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0017	NATIONAL CERTIFICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOEL K BANKES	$48,548
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	02/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$74,900
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	11/06/2002	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	THERESA MOASSER	-$20,982
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	09/21/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	THERESA MOASSER	$0
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0012	JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOY ASHTON	$36,125
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0012	JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT	1	03/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOY ASHTON	-$9,605
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	1	08/19/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOY D ASHTON	$150,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	08/29/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOY D ASHTON	$37,500
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	10/01/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOY LYNGAR	$0
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	03/31/2010	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOY LYNGAR	-$1,203
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0023	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOAN ENTMACHER	$50,000
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0029	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	06/06/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOAN ENTMACHER	$50,000
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0029	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	11/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOAN ENTMACHER	-$50,000
NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0099	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KRISTIN RUTH	$78,842
NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0099	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	03/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KRISTIN RUTH	-$78,842
NC ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0046	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BARRY MILLER	$200,000
NJ ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE	TRENTON	NJ	90FI0028	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	06/12/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALISHA GRIFFIN	$50,000
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$99,830
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	08/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$24,325
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	03/03/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$24,997
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	10/23/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
New York State Unified Court System	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	11/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
New York State Unified Court System	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	12/21/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KATHERINE MCRAE	$100,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	08/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	12/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	04/07/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	08/20/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	04/14/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER	FREDONIA	WI	90FI0067	PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	06/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA	$100,000
OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER	FREDONIA	WI	90FI0067	PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	03/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA	-$100,000
OR ST DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	SALEM	OR	90FI0104	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BECKY L HUMMER	$88,371
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RYLANDA WILSON	$100,000
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	10/14/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	RYLANDA WILSON	-$47,438
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RYLANDA WILSON	$50,000
PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE	TACOMA	WA	90FI0001	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILLIAM VELIZ	$69,531
PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE	TACOMA	WA	90FI0001	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	03/31/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	WILLIAM VELIZ	$69,531
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe	KINGSTON	WA	90FI0018	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DALLAS I DEGUIRE	$50,400
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0002	DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LIEN REGISTRY FOR RHODE ISLAND AND REGION 1	1	09/18/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$149,820
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JACK MURPHY	$149,380
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	2	06/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JACK MURPHY	$41,472
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	3	09/19/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JACK MURPHY	$40,840
SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY MAYOR’S OFFICE	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	90FI0063	INCREASE PARENTAL PARTICIPATION IN ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT AND PATERNITY JUDGEM	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MILTON M HYAMS	$200,000
SAN MATEO CTY DEPT OF HEALTH SCVS	SAN MATEO	CA	90FI0011	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ILIANA M RODRIQUEZ	$97,437
SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RALPH MILLER	$100,000
SC ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0043	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A 4	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	THOMAS L CHRISTMUS	$414,574
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DEB DUNITHAN	$99,896
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/28/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DEB DUNITHAN	$49,934
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/29/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DEB DUNITHAN	$24,991
SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL	AGENCY VILLAGE	SD	90FI0020	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	B. J JONES	$50,000
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/31/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CAROLYN A MYER	$99,703
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	09/05/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN A MYER	$99,962
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN A MYER	$0
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	09/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN A MYER	$98,962
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	06/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN A MYER	$0
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHRIS P NELSON	$59,176
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	12/02/1998	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CHRIS P NELSON	$13,711
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	CHRIS P NELSON	-$48,235
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	03/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VIVIAN L LEES	$78,843
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	VIVIAN L LEES	$60,082
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAVID P POPOVICH	$22,816
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	10/15/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DAVID P POPOVICH	$0
STRIVE DC, INC.	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0035	ASSIST EX-OFFENDERS OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT, COMPLY WITH THEIR CHILD SUPP	1	02/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$75,000
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	07/25/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR ALAN W DOWD	$83,498
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/15/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL	$24,995
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR JAY F HEIN	$24,995
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RALPH MILLER	$25,000
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	01/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	RALPH MILLER	$0
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	08/20/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RALPH MILLER	$25,000
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch	HARTFORD	CT	90FI0068	STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARISSE S HUTTON	$100,000
Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency	AKRON	OH	90FI0109	OCSE DEMONSTRATION	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	JENNIFER BHEAM	$83,330
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	1	08/10/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$145,950
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	NASHVILLE	TN	90FI0058	TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	06/22/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SCOTT SMITH	$123,870
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	01/18/2000	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SCOTT SMITH	$30,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	04/04/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	SCOTT SMITH	-$18,242
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0033	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GARY CASWELL	$196,600
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0033	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1	1	04/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JAMES MOODY	-$90,218
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0056	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 7	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HARRY MONCK	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	1	09/01/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	NOELITA L LUGO	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	2	12/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	NOELITA L LUGO	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ANITA STUCKEY	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	08/08/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	12/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	06/14/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/10/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	1	08/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MRS PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$90,429
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	09/27/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$50,000
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	11/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$0
Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.	TUSCALOOSA	AL	90FI0108	CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	TERESA COSTANZO	$100,000
UNITED MIGRANT OPPORTUNITY SERVICES, INC	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0037	LATINO/HISPANIC COMMUNITY CHILD SUPPORT OUTREACH PROJECT – SIPS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHERYL COBB	$142,626
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHRISTINE YURGELUN	$99,581
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/31/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$48,995
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	DURHAM	NH	90FI0016	CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR. WALTER ELLIS	$49,668
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	DURHAM	NH	90FI0016	CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	01/03/2000	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DR. WALTER ELLIS	-$49,668
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0061	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 6	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LAUDAN ARON-TURNHAM	$100,000
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RENEE HENDLEY	$68,355
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SANDI CRAWFORD	$48,881
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/25/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SANDI CRAWFORD	$33,052
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/29/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SANDI CRAWFORD	$0
VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES	WATERBURY	VT	90FI0062	PROJECT WEB-MED SUPPORT	1	06/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBERT B BUTTS	$100,000
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0005	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ART HAYASHI	$17,171
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0040	OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF	1	02/15/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS	$150,000
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0040	OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF	1	03/12/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS	-$2,013
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0042	NEW APPROACHES TO ENGAGE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OFFENDERS JOB PROG AND PAYMENT OF	1	02/08/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	FRAN FERRY	$175,000
WV ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES	CHARLESTON	WV	90FI0027	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SUSAN HARRAH	$25,597
WY ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION	CHEYENNE	WY	90FI0021	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DAVE SCHAAD	$140,000
WY ST DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES	CHEYENNE	WY	90FI0021	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	2	08/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAVE SCHAAD	$140,000
Womens Education & Legal Fund (CWEALF)	HARTFORD	CT	90FI0036	LOCAL NETWORKS – LATINO COMMUNITY – SPECIAL INITIATIVES PROJECT	1	02/02/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALICE PRITCHARD	$183,313

r-based organization is often working the Child Support Field. The for-profit arm is Policy Studies, Inc. — CPR is the smaller, leaner, nonprofit…This table has 224 rows; I will also upload it here, for easier viewing: ///

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)

with 18 comments

(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.

Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.

This blog discusses

“Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From: “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010 / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit. The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare, against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty. Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed. That’s the game, folks. Promise protection, then fail to deliver. Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit. What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit. To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems. These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, Context of Custody Switch, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Child Support, custody, Due process, HHS-TAGGS grants database, incest, Intimate partner violence, Kids' Turn, men's rights, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

Evaluate, Coordinate, Sow the Seeds of Mother-Hate (a.k.a. How to Accuse a Mom of Alienation)

leave a comment »

Quick review: The purpose of the Family Law system is to engage Marriage Counselors (etc.) into the legal process, and produce ongoing business for mental health therapists, and retirement plans for court-associated personnel.

If you don’t believe that (yet), pls. review this 1966 TIME article, narrating the relationship between Judge Roger Alton Pfaff (who was childless) and Meyer Elkin (counselor) in the experimental “Conciliation” courts whose intent was to prevent divorce by forcing people into counseling who were headed for it:

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1

I am starting to get genuinely angry about the deceitfulness and arrogance of the material put forth in conferences which is designed for application in a custody case. Just because a group of people believe that Psychological Services = Salvation. Rather than, say, “divination” (and with the profits to match).

It’s not just the brazen marketing, and using federal monies to run social science demonstration projects on unsuspecting parents for the amusement (and profit) of the . . . . social scientists and nonprofit corporations that do their biddings. It’s not just the elitist, arrogant mentality behind the therapists (etc.) which scent is caught when one reads the conference jargon with a real-life perspective. And it’s not just the dishonesty throughout the system — although those certainly all figure in.

But yesterday, chasing down the yet another Warshak/Ricci/Stahl/Gardner Kids’ Turn copycat, I found that the Lackawanna County, Pennsylvani AFCC-curricula peddler Dr. Mukliewicz along with Mr. Libassi, M.S., C.R.C., now have (with the help of the Presiding Judge? Wm. E. Baldwin) have gotten Pennsylvania Civil Code of Procedure altered to specify their product as THE mandated parental education curriculum (at least in Schuykill County) whenever a custody or visitation order even THINKs about being filed. This appears to be in addition to some contracts they already have with the County to provide other services.

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-50/2355.html

Title 255—LOCAL
COURT RULES SCHUYLKILL COUNTY

Amended/Adopted Civil Rules of Procedure

[40 Pa.B. 7041]
[Saturday, December 11, 2010]

Order of Court

And Now, this 23rd day of November, 2010 at 11:00 a.m., Schuylkill County Civil Rules of Procedure No. 1915.1(b), 1915.3, 1915.15 are amended and Civil Rule of Procedure No. 1915.3a is adopted for use in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, Twenty-First Judicial District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, effective thirty days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

and…..

WILLIAM E. BALDWIN,
President Judge

Proposed Revisions to Schuylkill County

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1915.1(b). Definitions.

”Kids First.” A four hour orientation and education program established to help parents and other parties in child custody actions to understand the effects of separation, divorce, and family conflicts in their lives and in the lives of their children.

Rule 1915.3. Commencement of Action. Complaint. Order.

(c) In addition to the information required by Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15, every complaint for custody, partial custody or visitation, and every petition for modification of an existing custody order, shall contain the following language:

(1) ”Plaintiff has been advised of the requirements to attend the Kids First program.”

(2) ”Defendant has been advised of the requirements to attend the Kids First program.”

(d) A completed order shall be attached to the complaint or petition which includes a provision that all parties attend the Kids First program and the Custody Conciliation Conference which shall be in substantially the form set forth in Sch.R.C.P. 1915.15. All parties named in the pleadings must register for and attend the Kids First program as ordered.

Rule 1915.3a. Kids First Program.

(a) The Court Administrator shall determine the dates, times, and location of the Kids First program.

(b) The name, address, and contact information for the presenter of the Kids First program are: Anthony J. Libassi, 200 Adams Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503, (570) 558-1002, (toll free) 888-215-7445, and www.libassimediation.com.

(c) Brochures and registration forms for the Kids First program will be available at the Custody Office, Schuylkill County Law Library, and the Prothonotary’s Office.

And, in these jurisdictions, whenever your estranged spouse, ex, or the mother (or father) of your child wants to officially modify anything regarding custody, the first step is now to pay up (or else) and sit through this class. I’d bet (if I were a betting woman) that this class is ALSO subsidized by at least one federal grant, and that paying up would represent a double-billing. Which brings me to the wisdom that the word “County” is a derivative of the word “Count’ as in “royalty” as in “fiefdom,” basically. You can take the U.S. out of Great Britain (centuries ago), but I guess you can’t take the royalty mentality/patronage, etc. out of the United States, not entirely. Read on:

Rule 1915.15. Form of Complaint.

(a) In addition to the information required by Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15(a) and (b), each complaint for custody, partial custody, or visitation, or a petition to modify an existing custody order, shall have attached to its front an order in substantially the following form:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR SCHUYLKILL COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION – LAW

_________________ , :

:

Plaintiff, :

: No.: S-

VS. :

:

_________________ , :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this __ day of _____ , 200__ . at __.m., you are hereby ORDERED as follows:

You have been sued in Court to obtain Custody, Partial Custody or Visitation of the child(ren) named in the Complaint.

I. PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM

1. ALL PARTIES NAMED ABOVE SHALL ATTEND AND COMPLETE THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN A CUSTODY ACTION. PARTICIPATION IS REQUIRED WHETHER OR NOT AN AGREEMENT IS SUBMITTED.

2. EACH OF YOU SHALL CONTACT ”KIDS FIRST” WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS ORDER TO SCHEDULE AND REGISTER FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE PROGRAM IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION OF THIS ORDER, CONTEMPT CHARGES AGAINST YOU SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COURT.

TO SCHEDULE AND REGISTER FOR THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM CONTACT ANTHONY LIBASSI BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) internet: WWW.LIBASSIMEDIATION.COM

(b) telephone: 570-558-1002
888-215-7445 (toll free)

(c) mail: ANTHONY LIBASSI
200 Adams Avenue, First Floor
Scranton, PA 18503

YOU ARE EACH REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE OF FORTY DOLLARS ($40.00) DIRECTLY TO THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.

3. LOCATION OF ”KID[s] FIRST” PROGRAMS:

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURTHOUSE
401 N. 2nd STREET
POTTSVILLE, PA
PHONE: 570-341-2007

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN FINES, IMPRISONMENT OR OTHER SANCTIONS.

{{First things first. FIRST — go consume our product, not even based, probably, on original ideas. It’s a “Kids Turn” knockoff, I”ll bet…. based on whose other books are advertised at “Kidsfirst.cc” in Dunmore, PA:}}

II. CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE

You are ordered to appear in person at the Custody Conciliation Office, of the Schuylkill County Courthouse on ______ , for a Custody Conciliation Conference.

You are further ordered to bring with you the fully completed conciliation questionnaire provided by the Court.

If you fail to appear as provided by the Order, and Order of Custody, Partial Custody or Visitation may be entered against you or the Court may issue a Warrant for your arrest.

A little more found on these two individuals (and their services) here:

– – – – – – – – – – –

Welcome!
The Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth & Family Services is a statewide organization of private agencies. Our members are the service providers who provide the direct “hands-on” programs and supports needed to achieve and maintain permanency and safety for children and youth and stability for families. The safety and well-being of Pennsylvania’s children and their families have long been held as priorities by private agencies who share a deep commitment to keeping children safe, families strong, and communities involved.

Our Mission Statement
To improve the quality of life for Pennsylvania’s children, youth, and families who are at risk by supporting and promoting an accessible service delivery system within our communities.

It’s all about service delivery, of course… This is becoming common, to have affiliated groups coordinated by website and networking: An organization (or nonprofit) can become a Member, a Friends Member, or an Affiliate Member. This appears to focus on: foster care, adoptions, and behavioral health, placements, etc. So that’s who put out this:

A “Needs based plan and narrative template” (FY2011-2012) for “OFFICE OF YOUTH & FAMILIES” (Pennsylvania) tells more about these two Kids First marketers

Chet Muklewicz (AFCC) & Andrew Libassi (probably) are between them among the 4 largest CCYA or JYO service providers for Lackawanna County. It is a “budget narrative” for the county to request monies for the service providers & contractors, i.e. “

“The following pages provide a template for counties to use to complete the narrative piece of the 2011-2012 Needs Based Plan and Budget.”

THis also focuses on dependency hearings, although as we see Libassi is quite “in” on the custody hearings, with or without abuse allegations already.

The clinical unit also supports the county Family Court practice of returning to court within 45 days of the initial dependency to adopt a family service plan. All initial plans presented at dependency are related to completion of diagnostic assessments to better formulate a meaningful plan. This process is designed to both engage the family in the development of the plan and avoid plans of meaningless generalization.

They are the two largest providers of in-home services in Lackawanna County:

Review the Schedule of Existing Purchased Services and identify the four largest providers (regardless of whether it is a CCYA or JPO provider) as follows:

Two largest providers of In-Home Services. Include contact information. (displays better on the pdf, search for the name):

1: Libassi Mediation Service Children served: 168 $$ amount of services: $197,712

2: Chet Muklewicz, Ed.D Children served: 49 $$ amount of services: $120,000

Briefly summarize the services provided by these entities, the expected outcomes of those services, and how provider performance is monitored.

Libassi Mediation Services coordinates all dependency and non dependency mediation. In addition, the service provides the service planning coordination for all three Intensive Reunification Courts.

Chet Muklewicz, Ed. D provides the Family Peace Program for the Status Offence Court. This is a Parent Education program that teaches or restores parental hierarchy in the family. It has been largely successful in reducing the number and duration of placement for ungovernable, and/or truant youth.

Dr. Muklewicz must file statistics showing youth in instruction, time in Status Offence Court, days of out of home placement if any.

The Kids First program relates to custody — not dependency– hearings. However, it’s also being marketed in Kentucky, through the Kentucky courts:

Kentucky Court of Justice (Banner Imagery) - click to go to homepage.

Kids First: Children Coping with Divorce and Family Conflict

Kids First program is designed for parents to help their children cope with separation, divorce, and family conflict.

Parents are presented with information about how parental relationships have a direct effect on the children and how children might respond at different ages. Parents learn that parental conflict hurts children and, more importantly, learn what they can do to help their children to adjust to the changes in their family.

For additional information, contact Kids First, 1527 Adams Avenue, Dunmore, PA 18509 or 570-341-2007

I’ve seen a lot of court-mandated programs around, but Kentucky seems to have the full panorama, including extorting Dads in arrears to participate in “Turning it around” classes where they can learn “to be a man,” and other useful information, such as sexual responsibility and co-parenting. I’m sure a 12-week class is likely to change a person’s sexual habits. …. But they are extorted into it (or, go back to jail) like the separating parents in PA:

“Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support cases.

The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting. Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing.

(It too, probably has some acess-visitation type funding behind it, and a nonprofit by Lord knows whom involved. This Kentucky state site has links eleven (11) Divorce Education classes, probably with coordinators (county-paid or state-paid) for each. I wonder for which nonprofits….)

How are people in Kentucky going to take a class run out of Pennsylvania — a cross-the-border commute? Or is it a pre-packaged curricula that Dr. Muckliewicz and/or Mr. Libassi can profit from separately, while running their own dependency service programs and functioning as faculty at the local college? Or is a royalty pulled each time it’s run — what’s up?

Here’s a local writer talking about a (different) local “Kids 4 Kash” scheme involving a single guardian ad litem (Danielle Ross) getting cases — $600 from parents upfront — and how, somehow, this county, almost 100% of the kids get a GAL: http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/t42441326/kids-4-kash-danielle-ross-guardian-atty-nancy-barresse-and-c/

I’m going to print that commentary here:

Typically, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed in Family Court matters where a child is at risk due to a crisis within the family structure. In most counties across the state, about 5 – 8 percent of all family court cases has a Guardian appointed to make sure that at-risk child(ren) have access to legal representation of their own. It’s a good idea and it often saves children from abuse. In all other counties, there is a list of attorneys to select from.

However, in Lackawanna County, the appointment rate of a Guardian is nearly 100% of all family court cases. And, there is no list from which to select. There’s one Guardian that gets all the cases. It’s been that way since Harhut took over Family Court.

For years now, Family Court judges have appointed Atty. Danielle Ross as the Guardian in practically every single case. About a dozen cases a week are handed to Ross on a silver platter. The parents have to immediately cough up $600 as her fee, plus she tacks on heavy fees once she’s on board if she’s called upon for a recommendation in a custody proceeding. Ross picks up about $7200.00 a week, every week of the year, and it’s been going on like that for years, which why she drives a bevy of exotic cars and takes non-stop vacations.

{{more than one income stream, county-mandated services, county-paid salary, plus what else?}}

90% of the families have no crisis situation that requires her presence. Some families have kids under five years-old who are not at risk of any abuse, yet they are ordered to pay Ross $600.00 anyway. Ross gets a salary from the county, plus a free county office, free phone and utilities and a free county secretary, even though she’s easily good for half-a-mil a year, year after year.

Then, there’s the quality of her work. Having so many cases, she’s often very difficult to access when problems arise. Once appointed, it takes her weeks to make contact with the family. In fact, she’s required to inspect every house, which she can’t possibly do, so she sends her county-paid secretary, Sue, with no qualifications, to inspect these houses and the family pays her an additonal $100.00, which, by the way, is required to be paid to Sue only in cash.

Ross has a history of making custody recommendations to the court that are extremely politically motivated. She meets with children as little as 5 – 6 years old and interrogates and manipulates them to get them to agree to certain custody conditions that certain “political” litigants want. She’s personally serviced many county employees or cronies to get them a customized custody order, because the judge of the day follows her recommendations. I have some of those outrageous orders in my possession. There are many very angry parents who want Ross’ head on a stake, to say nothing of lawyers on the business end of her biased and unjust recommendations.

Claire Czaykowski is the Court Administrator for Family Court. She’s Harhut’s former tipstaff. He appointed her upon his appointment as President Judge. Claire gets certain cases scheduled before certain judges to make sure the “right” judge hears the “right” cases. If you call Family Court, in fact, it’s Danielle Ross’ voice that welcomes you to Family Court.

{{Case-steering, in other words. it’s a network of interlinked associations…}}

If anyone has a Family Court case involving Danielle Ross, wherein they are unhappy with Ross’ recommendations and the Court’s Custody Order that was issued as the result of it, I’d like to hear from you. I’m in possession of quite a few now, but the more the better.

This Kids for Kash Scheme needs to come to a halt. It’s time to end Ross’ Cash Cow days. Rumors of her paying kickback are out there, but I can’t prove anything, yet. That’s yet. If a Guarian Ad Litem is needed, that’s all well and fine, but in most cases kids are not at risk and the family does not need Ross’ interference or expensive fees for nothing.

And the link contains the feedback, including that this woman drives a $145K Mercedes, and doesn’t even do her own work, but hires others out to do so. AMong the comments:

Ourtraged parents have had to be dragged out of the courtroom over complaints about recommendation made by Ross. On top of the $300 each parent has to pay, Ross then bills at $200 an hour for talking with the family. She likes being alone with the kids and asks them very compromising questions to help steer her findings to assist who she likes in a custody case. The woman knows nothing about what’s best for kids, only what’s best for who’s best friends with the court system.

Different venue, sounds like the same behaviors….

This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.). Public Service? This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.

It goes on:

Counsel and litigants without counsel are ORDERED to immediately consult their schedules for conflicts and to promptly request a continuance where necessary because of a prior attachment or emergency situation. ALL requests for a continuance of a Custody Conciliation conference must be made on the APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE form available from the offices of the Court Administrator, Custody Conciliator or Prothonotary in the Schuylkill County Courthouse. The application must be filed in the Custody Conciliation Office. A continuance will be granted only upon good cause shown.

The moving party shall immediately serve on all interested parties a copy of the original pleading, this order, ”Kids First” registration and information, and a custody conciliation questionnaire; and shall further file an affidavit verifying service.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: The Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any program, hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-2355. Filed for public inspection December 10, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

This concept didn’t just appear fully-formed in the brain of this judge, this county, or these mediators; it was circulated among professionals with decades of experience requiring others to consume their product, get business referred to their nonprofits, and doing this at public AND private expense, and through the courts.

why do I think this is probably a Kids Turn knockoff? Call it feminine intuition, or that I happen to live in California where a man running for judge, who started a Kids First of Orange County (aka Orange County Welfare Coalition, a nonprofit) simply said he modeled it after Kids Turn:

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/gerald-l-klein-for-judge/

Among his accomplishments, he founded Kid’s First in 1996. It is a program for separated or divorced parents and their children. Both parents attend this 8 week course together with their children to help the kids cope with changes in the family.

Klein has been practicing law for 33 years and has sat as a temporary volunteer judge in Orange and Los Angeles counties since 1981. He is active in the community and he also teaches Family Law and Community Property as a part-time professor at a local law school. Although I only witnessed his expertise in family law, he is familiar with many types of law as he had a general practice in his early years.

“The Story of “Kids First”

The History

The “Kids First” program is a project of the Orange County Welfare Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation started by Attorney Gerald L. Klein and Attorney Ruth Shapin, MFT, in 1975. Through 1990, the coalition assisted individuals in obtaining governmental entitlements including social security and supplemental security disability benefits.

Left to right: Robert Schuler, Gerald Klein, Sara Doudna and Ruth Shapin, along with Kids First Staff members

Recognizing the need for a program focusing on the needs of children whose parents are separated, in 1995 Attorney Klein began looking for such a program. In 1995, he learned of the “Kids Turn” program in San Francisco which dealt with families going through divorce. The coalition adopted their idea and curriculum. Sara Doudna, MFT, became the Clinical Director, expanded upon it, and “Kids First” was born.

In 1996, “Kids First” became operational.”

Ms. Doudna-Klein (she married him??):

have worked extensively for twenty years with addiction problems and with individuals, couples and families in recovery. I am familiar with all forms of addiction but am most experienced with alcoholism. Ten years ago I co-founded a non-profit program for families in divorce. I am familiar with the issues that affect all members of a family during the divorce process. I am also experienced in the assessment and treatment of “Parental Alienation”.

Mrs. Sara Doudna-Klein, LMFT, Marriage & Family Therapist in Huntington Beach

Situations

involving divorce

Check out Kids First

A Program Helping Family in Divorce

http://www.kidsfirstoc.org/

Positive co-parenting
Single Parenting
Parental Alienation
Parent-Child Reunification
Blended Families

Or on another site: ” I am clinical director and co-founder of this nonprofit program called “Kids First”. Gerald L. Klein, Family Law Specialist founded the program in 1997. Since that time, we have served the community of Orange County and surrounding areas to make a difference in the lives of the parents and kids in the process of divorce.”

These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.

and overall would be Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and perhaps may be with, however, the habit of actually legalizing this behavior may compromise it from being prosecuted under RICO. Also, if it were fully explored and prosecuted, as I may just about to show, it would possibly not clean up, but also completely empty out the family law system Justice = Therapy-dispensing monopoly of judges, mediators, certified family law specialist, and all kinds of psychologist, from J.D.-endowed Psy.D.s to the lowly man or woman who paid up the latest AFCC-approved parenting coordinator, or mediator, or supervised visitation center training course.

Cleaning up the racketeering element of AFCC might end up shutting down the system, because it is probably (at this point) not possible to separate the private nonprofit association, “Association of Family & Conciliation Courts” from the concept (and practice) of family law, at all. this is such a fixture of our society that people forget it had an origin, and at one time, did not exist. This origin was NOT by public, grassroots demand, but it was (like most oppressive systems) from top-down; by highly placed legislators, judges, and/or others who got a law passed, started practicing, and then expanded.

On the other hand, passive inaction will just send the US economy downhill faster –a situation for which those who’ve been marketing these things will be in a better position to handle than those they force to consume their products. At least they know how to operate businesses, reduce taxes, and even in some cases do it under the radar, avoiding taxes and dumping the real social needs of society (housing, food, water, the ability to defend onesself and one’s property — or to own property or assets of any sort) on those already hardest hit.

The RICO link, above, explains how the law began in the 1970s to stop the Mafia, in 1980s was applied to more individual situations, and in the 1990s the federal government sought to restrict this use:

During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations.”

That said, let’s note that two judges in PA were convicted of this, recently — in Luzerne County; “Kids for Cash” scheme. And I cannot think of a better descriptive word, given the powerfully-connected (judges are members) and internet-connected, conference-churning, international, and training-oriented private “nonprofit” organization called “the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” — particularly when the associated network of nonprofits working with it are considered. Talk about undue influence! People who are subjected to this treatment routinely call it “Mafia” or refer to extortion, which I believe overall, the practices are. Doesn’t that last one sound like extortion (though only for $40, do the math X how many divorces and custody modifications…..)? Why, for example, shouldn’t someone besides Libassi Mediation be able to run a simple Kids First class? And what happened to Dr. Chet? Has he got his own line of business with the county now?

HOW I”M GOING TO SPLIT UP THE 17,000-WORD POST:

I AM GOING TO JUST “CUT & PASTE” INTO DIFFERENT POSTS. THIS IS NOT CALLED EDITING, IT’S CALLED, I GUESS, MACHETE CopyEditing.

ONCE THE BASIC INFORMATION IS OUT, I DO NOT FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP PUBLISHING AND BLOGGING IT — CAVEAT EMPTOR CUSTODY COURTS. THEY ARE BASICALLY (ANYMORE) PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ENTERPRISES WITH A VENEER OF PUBLIC LEGITIMACY. THOSE WHO DON’T TAKE TIME TO LOOK ARE PASSING THE BUCK TO THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TO, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T SO FORTUNATE IN LIFE (OR COURT) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DODGE THIS RACKET.

Jesus Christ said, long ago, “the poor you have always with you…” It’s obviously that the leadership of the US has figured this out, and made plans with how to control them through a variety of institutions, lest they riot, or there be another civil war. Also, to keep a substantial enough portion of people desperate and competing for jobs they are underqualified for, while promising them more help through reforming the public education system, run as a monoply anyhow, etc. Bread & Circuses..

Yesterday, I compiled, but didn’t publish, a triple-sized post, explaining the relationship between AFCC, Parental Alienation, High-Conflict (talk) and Parenting Coordination. And the absolute mother-hatred in a certain parenting coordination handbook, which is standard. I also show (and it’s obvious to those who look) that state borders (and at a certain level, state laws) are becomign meaningless when, for example, an Ohio Supreme Court Task Force (date: 1999), heavily AFCC-stacked, and lifting portions of its “tasks” wholesale from AFCC leaders — decides, in studying how to reform child custody — to simply fly its personnel out to Arizona and attend and AFCC conference. Again, this was about 12 years ago and NOT blogged by domestic violence advocates.

If I am able to complete the series on the Ellen Pence/Casey Gwinn (I.e., DV advocate / Family Justice Center) connections, I believe this will show an educated (researched) “guess” as to why NONE of the Domestic violence coalitions and primary ‘battered women’s” advocate generally blog, report, publish, or scrutinize the AFCC, OR the fatherhood grants system, (and its religious connections). One of them (Center for Judicial Excellence) has made a habit of not doing this (though they are informed of it, as are many others) until very recently, I heard. And probably because a few bloggers continued to “out” them for failling to address it.

Mainstream, professionalized groups have their rhetoric set in stone, pretty much — and simply do not follow the money, or report to the general public on the conference circuits. These posts are “Public Service Announcements.” I am one (networked) person reporting certain themes. I do not have an editorial staff and am not paid for my time here, as a whistleblower. I write what I see, and I see a lot. The alarm is definitely appropriate.

INDIANA & AFCC

Indiana has lots of Justice. In fact, it has TWO Justice Centers from the Casey Gwinn/Gael Strack/GWBush Initiatives Alliance.

But this is about its AFCC-State Government connections (which, FYI, the Kids First & Kids Turn concept is).

Indianapolis, on the other hand, did it differently, and rather than going through the expense of flying its judges OUT, simply decided to invite AFCC to hold their fall conference locally. This is from the Domestic Relations Committee, June 2009 meeting:

Domestic Relations Committee / Judicial Conference of Indiana / Minutes June 12, 2009

…

1. Members present. Craig J. Bobay, Francis G. Hill, Karen M. Love, Sheryl L. Lynch, Nanette K. Raduenz, Deborah J. Shook, Dean A. Young and William C. Fee, Chair, were present.

2. Staff present. Jeffrey Bercovitz and Anne Jordan provided the committee with staff assistance.

3. Guests present. Amber Njau, Project Analyst; Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director, Child Support Bureau; Karla Mantia, Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, were also present.

4. Minutes approved. The minutes for the May 15, 2009 meeting were approved.

5. Draft child support guidelines. Committee members reviewed comments submitted by topic area:

a. The Health Insurance Premium Worksheet (HIPW) and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was reviewed. The committee made changes to ease the preparation of the HIPW. b. Members of the committee agreed all commentary should be italicized in the child support guidelines. c. The “Child Multipliers” commentary was revised in the Support Guidelines and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was revised to encompass eight (8), not just five (5) children in accordance with the amounts from Dr. Venohr.***

[[Dr. Jane Venohr runs nonprofit Center for Policy Research, along with Jessica Pearson et. al, and I believe also works for PSI, its nonprofit arm. These two organizations are all over the HHS grants circuit, and found publishing and promoting access visitation policies. She is active in child support matters…See my last post.]]

6. Domestic Relations Conference.

a. Anne Jordan reported the two-day domestic relations conference in the areas of child development, family dynamics, custody and visitation is scheduled for November 19-20, 2009 in Indianapolis. Committee members suggested the following topics:

(1) The economy’s effect on the family, e.g. mortgage foreclosure, high layoff rate, and the court’s ability to respond to a crisis if its staff is reduced.

(2) Professor Marcia Klien-Pruitt, Connecticutt, to speak on family dynamics.**

[[**Mis-spelled, Marcia Kline-Pruett is AFCC presenter, with her husband Kyle, and discussed later]]

(3) Child-Informed Mediation, where a psychologist interviews a child and brings this input this into mediation.

(4) Court ordered investigations in custody disputes. Some courts use a guardian ad litem for this purpose, to investigate mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and criminality.

b. Committee members discussed having the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) hold their fall symposium in Indianapolis in November 2011 and the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent on the two-day domestic relations conference on having Indiana judges attend the AFCC fall symposium in Indianapolis. Magistrate Bobay moved to have the Judicial Center contact AFCC about holding their fall symposium in November 2011 in lieu of the two-day domestic relations conference, with the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent to have Indiana judges attend. Magistrate Raduenz seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

As I see from the Feb 18, 2011 minutes (thanks for publishing them, guys….) the networking with AFCC is going to continue:

This time there was a different set of guests:

“3. Guests present. Stuart Showalter,** Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates, and Craig Scarberry were also present.”

{{The links are relevant: both are fathers’ rights advocates;

Showalter characterized as former “Neo Nazi Skinhead” and in some trouble with the law (as a youth) for it. Later, he is found blaming a woman for her own stabbing death — because she sought a restraining order. She was stabbed to death in front of her two daughters, 8 & 12 Here’s the quote, just so we have a grasp on who was a Guest at the Indiana Judicial Conference this past February:

The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters. The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.

Angela Warnock’s use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father *of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.

(Showalter’s comment was June 2009. Note: obtaining a restraining order is sign of parental alienation. wonder where that concept came from. It has nothing to do with protection, obviously — just using for an advantage in divorce. (the concept that perhaps her desire for divorce may have had to do with violence to start with doesn’t seem to have occurred to him…..)

Craig Scarberry (unfamiliar to me) had custody reduced because he became agnostic, after being formerly Christian. Plans for fathers’ rights rally in Marion County… Another article from “the democratic underground” asks whether(I DNK….) this was the same Scarberry who sued the City of Chicago (etc.) on the same grounds, for interfering with the distribution of gospel tracts with “Repent America”: link shows the pleading: including the Statement of Facts, which begins ”

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Plaintiffs are Christians who regard the Bible as God’s literal authority. In keeping with this sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they are obligated to tell as many other people as they can about what they believe is their individual need to be “born again,” that is, to be reconciled to God. This comes only by believing that Jesus Christ is God,{{i.e., Trinitarian, which founding fathers primarily weren’t}} and that Jesus suffered and died on the cross (and was resurrected from the dead subsequently) to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity, particularly those individuals who will believe in him; and who seek healing and forgiveness for and deliverance from their past, present, and future personal sins—“sins” being defined as transgressions of the binding commands of the Bible.)

Just including to show the mindset of someone who would attempt to “witness” in a legal pleading. Probably the same Scarberry, although, who knows? If so, he first proselytized FOR his beliefs God and then, disgruntled, for how his agnosticism shouldn’t be held against him. While it indeed shouldn’t, either line of thinking wouldn’t affect his position regarding father supremacy, most likely..or that it’s appropriate that his current beliefs be inflicted on others…. These two are not the major concern, they are two guys with a cause who sat in on a judicial conference. It’s the conference we should be most concerned about, and this style of decision-making within government.

This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting concluded peacefully:

10. Future meeting dates. Committee members agreed to meet again on Friday, March 18, May 20, July 15, August 19, and November 18, 2011 from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Judicial Center. They also agreed to meet in conjunction with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Meeting in Indianapolis on Oct. 27-29, 2011 in Indianapolis.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Bercovitz, Director Juvenile and Family Law

= INBRED with AFCC. So who ARE they, anyhow? What do they DO? (well, since you asked, I’ll keep posting….)

I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?

And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..

While an Indiana conference, or a Schuykill County parenting education mandate may not seem to relate to you — it does. We are a networked country, and the networks are to be watched. When not “nipped in the bud” these things only expand — and they are inappropriate tolls on the highways of life.

Would you trust this kind of back-door dealings with your life, or your children’s future? Do you want others — judges, psychologists, economists, and mental health practitioners (working together) to do the heavy thinking for you, so long as they leave you alone for a while? Even after they’ve been proven corrupt several times already?

(California’s illegal benefits to judges — legalized. Luzerne County, PA judges — sending adolescents to camps in which they had a vested interests, violating their rights and disrupting their and their parents lives . . . and here’s another post on some Pennsylvania court-based toll-gating with another individual:

To be continued …

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 15, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Lackawanna County, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Andrew Libassi (KidsFirst Lackawanna Co PA), Chet Muklewicz (AFCC-PA), Indiana Judicial Conference Domestic Relations Committee aka AFCC outfit, Jeffrey Bercovitz (IN), KidsFirst, KidsFirst-1996 (Orange & L.A. Counties-California), Pennsylvania Council of Children, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT RULES (mandated Parenting Class), Stuwart Showalter shows up, Supervised Visitation, Youth & Family Services (and Libassi-Muklewicz Contracts with them)

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C3073670	01/16/2008	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528	05/13/2005	ACTIVE	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	PATTY HOWELL
C2790720	06/09/2006	ACTIVE	OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS	DARRYL HARRISON
C2494811	01/06/2003	DISSOLVED	THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	TAMARA ILICH

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0046	MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 2,500,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,500,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0047	TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,163,684
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,163,684

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0027	STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,780,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,780,000

Page Award Actions Count: 50				Award Actions Amount for this Page:			$ 48,511,440
Total of 70 Award Actions for 60 Awards				Total Amount for all Award Actions:			$ 60,296,527

Services:	Information and referral; Other
Victims Served:	Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims
Counties Served:	Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns
Circuits Served:	4, 8, 7
Fee:	Yes; sliding scale for Family Law clients.
Hours of Service:	Please see website for hours of operation.
Web Site:	http://www.fncflorida.org

_________________ ,	:
:
Plaintiff,	:
:	No.: S-
VS.	:
:
_________________ ,	:
:
Defendant.	:

Archive for the ‘Parent Education promotion’ Category

… [2021 update: I never merged the blogs; the other one still seems functional, so links provided here should work… It’s still good to know about…//LGH]

SHARE THIS POST on...

Warning:

Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest.*

INSPIRATION FOR THIS POST:

First, the public face — clearly this is a hot shot, and professionally alert group:

Welcome, from the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists in California, an independent association of California attorneys who specialize in family law.

Domestic Violence Sites on the Worldwide Web

Access to Visitation Grant (which redirects to the AOC courtsite, and a persistent person might be able to locate the information on this program).

A.P.A.R.T. The website reads “parentalabductions.org” the Banner reads “Wives’ Tales’ and it’s simply about single-parenting tips.

Family Law Trial Court Proceedings

Consensual Dispute Resolution

OK, now that the very active ACFLS cannot ? show its origination, as claimed, in 1980 as a legitimate California corporation, but rather it was incorporated in 1995 (at least the one with “, Inc.” after its name is the only one I could find on SOS site) here’s the Charitable Registration:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

+ + + + + + +

I have a question. In fact, several questions:

Dr. Stephen Doyne Has Been Involved In 3,000 To 4,000 San Diego Custody Cases

Speaking of “Going Abroad”. . . .literally and allegorically

Healthcare Districts, Associations of Healthcare Districts and their Watchdogs:

How to Use a Squat Toilet (Frank Burres in Worldhum, 9/25/06)

“Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest”

Mt. Diablo Health Care District lawyer billed beyond board limit

The STOP Program: Understanding & Treating Domestic Violence 40-HOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TREATMENT PROVIDER CERTIFICATION COURSE

NRFCBI

GOFBCI

NCJFCJ

or 5-letter ones such as I’m going to profile today

ACFLS (“Inc.”)

Let’s try:

FBI searches Lackawanna County (Pennsylvania) court administrator’s office

SHARE THIS POST on...

NOPE. It is different. So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):

Rodney Erickson: Clean House!

NOW —

ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)

READ MORE www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

FBI searches court administrator’s office

– – – – – Or (just one last one!):

WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)

Conciliation Courts

FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)

OK, Let’s review this: COUNTY (financial) vs. STATE (pays judges) responsibilities and associations:

Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?

“CONCILIATION COUNSELING: THE COURT’S EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING VISITATION AND CUSTODY DISPUTES“

Abstract

WHAT I WAS NOT TOLD — EVER — BY ANY COURTHOUSE I ENTERED< ANYWHERE< OR ANY MEDIATOR:

WERE YOU? WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?

WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF YOU HAVE A CUSTODY DISPUTE?

L.A. Divorce Blog (Nov. 24, 2009)

While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated. Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:

(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.

She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts. As also explained (again, long ago) on

To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.

SO, ABOUT THIS BLOG:

Montgomery Street Barracks

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded. They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.

Assenblymember Ammiano Names Esta Soler as ‘Woman of the Year‘

MINNESOTA-STYLE DV ORGANIZATIONS

Brownback program promotes marriage

Focus on the Family

Yes they are! Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:

2009-02-2

2006 Budget

Historical funding

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

The STOP Program: Understanding & Treating Domestic Violence
40-HOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TREATMENT PROVIDER CERTIFICATION COURSE

Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow
(etc.)