I could easily talk about the upcoming “Fathers’ Day” weekend, either in terms of worshipping it, or discouraging the worship of this ideology (or any other).  Or I could talk, I suppose, about the imminent “schools’ out” — as are thousands of California prisoners.  After all, overcrowding and boxing & controlling often segregated by race & wealth populations is a definitely a common factor.

[Photo of inmates crowded into a gym at a prison in Chino in 2007 via AP]

By Ryan Tate, May 23, 2011 2:53 PM

Here’s an advisory for prospective summer visitors to California: The state must release around 32,000 prisoners under a new Supreme Court decision to help mentally ill inmates. It is one of the largest prisoner releases in U.S. history. Exciting.

Citing the state penitentiaries’ horrific overcrowding and high suicide rate, the high court upheld an order to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity from 200 percent in recent years, translating into a release of around 32,000 people. It’s not clear how many of those people will come straight from mental treatment, but it’s plain that the overcrowding is corroding the minds even among the regular population.California prisoners have been living in gyms up to 200 at a time, and as many as 54 prisoners have been known to share a single toilet. There is, on average, about one suicide per week, according to a report by the governor’s office.

…Or, a nice photo from 2010, featured in the NYT:

CALIFORNIA REELING

California, in Financial Crisis, Opens Prison Doors

The prison in Lancaster, Calif., has 4,600 inmates, twice the intended number. Some 150 prisoners are held in the gymnasium.
by Randall C. Archibold in NYTimes, published March 23, 2010:

LANCASTER, Calif. — The California budget crisis has forced the state to address a problem that expert panels and judges have wrangled over for decades: how to reduce prison overcrowding.

The state has begun in recent weeks the most significant changes since the 1970s to reduce overcrowding — and chip away at an astonishing 70 percent recidivism rate, the highest in the country — as the prison population becomes a major drag on the state’s crippled finances.

Many in the state still advocate a tough approach, with long sentences served in full, and some early problems with released inmates have given critics reason to complain. But fiscal reality, coupled with a court-ordered reduction in the prison population, is pouring cold water on old solutions like building more prisons.

About 11 percent of the state budget, or roughly $8 billion, goes to the penal system, putting it ahead of expenditures like higher education…
….

To slow the return of former inmates to prison for technical violations of their parole, hundreds of low-level offenders will be released without close supervision from parole officers. Those officers will focus instead on tracking serious, violent offenders.

Some prisoners may also be released early for completing drug and education programs or have their sentences reduced under new formulas for calculating time served in county jails before and after sentencing.

The effort represents a “seismic shift,” said Joan Petersilia, a criminologist at Stanford Law School and a longtime scholar of the state’s prisons.

Public safety concerns have other states rethinking their decisions to save prisons costs by releasing inmates early and expanding parole.

The same red flags are being raised here, but the overcrowding problem dwarfs that of any other state and the budget deficit — $20 billion and climbing — has left lawmakers with virtually no choice but to move ahead. …

Proponents, including Mr. Schwarzenegger’s corrections secretary, Matthew Cate, have stood by the law, calling it overdue and necessary. The state spends, on average, $47,000 per year to house a prisoner. Early estimates suggest the new changes could save $100 million this year.

Gee, $47,000 per year reminds me of  a similar $$$ figure of double-dipping by L.A. County Judges, featured in a “FullDisclosure.net” series of articles on Richard Fine, and retroactively “legalized” in California’s “SBX 211,” which I blogged recently in “What’s Money Got to Do With It?….” post.

This double-dipping has been known about for at least ten years — here’s an article from 2000, LA times, talking about this (although the figure was lower then):

 

If you’re lost, here’s an orderly statement of events on SBX 211 at “tulanelink.com”

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned payments. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into State Budget legislation SBX2 11 without public debate or awareness.  …

{{Well, SB 557 is another one…. time to pay closer attention to our legislators, as best we can.  I know it ain’t easy to keep up with them…..}}

NON-DISCLOSURE & PROSECUTION

Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to judges and their failure to disclose:

The purpose of DISCLOSURE is so that anyone coming before a judge with a cause knows whether the judge as a financial vested interest in a certain outcome.  It is to make sure the judges are not being bribed or influenced.  If they do not disclose, the public doesn’t know if its judge is honest or dishonest.  HONEST judges will disclose, and are responsible to know what they must disclose.  Period.  Honest judges making honest mistakes don’t retroactively vote to immunize themselves against systemic corruption because it’s somehow “for our common good.”   Honestly, we need to stop being “morons united” and figure out what we do — and do not — have in common with our elected and appointed governmental figures.

• “There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A.; there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it…”

• “$46,000 each year is not a small amount; many people don’t make that much all year, and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation.

• “We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively.”

• “There is a criminal doctrine of law that, if you received money you are not entitled to and you keep it, that is considered theft.”

If you’ve heard of “Sterling Norris” (Plaintiff attorney on ‘Sturgeon v. Los Angeles,” which dealt with this issue), did you know he was a former L.A. County District Attorney?   If find this interesting, because a parallel case (between the two of them, Richard Fine ends up jailed 18 months, age 69 — solitary coercive confinement, not the gymnasium variety, above….) was “Silva v. Garcetti, which dealt with another L.A. District Attorney (and his office) illegally withholding millions of collected child support — due the children — in order to retain the interest, and might still be doing this — had they not been caught.  I still don’t know what became of “SIlva v. Garcetti,” but Californians know that around 2000, Child Support Collection (another thing that can land a man – or a woman – in jail, if they are in contempt) was removed from the District Attorney’s office to a Child Support Agency which (from what I can tell) is just as burdensome and not much more ethical — and THEIR “on the take” is from the federal government’s series of grants to increase noncustodial parenting time in the theory (and it IS “theory”) that this will improve collections and make better Dads out of the men.

My ongoing theme, these days, is “Say No to SB 557” which is the California version of further legitimizing the Family Justice Center philosophy which, as I wrote, got its start with a Faith-Based President’s $20 million oomph and some sort of Republican empathy with a San Diego City Attorney (?) who was in hot water over financial matters in his hometown.   I’m not in favor of the family justice center alliance — for one, where’s the justice, apart from the center’s own claims to be providing it?  Show me the money, etc.  When I learned who was behind it in Washington, I was even less impressed.

Then I learned at Ellen & Casey were conferencing and schmoozing (I call it that) — EDUCATING AND TRAINING — and so forth — I believe the whole damn thing is most likely a racket. (I plead the “First” — that’s my opinion.  For what I based it on, read — or do your own research….).

DULUTH- SAN DIEGO – SAN FRANCISCO CONNECTIONS TO WASHINGTON, D.C. (HHS):

Washington DC is the “initiative” and a financer.  Think “House Ways and Means, Appropriations.”    Any federal initiative is a great chance for the resident White House CEO to give his favorites some Czar position, whether it reads on Fatherhood (there is none on mother hood), DOmestic VIolence, “Women and Girls” and I hear now they are pushing for a “Boyz 2 Men” initiative as well, per Washington Post, including among its Board of Directors, Warren Farrell, a powerful spokesperson for the “Powerlessness of Men” as he expressed in 1993 interview to his book about “The Myth of Male Power.”  (I didn’t finish reading the interview and just found the website by search, don’t associate me with whatever else is on that domain):

FARRELL: By getting men to understand what their feelings are, and to express those feeling, and as a result, getting the society to understand what we are doing that is leading men to commit 80% of the suicides, be victims of 3/4 of the homicides, become 85% of the street homeless, most of the alcoholics and gamblers, and over 90% of the prisoners.

We have no problems understanding that blacks are more likely to be the victims of these problems because of the powerlessness of blacks, but when men as a group are victims of each of these problems we cannot conceive that it might be a result of the powerlessness of men.

{{And women start the wars and run Congress, I know  . . . . as can be seen from our major institutions which, though funded through a Congress primarily white males, and many of them run also by males, somehow all these males are mistakenly ruling all the time in favor of females.  SOmething oughter be done about that!}}

With men being so powerless, what better to do than have “a White House Council on Boys to Men”  “A multi-partisan*” committee of nationally known scholars and practitioners [FATHERHOOD practitioners, for the uninformed, but across a variety of fields][what’s a “practitioner, anyhow?  Someone with an advanced degree of some sort?] request that President Obama create a White House Council on Boys to Men….Short term investment, one million.  Long-term savings:  Billions of dollar…” (of course).  For further info, contact Chairman, Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

For who is this mysterious “Commission” self-described as a “Bipartisan Commission of Leading American Authors, Academics and Practitioners” see the roster — it’s basically fatherhood advocates, including many that signed the last “fatherhood manifesto.”

The 2nd listed member of this “Commission” is Sanford M. Braver, Ph.D. (in psychology, what else?) described as:

Dr. Sanford L. Braver has been a Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University since 1970.

For his research on fatherhood, he has receivedFederal grants in excess of $20M, and published over 100 articles and chapters, as well as the landmark book  Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths .His numerous awards include Vice-president Gore’s ReinventingGovernment Award, and both the President’s Award and the Research Award from the Association of Family and Conciliation Court

(Hmm.  See my comments on the CJE Opinion 98-16 from September 1998, here, on AFCC — it’s another private organization, and obviously, has a position on custody given that Dr. Braver got its research award.  Fact is, he can draw grants….)

Described at “The Boys Initiative” (a nonprofit I traced to a Family Foundation in Vienna, VA & New York (i think), but will spare you this time), Warren Farrell organized this commission to start with.  So we ought to read some of his earlier work, found in the infamous (and well known among certain mothers fighting to retain or regain custody of their children) December, 1977 PENTHOUSE article, “Incest, the Last Taboo.”   The blog this is from is called “Kinda Sort Like Almost Similar to Pro-Pedophilia.” but I’m sure the Penthouse article can be found on-line in its entirety.

WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in Penthouse, December 1977, “Incest: The Last Taboo” by Philip Nobile:

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”

Dr. Farrell has two daughters.  I should go interview them (when they turn 18, if they haven’t) as to whether they have been able to live down their famous father’s reputation, and whether they agree with his comments back then. I suppose I could ask Mrs. Farrell, but typically anyone that can stick around for literature like this sort of has to work out a compromise, or buy into it wholesale, I imagine. . . . .  Anyhow, there’s more than one way to sell articles & books and become “leading authors” ; one way is by offending people who then blog it to protest it….

(Bipartisan Commission:  translation:  Republicans and Democrats and even some progressive among the Democrats can unite, as can the religious and the atheist, when it comes to complaining about women have too much power.  After all (says the 1993 article above), were they subject to the draft and forced to fight as infantry on the front lines when they turned 18?  {{If they did, then I suppose the older females would have to breed the next generation of soldiers to die worldwide in combat zones in wars started over . . . . over . . . . . . . [??  See Iraq, Viet Nam, etc.]}}

If it has a logo like this, it MUST be legitimate, right?

As it turns out, Dr. Farrell went and assembled the Commission after he attempted to get in on as advisor to the White House Council on Women and Girls,” as even their own site says:

The proposal for a White House Council on Boys to Men was originally inspired by a discussion initiated by the White House Boards and Commissions Director Joanna Martin to Dr. Warren Farrell, inquiring of [her “WTF” response to?] his interest in advising the White House Council on Women and Girls, given his background with the National Organization for Women.*** Shortly after, Dr. Farrell created a multi-partisan Commission of thirty-four prominent authors, educators, researchers and practitioners to accomplish three goals: investigate the status of boys and their journey into manhood; identify both surface and underlying problems confronting boys and men; create a blueprint toward solutions. This proposal is the result.”

A problem-free society as designed by White House Councils on this and that — what a vision….

The White House Council on Women and Girls was created by Executive Order in 2009, and promptly, Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s right-hand woman, not counting Michelle) got the title role, appropriate for someone who, and her connections, were  influential in helping him get to the White House to start with.)

The White House Council on Women and Girls, has as its members the head of every federal agency and major White House office, so that everyone shares in this responsibility. The Council is chaired by Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen serves as the Executive Director. By placing the Council in the White House, we not only emphasize its work, but provide a central point for coordination and cooperation with the overall goals of the Administration. This structure is critical because as the President said at the Executive Order signing, the issues facing women today “are not just women’s issues. When women make less than men for the same work, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work harder just to get by.

Like the 2001 Office of Faith-Based initiatives (Bush) and the previous Memorandum re:  Fatherhood (Clinton) these were executive branch directives that helped ‘REDESIGN GOVERNMENT” — which should be voted on, not executive-order-grafted in.  ANyhow, they are here, and while Clinton said all the Federal Government EXECUTIVE Branch agencies, department, and programs should restructure, reconsider, incorporate, evaluate (?) and basically think “Fatherhood” because welfare is biased against men to favor Moms.   That’s going strong, last I heard.   Now, Obama, not to be outdone, continued to play to that audience and make large and increasingly grandiose promises (entailing transfer of funds) to organizations that are “fatherhood” . . . . . has also done it not to “motherhood” (that’s a word he has a mental block with) but to “Women and Girls” and in context, it’s expected that these mothers would not care for their own children growing up, but childcare providers would.  As such, they were women, but they were not really “mothers.”

Here we go with who are the Council on Women & Girls Designees within each department.

Designee Biographies

When the Council on Women and Girls was created, President Obama asked each Cabinet and Cabinet-level Secretary and White House Office to appoint a senior level person within their agency to serve as their designee to oversee the work of the Council. The biographies of those designees are included in this section.

You know I’m going to look at the Dept. of HHS, and we find that it is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, formerly governor of Kansas.  Council MEMBERs = all  Dept. heads, and under that, they have Designees.  The thing about the Secretary of HHS is that she is already by law (Code of Federal Regulations) also enabled to conduct demonstration projects utilizing access/visitation (fatherhood-based) grants, per 45 CFR 303.109, which you can look up yourself at this link (TITLE 45 refers to “Public Welfare”)

303.109 – Procedures for State monitoring, evaluation and reporting on programs funded by Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs.

(b) Evaluation. The State: (1) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs; (2) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising projects as determined by the Secretary.

States wanting these funds (and who wouldn’t in these times?) must take on projects as determined by the Secretary, or whoever pushes these projects to the Secretary of HHS, resulting in authorization. Access Visitation funding goes, for example, (as I can see it) to programs like Paternity Opportunity Program (Shasta County, California) between the Dept. of Child Support Services there and a Hospital District. It references 45 CFR 303.109 and pays $10/person on invoice (From these funds) to provide its information to “Natural unwed mother and father.”  Alternately, the Hospital could NOT sign up with POP and be in violation of a Family Code.  (See 2nd to last & last para on page 1 of 2).

On another note, the Child Support Dept. at least in this county (and in 2010) it says is “34% state and 66% federal.” (Who pays the piper calls the tune.  Sounds like the so-called “Local” Child Support department is primarily federalized at this point…)

Here’s another contract from Tarrant County Texas, accessing these funds and citing this code’s purpose; in Texas, the Office of Attorney General is quite open about its dealings with this grants system, and they indeed endorse and promote fatherhood agenda.

CONTRACT FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION GRANT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

AND TARRANT COUNTY    

ARTICLE 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1.1 PARTIES

Contract No.: 09-00003

This Contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (“OAG”) and Tarrant County (“Contractor”). The OAG and the Contractor may be referred to in this Contract individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

SECTION 1.2 AUTHORITY

This Contract is entered into pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §669b, which enables states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children. …

1.3.2 Source of Funding Funds paid by the OAG to the Contractor under this Contract are Access and Visitation Grant funds

awarded to the OAG by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).

(For a quick review, go to the HHS site (or, I’ve blogged it plenty):  42 U.S.C. §669b, authorizes the grants to states, and 45 303.109 regulates what they can do with the grants.    The Office of Child Support Enforcement (which is under HHS) administers these grants.

Allowable Services

States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

• Mediation
• Development of parenting plans
• Education
• Counseling
• Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
• Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

These are precisely the areas causing trouble in the family law situation, particularly when it comes to criminal matters of child abuse or domestic violence, B UT ALSO in the area where the fathers can be extorted into taking classes they neither want — nor need — which are run by people associated with the courts, i.e., it’s a racket…

That itself is quite a reframing (“redesign?”) of the purpose of these funds which were sold as a way to increase child support enforcement by involving fathers, and thereby, obviously helping solve our nations’ fiscal crises through more “research and demonstration” projects enabled without vote on the authority of one Executive Branch Designee.

Texas, here (Tarrant County, at least) chose to handle the situation by simply paying someone to do the job.  One year, the cost was $45,300 + $500 for conferences:

4.2.2

Table 1. Fiscal Year 2009 (September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009), see Attachment C for Detailed Program Budget

Category Amount Salary $45,300 Fringe 0 Training and In-State Travel 500 Supplies 0  Contractual 0 Other 0 Total $45,800

More Tarrant County Links:

• http://www.newdayservices.org/6991/

• This group in particular seems to be on the Education/Training trend that, say, Kids’ Turn and other educational initiatives are.  Train, train train!  here’s a BBB review of the charity (nonprofit) which lists, among other classes:

• Mission

  NewDay Services for Children and families states it’s purpose is to serve families in Tarrant County by providing Chaplains to the Family and Juvenile Court systems and providing specialized education programs for adults and children, impacted by divorce, juvenile crime, child abuse, neglect and delinquency in child support.

  Programs

  NewDay creates a continuum of care through community service organizations by providing specialized trainings, making referrals, training and using mentors that continue to serve when NewDay’s involvement diminishes. {{i.e., clients that continue to consume services…}}

  KIDS QUEST- a 4 hour activity based program for children of divorce, ages 4 – 12 years old. Designed by a play therapist and child psychologist, its goal is to give children the tools they need to better cope with their changing family due to separation or divorce.

• http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/regions/region06.shtml (review – Newday services also links to them, and of course National Fatherhood Initiative)

Tarrant County Fatherhood Coalition
(a.k.a. Tarrant County Fatherhood Initiative)
Charles Scoma, Chair
Phone: 817.808.3933
Post Office Box 820010
Fort Worth, TX 76182

Mission Statement: A collaboration to strengthen the role of fathers, men and families in the lives of children in Tarrant County.

The Tarrant County Fatherhood Coalition holds meetings and special events focusing on young dads and all fathers. In the past year, their meetings have included training on the PAPA curriculum developed by the Office of the Attorney General’s Child Support Division, and Male Involvement/Male Health issues, job training and job referrals. Annually, they hold a community-wide, collaborative effort to raise awareness about the importance of father’s involvement in the lives of children. The event, “Celebrate Fatherhood,” is held in June to celebrate responsible fatherhood in Tarrant County. Several committees work together for this event to take place.

Given this, I doubt that there is a real need for a “White House Council on Boys to Men.”  why doesn’t Warren Farrell ask some of the existing organizations to given an account of why they haven’t made a real dent in the plight of powerless men, given how much money was dumped on the cause and has been for years?  I mean, every governmental agency (Executive Branch) and millions of funding has been put into every conceivable angle, from parent education, access visitation, chaplains (!) in the courts in Texas, to making sure women aren’t having too many babies on the sly from the Dads (Paternity Opportunity Program), and so forth.   Speaking of my photos at top of this post, there are also fatherhood programs (including some access-visitation related) whose purpose is to connect Dads in Jail with Kids with Dads in Jail.  I don’t mean to slight the obstacle of having a parent in jail, but when they are going in there for things like unpaid child support and then offered a quick-release by engaging in a parent education plan, taxpayer funded, I do have to question the wisdom of this.

Not everyone can be a Coach.  Not every imperfect human being (including divorcing) should have  to sit still and BE coached.  Didn’t we all learn this in Kindergarten, how to play by the rules and share?

More likely, This Bi-Partisan Commission knew a good thing when they saw it, and now wants a piece of the action (as well as continued access to, obviously boys. In the case of any organizations who are soft on incest and hard on women as the real criminals in life, {based on the “eve” model) I would suggest they don’t get more attention than they already have, or funding.

When I start seeing the fatherhood (and boy-) trainers and the anti-violence and woman-trainers conferencing and collaborating together, then I think we have a problem.  Is anyone aware of who these organizations, below, have helped — or how many lives they have saved?

This, too, is from an HHS website.  I have used up my blogging time (and space) again, today, so more on them, later, and how they relate to California needing to release thousands of prisoners because the jails are too crowded…..  Today’s post was more “chatted” than “crafted” and if it provoked some thought, or some “Huh?”s on what’s going on, that’s good enough for now.

RESOURCE CENTERS AND FAMILY VIOLENCE CENTERS

These appear to be more separate than they actually are.  They are quite linked.  Some of them were the visionary (which vision, is debatable), leveraged creation of just a few individuals.   Minnesota Program Development, Inc. (“Duluth Model”) definitely seems to have been this, and it’s obvious that (see post title — but not listed below) the “Family Justice Center Alliance” fit neatly with then-President Bush’s wish to get the faith groups in into service providing centers dealing with child sexual abuse and woman abuse (noted among faith groups to start with….) — as well as Mr. Gwinn’s need for something to do after moving out of the San Diego City Attorney’s Office.    Battered Women’s Justice Project, as well as conferencing with the Family  Justice Center National Alliance (re-arrange words to get the right one — it attended a conference in San Diego) — also collaborated with Association of Family and Conciliation courts (AFCC) recently to reframe [“explicate”]  “domestic violence” when custody is involved.  The AFCC being the primary carrier of “PAS” theory which puts kids back into the custody of an abuser (or, if you’re a Fathers and Family Follower, wrongfully accused maligned, innocent Dads who did NOT commit a crime — even if CPS or a District Attorney’s prosecution convicted them of one in a different forum ).

Either way, “the house always wins”  -because there is a class and a resource center (and now, justice centers) for any situation.

The “Duluth Abuse Intervention Project” in some ways is little different than the smaller (I think) version of Educational Marketer “Newday Services” in Tarrant County, Texas.  Both take advantage of the federal funding stream to market their materials, primarily training populations they get from the courts — and curricula to get the desired results.  The Texas Access Visitation funding  has perhaps a closer alliance with the AFCC  than it seems the Duluth Model did, however — how different, really, is “Batterers Intervention Programs” philosophy from the Parent Education philosophy?  Both believe that training is the key…. and take a lot of funding for it.   In the SF area, there’s the shape-shifting “ENDABUSE.org” which I learned here has no problem marketing to both the “health” side and the ‘Fatherhood” side of domestic violence prevention, all the while ignoring the existence of AFCC in its materials.   The “NCFCJ” below (notice the URLS) is a family law oriented group based in Nevada.

I

National Resource Centers on Family Violence

SAMPLE SEARCHES:

If you go to USASpending.gov and look some of these up, especially if you can get a DUNS# for any of them, you’ll see that they often outshine their competitors (collectively, and some, individually) in the categories of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA, a.k.a., what  you provide the IRS) where they are getting Discretionary, Research and Demonstration, etc. grants.  I’ve posted a few DUNS#s in the last posts.

Some of the groups also have an associated fund-raising group to go with it, as does NCFCJ:

Foundation Center Data on NCFCJ (written out)

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

results:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges	NV	2009	$2,742,133	990	40	36-2486896
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges	NV	2008	$3,329,058	990	52	36-2486896
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges	NV	2007	$3,530,962	990	50	36-2486896
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges	NV	2004	$2,322,334	990	25	36-2486896
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Fund Inc.	NV	2009	$2,278,092	990EZ	14	94-3109663

(SITE notes some problems for IRS receipts in a certain year rang, I think 2007-2009.  The PDF I just looked at for 2002-2003 for the topic entity shows GOVERNMENT SUPport $12 million, PUBLIC support, around $1,000. …  Salaries & wages, $7 million, Program services $5 million, etc.  Contracts and Honorariums, $1+ million etc.  The organization’s address is a PO Box in Reno; its one director (in this year), a man from Sparks, Nevada, and an “E. Hunter Hurst III” from Pittsburg (no “h”), PA  Their mutual pay (granted, it’s a big organization) is a little above and a little below what I heard Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges get (NOT including any double-dipped benefits), i.e., back then $157K for one, and $180K for another.  They are spending most of the $12 million the US granted them — that year — so — the benefits to the public are  ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I decided to look up this “E. Hunter Hurst, III” and found he is/was also Director of a “Providence Service Corporation” out of Tuscon, AZ, and had a masters in social service, bachelors in psychology. The site acknowledges him as director of NCFCJ (1973 til retirement in 2003) and also lists his compensation from Providence, around $70K, plus other fees/benefits.  I think we should know about it.  This was found on a “Forbes” list and I had to get through a Scientology quote to get to this URL:

Hunter Hurst

Independent Director

Providence Service Corporation

Tucson ,  AZ

Sector: HEALTHCARE  /  Specialized Health Services {such as??}

72 Years Old

Hunter Hurst, III has served as our director since December 1996 and chairperson of the nominating and corporate governance committee of our board of directors since May 2005. Mr. Hurst served as Director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice from its founding in 1973 until his retirement in May 2008. The Center (NCJJ)  is the leading resource for juvenile justice research and statistics in the western hemisphere. He has directed over thirty applied research studies and has authored numerous publications relating to juvenile issues. He received his bachelor?s degree in psychology and master?s degree in social work from Louisiana State University in 1960 and 1965, respectively.

Director Compensation (Providence Service Corporation) for 2009

Fees earned or paid in cash

$70,000.00

Who is “Providence Service Corp?”  Well:

PRSC Profile  (Volume appears to be $167 million….)

Providence Service Corporation is a government outsourcing privatization company, which provides government sponsored social services directly and through not-for-profit social services organizations.

Providence Service
64 East Broadway Boulevard
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 747-6600
Fax: (520) 747-6605
Web Site: www.provcorp.com

(IS this a conflict of interest?  What do you think?)

(i.e., the FUND is a separate EIN from the organzation itself, but either way, it’s representing the Family Law industry primarily, only Juvenile will also be dealing with criminal issues.  I’m not knocking this as a resource center — it’s impressive:

When reading the words “family violence department” under this group’s banner, it’s important to acknowledge what they claim to do, and who the organizing entity is — it’s a COUNCIL OF JUDGES — as it says.  They are not a District Attorney’s office, criminal defense or prosecuting attorneys.  The words ‘Family Court” and “judges” should speak loudly:

FAMILY VIOLENCE DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT

The Family Violence Department improves the way courts, law enforcement agencies, and others respond to family violence, while recognizing the legal, cultural, and psychological dynamics involved with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of domestic violence victims and their children.

The Family Violence Department will accomplish its mission by:

1. Providing training;
2. Providing technical assistance;
3. Providing policy development leadership; and
4. Developing cutting-edge products for professionals, victims of domestic, and children.

Domestic violence puts millions of women and their families at risk each year and is one of the single greatest social ills impacting the nation. The Family Violence Department (FVD) of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has advanced social change in courts and communities across the country by providing cutting-edge training, technical assistance, and policy development on issues of family violence. The NCJFCJ’s projects have enhanced the safety, well-being, and stability of domestic violence victims and their children by improving the way criminal, civil, and social justice systems respond to family violence.  Such projects include the:

• Federal Greenbook Initiative;
• National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence;
• Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody;
• Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program;
• The Center for Education on Violence Against Women;
• Full Faith and Credit Project; and
• Enhancing Judicial Skills in Elder Abuse Cases.

The decision to go for Supervised Visitation rather than complete separation from a perpetrator has a history that’s not always public.  The option go for ongoing training is often at public expense — both when the training fails to take effect (or no one mentions the contrary-training coming from other sources).  And, it’s also, being a grants recipient, also to that extent, and being a nonprofit, “at public expense.”  Individuals (not “practitioners”) calling any of these “resource centers” for more than information to download – for actual help — are in for a surprise.  It’s not offered, and even the most persistent will rarely find out the most important information — has your judge disclosed properly?  WHo is administering the federal grants to your local jurisdiction, and is that person involved in your custody case?  Is the judge ruling in a custody case involved in allocating any child-support federal incentives, etc  . . . . .

MPDI same database:

our query: ( Organization Name: minnesota program development inc. , State: “MN” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
6 documents matched. 6 documents displayed.

(but if I search only on that EIN, minus the dashes, nothing comes up….although doing this to NCFCJ, I did get results.)

Search Again

Under the 2005 990 PDF (grants over $4 million, public support, a good deal less) its 501(c)3 is simply “services to prevent domestic violence”  — and listed under “Statement of Program Services Accomplishments” there are 4:

• Battered Women’s Justice Project

Grantsandallocations $ 977 248  ► (Program Service Expenses) $ 2,756,428.

•  DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 283,793.

NOTE:  My studies show that this actually “is” MPDI, from what I can tell… This was the heart of the program to start with.

• MENDING THE SACRED HOOP

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 63,793.

• DAIP TRAINING AND RESOURCES

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 389,470.

• “See Statement 3”

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 735,035.

• TOTAL SPENT (just about $14K more than their revenues, leaving still assets of over $1 million.  )

Books are in the care of a Scott Miller (also one of their trainers, evidently — DNR if I published that post or not).

In this year, the Board of Directors were only 4 (Ellen Pence not being listed, she is associated with another subsidiary group I gather)

Denise Gamache (Search on my blog — she’s sitting over the $3+ million grants to MPDI) Rhonda Martinson, Loretta Frederick (Legal Counsel), Connie Sponsler (Training Coordinator) and Christina Olson.

Loretta Frederick is I believe associated with BWJP, although I could be wrong.  My question being, who are these 4 women (or — the board of directors of ANY nonprofit, for that matter) to drive the agenda that determines whether I, or my children, get to live, or die — by taking money from HHS to insist that a certain model — and the heart of that model being both Batterers Intervention, Supervised Visitation, and a Multi-disciplinary model (called “CCR” ) is the answer to stop violence against — women and children, or for that matter against men, by women?)

Any more than, how come the 6 or 7 women atop another nonprofit based in Denver (Center for Policy Research) should have similar levels of influence, and privilege?

I showed a picture of 202 East Superior in a recent post.  It’s just a storefront in Duluth, Minnesota.  Rather than flying all over, why don’t these people take a simple car ride, next year, over to the Fatherhood Summit (also too place in Minnesota) and report honestly to the public — not just practitioners -on what THEY are doing with our federal funds?

Praxis, International lists two addresses in MN as their nonprofit, and its executive Director is Ellen Pence – it, too, works with OVW grants:

Praxis International

Praxis International, Inc. is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children. We work with local, statewide, and national reform initiatives to bridge the gap between what people need and what institutions provide. Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

Ellen Pence, founder and Executive Director of Praxis, is honored by a collection of articles in the most recent edition of the Violence Against Women journal, for her many years of steadfast work in the battered women’s movement. Congratulations Ellen, and thank you for your lifelong commitment to improving the lives of battered women and their children!

Praxis International, in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), is excited to announce the Blueprint for Safety Adaptation Demonstration Project (Blueprint Project). Praxis will work directly with three selected sites to create customized versions of the Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes; OVW will also provide financial support to the selected sites. Check back for further information.

To purchase a printed copy of the Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes, go to our products page.

As one can see from some of the topics (and note, SUpervised Visitation is an ongoing theme), it’s not about why supervised visitation, but HOW (“practice” ) to do it.  The entire field of Supervised Visitation got a huge boost from applying it to situations of violence between spouses, and Karen Oehme (another “practitioner” and writer, of course) was (is?) head of the Florida Clearinghouse for Supervised Visitation Centers — a concept which DULUTH pioneered.  Naturally, they are going to write about this and publish and sell what they write, one way or another, even if the whole things is heavily federally subsidized under the presumption that it’s a good idea.

http://www.praxisinternational.org/praxis_event_recordings.aspx

Safety During Post-Separation
Loretta Frederick, February 2007

Listen to recording

---

The Intersection of Battering and Child Sexual Abuse
Karen Oehme and Scott Hampton, December 2006

Listen to recording 

---

The Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Sexual Abuse: Implications for Supervised Visitation and Exchange Programs
Karen Oehme, December 2006

Listen to recording

Part 1: Battered Women’s Experience of Visitation and Exchange Centers
Ellen Pence and a panel of women who used visitation centers, May 2006

Listen to recording
These can (and probably will) go on, forever, including until the US debt tops $15 trillion, which it is heading towards.  No matter.  there’s always room for a panel of experts, whether or not their expertise (and its expense) is contributing to the pressure of the populations they continue to study and write about….

Melissa Scaia and Scott MillerMelissa Scaia
Melissa is the executive director of Advocates for Family Peace in Minnesota. Melissa co-facilitates a group with men who batter and a group with women who use violence. She provides training and technical assistance as a consultant for Praxis International and serves as a faculty member for the Family Violence Department for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She has conducted trainings for the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Program and the National Network to End Domestic Violence. She has testified as an expert witness on domestic violence in criminal court cases. She wrote her master’s thesis on the effects of domestic violence on children and wrote her doctoral dissertation proposal to address supervised visitation services for battered women. {{DID SHE READ JACK STRATON, Ph.D. (not in sociology, etc.)?  I’d like to see what she has to say about his take in Supervised Visitation, which, being presented in Duluth (i think) around 1992, questioned its use at all in such cases….}}She has contributed to numerous publications related to supervised visitation and domestic violence. She recently co-wrote a curriculum and DVD for working with men who batter as fathers entitled, “Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter”. She is currently writing the final draft on a curriculum for working with women who have used violence in intimate relationships entitled, “Turning Points: An Educational Curriculum for Women Who Use Violence in Intimate Relationships.”

NCJ Number:	NCJ 231795
Title:	Violence Against Women: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence
Journal:	Violence Against Women  Volume:16  Issue:9  Dated:September 2010  Pages:979 to 1060
Author(s):	Shamita Das Dasgupta (“Manavi.org*”) ; Edward W. Gondolf ; Melissa Scaia ; Laura Connelly* ; Jane M. Sadusky (opposing gay marriage ban in Calif, consulting in WI, writing with/for? Ellen & BWJP**); Rhonda Martinson ; Kristine Lizdas ; Casey McGee ; Rebecca Emerson Dobash ; Russell Dobash ; Mark Wynn
Editor(s):	Claire M. Renzetti ; Barbara J. Hart ; Scott Miller
Document Url:	HTML
Publisher Url*:	http://www.sagepub.com
Publication Date:	09/2010
Pages:	86
Type:	Literature reviews
Origin:	United States
Language:	English
Note:	Special Issue: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence
Annotation:	A collection of essays are presented in honor of the contributions made by Ellen Pence in the field of intimate partner violence both in the United States and abroad.
Abstract:	The authors of the following seven essays emphasize the profound impact and changes that Ellen Pence’s work has had on social institutions and individual lives with her commitment to ensuring the safety of women and children and her belief in the possibility of personal and social change. The first article traces Ellen’s vital contributions to the field of anti-domestic violence advocacy through two organizations, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) and Praxis. The second article discusses Ellen Pence’s contribution in helping build the foundation of batterer programming. The third article explains the philosophy and method of the Duluth Model men’s program, and the need to put the experience of women who have been abused at the center of work conducted with abusive men. The fourth article explains how Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. The fifth article describes Pence’s development of the Praxis Safety and Accountability Audit (Safety Audit), which provided a new and distinctive tool for a community response to domestic violence. The sixth article presents six appreciation letters from Britain and Europe on Pence’s efforts and impact on the domestic women’s movement. The seventh and final essay offers both personal and professional reflections on the contributions of Ellen Pence to changes in law enforcement responses to domestic violence victims and offenders. References