Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘BWJP-DAIP-MPDI-PCADV

Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.

leave a comment »

Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time. w/ case-sensitive short-link ending “-3eF,” published April 3, 2016 at about 17,500 words. Length?  Well, it’s showing important parts of the whole, and I’d call it a key post.

ABOVE: New, Improved HHS Grants Database “TAGGS” image accompanying the label “DECISIONMAKING.” (?!!). I understand the trend towards “actuarial-based data-analytics” justifying (or, replacing personal accountability for) human decision-making, but it’s still weird… See also (on this blog or separately) NCCD (Oakland, CA nonprofit) and its’ various trademarked decision-making software for use in public institutions worldwide….

Much of my reporting on this blog comes from tracking HHS grants and grantees via http://TAGGS.HHS.gov.  After all, Marriage/Fatherhood funding (<== almost one billion dollars?) through HHS grants was $150M in theory — annually — since 1996.   So, that database just got a “facelift” and this image characterizes the “new, improved” ==>

“Since its launch in 1995, TAGGS has supported 
Federal financial transparency initiatives by providing 
reliable  and consistent grant award data to the public.”


KEY ASSERTION:

Evidence is practically slapping us in the face that the domestic violence field, while organizations named after stopping or being against domestic violence still involve plenty of women and what may looks like some truly feminist ones, has still been co-opted by, in fact, groups favorable to fathers’ and mens’ rights & programming FIRST, and “if we can get some safety added on to it — through technical assistance and training the judges, law enforcement, professionals– =so much the better for the PR,” despite all the rhetoric, as an afterthought.

POST SUMMARY & “GUIDE to CONTENTS”

This post is over 16,000 words, a “two-for-one.”  I decided to keep the dense-verbiage section near the top because of relevance, even though it moved the more colorful, visually fun and “higher curb appeal” logos of various organizations (see sampler here) lower down on the post.

 


 

 

 

I also, regrettably, felt it necessary to separate a discussion of key responsible fatherhood timeline events which anyone concerned about domestic violence ought to, by now, know by heart — but I doubt most do.


RE:  “SHOW and TELL.”  I tell first, but then near top of the post, show a certain California judge promoting Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils, plus some background on the Administrative Office of the Courts and its timing to increasing federal involvement in state-level family court jurisdiction and subject matter … THROUGH the Child Support sector (access & visitation public laws) of the 1980s and 1990s.

Further down, after showing more of the DV Networks (colorful logos of key some key groups, echoes a recent post on them) and another on “Strong Field Project” representing one health-foundation-funded Statewide DV network..and some of the PRIVATE-sector DV Industry collaborations (networking).

…you’ll see a logo for the MCBW —

and below that, discussions of the “TREATMENT AGENDA” response to domestic violence, as well as evidence of a Minnesota-based “DV Coordinating Council.” In looking at one of the Supervised Visitation Providers involved (?) with this one, I also noted form the tax returns that they are keeping $290K of assets with a certain “community foundation.”  I couldn’t find that Community Foundation as a separate business, but did run into the larger one it’s under.

It’s a general reminder to  continue to pay attention to COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS as FUNDING POWERHOUSES which attract and can incubate programs without clear awareness by the public of these programs’ funding.

 I also show that one of the key people at MCBW, who is also a lawyer, has strong connections to both the Battered Women’s Justice Project (which is to say, “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, “DAIP” and with this connection, again, a focus on treatment/supervised visitation/trainings, etc.) and AFCC. 

In fact, here’s that quote (but to link to a person’s name, read the post!):

____has served as faculty for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, the Center for Court Innovation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and the Minnesota Judicial Branch.


Same individual, being interviewed as faculty over at the “Center for Court Innovation” shows her BWJP/AFCC value systems — use kids as bait for ordering behavioral modification services for batterers because, after all, the “Coordinated Community Response” (courts + service providers in loco parentis) really, if trained by the right groups (=”us.”), will be wise and powerful enough to protect the children and persuade the children — and the primary care-taking parent attempting to limit the influence of abusive role models on growing children s/he is supposed to raise into upstanding citizens and participants in a law-abiding society — into accepting what’s best for themselves (link provided lower in the post):

[MCBW Interviewee]: Some judges, some court practitioners do see that perpetrators will be motivated by their kids, and access to their kids. So family court judges and family courts have this opportunity, and the proper motivation, to get perpetrators into services and into programs, to keep an eye on that perpetrator—to be like a mentor, to be a coach, to be a motivator to keep that perpetrator from using coercive and controlling violence, and they can order graduated visitation, graduated parenting time.

[CCI Interviewer]:  So the judges can use this leverage—access to the children, basically: “You can get thus and such visitation under these conditions if you receive these services, if you engage in this particular program?”

Kids as Bait for Violent (the focus being on primarily male) Offenders. What a “great” idea for kids and the nonviolent parent too. Great or not, it’s an idea that the DV Cartel has “bred into” the response to domestic violence.

[MCBW Interviewee]Yes, and it’s not only that it is an effective motivator for change, but its also completely logically tied to what is best for the children. We do want children to be able to have healthy relationships with both parents and it’s in the children’s best interest if we are able to figure out how to work with the perpetrator over time and help them develop their [[“his or her”] parenting capacity.

The steady money, moral “prestige,” and social/professional connections in the “working with the perps” fields, not to mention the conference circuits, must just be coincidental.


Finally, or close to finally, I show the MCBW discussion at a New York-based influential organization, “Center for Court Innovation,” how highly she values batterers intervention and co-parenting (despite the presence of domestic violence individual families) as best for all involved.


 I spent a few days attempting to make this one SHORT post of 8,000 words, but some of this information belongs in one place.  Dedicate some reading time, be prepared to bookmark some of the links for future reference, and you will not be disappointed.  Here goes….

What are the footprints, the TELLs

of the coordinated DV Industry Cartel?

TELL:  I use the word “tell” in its poker sense to make my point.  There are many gambling idioms in common speech.  Click here to see some.

I don’t play poker, but in case the term isn’t familiar, check here: Do you know what is more powerful than a poker tell? Understanding the difference between poker tells and behavioral information can have a profound impact on your game.” … [they describe the need for an accurate language to describe the tells]

Let’s define a “poker tell.”

A poker tell is a behavior that is correlated with a specific piece of information. This information can pertain to the quality of a player’s hand, the emotions a player tends to experience during a particular action, or even the coping mechanism a player uses to hide his behavior.

…This is a perfect example of how the way we describe behavior can significantly alter our reads  Without using the proper descriptive language we lose a lot of vital information.

…What we just described is a practical way of expressing tells at the table and is something every single player can do by approaching the identification of tells in a systematic and ordered fashion.

It’s my belief that every single player has a some sort of tell, some tells just take longer than others to identify. Tells can be found in many places on the human body, it’s just a matter of time before you hone in on the right place to look.

Key phrases for this context being “identifying in a systematic and ordered fashion” and “honing in on the right place to look.”  If you are forced into a high-stakes poker match where the outcome is life or death, how well would you focus?   Would you want to “hone in” on indicators of which way the outcome might go?

Meanwhile I am “telling” readers (in the common usage of that word) that there appears to be a “cartel” of corporations and individuals working with and for them, organized around this field to restrict outside participation or confrontation of the protected turf.  I am identifying the turf and the tells that I have become aware of  through long-term exposure (not participation!) as systematically as possible.


 DV:  DV obviously is short for “domestic violence.”

The DV cartel (my term) can be identified by key players and organizations, their networking, and their shared jargon, i.e., “tells.”   I’ll show these three, below:

  • Insisting on the Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence  
  • Coordinating the Community (of professionals, anyhow) Response [“CCR”]
  • Coaching others to form local “Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils* organized at the County level.

*DV Coordinating Councils as a Concept:  Pushed since 1992 by an AFCC/ NCJFCJ well-known Judge: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Domestic_VIolence_Council.pdf  “REDUCING FAMILY VIOLENCE:  THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL” by Judge Leonard P. Edwards (Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 1992). A brief resume shows that in 2002-2003 he was also President of NCJFCJ.   (In fact that resume was posted at NCJFCJ, and gives the link for his fuller one).

RESUME OF JUDGE LEONARD P.EDWARDS (ret)

Judge Leonard Edwards is a retired Superior Court Judge now working as a consultant and teacher. In his work he provides technical assistance to the courts of California and courts across the country, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge. He also served for six years as Judge-in- Residence with the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, a division of the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

The “CFCC” appears to have come into existence around 2000? underneath the AOC.  The AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) is the staff of the Judicial Council.  The AOC came under fire for being over-bloated and many other things. Strategic Evaluation was commissioned and a May 25, 2012 Evaluation Report written.  This lengthy report, also featured in some of my later 2014 posts and some “sticky” ones, gives some of the history of centralization and “moving up” the responsibility for the state’s courts to the state level.  It also describes delegation of functions.

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

An Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

  • READER ALERT:  I’m interrupting the quote from the report to emphasize events of 1984, 1988 and 1997, quoting other sources.  I will continue in the next yellow-highlit box below those quotes.  This is relevant and “deep” information that shows the timing of the A/V increasing activities, which should be laid alongside whether OR NOT the domestic violence agencies saw fit to inform mothers about them.  There’s no question that, overall, the leadership of the key organizations were reasonably aware of the same…BEFORE passage of the 1994 VAWA (!!!)
  • Larger context, about a key AFCC,NCJFCJ (two private 501©3/nonprofit judicial (and for AFCC, other court-connected professionals) membership associations), and AOC/CFCCconnected & (Santa Clara) county judge pushing certain kinds of programming, including but not limited to Domestic (“Family”) Violence Coordinating Councils…  FYI, In California at least now, judges are state, not county, employees…

Also (federal level) in 1984, the “Access and Visitation” program was enacted. As I went looking for a Congressional Research Service report on this, I found it posted at “Fearless Fathers” who’d picked it up on one of my posts — dated 12/5/2009 (!!).  This has a few other links on the topic.  Note — I’d only discovered what happened in 1984, as posted (summarized) in 2000, in the year 2009….

 You want to know why family courts are harassing you to pay child support (whether or not your job situation has changed) – or unreimbursed medical expenses (that your ex-wife asks family court to recover for her while she is not using your health insurance that covers your kids) and does not give the first dam of your visitation rights? Search not any more. That’s all in Carmen D. Solomon-Fears’s report 97-590 this report titled “Child Support Enforcement and Visitation: Should There Be a Federal Connection?” posted in Let’sGetHonestBlog. And this is to cry.

Read the rest of this entry »

My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers, Pt 3 of 3, “Same text, better formatting,”

with one comment

Last post left off at my 2011 exclamation about,

WHO IS MPDI? …WHO are these guys??

WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:

(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention.  From HHS):

..and discovering (2016) that the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” quoted and featured SO MUCH in this blog, just has gotten a facelift.  Over the years I have raised MANY questions about the integrity, organization (flexibility for the public) and reliability of this data, and even set up a blog in Fall 2013 to exhibit some of the seriousness of the issues:  HHSGiveways, Government Shutdowns.  The project was not finished, but the Pages and Posts up so far show-and-tell some of the accountability issues.

The new interface will take some getting used to.. but may make blogging easier, as it does produce those reports in several different formats.  My most immediate concern was no field labeled “Recipient” (but a prompt to type in recipient name into “Keyword” field — and NO search field to input an EIN#.  DUNS# option remains, but the EIN# Select Option does not seem to.

Report Totals of HHS Grants for 2016 at  https://taggs.hhs.gov/SearchRecip, this morning, Year 2016 only, is $241,236,771,196, a.k.a. $241B, approximately one quarter-year’s worth.  Maybe we should pay better attention…

Unlike Parts 1 and 2 (of this mini-series), most of this post is actually what was written in 2011, about two years after I first started this blog. Further down on the post is a photo of the building MPDI was in, which I also found interesting… I’ve attempted several clean-ups of the charts, especially, TAGGS.hhs.gov charts, shown then. I’ll mark 2016 Updates with a different background color and teal-green borders, like this:

UPDATE interjection:

If the charts are still hard to read below, I suggest use the “ADVANCED SEARCH” link at the new-user-interface-website “TAGGS.hhs.gov” — here’s a link.  It’s a good habit to develop anyway!

The post might still be a little complicated reading.  If a chart isn’t clear enough — re-run it.  The conclusion of the matter (or at least, the post written 6/4/2011) I think still makes sense:

(Sorry about the laborious length of this post, which started when I saw several DAIP-type programs at a Family Justice Center ALLIANCE Conference in San Diego.)

Now, we need more “justice centers”? ??  At what point does a person get to say STOP?  Where’s the justice, and why hasn’t domestic violence — or family violence — stopped by now, with all that intervention going on?  Are we chasing the virtual Holy Grail here, or what?

While “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” is not of the size and funding of “MDRC” — I feel it’s in the same business, with slightly different staffing and origins.  It is in[to] the Development of PROGRAMS based on personal visions of the founders — and being spread with Technical Assistance and capacity building public funded help like a fast growing tree nurtured by the IRS and the dual prongs of HHS and DOJ (all EXECUTIVE BRANCH of USA) grants.

I understand that people want to respond to PROBLEMS and then start and continue PROGRAMS to solve them.  But now the PROLIFERATION OF PROGRAMS has really become a major PROBLEM itself.  These programs have tremendous leverage because of their existing structures, and relationships.  Too much of the public remains clueless that half of them even exist.

And — people “served” doesn’t mean people — or even lives! —  “saved.”  Nor do judges (etc.) trained necessarily increase judicial ethics or “domestic violence awareness.”  I see the grants, I see the people, I see the programs described, and you can’t beat those website — but where is the data that any of this is actually helping?

Instead, the Supervised Visitation Network is being used AGAINST the mothers and children it supposedly is to protect.

 And, because we are here looking at “MPDI” which is in effect, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (with a new name), this quote from their website (link probably no longer current) showed their statewide influence as far back as 1991s.  We might ask why it was so well-received in just a decade’s worth of operations (and how much any pre-1995 HHS grants may have helped with that reception):

(RESULTs/Accomplishments at “TheDuluthModel.org”) Due to DAIP’s success, in 1991 the Minnesota Legislature mandated that each of the 38 Legislative Assignment Districts establish an intervention project coordinated by a battered women’s advocacy group. As of 1997, there were 44 intervention projects in Minnesota.

This set up for the coordination of the entire criminal AND family AND social services AND nonprofit (Community referrals) system based on the ideas, in part derived from a Brazilian Christian Socialist / theology of the oppressed (Ellen Pence/Paolo Friere — look it up), and in part from a Toronto institutional ethnographist[?] professor (again, look it up), i.e., the art and practice of systems change to affect mothers, fathers, and children nationwide, and internationally.  That takes a certain amount of arrogant, sheer, abusive/controlling/coercive narcissism to push through — which in some ways reminds me of characteristics of batterers as described by the same groups….

//LGH

This now begins the older post text:


WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:

(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention.  From HHS):

 (HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION

Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 55802-2152 ST. LOUIS 193187069 $ 18,027,387

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).

Recipient: MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC
Address: 202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET
DULUTH, MN 55802-2152
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: ST. LOUIS
HHS Region: 5
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Read the rest of this entry »

My June 4, 2011, Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI), a 2016 Intro (Pt 1 of 2)

leave a comment »

Two excerpts from the post.  Fair warning, I may still revise after publishing it today, 3/28/2016. Also, some of its many tags actually refer to the one I just published yesterday, which also has some (minor) revisions, relating to list of YE 2014 sub-grantees from Futures without Violence, towards the bottom of the post…I took that post from the middle of this one, in order to keep this one shorter, and linked with the “Part 2” for which it is “Part 1.”

ABOUT THIS POST

This “Part 1” INTRO commentary introduces occasioned by a re-post of my 6/4/2011 “Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real  Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?“by Dede Evavold on Red Herring Alert  3/15/2016 under the title “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs,” In “Part 2,” I simply block-copied the text (but not comments on original post) of my June 4, 2011 post to clean up the html (formatting of quote and tables) for easier reading, and possibly updated broken links or some of its information. 

and:

  • Many of us may know about the 1994ff “VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which brought funding (grants, presumably also contracts) through the USDOJ along certain lines.
  • However, there was an earlier 1984 “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention Services Act) passed by Congress, from which some of these resource centers apparently date.  HHS itself only dates to 1980 (before, there was HEW, Dept. of “Health, Education and Welfare).

As you can see from the excerpts, I’m (a) responding to a recent re-post from 2011, and, as ever (b) have certain topics I wish to continue talking about.   As I learn, so I also teach.    This post then concludes with some information about the Colorado-based NACC (National Association of Counsel for Children), as it came up in a Huffington Post article quoted by the re-blog and a reference to NCJFCJ’s “Project One.”   For “Project One,” …”One World Order,” despite all the talk of desired outcomes protecting human rights, women, children, reducing poverty, increasing justice and equity, etc., this One World Order (Government) seems to be the overall agenda — total control of major aspects of life and commerce (including of domestic human livestock — which is a “resource” of a different kind — breeding and training).


Despite how “special” we in the USA may wish to believe our country is, and that in many respects, no question it IS quite special, a lot of this type of programming can be traced back — which I can say because I have been tracking several programs and operations back to originators and designers —  to two countries, both of which attempted to and to a degree established empires: England (Great Britain), and Germany.   Both tried this in Africa as we know (along with others) AFTER the USA fought England in a war for independence in the late 1700s.   Include some Freud et al., for the 1900s, maybe a few more countries could be referenced.

What I would like to call attention to is the use of private corporations as a method, in addition to the combination of tax / tax-exemption to sway the outcomes AGAINST the individual rights and against individuals, in the name of services provided and problems solved.  All I’m saying is, the “solutions” seem to trend in a certain expansion of scope and shrinking of accountability to taxpayers, which continues to turn up the heat on the public at large.   It’s not good enough to provide even some very decent services while progressively compromising justice and fiscal accountability.  Fiscal accountability is EVERYTHING when it comes to administering justice!!


My most recent post (published March 27, 2016 — yes, on Easter Day) fills in some background on the networked organizations involved in the HHS-funded “DVRN” (Domestic Violence Resource Network) as set up, I learned, under the “FVPSA.”    In 2011, obviously, I didn’t know all this.  It’s important information to know, however…    In expanding such “resource centers” which then receive — and, to a degree, sometimes redistribute — public and private money both — the trail of public “ROI” (Return on Investment) of tax revenues continues to expand, become more complex, and become less carefully watched.
Read the rest of this entry »

Most have heard of the VAWA (passed 1994) But what about the earlier (passed 1984) FVPSA? Or, the “DVRN”?

leave a comment »

It seems to me that the national response to wife-beating and/or child abuse may have already been put on a sort of auto-pilot, knee-jerk response decades ago, and is simply being refined, fine-tuned, and turf-and-territory-protected ever since.  The more I learn about HHS programs inspired or validated by Acts of Congress focused on stopping abuse or preventing family violence, reducing juvenile delinquency (etc. — remember my two “About NCJJ” recent posts showing the privatization conflict of interest covered up by “NCJFCJ” which is also benefitting from the FVPSA-inspired funding as a “Special Issue Resource Center” ???) the more aware I become of what was set in motion, a lot of which I would take issue with, but probably “too late and too bad,” as it happens.

Nevertheless, it’s still important to be aware of these things and come to some opinion on them.

But, let’s Look at the FVPSA-inspired, HHS-funded and facilitated “DVRN.”  Like that “National” “Responsible” “Fatherhood” “Clearinghouse,” what the heck it is, or is doing, is less than clear from the official sources, such as HHS websites talking about the network, its member agencies, and its “special issue resource centers.”

I’m tempted to personal comments here, but they are stowed at the bottom of this post, for now.

File this under federalizing, evaluating and quality control (?) of  EVERYTHING that relates to anyone under 21 — and their caretakers, which is almost everyone else..

The DVRN is multi-jurisdictional, subject-matter defined, and its presentation seems designed to confuse the readers and discourage identifying just how FEW organizations have been given control of policy, or operations designed to influence policy from the Executive Branch of government and so to speak “from the sidelines..”  This post follows logically from my attempt to explain “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (in connection with a recent reblog of my 6/4/2011 post on this) as one of “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” — when the HHS report of those same Special Issue Resource Centers (numbering, actually 5, not 4) doesn’t even mention that organization’s name.  In fact, it downplays actual names of recipient organizations in their description.

I trust this will be an interesting and illuminating post to why certain things seem so much the same from state to state when we (parents) go to court.


 

The “DVRN” – Domestic Violence Resource Network

(Described @ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/fv-centers)

Family Violence Prevention & Services Resource Centers Listen

The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN) is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to inform and strengthen domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts at the individual, community and societal levels.

It’s promoting awareness and policy through digital dissemination, with help from certain organizations…..

The DVRN works collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice not just a priority, but also a reality.

Note the grammar — the “DVRN” is being given anthropomorphic qualities, as if it was a single living entity — or, in the case of “corporate persons” (our system in the USA), a single business entity.  BUT, it’s not.  It’s by definition networks synched along certain policies and practices, and also as to some of their sources of funding.  But the network elements span different states.
Read the rest of this entry »

Technical Assistance and Training = Silencing Mothers’ Voices, Taking their Money…

leave a comment »

[post is about 11,000 words long.
I am showing many TA&T [Technical Assistance and Training] programs and their relationships, although my interest in Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) stems from their recent collaborations with (instead of confrontation of) “AFCC” and drawing upon public funding (HHS grants) to do their analyses.  It’s pretty obvious that the organizations writing up the projects/situation/subject matter are not going to BE the subject matter — and if so, it will be self-description.
My takeaway is, the better way to describe “the situation” is corporate economic viewpoint.   I use corporate lookups, tax return lookups, sometimes grants lookups to describe (and compare to) any organization’s self-description on its colorful, hyperlinked, “Donate Here” websites.  
I also  try to remember which nonprofits have spun off earlier ones that made a name and got the grants.
In that regard, Technical Assistance =  Propaganda Promotion, even if the topic they are writing about is or was indeed legitimate; to dominate the field by the internet, conferences, training, federal funding, and nonprofit status — is to exclude the clientele’s voices as an equally relevant viewpoint.
It should be remembered that several of these organizations got their start in the 1980s, before (really) the Internet Revolution got underway.  However now that it is, business just got easier, and for individual victims of (for example) battering or abusive control — who are often fighting for sheer access to an internet (i.e., isolation is a factor in controlling others) — to expect to keep up with the rapid expansion of certain viewpoints (which are good for sales, if not necessarily good for actually stopping violence against women, or promoting responsible fatherhood EITHER) — is, well unreal.
The only way to even the playing field (being outnumbered and out financed, and less well organized) is to, I hope others also will, EXPOSE the circumstances, and then demand that certain programs be DEFUNDED (they are not reducing “roadkill” they are simply spawning more proselytes and building professional conferencer-careers) –and the organizations pay their own way through life.
When it comes to ECONOMIC control, the United States (obviously) has collective wealth beyond individuals — but I suggest addressing this issue sooner rather than later, anyhow.  TAKE A LOOK!  No matter where one digs in, similar behaviors will prevail; this is as good an entry point as any….]

SOCIAL CHANGE TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:  

HOME OF THE DULUTH, MODEL

This website has changed, and no longer openly lists certain projects that are underneath it (an older version may be on my blog)…  Which I seem to recall included groups like PRAXIS International:  “integrating theory & practice,” which like DAIP, had close ties to Ellen Pence (who actually was Praxis “founding director.”  Their home page still holds a eulogy, as Ellen Pence died recently:

Praxis believes in social change through advocacy & training “since 1996”.

  •  “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.

Like others, they endorsed the “SUPERVISED VISITATION & EXCHANGE” (USDOJ Safe-Havens grant series support):

 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.

Interesting year — startup year coincided with welfare reform…  Like OH SO MANY helpful nonprofit groups getting significant HHS and/or DOJ grants (although I DNR what Praxis got) — they are really “into” technical assistance and training” and quite willing to help grantees — from a safe distance from ongoing, shall we say, volatile, situations at the street level.  Maybe the founders had this experience initially but after all, people age out, and it’s safer to teach than to confront in a group setting — or dispense studies on-line.

Read the rest of this entry »

BMCC Day 3: Hierarchy Behavior @ Mothers’ Conference Derails Problem-Solving.

with 4 comments

Treat this as “news-alert” and not expository blogging today. I think it’s timely and relevant, though.

My post from last year speaks to this:

HAPPY NEW YEAR: What Rhetoric are You: Father, Mother, or Mediator?

There’s a live-stream programming from this year’s Battered Mother’s Custody Conference in Albany, New York, where many people actually acknowledging there IS a problem with custody courts giving custody to “batterers and abusers” exists.

“Houston, We Have a Problem” with DV & Child Abuse in the Family Courts

Here is the Speaker Schedule (on-line, dated 12/2011)

This awareness is NOT revealed by the composition of the recent Task Force of the “Defending Childhood” Initiative, which task force is called “Children Exposed To Violence” and has not ONE representative of, or authority speaking on, the matters of the US Custody courts, although even at the International level (“IACHR”) the USA has been recognized as a consistent violator of women’s human rights specifically in the family courts.

Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence

The Defending Childhood Task Force is composed of 13 leading experts including practitioners, child and family advocates, academic experts, and licensed clinicians. Joe Torre, Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations, founder of the Joe Torre Safe at Home® Foundation, and a witness to domestic violence as a child himself, and Robert Listenbee, Jr., Chief of the Juvenile Unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, will serve as the Co-Chairs of the Task Force.

Seriously: Here’s a list of links from the “DEFENDING CHILDHOOD” D.O.J. site. Take a look at the one called “Engaging Men and Fathers.” Look at its recommendation — this is classic federal protection policy for kids being raped by men. Make sure that Daddy stays involved and has a connection with the children. THis shows up also at “child welfare.gov” sites as I’ve shown before (or, you can simply go look): For active links, go to the DOJ site: “Take Action to Protect Children.”

If you’re a victim of violence in your home, and want HELP right away, call or visit:

National Domestic Violence Hotline 800/799-SAFE 800/787-3224 (TTY)

National Child Abuse Hotline 800/4-A-CHILD 800/2-A-CHILD (TTY)

Tips for Agencies and Staff Working with Youth (PDF)

Tips for Agencies Working With Immigrant Families (PDF)

Tips for Child Welfare Staff (PDF)

Tips for Domestic Violence and Homeless Shelters (PDF)

Tips for Early Childhood Providers (PDF)

Tips for Engaging Men and Fathers (PDF)**

**scroll to bottom, and see “Additional Resources”: several from FVPF (now “Futures without Violence”) and “national family preservation network.”***

“For more information and resources, please contact the Safe Start Center, a National Resource Center for Children’s Exposure to Violence:

http://www.safestartcenter.org 1-800-865-0965 info@safestartcenter.org”

Safe Start Center, Children's exposure to violence, it's everyone's business

Tips for Parents and Other Caregivers (PDF)

Tips for Teachers (PDF)

Safe Start Center Online Toolkits and Guides

Greenbook Initiative’s tools and resources to assist communities with the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment.

Child Development-Community Policing Program

*** “National Family Preservation Network” looks like yet another nonprofit (started ca. 1994?) I hadn’t of aught its influence yet. When I spoke yesterday about a (grand)mother who said that the basic function of CPS, AFTER child molestation has been confirmed, and under the “Welfare and Institutions Code,” was not to help the child, but to reunify the family? . . .. This seems to verify. Look at the money put behind this:

See book of Job: Commentary on losing everything: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Substitute “CPS” for the first LORD, “NFPN” for the second “LORD” and for the third, I suppose the public is not only supposed to “bless” but also FUND whatever DOJ, HHS, HUD, or DOE task force or initiative promises to moderate the taking and giving away, which brings us to the two certainties in life:  Death, and taxes.  And while there are taxes, there is going to be war, competition for the fruits of taxes and fights over which is closest crony to the government programs distributing them THIS year . . . . .     That creates a “high-conflict” struggle among the (plebians, non-experts, etc.) which then justifies more control systems.

Really now:  there’s an organization to take children away because parents are abusing them, and an organization to give them back; also a service to enforce child support, and a service ($4billion/year, ongoing) to compromise arrears are abated (or it’s eliminated) {{see  fatherhood, access/visitation, etc. }}  There are also incentives to move children into foster care and adoption, and incentives to Preserve Families.

In fact, at every level, “we” . . .  and future grandchilren . . . . are being made to pay for “Society’s” screwups, many of which can be directly graced back to a specific government institution — not “society,” — or several of them, already funded by the public. How Paternalistic! Meanwhile, the state of “society” (including portions previously engineered by various corporate/government/religious collaborations) is used as a justification of more corporate/overnment/religious collaborations and breaking down EVERY due process, civil liberty, and individual bill of rights protection engineered originally into the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

ANYHOW:

The mission of the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) is to serve as the primary national voice for the preservation of families. Our mission is achieved through initiatives in the areas of family preservation, reunification, and fatherhood. NFPN offers research-based tools, training resources, and technical assistance to public and private child- and family-serving agencies.

Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

In 1993 the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) was instrumental in the passage of the Family Preservation and Support Act, the only federal legislation specifically designating funding for family preservation. This source of funding was incorporated into the Promoting Safe and Stable Family Program (PSSF) in 1997. The legislation is approved for a maximum of 5 years and Congress has just reauthorized funding.

Here’s a summary of what the legislation contains:

$345 million in mandatory funding and $200 million in discretionary funds

States are required to develop a five-year plan as to how they will spend the funds, report annually on progress, and provide a final report on funding

Funds must be spent primarily in four categories of services with at least 20% going to each category: family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support. About 25% of the funds are currently spent on family preservation.

PSSF also includes designated funding for tribes, court improvement, monthly caseworker visits, and substance abuse treatment.

Read more: Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

Name change in 2005 (click on the IRS form) but apparently it’s still doing great business with the Federal Government? These are from “foundation finder” website:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR TOTAL ASSETS FORM PAGES

EIN:

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2005 $0 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2004 $155,649 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2003 $110,028 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2002 $134,970 990 14 13-3715995

A quick search doesn’t show this name registered in Idaho, although website “Contact us” address is in Idaho (which is why I looked there); Also does it look like the IRS forms are complete or up to date, either? Check Idaho Corp. Search, here;

http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/search.html

I found the listing under different name in Idaho (through simple google search)
133715995 Intensive Family Preservation Services National Network Inc National Family Pres 145,761 72,218 2009
(that’s a link to its 2010 tax return). Given the influence of this organization, I plan to find out whether it’s legitimately filed in Idaho, or some other state.)

~ ~ ~

Really — even the Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, Second Mile expose so far hasn’t brought up much — at all — on the lowly topic of family courts enabling the same thing. This situation also exposed a charity (The Second Mile) aimed at needy children (See “The Haiti Fund” of CT) which participated — and yet, are women, at this Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference, being encouraged to look at nonprofits for signs of impropriety, or tax evasion which may coincide with mistreatment of children (nb: Both are illegal activities, in fact, when Larry King of a MAJOR child-trafficking (male and female victims supplied through foster parents and/or Boys Town Nebraska) coverup broke, Mr. King did time on financial charges, not on abuse charges, kidnapping, torture or terrorism, etc. despite testimony and the extent of this operation.). Money-laundering or other tax-evasion when it comes to a charity dealing with children should be investigated — quickly!

Similarly, the Luzerne County (also, PA) “Kids for Cash” scandal,* which hasn’t finished spinning itself out yet, and which uncovered kickback activity involving juvenile institutions and a nonprofit with the word “Child Care” in it, and yet still dots are not being connected, mental perception hasn’t set in that this also is likely and has applied before in the family law arena? ???

*Ciavarella Found Guilty on 12 of 39 Counts

February 19th, 2011
By The Times Leader

SCRANTON – A federal jury on Friday convicted former Judge Mark Ciavarella of illegally accepting money relating to the construction of the PA Child Care center, but entirely rejected allegations he extorted Robert Powell or accepted money relating a second juvenile center.

The verdict, which was reached after about 13 hours of deliberations over two days, left both prosecutors and the defense declaring victory in the corruption case that has captivated the public for more than two years.

The jury found Ciavarella guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, money laundering and money laundering conspiracy relating to the $997,600 finder’s fee he received from Robert Mericle, the builder of the center. It also found him guilty of honest services mail fraud for filing fraudulent statements of financial interest with a state agency and five tax counts for filing false tax returns.

…The government could clearly show through bank records the flow of the initial payment of nearly $1 million from Mericle to Ciavarella, Zubrod said, but other payments allegedly funneled through Pinnacle Group of Jupiter, a Florida corporation the ex-judges set up, came out as cash and thus could not be traced with the same precision.

(Notice:  the government looked at cash flow, and saw what they believed a front group set up — in a different state — but were stymied where the payments turned to cash.  Note:  In Lackawanna County Court, PA, I believe one of the complaints about visitation supervisors, and another (DNR if parenting coordinator, or what) parents complained that they were forced to pay in cash (or not see their kids).  It was the economic matters which were prosecuted, and which took the case down.

RE:  Luzerne County situation — it was so embarrassing, so scandalous that in 2009 the state voted an Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which issued a report, “Lessons from Luzerne County

State records show that between 2003 and 2008, approximately 50 percent of juveniles appeared in Luzerne County Juvenile Court without benefit of counsel – nearly ten times the state average. Virtually all of these unrepresented juveniles were adjudicated delinquent, many for acts so minor and trivial that in most counties these charges would never have even made it to juvenile court. Of those youth without counsel who were adjudicated delinquent, nearly 60 percent were sent to out-of-home placements. The state data show that former judge Mark Ciavarella presided over more than 6,500 cases, leaving thousands of children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized. Luzerne County was a toxic combination of for-profit facilities, corrupt judges, and professional indifference.

In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Ciavarella’s adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges

Although it has been overtly shown, and acknowledged even within government, that there are indeed things called “corrupt judges” and that their interest is in financial gain  and this case, in particular, demonstrated spectacularly that ordering unnecessary services by judges to nonprofits or corporations they had a financial interest in, for some reason the BMCC conference in approximately 8 years does not seem to have had a workshop or presenter talking about the similar phenomenon in family courts.  I witnessed a woman from the floor ask, after all this advice on how to approach the bench, “what do you do if you get a corrupt judge?,” to which the speaker’s answer was, we don’t deal with specific cases.  I also heard in breakout sessions, a woman ask “what do you do when you can’t afford an expert witness” (the workshop being led by one), and some vague comment about, aren’t there pro bono services available?

Regarding Penn State situation

When it’s a stranger molesting, and others not reporting, somehow it’s more noteworthy than when parents do, which is so often just another relationship problem, and “who knows”? what REALLY happened in the case to provoke, well, murders, etc.

So, as there are so few conferences (that I’m aware of) that have been ongoing and specifically address CUSTODY and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _- to which women themselves are actually invited, how much more important is it when women come from across the continent: the south, the west, the north, and the east coasts (presumably) to seek help and confer with each other about WHAT TO DO and get feedback on what has happened last year — this one has a moral and ethical responsibility to “GET IT RIGHT.” Anyone getting up in front of women who have experienced what these have, and what their children have — should be concerned about telling the Most relevant Truth, The WHOLE relevant Truth, and nothing which strays from the truth, clouds it, obscures it, or distracts from it.

In this matter from what I can tell, BMCC has failed abysmally this year as in prior years.

One thing that appears to guarantee “presenter status” and special attention is anyone whose advocacy and leadership has previously failed — sometimes, dramatically. Of course, presenters can apply I suppose — and do — but why is it that year after year the groups who show the least progress (when: Father, Mother, or Mediator Rhetoric is compared) regularly get up on the podium to commiserate and to exaggerate progress made — i.e., another task force appointed — and strengthen the sense of Family through this event?

As such, Linda Marie Sacks (see 2nd “About This Blog” post, I give links to the brief) is now a presenter, as are some of the groups specifically mentioned on her brief that was turned down (not heard) at the Supreme Court of the USA level. Eileen King (Justice for Children) was one of those, and is also a presenter at the conference. In all the years of these conferences, has there been one mother who was battered, or had child molestation situation (with evidence, i.e., CPS or police, etc.) — who SUCCEEDED in defeating a custody challenge? Or, any professional whose leadership (or group’s leadership) successfully changed the climate of the local custody courts to the point that this situation does NOT happen?

That should be a lesson for attendees (but probably isn’t).

Loretta Frederick, of BWJP (Battered Women’s Justice Project), who worked on a project alongside AFCC (see my blog, we know who this nonprofit for great profits lobbying trade group of family law judges, mediators, and attorneys (etc.) is now, right?)takes the podium to tell mothers something. I missed that live stream; it may still be up, but as I said in last post — this is more appropriate for to be put on the hotseat and have mothers fire questions at her — WHY is her group collaborating with the exact same people that market PAS theory which they so protest? (Of course, the same crowd is not informed HOW PAS theory gets marketed, which is primarily via AFCC and some related organizations).

The description in the conference schedulefor this ssegment:

2:00 – 2:30 Gabby Davis and Loretta Frederick:  Developing and Implementing a Conceptual Framework for Identifying, Understanding and Accounting for the Implications of Intimate Partner Abuse in Contested Child Custody Cases.
Ample research, local practice, and lived experience collectively inform us that the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children are not adequately accounted for in contested child custody cases where domestic violence is alleged.  Very little systematic attention is paid to whether there is a history of abuse, whether the abuse is ongoing, who is abusing whom, what the abuse looks like, and how the abuse impacts the children, the abused parent, and the parenting capacities of both the abusive and the abused parent.  Consequently, from an institutional standpoint, the family court system is often poorly organized to accurately identify and describe what is actually happening in people’s everyday lives so that it can respond in ways that are helpful, or at least not harmful, to the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children.  This presentation describes a collaborative effort by the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Praxis International, and a local jurisdiction in NW Ohio to develop and implement a concrete framework to help family court professionals better identify, understand and account for the context and implications of domestic violence in contested child custody cases.

Like other segments, apparently, to bring up that the family court system is intentionally and systematically organized (and by whom) so as NOT to use a “conceptual framework” that pays attention to reality, or police reports… . .. The passive writing and constructions here are specifically NOT to finger or point to any real agents. It’s just an unfortunate “situation” that exists, which this grant series can address.

I addressed this specifically in July, 2011:

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: (= title of that post, and a link to it).

Reviewing BWJP website on this project shows that, no matter what changes, one thing won’t — so long as grants exist, advocates will be publishing their thoughts and observations, and then getting some nice conference engagements with travel expenses deductible, while NOT reporting on who set up the family courts to operate as they do.

http://www.bwjp.org/advocating_for_battered_mothers.aspx

Anyone checking out the BWJP site describing this project can see that it’s a joint project with AFCC and from funding by OVW, meaning, while we are so excited about the OVW actually NOTICING this issue (finally), the fact is, that they are paying AFCC to talk about what to do with the topic! And (see link above), I clicked on a few of the references; these women also know about Women’s Justice Project (which I cited yesterday), they know plenty — but they are not reporting the MOST relevant things to us: HOW COME year after year, our accounts continue to fall on deaf ears?

Nor do they talk about their own funding, or the apparent serious failure of this “collaborative Community Response” Model, which appears to have been pushed/originated most out of Duluth, MN.

A few TAGGS.hhs.gov grantees whose titles have the words “Battered Women” (Ms. Frederick’s group is not on this set): (I may clean up this paste tomorrow):

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN  LITTLE ROCK AR 72203 PULASKI $ 15,780
CENTER FOR BATTERED WOMEN  AUSTIN TX TRAVIS $ 204,581
COUNCIL ON BATTERED WOMEN  ATLANTA GA 30308 FULTON $ 3,000
GEORGIA ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN  ATLANTA GA 30312 FULTON $ 1,440,579
MINNESOTA COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN  SAINT PAUL MN 55103-1844 RAMSEY 076896112 $ 3,157,167
NEW JERSEY COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN  TRENTON NJ 08690 MERCER 883332645 $ 3,504,339

Showing: 1 – 6

100% of the MN grants (here) if you look are the “SVDC” grants — statewide DV coalition, even though it says “Battered Women” on the title.  The Georgia group hasn’t got anything in this millennium, and what it did get relates to Mental Health protection and advocacy, plus $47K for “SVDC 1996.”   The NJ group is getting the statewide (SVDC) grants for several years — around $250K — but in the year 2010, gets some more for “Youth” as well.  Helping Battered Women is “old School.”  Helping Children and Youth is much more fashionable, although seems to me one way to help children and youth is to stop people from knocking their mothers around while they are growing up!

2010 90EV0404  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES/EXPANDING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 883332645 $ 150,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:

As we can see, it’s few groups and little funding under “battered women.”  This was ALL years combined.

However, change the term to “Domestic Violence” and you get the advocates that are centralized and under better federal control, for example, I just checked recently — Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence ALONE got $26 million in one year alone of grants, which it distributes in part to local “women’s resource centers” which (I checked some) already show direct links to fatherhood groups, particularly one on Scranton. a.k.a., PCADV is sharing funding with groups promoting fatherhood under the title “Women’s Resource” or what a battered women, entering in or calling for help, might be very much misled to believe is actually about helping HER — and not promoting family reunification or other fatherhood agendas.

This has some more details, and we see that to start out with (1996 — oddly, same year as welfare reform) the groups all got $47,140 each to get started, and no one even bothered to name the grant.  This is just a slice of them, all coming from the “ACF” (Administration for Children and Families”.

ACF ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AZ 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CA 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CT 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DC 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DE 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HI 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ID 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC IN 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IA 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KS 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170

(etc.)  No CFDA# was assigned, yet and no “principal investigators” are even named.

Fast forward to 2005 (the year I’m searching on below for 990s), and I’m showing again ALA through KS (plus it picked up a RI at the top).  The amounts are nearly 5 times larger ($237K/$250K), and someone has bothered to key in a Grant Title, but few Principal Investigators even named:

Program Office Grantee Name State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ASH/ODPHP RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RI Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization SAFE AND BRIGHT FUTURES: A STATEWIDE PLANNING PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 09/28/2005 93990 SHEILA FRENCH $ 75,000
FYSB ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AZ Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CT Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DC Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DE Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations Community Action Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization COLLABORATING TO IMPACT TEEN DATING VIOLENCE IN THE LIVES OF RUNAWAY & HOMELESS YOUTH 09/20/2005 93592 TIFFANY A CARR $ 75,000
FYSB HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HI Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ID Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC IN Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KS Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038

This year we should also show the NYS Coalition (I remember discovering Patti Jo Newell as a BMCC presenter, and as a NYS DV person, a few years back, it seems).  Odd grant labeling, don’t you think?

FYSB NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC NY Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC NY Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 09/22/2005 93592 PATTI JO NEWELL $ 130,000

I think that “Executive Director” is an interesting award title, don’t you?  (Compare, below).  I also note that the CFDA has moved from 93671 to 93592

For PCADV (Pennsylvania) this was also a good year, it got SIX funding streams to start new projects.  two of these were from a different program office (see below); the “DELTA” awards coordinated through two women, Karen Lang and Pam Cox, whoever they are:

FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  2005 SDVC  05/06/2005  93671  $ 237,038 
FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  DEMO PROJECT FOR ENHANCING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DV  09/22/2005  93592  CONNIE THOMAS  $ 130,000 
FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  08/29/2005  93592 SUSAN KELLY-DREISS $ 1,561,230 
FYSB PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  09/28/2005  93592 SUSAN KELLY-DREISS $ 700,000
NCIPC PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DATABASE EARMARK GRANT 06/03/2005 93136 KAREN LANG $ 297,600
NCIPC PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization NATIONAL ON-LINE RESOURCE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN  07/27/2005 93136 KAREN LANG $ 388,398

I looked at a tax return (recommended).  It shows approximately where the money is going, and relationships also with MPDI, Battered Women’s Justice Project, PA Crime Comissions, and USVAW (as program expenses which resulted in profitable income (i.e., expenses were less than revenue from the activity).  More  to the point, it also shows which programs money is being distributed to, including names and EIN#s (i.e., are these subgrantees also filing properly…) and officers.  While only the Exec Dir. is earning over $100 from PCADV (and a reasonable salary for a very large nonprofit), there are also quite a few others earning around $75K plus a parallel column of income from “related organizations” averaging from $18-25 or so, meaning it’s got a LOT of officers who are pulling in $100K a year, plus a few pages of unpaid “directors” which I assume? (right or wrong, could be checked) represent the directors of the various shelters.

Program purpose is stated (sorry about lack of spaces:  Link here:)

1.TO ELIMINATE DOMESTIC ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA. 2.TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS SHALL INCLUDE CRISIS TELEPHONE COUNSELING, TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR THE VICTIM AND HER DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND/OR PEER AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING, ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING COMMUNITY RESOURCES, HELP IN ACQUIRING EMPLOYMENT SKILLS, AND/OR WORK REFERRAL.

{{Please note that apart from temporary shelter, it says nothing about legal advocacy in the case; once she’s out of the shelter, and in the family law system, the protection order usually comes off, and then — depending on the ex and circumstances — these women are forced to interact long-term with their exes in a system which has a federal grant-incentive, and a child support enforcement agency incentive, and affiliated programs incentives — in addition to whatever incentives the ex had then, and may have now if child support order is in place — to keep the case stretched out and going as long as possible.  Sometimes women then are killed, and/or their children, and/or their exes (i.e., murder/suicides), to the extent that websites have been set up unofficially to track this!  (dastardly Dads, etc.) .   I fail to see how a huge movement of this sort which fails to take seriously the situation of women AFTER they leave the shelter is doing to STOP violence against women.

I also note it says “abuse” and not “violence” in the program description.}}

3.TO EXPOSE THE ROOTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZEDSUBSERVIENCEOFWOMEN INTHISCULTURE.4.TOPROVIDEQUALITYSERVICES STATEWIDE AND TO EXPAND SERVICES SUCH THAT EVERY VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE COMMONWEALTH MAY OBTAIN IMMEDIATE, COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE LOCALLY. 5.TO DO ANY AND ALL LAWFUL ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY, USEFUL, OR DESIRABLE FOR THE FUTHERANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT, FOSTERING OR ATTAINMENT OF THE FOREGOING PURPOSES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND EITHER ALONE OR IN CONDUCTION WITH OTHERS.

Response:

RE:  Purpose 3.  The roots of DV in institutionalized subservience of women in this culture includes religion AND government AND the workforce.  PCADV is funded by government, and not likely to take on government itself; it doesn’t deal extensively with religion, although so much backlash against feminism (which is mentally associated with pro-LGBT where much of conservative religion is against LGBT, and the Bible is clear on the matter too — it does not endorse homosexuality.  Then again, it doesn’t endorse robbery, usury, or adultery, either.) comes from religious roots.  

Family Law/Domestic Relations Courts  is an institution which could be easily a focus of PCADV (if goal#3 was a major one), as it’s the venue which fathers’ rights groups have targeted as unfair to them, and in which the pendulum swinging the other way has a lot of money behind it.  Yet this major, federally-supported organization, is not focusing on the custody issues, and does not report on even the AFCC, CRC, CPR, AccessVisitation Grants etc. (at least they don’t lead with this information; I haven’t seen it).   They do not report on the various Fatherhood Commissions now being established at the state levels (feel free to correct if you can find anything dating to around the time they were being created).

We are beyond the point of no return in pretending that the domestic violence organizations do not KNOW about the extent of their supposed counterparts, the fatherhood-funded organizations entrenched throughout the executive branch of government (and by executive memo from a Democrat President in 1995, Pres. Clinton’s memo), written into public law in welfare reform, and in both houses of congress fatherhood resolutions were passed, 1998 & 1999.   The NFI has now grandchildren, i.e., nonprofits (also with federal support) training the trainers.  HHS is courting a Coalition of Fathers and Families — and yet organizations like this, and following this lead — simply don’t see fit to MENTION this to women they serve, with the result that these women are losing their children to men they fled, sometimes fled recently!  What kind of “Future without violence” is that/

This information — that the group puts out — is tremendous when it comes to validation for women who have been suffering from this, and useless when it comes to advocacy when they are in a custody battle!  That some of the key scandals came this year FROM Pennsylvania is perhaps an indicator of a bit of tunnel vision?  

I don’t feel “comfortable” criticizing the work of anyone who’s obtained this much public presence, federal help, and cultural change in spreading the concept of “domestic violence” as a serious problem — and the founder of this nonprofit also grew up witnessing violence in the home, her bio says, and was recently inducted into a Women’s Hall of Fame.  HOWEVER, we have to be honest — when institutions get large and established, they also tend to become calcified as to taking feedback constructive, or simply truthful; there is a “territory” to defend.

I also wish to mention that of the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (funded — not in a major way, most of them except this one, but in a minor way) are usually members of the over-arching nonprofit “NATIONAL Coalition Against Domestic Violence.”  If one looks at its website, I believe membership has multiple breakdowns, but one of them (for nonprofit groups) as i recall includes either this minimum or “a % of the budget.”  Therefore if member CADVs are getting federal funding, NCADV, which is not, takes its “tithe” (so to speak) and this is public money.

Susan Kelly-Dreiss was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame (for her PCADV work, etc. — see link) in 2009.  She got laws passed, shelters started, and was a recognized leader.  I do not see that anything much was done about the problem with the family law system which started in earnest in mid-1990s. Isn’t that something of an oversight, considered in what context women are fleeing their homes with children, and then having unsafe visitation exchanges by court order afterwards, which results sometimes in death?  Wouldn’t a situation which is getting people killed require a little attention, like prominence?  But despite all this funding, success, and honors, it seems Pennsylvania is having serious problem living down its recent scandals.  It continues to put out DV literature (“Telling Amy” out of PSU just being one of them).   FBI has been called to handle corruption in a family courthouse.  Now go through that site and see if it mentions the problem!

Also, I’d like to get an answer why the hotshot resource center, which has been receiving funding since 1993/1995, didn’t bother to register with the state til 2011!   In this, its behavior is beginning to resemble the marriage/fatherhood grantees.  Note:  in 2005, it’s called a grant, not an institution — but in their literature, it’s spoken of as an “entity.”

HHS describes some of these resource centers HERE:  BWJP is one of them….  The “on-line resource center” (“VAWnet”) describes its philosophy:

National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women

About VAWnet

VAWnet is a comprehensive and easily accessible online collection of full-text, searchable materials and resources on domestic violence, sexual violence and related issues.

The goal of VAWnet, The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women is to use electronic communication technology to enhance efforts to prevent violence against women and intervene more effectively when it occurs.

– – – – – –

in 2011 (top two rows only are PCADV), over $1,000,000

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 981,771
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 315,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE  ENOLA PA 17025-2500 CUMBERLAND 929907426 $ 1,500,000

Overall:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
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
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE  ENOLA PA 17025-2500 CUMBERLAND 929907426 $ 14,559,328

Showing: 1 – 3 of 3 Recipients

 

Checking USASpending.gov (the top DUNS# only, which relates $39,965,461 in total grants), it shows only:

  • Total Dollars:$10,040,520
  • Transactions:1 – 20 of 20

This is in part probably because TAGGS goes back further in time (to 1995), but should be looked into for discrepancies.  That’s a large one, and the bulk of funding was after the time period USASpending database covers, not before it.   The discrepancy is, as we can see, over $29 million.  I call that a lot!

In addition from the DOJ (this is per the above site, USASpending.gov) PCADV — under that top DUNS# only — got this many grants:

  • Total Dollars:$2,443,223
  • Transactions:1 – 11 of 11

The second DUNS# relates to “VAWnet” creation.  Technology (i.e., disseminate information, PR, research, websites, etc.) to stop violence against women.  OK . . . . started in 2009…

2009 U1VCE001742  VAMNET IN ITS GOAL TO HARNESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT EFFO 1 000 CDC 08-21-2009 166527558 $ 315,000 

~ ~ ~ ~The variety of program funding it draws from in both the DOJ and HHS side shows that this is a favored group.   In their home state — and home town — there has been to date, a scandalous cover-up of child abuse (Sandusky), cheating and racketeering re: sending children off to a juvenile institution (Luzerne) and FBI investigating financial fraud at a county courthouse (Lackawanna) among other things.  The next president elect of AFCC also works out of Harrisburg and is an expert witness (Pay, $150 hour, $75 for travel for the firm, last I looked) and I see nothing at all in PCADV of this helpful information.

~ ~ That most of this money comes from HHS and not DOJ tells us one thing — that DV is considered NOT a criminal matter, but a health and children/family matter.  I believe it’s time to call it what it is — crime — and stop writing theses (see below) trying to get family court professionals to apply domestic violence law, and for that matter, I wish to see what results training and technical assistance are providing, except to ensure that no one is under this training going to “out” the systematic fraud and program overbilling (etc.) going on in the other court sectors.

(I’ll come back to this topic another post.   When I looked at the “income from related organizations” column on their 990, I saw amounts — on each row — on which I could’ve adequately sustained (fed AND housed) my family in one of the most pricey areas to live in the country, though not the safest (SF extended Bay Area), and a salary level I couldn’t possibly obtain once the case hit the custody courts, which continually interrupted work!    In other areas — and I have looked at some housing prices in Pennsylvania while helping look at the Scranton area disgraces — these amounts would probably sustain a family of four, comfortably.  But instead, they are “supplemental” income from related groups by people on the Board of PCADV who already are making in the realm of $70+ per year.  I don’t have a problem with people making that much income, but when the program exists because of federal funding, then it has to be accountable to taxpayers for what it’s doing.  If it is functioning as a leader among state-funded coalitions and allowing people to go through programs it subsidizes, and not warning women about upcoming custody issues WHILE it serves them, it doesn’t deserve to continue leading.  This is exactly what is happening throughout the country — and probably because of the centralization & “professionalization” of this movement!

 

From “foundation finder” — and only for a single year, 2005, here are how many state (and county, etc.) groups are “Against Domestic Violence.” Who wouldn’t be “against domestic violence” and actually admit it? The list is long: Again, these are from groups who have apparently filed tax returns with the IRS (if not their local states) in 2005.

62 documents matched. 62 documents displayed. (Search on “Against Domestic Violence“)

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Agape Foundation Against Domestic Violence Inc. CA 2005 $3,401 990EZ 14 95-4697016
Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. AL 2005 $586,764 990 22 63-0907890
Alliance Against Domestic Violence WA 2005 $-4,005 990EZ 15 91-1920654
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence VA 2005 $6,394 990EZ 12 54-1679023
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence VA 2005 $29,691 990EZ 11 54-1679023
Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. AZ 2005 $584,318 990 15 86-0593601
Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence Inc. MA 2005 $1,349,359 990 20 04-3103354
Botteneau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. ND 2005 $-1,660 990 12 36-3653713
Branch County Coalition Against Domestic Violence MI 2005 $747,905 990 21 38-2463183
Bridges Against Domestic Violence SD 2005 $45,935 990 13 46-0425839
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence CA 2005 $422,627 990 17 77-0347420
Center for The Elimination of Violence Family Inc. (D/B/A Center Against Domestic Violence)*** NY 2005 $8,313,868 990 28 11-2415837
Citizens Against Domestic Violence NC 2005 $27,649 990 15 56-2023076
Citizens Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $9,025 990EZ 19 31-1703077
Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence CO 2005 $305,976 990 25 84-0742604
Committee Against Domestic Violence NV 2005 $991,442 990 27 88-0187930
Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. CT 2005 $1,141,502 990 22 06-0985675
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence DC 2005 $177,997 990 22 52-1515600
Employers Against Domestic Violence MA 2005 $62,063 990EZ 11 04-3389211
Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. FL 2005 $5,065,959 990 19 59-2055476
Fremont County Alliance Against Domestic Violence WY 2005 $262,417 990 13 83-0254163
Georgia Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. GA 2005 $218,210 990 17 58-1854962
Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence HI 2005 $34,704 990 20 99-0235218
IA Coal Against Domestic Violence IA 2005 $344,360 990 18 42-1285094
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence IL 2005 $683,281 990 20 37-1056288
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence Foundation IL 2005 $39,132 990 14 37-1381646
Indian Country Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault OR 2005 $8,491 990 14 04-3601074
Indiana Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. IN 2005 $227,338 990 13 31-1009769
Kankakee County Coalition Against Domestic Violence IL 2005 $584,737 990 15 36-3100202
Knox County Task Force Against Domestic Violence Dba Harbor House IN 2005 $331,796 990 15 35-1662335
Lincoln County Coalition Against Domestic Violence NC 2005 $185,074 990 18 56-1822730
Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence LA 2005 $426,982 990 25 72-1015427
Marshall County Coal Against Domestic Violence AL 2005 $38,628 990 17 30-0178911
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence MD 2005 $188,574 990 17 52-1233434
Maury Co Center Against Domestic Violence TN 2005 $412,158 990 16 62-1375056
Merrimack County Task Force Against Domestic Violence NH 2005 $291,019 990 26 02-0342221
Mississippi State Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. MS 2005 $407,812 990 28 64-0656865
Nashville Coalition Against Domestic Violence TN 2005 $0 990PF 13 58-2165997
Nassau County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $1,710,858 990 20 11-2442377
National Coal Against Domestic Violence CO 2005 $217,684 990 24 91-1081344
Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence NV 2005 $277,241 990 19 94-2910861
New York State Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $449,377 990 18 22-2337608
NM Coalition Against Domestic Violence NM 2005 $1,116,716 990 16 93-0792163
North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., The NC 2005 $449,411 990 21 61-1077481
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault I OK 2005 $247,396 990 25 73-1131211
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Inc. OK 2005 $261,112 990 30 73-1131211
Partnership Against Domestic Violence Inc. GA 2005 $1,067,804 990 20 58-1314556
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence PA 2005 $3,700,229 990 29 23-2052886
People Against Domestic Violence MO 2005 $36,174 990 14 43-1577117
Pike County Partnership Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $46,070 990 17 31-1438441
R I Coalition Against Domestic Violence RI 2005 $882,830 990 17 05-0384580
Richland County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. MT 2005 $27,674 990EZ 10 36-3452392
Ross County Coalition Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $146,155 990 22 31-1044779
SC Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault SC 2005 $310,313 990 21 57-0760811
South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence SD 2005 $29,146 990 13 46-0357192
Stand! Against Domestic Violence CA 2005 $4,439,016 990 22 94-2476576
Suffolk County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $924,328 990 17 11-2470902
Unidos Against Domestic Violence Inc. WI 2005 $61,765 990 24 39-1967912
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence WA 2005 $821,765 990 19 91-1507028
WI Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. WI 2005 $228,954 990 23 39-1380437
WV Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. WV 2005 $486,285 990 17 31-1011750
Wyoming Coal Against Domestic Violence WY 2005 $664,354 990 25 74-2466406

In short, Everyone (if you ask them — or fund them) is against domestic violence.  Imagine a group being honest enough to say, “I’m FOR Domestic Violence!”  — it’s one of the easiest topics to say you are against.  So we have:  Coalitions, Centers, Task Forces, Networks, Partnerships, but the primary ones taking money from HHS come under the centralized “Coalitions.”  Some are by state, others are by county, others have some particular emphasis (“Unidos” or “Asian” or “Agape” etc.) (I put anything over $1 million in red font).

*** This one (new to me) says its program purpose is SHELTERING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, and has leased some property in NY for it.  Its officers have one Executive Director at $125K (very reasonable for the field), and “Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Employees Other Than Officers,Directors,and Trustees” shows from mid-sixties to $81K, including two shelter directors.  This one looks like it is actually getting help to people, and not spending its money on training, building fancy websites, and “technical assistance” while selling curriculum to everything that moves and breathes.   LEt’s see if this comes from HHS by an “EIN#” search:  Recipient EIN = 112415837 No matching awards found.

The Center began at a “speak out” in Brooklyn in 1976 where more than a hundred women told how their lives had been turned upside down by domestic violence. One thing became clear: There was no place where mothers could flee to safety with their children. In fact, it was against regulations to bring a child to the “unfit” environment of a shelter. A group of trailblazing women—domestic violence victims, survivors and advocates—set out to change all that and the Center was born.

The Center’s Women’s Survival Space, a place where abused women and their children could find safety, was the first of its kind in the State and is now the longest operating domestic violence emergency shelter in New York. Today the Center houses up to 1,000 women and children each year in three emergency shelters.

By contrast, the Florida CADV (which got $5 million+ in 2005) shows this amount in TAGGS:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  TALLAHASSEE FL 32301-2756 LEON 053274101 $ 7,878,370

$2.2 million of this (above) was from “DELTA” alliances….

Award Number: CCU422481
Award Title: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENHANCEMENT & LEADERSHIP THROUGH ALLIANCES
OPDIV: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Organization: NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (NCIPC)
Award Class: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

The other thing these grants go to is sometimes to set up “resource centers” aka nice websites which republishes the same type of information, and I wonder who’s monitoring the results and the tax returns of these nonprofits-within-nonprofits. Anyone?

Do a basic “recipient search” (by NAME) on TAGGS, for “Domestic Violence” and notice how much larger the results list is, and how much larger the grants are. PCADV shows over $40 million alone. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence has three different DUNS# it is taking grants under. New York Coalition Against DV — two. There are consortiums and interventions and councils when it comes to “domestic violence” — 74 recipients in all.

Many of these grants are being shared with shelters, and I really wonder if some of the money actually gets TO the shelters, as there is so much emphasis on “Technical Assistance.” There’s one called a National Resource Center on DV (which I looked up) in Harrisburg, PA — which received $1.5 million — and yet I am wondering how separate it really is from the PCADV?

(Filed for incorporation in PA in 2011 only):






National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Inc. 4023857 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 4/11/2011

(I don’t understand why — but the Secr. of State  PA Corporations page shows one filing only for PCADV — in 1977.  No annual report filings show up.).  Again, the “NCRDV” is an HHS project, and per its own website, existed by name since 1993, 1995 — but only as a corporation this past year?

ABOUT NRCDV…

It is the mission of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence to improve societal and community responses to domestic violence and, ultimately, prevent its occurrence.

Since 1993, the Pennsylvania Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has received core funding to operate the NRCDV from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with supplemental funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support VAWnet, our national online resource center, and other private and public grants. The NRCDV employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of projects to address the complex challenges domestic violence poses to families, institutions, communities, and governments.

Similarly, an Ohio Coalition Against Domestic Violence — in Franklin County, OH — has gotten over $7 million (from HHS, not including any from the DOJ) — and yet Ohio also has a major parallel network to counter any feminism, entrenched and well organized — which I looked at when a little girl got molested and raped INSIDE a government-funded facility, and it was photographed on cell phone, during one of those “Family Reunification” Supervised (?) visits that everyone is paying for. This little girl’s sister had previously died in foster care after being removed AT BIRTH from the mother.

See below, I also address that these groups are NOT necessarily mothers’ friends:

BWJP associates with the Duluth group (DAIP) and “MPDI” which I have blogged on, obviously. I forgot to mention – the live stream of the conference indicated that now the women are to honor “Ellen Pence.” That’s fine — how about a moment of silence for all the dead women, children, and let’s throw in the bystanders, that Ms. Pence’s Collaborative Community Response theory (CCR) is NOT saving, as we speak, and for a round of applause for completely silence on the fatherhood funding, when addressing women and mothers. I also think she should be commended for fronting and schmoozing with another fraudulent group called the National Family Justic Center Alliance (Casey Gwinn Gael Strack, etc., brainchild) out of San Diego, the “Enron by the Sea.”

Here’s MPDI funding, so far:
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC
DULUTH  MN  55802-2152  ST. LOUIS  193187069  $ 19,901,530

~ ~ ~
When people stand up and speak to (you) — one of the first questions to answer, particularly in this field, is, who is funding them, and who are their friends. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I have just spent almost 20 years in the geographic area of one of the largest “family violence prevention funds” around — and I cannot see what lives it is saving, and it has completely avoided dealing with the family law crisis. That’s simply unacceptable, at this level, and while other social services (like to the disabled) are taken into consideration.

Taken from the “DAIP” (Duluth Abuse Intervention Program) site — where solicitations for donations, and products being marketed are prominent figures, we learn that BWJP is one of its projects:

The mission of Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs is to end violence against women. We give voice to diverse women who are battered by translating their experiences into innovative programs and institutional changes that centralize victim safety. We partner with communities worldwide to inspire the social and political will to eliminate violence against women and their families.

Our programs include the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the Duluth Family Visitation Center, the National Training Project, and the Battered Women’s Justice Project.

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program that collaborates with community agencies such as law enforcement, criminal and civil courts, and human service agencies to provide an institutional advocacy response to battering.

Our Visitation Center offers support for victims of domestic violence and their children as well as supervised visitation, monitored visitation, and monitored exchange services to families affected by domestic violence.

Supervised Visitation was one of those compromises with radical men’s groups; and it is an adaptation from the field of child welfare, i.e., “reunification theory.” Thanks to the concept that intervention, supervised visitation, and judicial trainings are the solution, we have had nightmare circumstances where non-offending mothers are being put into supervised visitation monitoring and further traumatized, monitored and reported on. Jack Straton testified in early 1990s!! AGAINST doing this to children, and why — and that testimony actually is printed under DAIP type letter head (and probably on my blogroll to right). His advice was ignored, and now the situation is far worse — because while he said this in 1992, 1993 — in 1996 welfare reform opened up a grants stream (diversion from TANF) to encourage the development of such supervised visitation centers.

These centers are now making negative press headlines, have been since 1999 reported as sources of potential and identified double-billing (in fact one of the women’s cases who was at the head of the room at BMCC is on-line documenting this. For some reason, her voice in this matter has been silenced, and she sits by mutely while her colleague Connie Valentine recites how great it is to have this task force about “Children Exposed to Violence.” .. . .. I have a question (speaking of Sandusky) — if one of the most heavily funded coalitions against DV is in PA — and what’s more, I think isn’t it even AT Penn State? — then how come they didn’t put two and two together about the Second Mile, Sandusky, and the scandal in the Lackawanna County family courts? Which the FBI is now investigating (and which overlaps with the field of supervised visitation).

etc.. . . . .

BWJP is one of “Four Resource Centers” according to a 2007 Federal Register description.

During FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made 241 grants to States and Tribes or Tribal organizations. HHS also made 53 family violence prevention grant awards to non-profit State domestic violence coalitions.Show citation box
In addition, HHS supports the Domestic Violence Resource Center Network (DVRN). DVRN consists of the National Resource Center for Domestic Violence (NRC) and four Special Issue Resource Centers (SIRCs). The four SIRCs are: The Battered Women’s Justice Project, the Resource Center on Child Custody and Protection, the Resource Center for the Elimination of Domestic Violence Against Native Women (Sacred Circle), and the Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence. The purpose of NRC and the SIRCs is to provide resource information, training, and technical assistance to Federal, State, and Indian Tribal agencies; local domestic violence prevention programs; and other professionals who provide services to victims of domestic violence.

(NB: Plenty of collaborations between DV & Fatherhood groups are held behind mothers in custody battles’ backs, and without soliciting their input, see any federally supported, state-level (or state-wide) DV provider these days, or fatherhood provider, and it’ll become clear how cozy a relationship these two types of groups have with each other. Eventually (in time marked by statistics and headlines of people shot or otherwise killed surrounding divorce & custody issues) some of these two groups — and very proud of themselves they seem — even talk (with each other) about oh, yes, and women ARE losing their children to abusers.

Here’s a segment from “TimesUP” (a blog, with lengthy article by Barry Goldstein, telling how the first (BMCC) custody conference had a great idea — which was to reach out to the domestic violence groups (“After all, are they not the experts?” must’ve been the reasoning)and get them involved. I’m sure the expenses can be written off at the nonprofit level. It’s called “History of the Battered Mothers’ Conference” and appears to be dated (or at least posted) Dec. 2010, and ends inviting people to attend the January, 2011 conference.)

QUOTE:

The battered women’s movement is a natural ally of the protective mothers movement.*

“After our first conference Mo and I spoke about the importance of working with domestic violence organizations and we reached out to the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters. Domestic violence advocates are now well represented at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. Mo and I were invited to lead a workshop and then a separate discussion group at the 2008 NCADV national conference. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the NCADV and other staff have become regular participants at the Battered Mothers conferences and have given us everything we ever asked for. The NCADV invited Mo and I together with Garland Waller and Judge Mike Brigner to present about our book at a plenary session during the 2010 NCADV national conference in Anaheim. This has been a wonderful collaboration that will continue to benefit protective mothers and all of the battered women’s movement.

END QUOTE:

MY RESPONSE(s):

[[*FALSE! The Protective Mothers’ Movement (as such) was only necessary because of work the Battered Women’s Movement left undone, conveniently for the family court system, or couldn’t break through and accomplish, instead compromising away rights of future battered women — without their knowledge — by compromise, and failing to advertise heavily to what degree they had compromised. This evidently is Mr. Goldstein’s perception still, which may explain why he’s still nonplussed (or at least silent on) what really is “up” in the custody courts, and (more to the point), WHY!]]

RE, Above:

“the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters”

Why shouldn’t they? BMCC is not about to “out” the various alliances these organizations have, and when women in attendance have tried to (from the floor), it’s not exactly a warm reception. On the live stream, so far, I heard approximately three women bring this up from the floor. One of these did so during a break, while people were going in and out and talking a lot in the background, i.e., she didn’t have official “floor.” (ALSO NOTE: Unprofessional — the schedule was behind by this point, over an hour behind. Mr. Goldstein was to start his session at 10 a.m. Instead, did not have the floor until after 11:30am, PST.).

This person also commented on the “TimesUpBlog” in Dec. 2010, and basically reiterated it today, around a din of people coming and going for their long-overdue rest break, I guess:

ricky fowler said…

nys coalition against DV and NYS domestic prevention are not advocates of battered mothers, they do not fight DV the do not fight the courts. the DV shelters are fathers rights. and when the mothers complained at the first conference that the shelters are useless, this is still the truth, it haven’t changed. they are the enemy, the YWCA all over the nation is partaking in abuse of mothers and children.

we have no experts in DV, we have people that make money . we need a non custodial mother movement. battered mothers that are not protective mothers are being rubberstamped and lose their children. the admi of family and children promote abuse, the MH proffessionals promote abuse. we are making no progress. and the NCADV is not addressing the real problem. the dog need to be called in its name. it is not just custody scandal. is human trafficking, and one of our worst enemies are the carrer driven women. they are selling the mothers. the public will only care when when they will see the blood, the bones the death. so far the bublic does not want to know and does not want to care. to many of them are getting rich this way.

Today (see live stream, perhaps earlier you tubes are saved to the site), after this, a woman got up and said, she comes from a DV program (provider) and feels under attack every time she comes to the conferences, “not all programs are the same.” (I believe this is true, however, some similar things have happened to where they get their funding from, which is no doubt affecting what they can do.)

When this second woman from a DV program (I don’t know which kind, whether shelter or another source) another grabbed the mike more authoritatively and said, “listen up people, this is important.” Then shared that, while she could see both sides of the question — AND, the battered women’s shelter hadn’t helped her custody case either — we should honor everyone’s work, we honor “all you do” — (and then proceeded to list, basically, the presenters again…)

Another woman (in earlier session) named some NY state agency that was getting quite a bit of money. The presenter (I couldn’t see which one) said, they didn’t want that dialogue now, get it together with others separately. The woman mentioned “OHEL,” which I began to look up.

Well, at least now I know why the BMCC hasn’t published the most important materials mothers need to know in their custody case, or fathers, in their child support or custody cases, for that matter! Or taxpayers — which is who is paying the other side? If this were reported, then the natural tendency of women would be to run across who is funding groups like FVPF, NCADV, PCADV, etc. And to my knowledge, the NFI (incorporated ca. 1994!) Ron Haskins, Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Brookings Institutions, STATE-LEVEL Fatherhood Commissions, etc. — are not going to be brought up, either.

I want to also quote another section of the same article on the same blog to illustrate what mean by the Hierarchy Mindset, when a movement is NOT a true grassroots movement because the paid professionals ARE involved:

For the fourth annual conference, Mo had the idea of creating a Truth Commission made up of a multi-disciplinary group of leading experts in domestic violence and custody

    who would listen to the testimony of sixteen protective mothers and use this information together with their knowledge of domestic violence custody cases to make a report

about the problems in the custody courts and potential solutions that could prevent the all too common tragedies discussed in the testimony and research.

Notes: It was Mo’s idea — not a participating mother’s idea. Mo Hannah, Ph.D. straddles two worlds — she is a mother who has experience in this system (how recent, I don’t know) and also a college professor, major, psychology — which is significant in this field, dealing with criminal matters, or what WE like to believe are criminal matters, even if the family courts decriminalize them because they were committed by personal relationship, and not a stranger.

And in her conception, the women could tell their stories, and the experts would write it up, adding their inside knowledge on cases (what makes these parties think that women have not themselves networked, read other casework, sat in on hearings, seen firsthand enough to testify on?)

We listened to the mothers’ testimony in front of the conference and then met privately to discuss the issues and prepare the report. While there were a few minor disagreements most of the conclusions and recommendations were unanimous and the atmosphere for the discussions was collegial. The Truth Commission presented its report and discussed it at the conference in front of all the participants. The reaction was supportive and appreciative. We later exchanged drafts by email as we prepared the final written report that can be found on the Internet and in our book.

The Truth Commission Report created a lot of excitement when we released it because it not only exposed the extent of the problem but also provided realistic solutions.

{{PI’VE READ ONE OR ANOTHER VERSIONS OF THIS ON THE INTERNET, AND HAVE READ CAREFULLY THE CONTENTS AND PREFACE MATTER OF THE RESULTING BOOK (OVER 100pp of it). ITS SOLUTIONS COMPLETELY FAIL TO REPORT ON THE PWORWA AND EXPLAIN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO THE COURTS TO PROLONG CUSTODY CASES, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE. THE BASIC SOLUTION HAULED OUT AT EVERY CONFERENCE USUALLY BOILS DOWN TO — THE JUDGES NEED MORE EXPERT TRAINING. OURS…}}

One of the people who was impressed by the report was a publisher at Civic Research Institute which produces quality research and other material by and for professionals. She asked Mo Hannah to prepare a book based on the Truth Commission Report and Mo invited me to co-edit the book with her. This became DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY which was published in April of 2010. Many of the experts who present at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference became contributors to the book. We are excited that the book will be available at the upcoming 8th annual conference January 7-9. We will be discussing how to use the research in the book to help win better results in court.

While this is presented as “we’re all in is together” a “Truth Commission” on the presenters — and on this book — would include that the groups mentioned above, particularly NCADV, in its Anaheim CA Conference (2010?) mercilessly promoted each other, this book and through mailing lists provided by, it seems, “California Protective Parents Association,” Connie Valentine, et. al. A special “Custody track” was added to the NCADV conference, and people who played nicely by the rules could also present there, which Ms. Valentine and others did. More products were introduced to sell to women whose kids and lives were presently being injured and whose lives were under threat, while receiving horrible treatments and further abuse in the courts.

I protested loudly when a friend of mine, who put up an excellent blog, and who was known to be homeless, had been so slapping up press-releases for NCADV/CJE (Kathleen Russell Consulting -related nonprofit), and so forth, while these women were having their wages garnished and THIS one was homeless and working FT to pay her ex-batterer, having zero visitation with her son! There seems no end to what can be drained out of mothers, while concealing relevant information that at least makes some sense!

I do believe that at some level, women leaving abuse are prone to simply finding another controller/handler to replace them, and are particularly vulnerable when this includes both women and men.

The overall standard within this crowd is that anyone who disturbs the peace — i.e., has some “high-conflict” relationship with the overall strategy, process, or themes — can just either learn to get along, or go somewhere else. In this manner, the tendency of women to congregate and work together, and also use peer pressure and group pressure to control dissidents or troublemakers (or, those who won’t go along with the gang when IT is the troublemaker) — is being, to my mind, exploited by those running the conference.

There is also the issue of “blurred boundaries” and thinking that the “is what WE are doing working” actually represents a true “we.” it doesn’t. The women gave their testimony, but the experts wrote the book. Even if they make zero money from it, it’s still on their resume, and can be sited for further speaking engagements.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Anyone who runs a conference, puts it on (which is a major deal) and has had to plan, advertise, administrate, staff, design PR and brochures for, handle finances of presenters and exhibitors, etc. — has a right to control the conference and who gets up front and who does not.

i also believe that this type of podium/floor conferences are NOT the best places for experts to interact with non-experts. It’s not enough to overcome the self-perceived professionalism of the presenters, and the very professional and sometimes expert observation mothers bring to the floor, but without their Ph.D.’s etc.

By innocently? bringing in the “DV Experts” and developing an ongoing momentum of some sort, Mo and Barry, together with west coast helpers Connie Valentine & Karen Anderson (group, CPPA), and non-mother, non-family court survivor Kathleen Russell & CJE (Center for Judicial Excellence), etc. – have all but assured that the TRUTH is not going to come out honestly in this forum. I know from pretty reliable hearsay that Mo also has known about some of the materials I report, and others have reported (California NOW 2002, Marv Byer, NAFCJ.net, in particular) and has chosen not to lead with this information. We all need to make a living, right?

I have personally by email more than once, and also in commentary on material (blogs) these have written, brought up the influence of the nonprofit groups, the actual data regarding the access/visitation funding (to enable increased noncustodial time) and other very obvious (once you look at the stuff) influences on custody decisions, over a period of more than two years, and speaking as a family court survivor who had seen that the information coming out of this source now DOES NOT HELP CUSTODY CASES CONSISTENTLY.

They are still talking about “batterers manipulating the courts” and seem very foggy on the matter that the courts have also influenced the batterers.

conic Analysis is not only more objective than psychological and hearsay reports from the experts — it’s something a person could do at home without an advanced degree, but with some persistence. Doing this type of look-ups also is enlightening and convicting to individuals; the information CANNOT be ignored forever.

I also saw segments from a 2011 protest at HHS building (Washington, D.C.) and saw the signs /banner put up. They were blunt and confronting — but did not give readers or passers by a single website to go to, almost (except “Save Elsa Newman” type one) or mention any terms which could provoke a neutral person to go look things up at home later.

It mentioned the words “$500 million fatherhood funding.” Like the “58,000 children a year put in the custody of (molesters/abusers) which comes from The Leadership Council” — I don’t know where they got this from. If the goal is consciousness-raising, then how about a cite when the data is put out, so a person would see it him/herself.

I personally think the information is far larger. One newsletter I have leads me to believe that possibly someone got it from a Washington Post article!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference comprises a warm, but extended family that’s spread out all year long, but comes together for a ceremonial occasions to share stories and exchange gifts (well, in this case, SELL THINGS), then I would like to propose another paradigm of this family which may speak to mothers involved:

Before you reported, did YOUR family of origin, or extended family, try to “keep secrets” and severely ostracize or punish people who spoke up about what was happening behind closed doors, or collectively by tacit assent — when a child or spouse (or both) was being abused?

I have to at this point say, that’s what you have in the BMCC. Mothers have allowed professional DV organizations to drive the agenda, and to help you sell product. However noble or sincere their intentions may be (and I do believe many of them are), it is NEGLIGENT to omit the statistics on who is running the court system, year after year (8 years in a row), enabling the more informed organizations to “play the field” and dig organizational and financial network of trenches to further compromise the safety of women leaving abusive situations.

You do NOT send troops into battle with chinks in their armor. this IS a battle for the safety of children and particularly “battered mothers” — and they are not even being provided with an adequate boot camp, or even weapons, not unless they know who their opposing side is and what the modus operandi is. Less coaching, more observation would help.

It seems clear that either Mr. Goldstein has not done his homework on TAGGS, USASPending.gov, or on the readily available on-line material about AFCC, and about Welfare Reform, etc., — or he has, and hasn’t digested it.

For example, getting the state (government funding) involved is likely to frame the question in a certain manner so as not to compromise other funded issues — such as fatherhood promotion, which is quite well, thank you, in NYS.

Moreover, as I mentioned above, NOW has many priorities, and reforming family law is NOT a top one. It’s on the back burner.

I hope by being VERY overt and blatant about this position, it may help wake up, or resonate with someone who’s on the fence about, what’s really going on here? We need to know who is and who is not a “friend” when it comes to the most important issues in any parent’s life: Staying alive, and protecting (her, in this case) young. The same principles apply to when assessing who is and who is not going to live in one’s household any longer. Assessment needs to happen.

My blog will NOT continue to be added to after January 2012, (the end of this much) pretty much. This work is volunteer, and no one has to volunteer years on end, after so many years of devastation in the “custody courts” following a pretty devastating marital relationship.

Life consists of time, which is precious — so do good analysis, check it from time to time, adjust as needed, and make good decisions — but make them at least your own decisions!

Consider this a “Shout!” and hopefully it will echo in someone else’s ears.

When mothers who have been battered, or had extreme trauma through either CPS, or removal of children without due process in the courts, will take some time to look up (not rocket science!) on-line some of the people who preaching and teaching them how to manage their own court cases, and what the dynamics are like — I believe they will be more empowered; and will take their RIGHTFUL place in leading — not following — any reform movement within the family law system.

Many of such women may not feel comfortable standing up and saying STOP! No! Ludicrous! or stepping apart from (this) crowd. Others may — but until you take the position of, I am going to VALIDATE information I’ve been receiving, and moreover, I’m going to show a little initiative, or “ADHD” and look at some things these teachers are NOT mentioning to see if they fit in the puzzle — the less need they will have to cross the continent to listen to the “same old” and hopefully get a few seconds of mike in-between presentations.

Really, we need to analyze what good have the experts done here, be thankful for the progress, and probably, take the reins away. “Thank you, foremothers and forefathers, now this is what’s been happening in the last 15 years that your driving down this road failed to see. No harm meant, but it’s time to reconsider the license to lead.”

(Of course, there is no license needed to put on a conference — just organization and some funding. So the matter is of, where to spend one’s time.)

There’s a lot more being communicated than just content at any conference (this one included). As a former teacher, I know this. There are standards, values, processes, and so forth. Right now, I feel from this far away — and by who’s presenting — (today’s post is a sampler, and I didn’t mention the ever forefront promotion of the Holly Collins case and Garland Waller’s film) that it’s time for something different.

Psst! “PSI” (Policy Studies Inc.) in its own words…. plus ….

with one comment

Blogger note, 2015 — Policy Studies, Inc. now redirects to “Maximus” another well-known (if not universally respected) child support and other government services contractor.  “Global Expertise at the Local Level.”   

Actually, Maximus’ home page has its services split into:

  • Health
  • Federal
  • Child Support
  • Education
  • Workforce
  • Consulting
  • Business and Tax Credit

Recent meeting, seminar, or webinar Sept. 14, 2015:


Maximus, despite is size, scope, purpose and some stains in the past (which it earned enough to at least pay settlements on, and continue receiving contracts — it’s nice to be “too big to fail,” eh?”), is a good “Corporate Citizen” too and wants readers to know that this (and not reducing corporate tax rates) was why in 2000 it set up a Foundation:

MAXIMUS Foundation

At MAXIMUS, we hold a strong sense of corporate citizenship and responsibility. We recognize the importance of giving back to the communities in which we live and work. In response, the MAXIMUS Board of Directors created the MAXIMUS Foundation in 2000.

The MAXIMUS Foundation is committed to supporting organizations and programs that promote personal growth and self-sufficiency through improved health, augmented child and family development, and community development. We provide financial support for non-profit organizations and charities that share our commitment in helping disadvantaged populations and underserved communities.

The MAXIMUS Foundation is funded by charitable gifts from the employees of MAXIMUS and supplemented by grants from the Company. It is a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is exempt from tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…

View a list of organizations that received financial support in our most recent grant cycle. (by state, doesn’t show, however amounts, or for previous years.  For that, you have to actually go to their tax return declarations, at least).

I see a Spring 2015 grantee for NY is a major (and not in need of grants, either) foundation involved in transforming the NYS justice system (and others, internationally) through a cooperative project with the Courts.  The cooperative project is “the Center” but the actual 501(c)3 is “Fund for the City of New York,” started in 1968 by Ford Foundation, as its tax return says:

Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities THE FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEWYORK WAS CREATED BY THE FORD FOUNDATION IN 1968 WITH THE MANDATE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS, THE FUND WORKS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT INNOVATIONS IN POLICY, PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY TO ADVANCE THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

They’re just trying to systems-change, continually, for a better world…. better particularly for nonprofits (what about taxpayers who don’t organize themselves into nonprofits, or working for them or government — what about that sector?).  Well, this organization (the Ford-founded Fund for the City of New York), oddly, is licensed to solicit in mostly East Coast states — and California.  It also runs two other nonprofits (Schedule-R/”Related Tax-Exempt Organizations”):

(1) NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC   to “FACILITATE FCNY’S MISSION TO OTHER CITIES IN THE U S” and

(2) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INC for “IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERMENT AND NONPROFIT ORG WORLDWIDE”

“CT, NY, NJ, FL, CA, MA” (tax return below next quote, see Schedule G, Part I)

New York

Abraham House
CASES
Center for Court Innovation/Fund for the City of New York
Coalition for the Homeless, Inc.
Common Ground Communities, Inc. d/b/a Community Solutions**
Community-Word Project, Inc.
Harlem Educational Activities Fund, Inc.
Move This World
New York Common Pantry
Odyssey House Inc.
The Children’s Village, Inc.
The New York Foundling Hospital
Women’s Prison Association

Fund for the City of New York is clearly doing “poorly” and Maximus — a lot of whose business comes before, and relates to business being handled by the NYS Unified Court System with which this Fund works, influentially — clearly ought to step in the funding gap.  After all, it’s not even within range of a billion dollar assets yet, although it did increase by about $25M  in the past two years:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Fund for the City of New York NY 2013 990 105 $86,222,421.00 13-2612524
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2012 990 51 $71,729,914.00 13-2612524
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2011 990 90 $60,361,290.00 13-2612524

I don’t know that I’d make such a big fuss about this foundation — it’s not that large.  It’s also registered as a “PF” (Private Foundation), not public charity, although both are 501(c)3s…

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
MAXIMUS Foundation, Inc. VA 2013 990PF 34 $285,511.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2012 990PF 31 $218,121.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2011 990PF 22 $167,190.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2011 990PR 6 $0.00 54-1993677

(Click on Org. name to view return).  For example — Year “2013” above — the form says, it RECEIVED contributions of $665,818 (of this, $562,181 from Maximus itself) and CONTRIBUTED $682,930 to others, which are listed in very fine print at the back.  These are mostly in small amounts, from $250 — $500 – $1,000 – $1,500 and $2,000, with just a few organizations getting more.  In that year (note:  Tax return 2015 not viewable yet — so it’s easy to tell about grants which the public can’t, yet, fact-check on a tax return..) “Community-Word Project, Inc.” got $1,500.  “The Fund for Public Schools” (NY) got $50K, an American Red Cross in the National Capital Area $40K, One Fund Boston, Inc. (whoever they are), $25K.


 

One Fund Boston, Inc. was formed in 2013 for Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings “and related events.”  It has a board of 3 people, 1 employees, 25 volunteers, and the first year shown here, received $76M of private (non-government) donations.  Of these it gave out $58+M in the US, and $2.195M overseas (East Asia/Pacific) — and not to organizations, but to individuals.

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
One Fund Boston MA 2013 990 32 $18,727,756.00 46-2547157

(Code, )(Expenses$ 60,607,308. includinggrantsof$ 60,504,000 )(Revenue$ DISTRIBUTION OF CASH GIFTS TO VICTIMS OF THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS AND RELATED EVENTS OF 4/18/13 AND 4/19/13 TO HELP MEET THE SIGNIFICANT ONGOING NEEDS OF THE SURVIVOR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO THE PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES NOTED ABOVE, THE ORGANIZATION ALSO INCURRED $895,960 OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM-RELATED EXPENSES, ALL OF WHICH REPRESENTS SERVICES THAT WERE GRACIOUSLY DONATED BY MANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Entity Name ID Number Old ID Number Address
ONE FUND BOSTON, INC. 001105027 53 STATE ST.
BOSTON, MA 02109 USA

While it’s commendable to donate a nice chunk  ($0.025 Million) out of the $76million that came in,  I should also note that the likelihood of the funds being traceable as actually received and distributed by One Fund Boston, when its recipients are individuals, not organizations, is minimal.


Common Ground Communities dba “Community Solutions” has this EIN# 27-3523909, and this website (in addition to a blog): 

Web URL: www.cmtysolutions.org
Blog URL: cmtysolutions.org/blog

 

Guidestar says that in 2011 its main funding was from HUD and a certain foundation:

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – $450,000
  • The Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation – $400,000

The name “Common Ground” is so “common” around town, at first I thought that the above, more recent nonprofit might be unrelated to the series of HFDC (housing development fund corporations) found below — but I think they are the same, based on this description of the 2011ff group:

Rosanne Haggerty is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Solutions. She is an internationally recognized leader in developing innovative strategies to end homelessness and strengthen communities.

I have recently been studying HUD programming in more detail.  It came up in the context of other blogging, although I’ve been aware of it since about 2012 in connection with writings by someone formerly near the top of FHA who quipped that HUD was being run like a sewer (criminal operation) and explained how some of that went.  Her times of working there, late 1980s; contracting with it, mid-1990s, and after she was almost put out of business for her software (LLC?) having exposed that the federal government was — deliberately — investing with a negative ROI into communities, when it didn’t have to (i.e., fees for RE developer friends took precedence over revamping useable single-family homes in the same areas, and which were already on the books, i.e. FHA books), she was just about ruined and essentially driven out of the USA.  (Catherine Austin Fitts).  I knew less about real estate than about HHS grants, which I could also see were being run, well, “crooked” at least in significant PRWORA (1996ff) categories, namely promoting marriage and fatherhood.   Some of the HHS grantees were already involved in real estate development and community financing actions dating from the “CDBG” (Community Development Block Grant) era.  Hard to explain in one paragraph, but…

The HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (a public law) encouraged the strengthening of CDOs (Community Development Organizations) and CDHOs (Community Development Housing Organizations) nationwide.  FIVE and ONLY FIVE “intermediary” agencies were receiving HUD funds under this program — currently those five are:

  • Living Cities
  • Local Initiative Support Corporation
  • Enterprise Community Partners  (For this, see also The Rouse Company  [<=a very interesting history, taken ca. 2004/2006]/ James W. Rouse, planned communities, shopping malls, “ending poverty” — the real estate/community development way:
    • In the 1960s, he focused on the development of Columbia, the planned community in Maryland. In the 1970s, The Rouse Company developed the festival marketplace concept and opened Faneuil Hall in Boston. Jim retired as CEO of The Rouse Company in 1979 and in 1982 he and wife Patty launched The Enterprise Foundation, now known as Enterprise.He was a member of President Eisenhower’s Task Force on Housing in 1953 and of President Reagan’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives in 1982. …

Note — he’d already formed Enterprise Community Partners (originally, “Foundation”) in 1982...

The Rouse Company (from Encyclopedia.com, date is ca. 2006.  Note, in 2004, I learned, another group, Growth General Partners” (an even larger shopping mall developer/owner nationwide) bought the Rouse Company.  However, in 2009, it filed for bankruptcy — not nice for shareholders, but nice for those who got some of the assets for lower price — including the former subsidiary company, Howard Research Development (?) as in Howard Hughes, Jr. heirs.

Public Company
Incorporated: 1954 as James W. Rouse & Company, Inc.
Employees: 3,169
Sales: $1.17 billion (2003)
Stock Exchanges:New York
Ticker Symbol: RSE
NAIC: 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (Except Miniwarehouses); 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property; 721110 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels (pt)

One of the largest publicly held real estate development and management firms in the United States, The Rouse Company has a reputation for innovation. Under the direction of founder and “industry prophet” James W. Rouse, the company was in the vanguard of suburban enclosed-mall construction in the 1950s, the planned community movement in the 1960s, and the proliferation of urban “festival marketplaces” in the 1970s and early 1980s. The saturation of the retail development market in the early 1990s led the company into the construction and management of more office and mixed-use projects. By the early 21st century, The Rouse Company—now operating as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)—owned and/or operated more than 150 retail, residential, and office properties nationwide.

Timeline — James W. Rouse died in 1996, his (second, but long-term) wife Pattie, in, I think, 2012. See also the Wikipedia article for more details.

{{PLANNED COMMUNITIES — Columbia, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., first}}

Rouse assembled a coterie of planners, sociologists, educators, religious groups, and cultural and medical institutions to advise and support the creation of the new city. When it was launched in 1967, Columbia featured 11,000 residences (including low-cost housing jointly sponsored by the three primary religious denominations); schools within walking distance of elementary and junior high students; Howard County’s first hospital; public transportation; and a shopping center. By 1975, when the city boasted 38,000 residents, it had become “suburban Baltimore,” and within a decade it would be, according to Financial World (1986), “one of the hottest developing territories in the country.”

Rouse’s stock soared from $2 per share in the early 1960s to $30 by 1972. But during the 1974–75 real estate slowdown, the company lost Housing and Urban Development funding for a major low-income housing project. This, in turn, effected a $7 million loss and compelled Rouse to pull out of two engineered communities in Tennessee and Maryland, resulting in additional losses of $4.2 million. Connecticut General {{Life Insurance}} even had to purchase most of Rouse’s share of the Columbia project during this difficult time. Short-term debt stood at $80 million, while equity was at $6 million. From 1974 to 1976, the company retrenched by selling 50 percent stakes in 7 of 24 retail centers, reaping a total of $24 million cash. It also eliminated half the headquarters staff and wrote off $30 million in bad investments.

Thus we see for all the development, it was heavily underwritten by HUD, which public funds are “underwritten,” so to speak, by people who pay tax revenues, a.k.a., work jobs.  On  given year, the primary government revenues, per a pie chart at FMS.Treasury.gov (and posted on my blog — see table of contents post, at the top of the website; you can find this one), of all federal receipts. On the 6/29/2014 post “My Challenge:  Talk Sense or become an OxyMORON (And Someone Else’s Dinner“) there’s a section titled, with a somewhat frustrated commentary right underneath it:

HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

(FOR EXAMPLE, ITS BALANCE SHEET)

If across the US, our independent, and species-survival alertness and thinking has been either disabled, or is being culled [and by personality types, sorted and sifted] for use in the administrative population control professions (the “behavioral change modification” professions which are funded from “on high” (corporations, universities, the US government), and/or the science and technology for yet BETTER population control (and, when it comes to military, systematic decimation of other countries’ populations, while increasing the incarceration rates of our own by the various wars), then I will forget the consciousness-raising herein, and just look for a better place (and that means country) to inhabit.

 

…and then links to Federal Receipts piechart (for 2013).  Look at the two largest sectors in the piechart, and remember, it ain’t corporate taxes (which were only 10%)!   Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts (that must include for federal employees also, I think) — 35%.  Individual Income Taxes — 46%, with some commentary right after the link:

FMS-TREASURY-GOV piechart + legend, 2013 Federal receipts 10% Corp, 46% Income Taxes, 30+% SocSec-Retiremt Contributions-2

“Total receipts [YEAR 2013] increased by $324.9 billion, totaling $2,774.0 billion in fiscal 2013. The graph below shows receipts by source. “Translation of “$2,774.0 billion,” other than “a lot” is:   $2,774,000,000,000.  Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, and another way of putting this would be $2.774 Trillion — that is, for 2013 only, and that’s the federal government of the US, only.  Anyhow click to see what the largest piece of the pie, and the second-largest, is.”

Government tends to get reorganized, regularly, in small or large ways, so the former link now reads tells us that, if you were looking for those “Consolidated Statements of Receipts, Outlays and Balances,”  the Treasury Department’s “Fiscal Management Services” (FMS) and Bureau of the Public Debt have been consolidated:

The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
Current Report Page Has Moved

The Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) have consolidated into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. You will now be redirected to the The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Web site. If you are not redirected in 15 seconds, you can continue to this site by visiting
Current Report.

Please remember to update your bookmarks.

ANYHOW, a look at the page for 2015 reminds us just how large the Executive Branch is:
Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays and Balances (2015)

 

These are not yet available to view (haven’t been uploaded — obviously, I’m typing in Fall 2015 (on a much older post, 2011, true…) but the headings are there to view.  This is what to expect — but look under the last heading to see just how many “Departments of” are listed — those are Executive Branch of the US Government departments.  You can see that “Legislative” is a single link, as is “Judiciary” — but when it comes to “Department of Justice” — that’s an Executive Department.  Notice also there’s an “Executive Office of the President” on the list.  See also (sidebar) the two articles about social sciencification of America, and abolishment of representative government by executive orders.  Think it’s not still going on ???  I wonder how far we are in the process of making Congress (and laws) all but vestigial organs kept there for show, or simply basic operations, while decisions are simply made elsewhere… as there is always SOME crisis, SOME emergency, SOME global problems and of course a shortage of funds for all of the above.

We’ll post files on this page as they become available.

Note: Text Files will be available in Portable Document Format (PDF), and data files will be available in PDF and Excel 3.0. Excel files do not contain footnotes or Table 1.

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four

  • Commissioner’s Letter
  • Preface
  • Description of Accounts Relating to Cash Operations
  • Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures
  • Part One Fiscal Year 2015 Summary
  • Financial Highlights
  • Receipts by Source <= <= <=  (would have another pie chart, I’m sure).
  • Outlays by Function
  • United States Summary General Ledger Balances
  • Part Two Fiscal Year 2015 Details of Receipts
  • Table A – Receipts by Source Categories
  • Part Three Fiscal Year 2015 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances <=<=<(View long List of Departments under here.)

THAT LIST:  Legislative Branch, The Judiciary, [[and then all these other:]] Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense-Military, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services [= Largest grantmaking agency], Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD, HOUSING; pretty influential, would you say?], Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, , Department of Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Other Defense-Civil, Environmental Protection Agency,  Executive Office of the President,*** General Services Administration, International Assistance Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Independent Agencies

 


 

During the company’s difficult years, Rouse invented his own method of accounting. He pioneered a new accounting figure dubbed “current value.”

 

    • In 1987, he became chairman of the National Housing Task Force, which made proposals to Congress in March 1988 for a new housing program. The report formed the basis for comprehensive housing legislation signed into law by President Bush in November 1990. Jim was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, by President Clinton in September 1995. He passed away at the age of 81 at his home in Columbia, Md. – See more at: http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/about/history/about-our-founders#sthash.6FBLOQ3P.dpuf

  • Habitat for Humanity
  • YouthBuild USA

Here a link at Thomas.gov to H.R. 2517, which later became that Act; see the CRS Summary.  The timing is, early 1990s, beginning of Clinton Administration.  Keep in mind that with the passage of 1996 Personal Right to Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA”), which has also been phrased as “privatizing government” and with its “Block grants to States” for TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) instead of the help actually being directed to only needy families, we then go the “Family Values Factor” an open door into proselytizing about marrying and staying married.  In the 1990s, I WAS married — and being battered in front of my children; which “might” have been why the passage of 1996 and its future impact on mothers dealing with domestic violence and abuse in the decades (1980s, 1990s at least) where single mothers were being alternately scapegoated or patronized, but still subject to media campaigns at how our children were — by virtue of being “fatherless” households — at risk for juvenile delinquency, a life of crime, promiscuity, failure, and ending up on welfare or in foster care, etc. etc….

So Title IV-A and Title IV-D of this Social Security Act were already priming the pump to continue causing, actually, more trouble for working single mothers, by encouraging lawsuits for sole legal and physical custody from their former abusers, where abuse had been a factor, or where child support arrears had been run up, and would be compromised if these custody battles –which FOR THE RECORD, tend to interfere with sustainable work, increase poverty, and drive finances and resources (including TIME) which might otherwise go to the next generation — to the problem-solving courts and their professionals, para-professionals, and proselytes/acolytes and hangers-on. {{for further information, follow “AFCC” “CRC’ and friends, including their nice, “don’t ask, adn we won’t tell (about marriage/fatherhood funding or access/visitation funding) friends in the DV industry…)

Oops..  Got a little expressive there…

Here’s that HUD Demonstration act of 1993, summarized.  Try to pick up on the details:

H.R.2517
Latest Title: HUD Demonstration Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Gonzalez, Henry B. [TX-20] (introduced 6/24/1993)      Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 10/27/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-120.


SUMMARY AS OF:
9/23/1993–Passed Senate amended.    (There are 2 other summaries)

HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 – Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary) to carry out an innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program through FY 1994. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to increase funding for the moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program.

(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to the National Community Development Initiative** for grants to local community development organizations for: (1) training and capacity building; (2) technical assistance; and (3) community development and housing assistance. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.

**The other name for this nonprofit is “Living Cities.”  It was initiated by “Rockefeller” and several private foundations and currently has a member list of 22 significant (wealth) tax-exempt foundations in combination with bank / financial institutions.

(Sec. 5) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to increase the authorization of appropriations for community housing partnership activities.

(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program through FY 1998 to attract pension fund investment in affordable housing through the use of project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Requires that at least half of appropriated funds be used in the disposition of multifamily properties. Requires a General Accounting Office program evaluation report. Authorizes FY 1994 program appropriations.

(Sec. 7) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to extend: (1) the termination date for the National Commission on Manufactured Housing; (2) the deadline for the Commission’s final report (after an interim report); and (3) authorization of appropriations for the Commission.

(Sec. 8) Amends the Housing Act of 1949 to: (1) extend authority for Federal agency housing subdivision approval reciprocity; (2) increase Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage authority; and (3) increase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantee authority.

(Sec. 11) Sets forth an administrative fee formula for the section 8 certificate and voucher programs. Directs the Secretary to assess public housing agency costs in administering such programs.

(Sec. 12) Amends Federal law to: (1) extend the commencement deadline for a specified Massachusetts housing project; and (2) permit rental units in a specified Texas project to be project-based.

 

 

 

In 1990, Rosanne founded Common Ground Community, a pioneer in the development of supportive housing and research-based practices that end homelessness. To have greater impact, Ms. Haggerty and her senior team launched Community Solutions in 2011 to help communities solve the problems that create and sustain homelessness. Ms. Haggerty is a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, Ashoka Senior Fellow and Hunt Alternative Fund Prime Mover. In 2012, she was awarded the Jane Jacobs medal for New Ideas and Activism from the Rockefeller Foundation. She serves on the boards of the Alliance for Veterans, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America. She is a Life Trustee of Amherst College.



  •  **This Delaware Corporation only registered in NY 4/29/2012 as a Foreign Not For Profit.  This one shows no “d/b/a” however on its NYS registration (click to see, or repeat the search, google “NYS Corporation Search” or for the charitable registrations, charitiesnys.com

    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITIES, INC.

    By street address search, I see from NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy)  its purpose is:

    Common Ground CommunityHOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES

    Email: info@commonground.org 14 East, 28th Street  New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 471-0815  Fax: (212) 471-0825

    Common Ground Community is a non-profit housing and community development organization whose mission is to solve homelessness. Common Ground provides comprehensive support services, including access to medical and mental health care and job training and placement, designed to help people regain lives of stability and independence

     

    It will be taking then, probably grants from both HUD and HHS as well as probably private sources.  As the site “commonground.org” says:

    Our buildings combine affordable housing with on-site social services.

     

    The money is project-based.   There are nonprofits with the words “Common Ground” in them throughout the country (NY, TX, LA, OH, CA, etc.), but as we can see the HDFC (Housing Development Fund Corp) ones in New York come “I, II, III and IV” and of varying sizes. A change in EIN# means a change in Entity — however, they are probably, if one looks through individual returns for “Schedule R – Related organizations” — with overlapping board members, or otherwise related:  common in real estate development…

    ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2013 990 35 $159,877,710.00 11-3048002
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2012 990 33 $151,961,518.00 11-3048002
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2011 990 41 $141,259,282.00 11-3048002
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY II HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $39,882,573.00 13-3846708
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY II HDFC NY 2012 990 32 $39,055,076.00 13-3846708
    Common Ground Community II HDFC NY 2011 990 36 $37,452,569.00 13-3846708
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY III HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $64,935.00 13-4138205
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY III HDFC NY 2012 990 29 $901,304.00 13-4138205
    Common Ground Community III HDFC NY 2011 990 35 $750,850.00 13-4138205
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY IV HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $15,652,447.00 13-4196931
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY IV HDFC NY 2012 990 30 $17,056,703.00 13-4196931
    Common Ground Community Iv HDFC NY 2011 990 36 $17,764,773.00 13-4196931

     



     

    Plus:  “Preventing Violence by Promoting Fatherhood (Discretionary Grants)”

    A lot of posts, I don’t think were my best.  Yesterday’s, however, I felt was a good one.  There is information on it that is GOOD to be aware of.

    Imagine what vision, some strategic planning, good target market (the U.S. Government, one of largest purchasers in the world, I heard) and TECHNOLOGY can do.

    This report from 2004? comes from  “Encyclopedia.com”

    Policy Studies, Inc.
    1899 Wynkoop Street
    Denver, Colorado 90202
    U.S.A.
    Telephone: (303) 863-0900
    Toll Free: (800) 217-5004
    Fax: (303) 295-0244
    Web site: http://www.policy-studies.com

    Private Company
    Incorporated: 1984
    Employees: 1,030
    Sales: $128 million (2002)
    NAIC: 541611 Administration Management and General Management Consulting Services

    Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI) provides administration outsourcing, research, and consulting services to local, state and federal agencies in the areas of child support enforcement, health benefits administration, and judicial systems organization. The bulk of the company’s business involves consulting and administration of child support enforcement, including payment collection and redisbursement, voluntary paternity establishment, backlog collections, review and adjustment, and other aspects of case management. In addition to providing research and consultation for specific aspects of case management for government agencies in all 50 states and administration outsourcing for specific programs in 21 states, PSI provides full-service child support enforcement administration for counties in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    Trade names (i.e., I gather Fictitious Business names)– at least those registered in Colorado under this corporate name  include:

    # ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
    2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
    5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
    10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

     

    And  just because I feel like it, I”m also posting one (of many) projects another corporation, “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” worked on, via Grants from the HHS.  Basically this is what anyone in the “domestic violence prevention” field AND the “marriage fatherhood” field (the major grantees) really like to do:

    Set up a “resource center” and train someone (via the web, in great part)…

    From Taggs.hhs.gov (This post published 6/22/2011)

    AWARD INFORMATION

    Award Number: 90EV0375
    Award Title: FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
    Organization: FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU (FYSB)
    Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

    Award Abstract

    Title Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance 
    Project Start/End  /
    Abstract Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance
    PI Name/Title Denise Gamache  Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project
    Institution
    Department NONE

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 5 0 ACF 09-15-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 1,178,812
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 4 0 ACF 08-27-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 4 1 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 50,000 
    Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 1,228,812
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2008 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 3 0 ACF 07-22-2008 $ 1,178,811 
    Fiscal Year 2008 Total: $ 1,178,811
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2007 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,810 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,178,810
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2006 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 1 0 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,811 
    Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 1,178,811
    Total of all award actions: $ 5,944,056

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions


     

    The “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has been working alongside the wonderful “AFCC” to Explicate what Domestic Violence is (gee, I didn’t have a clue!) and what is going on when it comes to custody decisions.   The head of this project is working with BWJP:  Denise Gamache  Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project

    The award 90EV0377 was taken by Family Violence Prevention Fund (ExCU u u u se me, “Futures Without Violence” is its new name – at least on some links).  Please notice the similar $$ amounts — $1,178,811 or 812:

    Recipient: FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94103-5177

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 93.592 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 
    2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 08-28-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 175,000 
    2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 07-28-2008 $ 1,178,812 
    2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 09-27-2008 $ 145,000 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 08-13-2007 $ 1,178,812 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 01-26-2007 $ 32,940 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 09-20-2007 $ 182,375 
    2006 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 09-19-2006 $ 1,145,872 
    Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 6,396,435
    Page Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 6,396,435
    Total of 10 Award Actions for 1 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 6,396,435

    Total FVPF funding from HHS (this doesn’t count additional funding from the DOJ, or contracts, vs. grants):

    Total of all award actions: $ 19,368,114

    Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions

     

    SO…..  MPDI got HHS Award #90EV0375, and FVPF got #90EV0377;

    Gee, who got award # 90FE0376?  Another special issue resource center, probably — right?

    Recipient: CANGLESKA, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 57752-0638

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 5 93.592 ACF 09-09-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.592 ACF 09-02-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2008 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.592 ACF 08-01-2008 $ 1,178,812 
    2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.592 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,812 
    2006 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.592 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,812 
    Award Actions Count: 5 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 5,894,060

    Whoever CANGLESKA, INC. is (actually, I do have an idea, have read before) . . . . . Always click on the name and see what other goodies they got:

    Total HHS awards:   $15,650,167.

    Total of all award actions: $ 15,650,167

     

     

    Which includes (go figure) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood”:

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2007 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 
    2006 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 0 ACF 09-25-2006 110316478 $ 400,000 

    (DUNS# 110316478 will also work on USASPending.gov.  Now, there are obviously some discrepancies — because TAGGS, which reports grants only (not contracts — work for pay) is about twice as large as what USASpending.gov — which is to report both grants and contracts — comes up with.  One would think that the USASpending.gov# would always be larger for any group that got both contracts and grants.  However, it comes up with instead (for Cangleska, all of the work in South Dakota, per the map):

     

    • Total Dollars:$7,822,150
    • Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
    • This includes several from the Justice, VAW and/or Agriculture Depts ,not just HHS.  (Whassup with that?)

    Transaction Number # 8

    Federal Award ID: 90FR0074: 0 (Grants)
    Recipient: CANGLESKA
    P.O. BOX 638 , KYLE
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.086 : Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants
    Description:
    PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
    Date Signed:
    September 21 , 2007Obligation Amount: 
    $400,000

     

    PROMOTING FATHERHOOD = PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE???

    Yes, the way to prevent family violence is to promote fatherhood.  This is although the fatherhood movement originated in great part as a complaint against feminism.  I’m so glad that the federally -funded groups have got their act together and just take funding from both sides of the same question, and do webinars, trainings, etc. (to both target clientele):

    2007 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 
    2007 90EV0376  FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 110316478 $ 1,178,812 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,578,812

    (The grants are “discretionary” anyhow….)

    Meanwhile PSI cleans up on the technological end…..

    Here’s another big-bucks resource center group:

    Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
    2009  362486896 National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges NV 1975 03 13,620,813 2,742,133 990

     Our government is still offering grants to make more and more resources available to explicate and analyze (rather than, say, STOP) Violence Against Women (now called “Family Violence”) for purposes of research.  Very Discretionary, I imagine.  here are some:
    Funding Opportunity Title Funding Opportunity Number CFDA# App Due Date Post Date Program
    Early Care and Education Research Scholars: Head Start Graduate Student Research Grants HHS-2011-ACF-OPRE-YR-0150 93.600 06/01/2011 03/29/2011 OPRE
    Early Care and Education Research Scholars: Child Care Research Scholars HHS-2011-ACF-OPRE-YE-0159 93.575 06/14/2011 04/08/2011 OPRE
    Modified: Street Outreach Program HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-YO-0168 93.557 06/24/2011 05/03/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Modified: Basic Center Program HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CY-0166 93.623 06/24/2011 05/03/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Project to Test a Predesigned Data Warehouse Model HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0154 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Partnership to Strengthen Families: Child Support Enforcement and University Partnerships HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0155 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Partnership with Child Support Services to Develop Workforce Strategies and Economic Sustainability HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0152 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Modified: Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CG-0170 93.254 06/27/2011 06/02/2011 ACYF/CB
    Special Improvement Project (SIP) — Projects to Address the Economic Downturn on IV-D Operations HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FI-0151 93.601 06/29/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Modified: Discretionary Funds for Refugee Childcare Microenterprise Development Project HHS-2011-ACF-ORR-RG-0160 93.576 07/05/2011 06/03/2011 ORR
    Modified: Discretionary Targeted Assistance Grant Program HHS-2011-ACF-ORR-RT-0161 93.576 07/06/2011 06/01/2011 ORR
    National Center on Health HHS-2011-ACF-OHS-HC-0190 93.600 07/06/2011 05/06/2011 OHS
    Modified: Grants to Tribes, Tribal Organizations and Migrant Programs for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Programs HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CA-0147 93.590 07/07/2011 05/25/2011 ACYF/CB
    Modified: Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CS-0174 93.658 07/07/2011 05/27/2011 ACYF/CB
    Community Economic Development (CED) Projects HHS-2011-ACF-OCS-EE-0178 93.570 07/11/2011 05/10/2011 OCS
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0213 93.592 07/15/2011 05/17/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – Culturally Specific Special Issue Resource Center (CSIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0210 93.592 07/15/2011 05/18/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Modified: Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – National Indian Resource Center Addressing Domestic Violence and Safety for Indian Women (NIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0211 93.592 07/15/2011 05/23/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – Special Issue Resource Center (SIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0212 93.592 07/15/2011 05/17/2011 ACYF/FYSB

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) announces the solicitation of applications for one cooperative agreement under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants program to support a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV).  The NRCDV will maintain a clearinghouse library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and disseminate information and statistics related to the incidence, intervention, and prevention of family violence, domestic violence and dating violence; and the provision of shelter, supportive services, and prevention services to adult and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence which includes services to prevent repeated incidents of violence.  The NRC is part of a network of National and Special Issue Resource Centers providing leadership and support to the existing programs serving victims of domestic violence and their children.

    The will do the same thing on the fatherhood end, just as large.  What good is all this research doing when it comes to the next custody decision?

    Re:  THE Battered Women’s Justice Project and MPDI grants, I searched only on the principle investigator last name, and in MN, to come up with 15 years of grants.  if you’re IN, I guess you’re IN.  So — how do these activities tie to reduced homicides, femicides, infanticides, battery, molestation, rape or any other forms of violence (or having the family law system ignore these when making a custody decision)?  Or is that even required?

    Results 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
    Excel Icon
    Page 1 of 1
      1
    Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
    Technical assistance is one thing — it set ups a infrastructure and enables conferences.  now, what, precisely else does it do?  ESPECIALLY because at this point restraining orders aren’t even legally enforceable.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — and hush, don’t tell the people getting those RO’s and justifying more funding to violence prevention trainings…and supervised visitation expansions….
    I gotta run.  Just some food for thought…
%d bloggers like this: