Posts Tagged ‘CRFCFW=Columbia University School of Social Work’s “CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON FATHERS CHILDREN & FAMILY WELL-BEING” (Ronald D. Mincy PhD)’
Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].
Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; Last revised Feb. 14th).
Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title. Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post. Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top. Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.
About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.
Consider:
SHARE THIS POST on...
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)
This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today. A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).
THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS. AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….
The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.
I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994. I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.
TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).
In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe. Enter “behavioral modification programming..”
Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts. People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!
For most people, it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.
Regarding the Bush dynasty & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one: As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.
(from Google search on “PRWORA”)
We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.
This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data. I’ve shown many images and named key players. I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”). While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University. Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds. It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.
Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities. For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post: Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues. See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.
“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns). Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)
Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.” I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog. It was incorporated in 1974). Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now. While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site. It’ll be interesting reading:
Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:
The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.
(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).
(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH
Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts. Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII. Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).
… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are. So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?
Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return). Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results. Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.
I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.
— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???
re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**
**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also. I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post. Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.
Got it (just typed in the question: “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm). Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.” It got sued!
(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local). However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).
THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**
(**etc. didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website. No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)
“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).
Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed). The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations. But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger. The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it. The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty. Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.
//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)
Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.
AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..
…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” . (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)
I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, 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.
This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ) AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially. See that link. Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.
Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)
Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.” There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).
I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor. Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000: In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):
Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton) — see footnotes, incl. FN4)
Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Re-Organizing The World through International Institutes, Strategies, Dialogues, Peacemaking and Programs Targeting Fragile Families, Communities — and Countries…
Related posts:UNESCO’s IIP@Rutgers|”Partners” + ISD and the Strong Cities Network (Reorganizing the World through International Strategic Institutes, cont’d.) (next in this sequence, about to be published) and, because “Munich” happened meanwhile, “Munich,” and the Strong Cities Network [ISIL/ISIS aren’t the only ones who want to control the World] also upcoming)
Also, a shortlink (if you copy the url) to THIS post: ‘“Re-Organizing” The World through International Institutes, Strategies, Dialogues, Peacemaking and Programs Targeting Fragile Families, Communities — and Countries...
“Tags” were copied between posts, there is some overlap and some tags may actually be referring to the next one in the sequence, here, of three. As of first “Publish” this post is 9,300 words. It may [and did] change after publication.
I hope you enjoy this informational, conversational post which comes from a systematic lookup of “Partners” link at a single university website combined with my awareness of similar related activity. Read the “tags” for a generic idea of just a few organizations using the words shown in the post title. The post has undergone a few changes (significant, and to a middle section) in the two days after it was published on 7/22/2016 and is currently about 12,000 words. I expanded some on “MDRC” and because of its tax return reference to “Atlantic Philanthropies” which I already knew had been registered outside of the US for anonymity purposes, and which wealth was based on marketing duty-free products internationally, to military and tourists to start with, it got longer.
In the process of not shutting up or stopping “just one more” lookup, I discovered that the Atlantic Philanthropies which provided MDRC a $7M matching grant in 1999 (not long after it was forced into the public when one partner of the underlying company “DFS” (Duty Free Shops, I guess) decided to sell it for around $3.8B, and the other partner protested via lawsuit, resulting in a pre-emptive disclosure to the public of who — and where– it was.
It announced in 2002 it would be winding down (distributing everything), and I learned that, announced this past May, 2016, the two final largest grants totaling around $200M would BOTH go to British institutions — one of them which exactly matches this post title: “International Institute on Inequalities” at the London School of Economics (and the other to the Rhodes Trust to set up scholarships — see Fulbright, Rhodes famous scholarships — under the Atlantic Philanthropies name). This Institute was only launched in 2015.
Another major sponsor of the same institute was the well-known (in the UK) “Leverhulme Trust” (since about 1925), with the underlying corporate wealth behind it (Lever Brothers, later Unilever) involving a Lordship who made his initial fortune in SOAP on the backs of Congolese laborers, in part from a close friendship with the King of Belgium (per Wiki, anyhow). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lever,_1st_Viscount_Leverhulme (1851-1925).
A 2014 book by David Hollett (Amazon.com link) “The Dark Side of Sunlight – The Story of King Leopold, Lord Leverhulme and the Congo.” Abstract:
With a great deal of political manoeuvring, and the able assistance of the famous explorer, Sir Henry Morton Stanley, in 1885 King Leopold II of Belgium founded the Congo ‘Free’ State. However, this was not as a Belgian colony, but as his own private domain which extended to 905,000 square miles of Central Africa. Leopold then set up a system of forced labour under which millions suffered and died due to brutal treatment, exhaustion, hunger or disease. Eventually, in 1908, the Belgian government took control of the Congo away from Leopold and the worst excesses of his despotic rule came to an end. However the forced labour system established by Leopold remained largely in place. It is against this historical background that Lever Brothers, the soap manufacturers of Port Sunlight, became significantly involved in the affairs of the Congo. In 1911 the Belgian Government offered the company land “Concessions” to develop as oil palm plantations. A decade later William Hesketh Lever was controlling vast palm plantations, oil mills and a fleet of 74 steam vessels on the Congo River. In 1930 the firm was employing no less than 28,000 Congolese workers. The rise and rise of Lever Brothers wealth and good fortune was to continue, throughout the Congo and West Africa in general
A 1987 article in The New Internationalist is interesting reading on how the US fits in (what other brands were bought up, the UAC (United Africa Company) and more:
Today Unilever is one of the world’s largest corporations, employing
300,000 people and spanning 75 countries – with pre-tax profits in
1986 of $1.8 billion. This is the story from its humble beginnings
Three other things I noticed from Wiki on William Hesketh Lever — his involvement in freemasonry (founding lodges), and his practice of “monopoly”, as learned, it says, from the Rockefellers, it’s said, and with this wealth, buying up Villages or setting up model villages with which better to control (intrusively) the workforce. If THAT doesn’t remind you of current situations in the USA, urban areas and welfare policies, you are simply asleep! “PORT SUNLIGHT” (the brand was “Sunlight Soap”)
In 1887, Lever looking to expand his business, lought 56 acres (230,000 m2) of land on the Wirral in Cheshire between the River Mersey and the railway line at Bebington. This site became Port Sunlight where he built his works and a model village to house its employees. From 1888, Port Sunlight village offered decent living conditions in the belief that good housing would ensure a healthy and happy workforce. The community was designed to house and support the workers. Life in Port Sunlight included intrusive rules and implied mandatory participation in activities. The tied cottages meant that a worker losing his or her job could be almost simultaneously evicted.[15]Even workers’ social lives were policed from the head office. W.H Lever stated “a good workman may have a wife of objectionable habits, or may have objectionable habits himself, which make it undesirable for us to have him in the village.”[16]
REMINDER — my only connection of the above info. to this post comes by way of a look at NY-based “MDRC: Knowledge to Improve Social Policy”‘ involvement with Atlantic Philanthropies; the interesting history of Atlantic Philanthropies and its (first-generation US from Ireland) Chuck Feeney, and in that Mr. Feeney felt the International Institute for Inequalities at the London School of Economics, was worth a big chunk of the Atlantic Philanthropies’ final distributions, this Leverhulme Trust also agreed. In the US, the MDRC, studying the poor, is still maintaining $56M of investments, while taking $41M in government grants — I’d say something is “off-kilter” in that scenario.
Which all just goes to show why many philanthropies all around the world had BETTER make a good show of caring about the poor, given what they’ve done to perpetuate inequalities worldwide and maintain riches by avoiding taxation in the first place.
http://iip.rutgers.edu
The International Institute for Peace (IIP) at Rutgers University, Newark is a UNESCO Category II organization dedicated to peacebuilding, conflict transformation through nonviolent struggle, and the promotion of peace education and a culture of peace. The IIP builds partnerships locally and globally by working with grassroots organizations, youth leaders, activists, journalists, educators and researchers to promote peacebuilding, nonviolent conflict transformation, and just and sustainable peace. The IIP promotes research on issues of peace and conflict as well as education about peacebuilding and nonviolent struggle.
IF there was a genuine intent to relieve poverty within the US first, instead of restructure the world according to some private visions (and saving women overseas while attacking women, as women, in the United States, is a pretty sorry state of affairs indeed), it would not be done this way.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Child Support, Fatherhood Promotion: More DIALOGUE and TABLES of OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93601, 93563, 93564) from my 7/26/2011 Post (For example, in Alabama..)
. . .
Yep…I’m regrouping from an over-extended (vertically and horizontally, and probably subject-matter-wise) 2011 post….For more background on why and how I’m doing this now, in April, 2016, see the last installment (post) in April 2016, “Dialogue from 7/26/2011 post charting HHS/OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93563, 93564)” which, as that post explains, excerpts the most of the DIALOGUE from the earlier posts, and adds (marked by different colors) updates, leaving more of the charts to this one…..That post began:
2016 Update (I will use this background-color for this post to indicate):
RE: OCSE: Child Support Enforcement/Federal Grants to States: Let’s Look at the “TAGGS” HHS Charts (CFDAs 93.563 & 93.564) Originally published July 26, 2011, and at 25,000+ words
This blog excerpts most of the DIALOGUE from an older post, leaving the charts, breaking it into pieces so as to format the post with the real payload — the charts.
Also know that the above coloration (cream-colored background inside maroon-borders) basically represents 2016-added information, anything more than a paragraph. Naturally, in almost five years, some links will be broken, images not displayed, etc., which I will either correct, or at least mention.
I don’t expect this all to sink in with one reading or exposure to the information. I will be repeating the general concepts in following posts, “the Lord willing”…. meaning, as I can get to it. As sometimes happens when new or “cosmic” information or level of awareness starts to sink in, it grips my attention and I do have trouble getting a post out in one post… as opposed to one, long, linear, and systematic (covering each and every organization referenced) post
Tags on this blog — there are more tags than covered in this post; I took an EXTENDED 2016 update to a separate post and will duplicate the list of tags. This happened when I looked closer at a set of grants in Alabama hooking up with “Prevent Child Abuse America” and started, well, “taking names and posting tax returns.”
I discovered not just the defunct (but still advertising) nonprofit cited at the state level (“VOICES for Children in Alabama”), and the system of funding of multiple similar-but-not-identical “Children’s Trust” “Children First” and other things “Children” — and the pushing of more PreK education.
The Pre-K education pushing led to the authority for doing this, called “NIEER” which being “National Institute for Early Education Research: a Unit of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey” and with this, direct connections to the UNC (University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill) based, and now 50 years old as of 2016, “Frank Porter Institute for Child Development.”
So far, that was “only” a New Jersey and North Carolina University weighing in on what should be done with public funding under CAPTA (to prevent child abuse), Tobacco Settlements (federal), and a state level board for preventing child abuse and neglect in ALABAMA.
But then a closer look at a letter posted on “NIEER (which, again, was used to validate the programming being run on Alabama’s poor, at-risk, abused, etc. children who were not showing up “Ready” for state-sponsored kindergarten) 
School of Education(the oldest school of pedagogy in the US; it was “experimental education” then and is ‘holistic education” now under the new, improved (and referencing a 2001 $10M benefactor) “Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development”
http://Children.ALABAMA.Gov/first-class-pre-k-grants/ references the NIEER:
First Class Pre-K Grants
About the First Class Pre-K Process
The First Class Pre-K Program is Aabama’s state funded pre-K program for 4 year old children who are residents of the State of Alabama. The program is funded by the Education Trust Fund through the Alabama Department of Children’s Affairs Office of School Readiness. In order to receive funds for a First Class Pre-K Classroom, organizations must first complete an online application.
First Class Pre-K has been recognized by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) as meeting 10 of 10 criteria for the highest quality Pre-K programs. Funding for First Class Pre-K is to (1) provide access for more children to attend high quality pre-K and (2) enhance quality of existing classrooms by providing funding and support to meet the high quality standards. All state funded classrooms receive coaching from specialized coaches to support classroom instruction and Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). Additionally, DCA monitors to ensure grant compliance and a high level of accountability for the grant funds
Note: Children.Alabama.gov doesn’t provide a courtesy link to NIEER, mention that it’s based at Rutgers (and probably not a 501©3) or who decided that this NJ group should be evaluating programs for Alabama. Who, if anyone, is monitoring whether there might be some conflict-of-interest relationships between coaches & curriculum providers and the evaluators? Yet State funds TO Alabama fund the programming.
Let me show this with a link to the “NIEER” letter, the statement of whose publication the letter was based on, and an (amazing, actually**) few resumes, wealthy, PRIVATE foundations, and sponsored (by those foundations and of course federal agencies such as the US/DHHS and/or the US/DOE) university centers, not to mention a set of global connections which shed an entirely different light on why there is such ongoing interest in compiling social science data on “low-income” American families and why the pre-school school should be extended, and the pre-school year become year-round..
Apparently, there’s an intent to know what also works overseas in low-income families on other continents, and JUST HOW MUCH can we standardize, streamline, coordinate, and efficiently replicate “what works” overseas too. Also, how long can all the American public be persuaded that their taxes should not just be to save all the children HERE (which, FYI, isn’t happening) but also globally. And, apparently our “overseers” (Congress who appropriates, and federal agencies who distribute, particularly HHS) have already chosen their champion proselytizers with stellar academics (mostly in psychology, still !!) and PhD-published coming out the ears. In journals put out in corporation with universities alone, or (one example below) University (Princeton) + Famous Nonprofit (Brookings).
Regardless of what you may think about the programming, it’s time to look at the sponsoring foundations, the lingo, and why not, some of the people involved? HOW are they doing this, WHAT (in other terms than the profession/practitioner-specific jargon) is actually taking place here, and based on a closer look at that, WTF is the endgame?
Is there, or is there not, any genuine intention that the current generation of “low-income children” young, or youthful, actually stop being “low-income” and make it into another social class in ANY method other than a chosen few of them becoming mentored scholars (it comes up below) of the same scheme (or “schematic” if you wish) for another generation?
I wonder how the sponsored professors with named chairs at public/private-sponsored center (and their networked colleagues and philanthropists) would feel if forced to become subject matter of collected (and published) studies by low-income ADULTS (especially PARENTS) proposing that instead of redistributing OUR taxable wage revenues to these places, it’s time to flip the table sand redistribute some of the research grants, endowed professorships, and put a “chill” on how many tax-exempt entities any one family may start, sit on the board of, or otherwise control. (That statement may make more sense after you look at some of the numbers involved in these networks, and start counting just how many foundations are in on it….)
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 