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 ‘Cynthia Osborne (UTexas Austin CFRP)

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].

leave a comment »

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; expect some post-publication edits, to add tags and for more fluency between sections.  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:

(This section has many points of reference, but being summary, just a few links to them.  Generally, I’ve already provided the links on earlier posts or pages, many of them, several times.  

Because it’s written by my recall from prior research, there may be some (minor) inaccuracies in labeling, any of which could be corrected by looking up the points of reference, and about which I’m not particularly concerned for the purpose of summary here).

The foundation of “fatherhood.gov” as it operates now goes back identifiably and through the present to the mid-1960s in Daniel Moynihan’s call for action and a National Policy towards “The Negro Family,” featuring female-headed households as “pathology” because we were (this country was), essentially, it said, a patriarchy.

It’s been said that the organization “NOW” was formed in 1966 in response to the Moynihan report.  

I’ve summarized many things about the situation in the “Opening Spiel” of this post but am providing these links to prior write-ups for some further reading.

My prior posts on The Moynihan Report include one from Dec., 2017 and another from July, 2016.  There are more, but here below are quotations (their introductions, in all their colorful, gory fine-print detail, in two separate text boxes).  Recommended, not necessarily easy, reading, to comprehend what’s up with the domestic violence prevention business these days — key things most so-called feminist leaders of well-known nonprofits DON’T want to bring up in their academic writings, or with you.  Once you grasp the situation, try bringing it up (for example, to nonprofit domestic violence leadership, or front-line staff, in person or on-line/in writing, or other places) and see what responses, if any, you get… I already have…. I’m convinced these individuals have no shame, remorse, or conscience about the types and extent of information they routinely withhold from the public, and their clients, warm-body pre-requisites to ongoing existence as nonprofits.  

and,

[2]

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016; revs.2017 & (minor)2019. SeeAlso its tags] (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink to the post title ends in “-42K“).**  (“The Moynihan Report:” 1965, i.e., it just turned “50” in 2016…//LGH 2019).

…If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in….

This 11,700 word post is is well worth reading; if you do not agree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap. [Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from it’s July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K“.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

Moving on….

Judging by when Ivy League/East Coast universities (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin (Maine)** began admitting women as undergraduates, and by how much later than men (including freed slaves) women got suffrage in the US, that’s probably a fair assessment, functionally speaking.

**The Bowdoin situation gets to me particularly when, in writing this blog, I run across profiles of both men and women about my age, whose adopted policies (focusing on correcting “fatherlessness” and racism, not sexism) has impacted options for my children’s futures, as it’s clear 1996 Welfare Reform policies did.   “To Be Continued…,” it supports my point that the USA has been in many ways a “patriarchy.”  The “Bowdoin” discussion, however, involves key figures in education, finance and politics of the last fifty years; I’ll not burden this post with those details.

Don’t hold your breath on this one getting published, however, for the record, its holding pen is: Bowdoin College, Influential Alumni My Age (Founded, 1794; admitted women, 1971). So in 1965, WAS Daniel Moynihan Right, that the U.S. of A. was a Patriarchy? And Is it Still? (started Feb. 12, 2020, short-link ending “–caV”)

But while the late (and while alive, powerful on Capitol Hill) Senator Daniel Moynihan did come from a father-abandoned family, grow up poor, and was raised Catholic, he was not a conservative, or Republican, nor was his report phrased in religious terms.

It was phrased in sociological terms.

If fatherlessness was the scourge, his life seems to have missed the lashes…

Nevertheless the genealogy of The Moynihan Report, as I’ve mentioned so much on this blog, continues through today in the “Moynihan Award” to “bipartisan” co-editors (?) and co-directors (at Brookings) Ronald Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill, of Brookings Institution, functioning for many years now in partnership with a center at Princeton University featuring publication “The Future of Children” and working internationally, so its “Partners” site says, with the University of Cambridge (i.e., England), the Jacobs Foundation (Swiss, but care/of a German coffee-chocolate dynasty).

The director of the particular (Bendheim-Thoman) Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton University (Sara McLanahan), married to Columbia University (NYC) Irwin Garfinkel, I was reminded recently (i.e., I looked at her  c.v. again) is a sociologist from the University of Texas-Austin, which MAY explain why a Center there, under direction of a woman probably mentored in part by her (Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. from Princeton, about 2005 as I recall) has continued “carrying the (fatherhood) torch under the “Children and Families” Banner  — University of Texas-Austin. (Cynthia Osborne bio also seen at FRPN.org (below) as “Chair of the Responsible Fatherhood WorkGroup” (first one of four listed there), whatever that signifies. I’ve publicized this often on Twitter also, from the University of Texas perspective).

You can also read about the U Texas connection to FRPN (and Cynthia Osborne) under the “Supporting Organizations” (not that the federal government, listed first, is an “organization,” nor is a website an “organization” either: very sloppy labeling pads the apparent number of supporters.  Sort these into entity vs. non-entity, and you’ll get some (trackable) nonprofits, and the US DHHS, basically.  Sample (the link is from FRPN.org):

Child and Family Research Partnership

The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) is an independent, nonpartisan research group at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, specializing in issues related to young children, teens and their parents. Cynthia Osborne, director of CFRP, serves…Read more
“The partnership… is a …research group…”  [“independent” from what?  Independently funded? Self-funded?]
Consider:
  • At the University of Texas, Austin, the “CFRP” is not a school,  but a research group AT a school at a university.
  • At Princeton University, there are several centers; this one seems named (as often happens) after alumni benefactors, but the reporting entity is the university itself.  What money actually goes to the Center, and how it’s accounted for is unclear. Internally, by the university, it may have its own account code/s, but what about the public?
  • At Brookings Institution (also a nonprofit), if you read its tax returns, are the “Centers” accounted for separately somehow accessible to the public?

By definition, this type of focus on “Centers” [and/or university-based “partnerships”] clouds the financial accountability / money trails.  What, if anything, guards against special interests taking over public universities and using their established reputation to promote less than reputable causes?  Like setting up a virtual sociological religion within the USA by means of interstate networks taking public resources and (because so hard to track, how much private money is un-knowable, to most people) probably private, too, while publicizing through the on-line websites created and inter-linked?


I say this having seen many of them in the course of investigating nonprofits and professionals in these fields for this blog. It’s stunning, the proliferation of “Children and family”-named centers which on closer examination, turn out to be father-focused, especially non-resident fathers.

Meanwhile, Columbia University (with Irwin Garfinkel) also features, and has for MANY years, another fatherhood [Fathers and Children] center directed by Ronald D. Mincy, with former (or perhaps still current) backing by both the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  It’s got enough initials I continue to forget in which order, but, (looking them up now), they are:  CRFCFW:  “Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.”  Mincy is Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at (naturally) the university’s School of Social Work. A basic search of his name also brings up other fatherhood organizations, and the one I mention in the next paragraph:  FRPN.org.  He also presented, I’ve mentioned repeatedly, at an AFCC conference in about 2000, alongside key domestic violence organization backers (the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, from Minnesota).  There’s nothing ‘conservative’ or Republican about the Wellstones or, that I can see, Professor Mincy, but somehow it still translates to fatherhood as national policy under the label of “Families” (Fragile or otherwise).

Among the featured members (sic) of that University of Texas Consortium [and/or CFRP Partnership: visit and explore the website and their referral links] is a (non-entity, see links added above Feb. 13), which I’ve also featured on this blog, whose website “FRPN.org” (Fathers Research and Practice Network) turns out to be an HHS-funded project at Temple University in Philadelphia, with co-directors (how does one “direct” a non-entity project at a major university?) Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Princeton) of — get this — the Colorado-based and historically (as to Pearson at least) “AFCC”-connected “Center for Policy Research,” and

Temple University Professor Jay Fagan (who’s been at Temple, after his 1988 Columbia Univ. PhD, nonstop since about 1990)… He has articles published in a magazine (‘Fathering”) he co-founded, and a key association on the c.v. (also listed at FRPN.org under “Other Organizations”) seems to be the ‘National Council on Family Relations’ (19 references in 15pp c.v.: [Click twice to read the pdf: Jay Fagan,Prof~BA Psych (TrinityCollege, CT 1973), MSW (UPA, SchlSocialWk SW,1977), PhD (in__??)Columbia SSW 1988) |Temple Univ Philadelphia (+ FRPN.org), 15-pg CV Oct 2019 (see 19occ ‘NCFR,’ ref to the HHS grant (for FRPN) + only 2books (@ 2020Feb13)] The c.v. says “School of Social Administration” not “School of Social Work.”

…He is currently conducting studies on nonresidential fathers’ coparenting relationships and the effects of mother-father co-parenting relationships on at-risk fathers’ involvement with children… (https://cph.temple.edu/about/directory/jay-fagan)

Nancy Thoennes, like Jessica Pearson, long-time at CPR (whom I’d listed by recall; checking back the next day to verify) IS listed there, but her exact role isn’t quite clear.  The co-directors of FRPN are clearly Fagan & Pearson.

Images from FRPN.org; the “about” information is repetitive (circular phrases) and still vague.  See annotated image (as well as classic-looking main page, and footer citing one HHS grant only for 2013-2019, rectangular image):

FRPN.org basic screenshots ~~Screen Shot 2020-02-13 [Page footer, annotated]


Once you even start to look …**

**at this father-focused, Welfare Reform-based, HHS-grants (and contracts-) supported landscape

a few logical questions come to mind (they certainly have for me):

~>At what point should the also vast (but less extensive and well-funded) “domestic violence network” (USA) [See Roadmap on my Feb. 2018 page, and prior posts on it] completely lose credibility for not examining the connections between federally-funded “fatherhood.gov” and outcomes in the family court venues?

~>Does this domestic violence network in fact exist instead to distract us from that reality with false assurances [or hope] of safety nationwide? BOTH networks are federally and privately funded. Nor is the coverup unique to either political party.

~>Why should we even continue to listen in on the scholarly debates or expect /hope for good things to come out of this level of systemic (“you don’t really need to know about federally-funded fatherhood, the AFCC and other interconnected private [conflicts-of-interest] personal interests in keeping the conflict going…”) coverup?


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

WHAT is a “Resource,” Corporately Speaking? National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (“NRFC”) // Fatherhood.gov [Publ. Oct. 30, 2012].

leave a comment »

WHAT is a “Resource,” Corporately Speaking? National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (“NRFC”) // Fatherhood.gov [Publ. Oct. 30, 2012]. (short-link ends “-1cH”), about 12,000 words.

Certain things catch my attention periodically, and if details don’t fit, then it may be my understanding (normally) or, it may also be there are some details that seriously don’t fit.

And there has been a longstanding internal alarm on the existence of a website called “fatherhood.gov” and the serious investment of public money into media campaigns based on welfare funding!

How many millions is it acceptable not to account for, when it comes to public money?  How many people are to be on the public payroll (whose labor and assets are producing the money which the US is operating with?).

A good chunk of last night’s post,  wasn’t re-saved, and I cannot reconstruct it all here.  But I can talk about what I found and show how others can find this same information.

Here are some dots which REALLY don’t connect, but seem to be connecting; these are statements and evidence on-line:

  • The website with URL “http://fatherhood.gov” exists and is labeled “National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse “(“NRFC,”).  Click & see!
  • On the website, it says its funding is authorized by various versions of welfare, meaning public law and supporting Congressional appropriations.  These have to come from a certain fund held by the US Government which we should be able to find (see ColdHardFact$, or submit the source if YOU find it!)
  • NRFC obviously is — but has been described also elsewhere — your basic federally-funded (plus ___???) PR/media campaign, buying and selling (so to speak) grants, information (indoctrination) and in short, charity, to what it considers deserving grantees, or maybe contractors.  Or maybe individuals.  As such it is a shop and might as well be called Internet Based Warehouse Dispensary — or the advertising site for the same.  “Come and Get it!”
    • Clearly someone has a surplus and wants to offload dollars and help to the deserving.

 

The Problem/Question:

OUTSIDE sources declare this NRFC has an “Executive Director” — but it’s a *.gov site.   How can that be?  WHAT is NRFC corporation-wise? Is it a nonprofit, is it government, is it a government-funded nonprofit blend (there are plenty of those around).

What is the legal definition of this “Clearinghouse” which to me looks like probably (as any website could be) a way to expand an email or visitor database of who’s interested in the topic, and build some momentum for the project of RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, which already (in my opinion) has a good head of steam…

  • WIFI (Women In Fatherhood Inc) is a nonprofit with a Board.  Ms. Frances Ballard (who is married to Charles Ballard, a fatherhood leader) is on its board.
  • In this description of the WIFI Board, it claims that Frances Ballard is the Executive Director of this major website and federally funded Clearinghouse, NRFC.   Because the word “Executive Director” has a corporate meaning — it means some organization is registered in the USA to do commerce and has either a for-profit or a not-for-profit designation!
  • BUT:
    • If it’s a nonprofit, and not exempt from filing, than I, Jane Doe, should be able to look at its income, expenses, deductions, Program Accomplishments, and see an official list of its Board members, Program Service Revenues, any real estate or assets owned, its major CONTRACTORS and how much money was spent on salaries — and all the things people can look at on any group which actually files a 990.
    • If it’s a nonprofit OR for-profit BUSINESS in this country, and doing business — that includes paying salary or board members — then it MUST be incorporated somewhere and have articles of incorporation.
    • It also has to have, somewhere, a registered agent so that IF it gets sued in court on any basis– someone can receive the paperwork. RIGHT?
    • So — where is all that information for the NRFC?

The words “executive director” I do not believe are commonly used in government agencies.  “Director” yes; Czar, yes, “Secretary,” yes, “Agency Head,” yes. — Executive Director — no.  The use of “executive director” for a *.gov website and a “clearinghouse” is misleading and confusing.

However, that there should even be a website on a government site (US Government) called “fatherhood.gov” — and there is none called “motherhood.gov” (do they not go together, are they not to be balanced?) — should disturb anyone.  A LOT, but apparently it’s now just part of the landscape, and acceptable.

They tell you upfront that it’s an information dispensary, and they also want DADS to call in.  Is any of that call-in help going to end up steering them to fathers’ rights attorneys in local states, to help them win custody cases INdirectly, as the federal government is simply not allowed to mess directly with the state’s custody courts?  Here’s the description of its Mission:

Mission
The goals of the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) are to provide, facilitate, and disseminate current research, proven and innovative strategies that will encourage and strengthen fathers and families, and providers of services via the following priorities:

  • Robust NRFC Website – www.Fatherhood.gov
  • Media Campaign that promotes the Responsible Fatherhood field and efforts of local programs
  • Social media engagement
  • Development and dissemination of written products that advance responsible fatherhood research and practice
  • Outreach and presentations at conferences and events
  • National Call Center for dads and practitioners (1-877-4DAD411)
  • Virtual Trainings

If you look carefully at that list, every single item comes under output of indoctrination or media materials according to a federal policy/belief about fatherlessness.  (The history of which has also been written up in part by critics of the conflicts of interest between National Fatherhood Initiative and a rotating door of work within government, if not near the top of HHS (i.e., Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Ron Haskins, etc.).  Blogged recently, search “Dissident Voice” or Bill Berkowitz..

(Why is the administration so uninterested in strengthening Mothers and Families?  Search that term on whitehouse.gov and see how many occurrences in re: fathers and families.)

FUNDING, from the same page, shows the US Dept of HHS/ACF/OFA firmly claims this resource and is funding it from welfare resources, apparently:

Funding

The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is a resource of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA) re-authorized funding for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). The NRFC was initially funded through the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.

In other words, from approximately 1996 through 2010, most of American Public didn’t get smart about this entire movement and how it was affecting their “States and communities,” for which ignorance we can thank in part the Domestic Violence Movement who promoted their own agenda while failing to inform their clients the details (and even to provide any tools to look at details), not evening naming the grants stream! or the closeness of this grants stream to Child Support Enforcement (HHS/OCSE, etc.)*** resulting in individual women having to ferret it out and report it themselves, while the system strengthened its networks.

INSERTING (SOME OF) THE VIEW FROM 2020:

*** Clarifying re: “the closeness of this grants stream to Child Support Enforcement…”)
[***July 31, 2020, nomenclature: I am formatting this page & some copyediting with intention to re-post or reference it.  While the “NRFC clearinghouse” funding stream (it seems, main CFDA (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance) is #93086 (where “93” represents the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on whose site, obviously, the NRFC is), the most father-friendly grants stream closer to local child support enforcement (with “OCSE” — Office of Child Support Enforcement — administering it) is CFDA #93597, Grants (directly) to states for access and visitation.
The larger stream, however, is #93086 ($150 million dollars a year), and has been going on for over a decade, can go to public or private organizations and serves to establish in particular “fatherhood” as such a specialty and practice, that university centers — in cooperation with each other — feature it (Examples:  FRPN.org at Temple University, Pennsylvania, part of the leadership involves two women, including Jessica Pearson, the founder of https://centerforpolicyresearch.org in Denver (1981ff) who also has deep and long-standing (historic) involvement with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the known fathers’ rights group with political clout pre-dating US’s 1996 welfare reform (under which we got such wonderful grants streams and websites as this post deals with), the Children’s Rights Council (see David Levy, Esq. (d. 2014) major activist for this nonprofit), and the “Child and Family Research Partnership (“CFRP”) at The University of Texas at Austin (LBJ School of Public Policy).
For an indicator how, in policy-speak, “child and family” and Zero to Three (or, “First Five Years”), in general means more fathers than mothers (mothers are “assumed” under the word “family” while the word “fathers” is often featured and is a policy focus, overall), I’m inserting two images from the “About” (i.e., self-description) of CFRP-Texas.  On the right side of a very large photo, fully four of six headlines (viewed today) focus on “fathers” and the others “Prenatal to Three.”
What, and where, are women, mothers, in this picture —  as a background presence, in the form of wombs… conduits.. birth canals, through which policy makers can gain remote (and hands-on) access to little kids to develop and practice their favored-gender-based theories on?  Do we (mothers) not even have a few NOUNS to describe us in the headlines?
Some of the “WHY” of this center has to do with its Director and her Princeton University connections.  Her first two degrees were from a private college in California which only admitted women in the 1970s and is known for its conservative politics.  Work experience outside of directing others on national policy towards children (pre-born and very young) and their families, with a PARTICULAR interest in fathers (does she have a husband yet?) (ever been a Mom?) seems to have been a few years in a “low-income middle school in California,” per the description.  Sounds like she may not be a real team player (likes to run things) and perhaps didn’t cut the mustard at the street level, with actual “in-your-face” kids…  Who BETTER to judge other women (i.e., mothers) who do this daily, and are good at it?  //LGH 2020… Cont’d next section, more on the grants.
I recently added a section to the top of my “Front Page” which gives examples of both federal funding streams, and (generally) have been talking about it for years.  But “family court reformist” academics — and, generally, journalists who follow or quote them, along with the WHOLE domestic violence advocacy organization networks (state coalitions, special issue resource centers, etc.) fail to call attention to this on their public websites, or consider that it MIGHT just be a factor affecting the problems they discuss (i.e., custody of minor children being switched from non-abusive mothers to abusive — with a documented history of it — fathers, via family court and custody hearings — which the “access and visitation” grants target. … (I use Twitter hashtags #access_visitation and #accessvisitation. Username @LetUsGetHonest)
This information has gotten out somewhat more but is still vastly under-reported in the context of family court fiascoes, or of domestic violence and child abuse problems.  The family court professionals certainly know about it, as many nonprofits some of them run were set up specifically to receive this type of federal funding.. (See “AFCC” for an organization whose members are likely to be so engaged).
Both streams are related.  While the CFDA #93597 ($10 million/year grants) by definition must go to a single state agency (each year), i.e., no private organization, they are obviously intended for subgrants, and often are subgranted to private organizations.  The CFDA #93086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood, or “HMRF” for short) ($150 million/year) grants can go to either public or private entities, even to for-profit ones.  You can select by CFDA in the HHS grants database, and learn a lot there, at TAGGS.HHS.gov although be forewarned — it’s not necessarily accurate data entry.  It seems to have no basic “style chart’ (consistency of entering things like state names, principal investigator names, grantee names, etc.  Multiple mis-spellings are found, and although it obviously sorts case-sensitive (with ALL CAPS in a different location from Initial Caps meaning, you could sort by any column and STILL not get an overview.  The situation was so bad that in about 2013 I started a whole blog to demonstrate it (Fall, 2013 as I recall), but before I could post the whole thing (intent was to simply show the grantees UNsorted, 500 records at a time, and expose this), the database was re-vamped, adding functionalities and removing a very important one — the ability to search by EIN# which would compensate for fake or erroneous data entry of such basics as a grantee name..]]
BACK TO 2012 WRITING ON THIS POST….
HOWEVER INDIVIDUALS DID TALK ABOUT THIS:
%d bloggers like this: