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 ‘Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils (as a control tactic)

Women Judges still form Funky-filing Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later)

leave a comment »


Women Judges still form (funky-filing) Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later) (short-link ends “-9YW” and about 10,000 words long. Post written May 20-25, 2019, updated May 26).

“PREFACE”

I’m publishing this post “as-is” because one cannot squish too much documentation into one place.  There are more things I could say or links include, but this post “as is” says plenty.

I like to triple-check statements; there are one or two I haven’t yet, regarding research done six years ago.  In double- and triple-checking, more information and more understanding of the existing connections comes into focus for me as a blogger, which I then naturally want to reference or summarize.

Without a more direct, immediate, known (and prospectively more interactive) audience for this blog, I cannot put more days into it.

Most people I know do NOT go around reading business entity filings and tax returns — I do.  I do it ALL THE TIME.  Over time this has also developed a general, mental database of key organizations, awareness (generally) of how they tend to spin off over time, or sometimes I can catch a new one as it’s forming, or has just formed.

The issue, however, is with whom to talk about it.  Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations are generally already committed to their ongoing operations; those not involved and often not local (as the networks are coordinated nationally and at times internationally) in my experience (and with current connections) either not alert enough to even acknowledge the importance of  reading business entity filings and tax returns as indicators of the values of the organization’s leadership, or are overwhelmed possibly with their own court cases involving still-minor children.

Those who’ve aged out if not already aligned with the (usual) family court reform group loose (or tight) coalitions tend to want their own lives back, or just not to be bothered.  Those who haven’t directly experienced this firsthand (which is to say, those “on the sidelines”) generally seem to fall along the usual religious (religious or not), political (left or right persuasion) dividing lines and not about to cross them seriously, either.

Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations in many cases, (specifically, as mentioned on this post, as mentioned on most in the blog), will be also judges, or retired judges — and other court-connected professionals continuing to push programming put in effect in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, first decade of 2000s, and now in the second decade of the 2000s fast approaching its end. These programs will also be pushed, promoted and if possible perpetuated, regardless of which political party is in power, or who is U.S. President.  It’s an ECONOMIC matter.

I could post more tax returns or charitable, corporate registrations on this post as simple links (without the images).  I especially could post EVEN more on the connection between the “woman-judge-formed nonprofit” and “MACSA,” and recent findings on the (very much related) background and filing habits of the local (county) fatherhood collaborative, which I have seen and saved much of it as computer files or images, but it will not all fit in a single post.  The connections between MACSA, the nonprofit, and the county probation department (and with it, under “fatherhood collaboratives” also county-based) speak loudly as to the origins of that nonprofit.

(MACSA = Mexican American Community Services Association: Bay Area News Group March 6, 2014 article describes its woes, most of them involving improper handling of financials, IRS-revoked nonprofit status for non-filing (with the local DA’s office having seized its paperwork possibly related).  Notice the years..)

I have one or two statements I’d like to, and will try to, triple-check (specifically the fiscal agent connection between the DVIC and DVCC referenced below), but as a reminder, no matter how formal it may “feel,” a blog is an INformal medium, and I am a volunteer investigative blogger all these years.  Last year I left one state and relocated to another for a fresh start, which requires major energy still, and I’m recently, technically speaking, a senior, and have always been a mother, whether or not permitted to function as one over the years.

 

MACSA (The Mexican American Community Services Agency) existed 1966-2013 | CalEntity C0512046, Status ‘Dissolved’ per California Secretary of State’s Business Entity Search, re-checked in May 2019

The situations I’m speaking of in this post are typical, present multiple red flags, and should be noted, and watched.  It may take some time to become familiar with the setup, the terminology and where to look filings up, but that can be learned, and look-ups, up to a certain point, can be done.

I think the blog’s limits structurally on how it can deliver what I see needs to be delivered, is reaching its boundaries and think constantly about what other communication and message-delivery options exist that I could remain involved in — or find an ethically and intellectually (diligent fact-checker) responsible person or group of people to delegate them to.  //LGH May 25, 2019.


Originally, my purpose on this post was to preserve the text and story within a sidebar widget on this topic; administratively I needed it removed from the bottom right sidebar.  That text is below, in a narrower column, and beneath it a few footnotes from my substantial (extensive / long) updates on the top.

These topics are still relevant, and this is in part a re-statement of them (followed by the preserved text).


(Above image gallery:  I found a MACSA EIN# 941635200 from the IRS which also noted it was revoked in 2012. I see three tax returns from FY2007-2009 showing several million dollars’ worth of assets. It eventually registered as a charity in California; the “Details” page are full of demands for missing or incomplete information, and notices of ITS (Intent To Suspend). To view, you can repeat the search, or (for a snapshot as of several years past “Revoked” status, click “MACSA California Registry of Charitable Trusts | Details“~~>MACSA (TheMexicanAmericanCommunityServicesAgency) CalEntity 512046, EIN#941635200 CalifOAG Charity (Status ‘Revoked’ 2014ff) Details (RelatedDox Links Still Active) @ 2019May link added  5/26/2019. Note:  for pdfs (vs. plain images) on this blog, you must first click the link to see page with blog & post title and beneath it a small blank page icon, then click on the pdf icon to load the document.  Bonus Attached Info: When pdfs are printouts of California Registry of Charitable Trust “Details” (any entity), scroll down below ‘Schedule” to the bottom of the resulting document: any links under “Related Documents” for the filing entity should still be viewable by clocking on them.) (The California OAG RCT of course at any time may change how it loads or the user interface on this database in which case some of the above notations may not apply).

The latest charity renewal for MACSA (for FYE 2008) shows that about HALF its $10M revenues were from government sources.  It was status “Revoked” since 2014 (as a California Charity) and as a tax-exempt organization, 2012 — however as late as June 2017 (see colorful image above) it was being positively referenced in association with a Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative — from a University of Texas-Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) in a “Policy Brief.”  That colorfully annotated image and link to it above comes up again soon, below.)



This post references Santa Clara County “Domestic Violence Intervention Collaborative” (<~~DVIC is a nonprofit | “DVCC” is a named “Coordinating Council” under the county’s “Office of Women’s Policy” (OWP created in 1998)) and through it, at that level one of just two ex-judges* I just featured in the last post, Classic AFCC Combos, Collaborations, and Commonalities (Ret’d California Judge/Consultant Leonard P. Edwards, Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra H. Lehrmann) and What’s WITH Middletown, Connecticut? . *He’s ex-judge because he’s retired, she’s ex-judge now only because a state supreme court justice, is no longer called “judge.

That nonprofit DVIC wasn’t the main focus of this post but arose in connection with another nonprofit, referenced in the title which I am now reminded (through revisiting) originally framed its reason for existing as family violence prevention, too.

The relationship of the DVIC (nonprofit) to the DVCC (coordinating council) is a little complicated.  I think that the DVIC was the fiscal agent for the DVCC, although with one being county-office-associated and the other not, that doesn’t even make sense.

The concept of “coordinating councils” isn’t complex, but I wonder how well the significance is generally understood; they’ve been around in reference to different subject matters, and when it comes to “DV” seem to take on a specific flavor.

The post title alone doesn’t reflect also how Judge Edwards’ “consultancy” was at the highest state level, but the post does. Before retirement in Santa Clara County, and again, he was and probably still is active in at least three very controlling and significant membership associations — AFCC, NCJFCJ and (as to child welfare), NACC.

That retired Judge Leonard P. Edwards founded the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (DVCC) is stated in this glowing commendation from California CASA Association mentioned among other accomplishments: he was also the first juvenile court judge to receive a special award from (yet another nonprofit, PRIVATE, association, the “NCSC”) in 2004, as the NCJFCJ’s publication reminded readers in 2005 when reprinting a 1992 article from Judge Edwards on “the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge.”

NCSC = National Center on State Courts is not the major focus here, but I’ve posted on it (June 30, 2017, split off from Oct., 2014, “Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?) and often call attention to it.
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 »

%d bloggers like this: