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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils (as a control tactic)

Noticing GWUToday (5/29/20) Promoting Joan Meier, NFVLC as new ‘COVID-19 Global Response to DV Quotable Expert’ Led Me (2 Years Later) to OPDV.NY.gov’s Task Force Members List (Announced 5/20/2020). [Begun Apr. 5, 2022, Publ. April 18].

leave a comment »

This post was prompted by an article put out nearly two years ago by George Washington University’s Communications Services, domain name “GWUToday.GW.edu,” that I only noticed nearly two years later.

I’ll show how I came across certain information and decided this might as well be an example to talk about how “task forces” are presented to the public.  I thought this would be a “short and sweet” simple, straightforward post, until I looked at not only the task force members, but also the Chair of the task force, and her boss, the former Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.  That information has already resulted in at least two off-ramped posts.

Dog In the Manger (Phrases.Co.UK) explains that Aesop may not even have existed, but so what, now ….Img added 15April2022

Here, I set the larger context and express my personal opposition** to the established habits of GWU, NFVLC, and its newly installed Endowed Professor, Ms. Meier, found this time (May, 29, 2020) expounding upon things beyond her level of expertise without citing references (or even being required to), while having historically done a half-&ssed (that is, at least HALF the relevant information has been sat on, not divulged), “dog-in-the-manger”*** job of reporting and driving “family court reform” policy somewhere in the realm of fantasy, pretense, and extreme poetic license demanded at all points.

**(Why lose an opportunity when handed such a prime example?)

***dog-in-the-manger may not have been originally Aesop’s Fable, but its basic meaning is: “a person who selfishly withholds from others something useless to himself.” (or, herself…)

Why do I apply it here? Look behind the public relations pieces, understand the background:

You can’t see the level of “poetic license” demanded of the public without looking behind a few curtains. The background exists in things read seeking it — not just responding to the theatrics and scripts we are delivered routinely.  People who don’t do much more than that type of response may have little grasp of what kinds of backgrounds can be looked up and looked at (for free, public-access, assuming an internet connection) by type.  In this blog, I feature accounting-based, not cause-based literacy for dealing with the cause-based campaigns, including paid-for media and recruitment of others to add to it, free-referrals.

To perceive background information, including what is not but should be divulged for a balance of power with government operations, requires taking a closer look at and having an entity-focused vocabulary to describe the workings of governments, universities (i.e., creating “centers”) and contrasting information there with information is presented for public consumption, that is, when [for example] the public may be wondering where its (the public’s) tax dollars=the governments’ (plural) tax-receipts went and why the Violence Against Women Act grantees have been historically collaborating with federally funded fatherhood promotion grantees, USA.

What’s “Family Court Reform” (or true “VAW” prevention)

(or “empirical” or even “scientifically sound” — a.k.a. logical –)

About the  “we STILL just don’t want to talk about it?” policy?

THIS POST IS:

Title and link will be repeated below in the post and at the bottom.

The points made here apply to other kinds of task forces.  I emphasize developing and maintaining awareness of how information about who’s setting policy (and why) is presented….and what that likely represents.

Task force lists, like donor lists, partner/sponsor lists and (too often) even lists of “Our Team” (Board members of an organization) don’t really show the  “relationships within relationships.”

This task force member lists doesn’t distinguish task force member affiliations by whether the affiliation is to a clearinghouse, resource center or ‘project’ (that are not entities — meaning, they cover for who is, in each case) or whether they do represent entities.  This could easily be handled (shown up front) by including (where it’s a business entity) the suffix representing that entity:  If an “Inc.,” “Inc.” or an LLC or LLP, “LLP,” and where it’s not, the name of the underlying entity running the program.

Often geographic information is missing and as is almost almost always information on how many and which (if not ALL) of said task force member’s listed affiliations  — whether entities or not entities — are in effect public-funded projects run as private corporations or associations.  For this New York State task force, isn’t it relevant to whether the state or the federal government sets policy which members, or their affiliations mentioned weren’t residents of New York State?  For example, here, Washington, D.C. is obviously not New York State.

This information is ALWAYS relevant, so why is it SO OFTEN withheld?

Who determined, and since when (in the internet age) that the public just doesn’t need to know, and shouldn’t be told or even encouraged to even think about such basic categories of existence?

It’s a problem, and tells the public “Don’t bother trying to put together what’s actually taking place within and in the name of the purposes of government, whether the United States federal, or individual states or how and where they interact.”


HOW I FOUND THIS INFO:

I saw the information about a new task force only from my habitual curiosity about who, what, when, and where within a university news is posted; that’s how I learned (although nearly two years later) that a COVID-19 Task Force for Domestic Violence Response had been formed in New York State, and that a George Washington University Law Professor who’d barely — it seems only mid-2019 — persuaded the university to back her in supporting and naming another “National Center” to stop or prevent family violence.

This non-entity center** is conveniently named and organized to support Joan Meier’s approach to the problematic  family court disgraces: scandalous minimization/denial of high-lethality risk, domestic violence, child abuse issues, leading to insanely criminal acts against women, children, AND men

That response, innately seeks to (further) enshrine and preserve the basic meat-grinder institution of the family courts (USA), insisting that with just some more trainings and tweaks it could be made “SAFE” for children.

That is what Kayden’s Law – VAWA (Reauthorization) campaign claimed for passing the federal, and now claims (present tense) as a reasonable cause for  getting the federal standard ensconced* in state laws, state by state.  (Now taken to another post, link only active when it’s published.  This is a reminder, brief, and not meant to be in-depth, but to back up what I just said, above..)

Talk about a mis-nomer, and avoidance label:

The ‘Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence,’ VAWA Tweak [is] Yet Another Federal Fable ℅  NFVLC (2019, fka DVLEAP 2003f), NSPC (website 2022), and Dear Friends [April 15, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eg9”)

Subtitle: NFVLC (started 2019, Anonymously Endowed 2020?) seeks to Affix (Ensconce, Enshrine) to State Laws, So it’s Said, “for the Kids.”  I review this and state my opposition.

Enough preview of the more immediate context….

GWUToday.GWU.edu (webpage footer; the top is news. See About/Mission” statement.

GWToday.GWU.edu is the university’s external/internal official communications channel: I understand it to be their public relations. Before starting this post I read and looked at all listed Staff bio blurbs to get a better sense who was running it. The website will have those links; I also saved it to pdf for future reference at:  About | GW Today | The George Washington University (Staff, incl Exec Dir, Sr. Man[a]ging Editors, & others (See Also bio blurbs)~~2022.Apr. 05 (Pdf, a second clink to load may be required. The link is my filename, not the website’s).

George Washington Today serves as the primary source of news and information for George Washington University students, faculty, staff and alumni. Through original journalism and communications from the GW administration, George Washington Today offers a range of stories and information about university operations, campus events, higher education trends and articles that showcase members of the GW community.


Again, this post is:

Subtitle:  In-bred (with the DV-orgs network) Task Forces Chaired by Governor’s Office Council Chairs

Sub-subtitle:  Lists in this format are designed to impress — not inform.  I’ll show in Table Format to illustrate WHY, and, whatever format the lists come in, how (we) should be mentally understanding them in columns with a few extra columns to check off “category.”

It’s also smack in the middle of the “relationships within relationships” section I wrote (quoting an earlier post), just another lesson in the same “Relationships — public/private etc. — within relationships” Level 101.  ENTRY level…

Here are a few more titles I tried which reflect my concerns and astonishment:

  • Window Frames on Websites Matter!
  • Does appointment to a Task Force named at Domestic Violence COVID-19 Response make one an instant COVID-19 Global Expert with no need to cite sources on any data?  
    • No, but it makes another reportable for GWUToday.GW.Edu and another mention for Joan Meier.  Anyhow, about that task force…
  • May 29, 2020, GWUToday.GW.edu (University Public Relations): Joan Meier, Specialty, Family Law Appeals on DV Response, On New NY State Task Force Talks Global COVID-19 DV Expert,
  • New York State’s COVID-19 DV Task Force (Announced 5/20/20), Chaired by Top Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Most Loyal ‘Enforcer’ Secretary to Governor Melissa DeRosa ~~>BEFORE She,Then He, finally Resigned (8/2021) Amid Sex Abuse and Other Significant Scandals. (Let’s Talk..)

This was going to be a “quick-and-easy” post until I, feeling responsible, looked up not only the task force members but also the chairperson, which led to a variety of headlines showing the context of a shakeup at the Governor’s level (where Chairperson of this task force was operating. I off-ramped that discussion to a new post** leaving my more innocent version and understanding of the task force here, to be published first…Some references to it remain here but I will discuss more fully on another post.

I also took a (quick!) look at New York State’s “OPDV” (Office for Prevention of Domestic Violence).  It puts out reports in short, or long format.  I included two reports as footnotes: (Dec. 2021) report from the Gov. Kathy Hochul’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Child Custody (only 16 pages) and “Report on Public Hearings for Accountability for Those Who Cause Harm” (Also Dec., 2021, much longer).

Both are interesting for current developments and (one of them) history of the “batterers’ intervention movement.”  The main content (though it takes a while to get to it) is formatting a task force list as tables with (ideally), links to those affiliations which have known websites.  Perhaps the footnotes will become their own separate (short) posts…
Read the rest of this entry »

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;  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:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

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,” [From June 4, 2011 \ Updated Formatted, Publ. Here March 30, 2016].

with one comment

Post title (with publish dates added), updated April 2022, to get the short-link.  I also changed background-color to white (from light-blue) and removed the default font specs for this post. My new blog default font is “sans-serif” but too many paragraphs within this one copied “Georgia” which is more curly in look.  I’m not re-doing fonts para. by para., so individual paragraphs will not all be in the same font. //LGH Apr. 22, 2022.

My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers, Pt 3 of 3, “Same text, better formatting,” [Updated Formatted, Publ. Here March 30, 2016]. (short-link ends “-3e7”)

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: