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 ‘Education

Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline Pre-Thanksgiving 2017, Yet I See I’d Outlined the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017].

with one comment

Title:Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…), Yet I See I’d Outlined Nearly the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7ZH”).  Published initially with tags; about 9,500 words including the “navigation” section with its outline of subtitles near the top, which I felt would help process the many images and references found in the middle. And an extended section on previously-blogged JPA (multi-state, i.e., “regional” government entity) WestEd, which now has a revamped website (which still neglects to post its financials and mis-states its date of origin by 30 years…).

On the bottom of this post I’ve been updating the status of the referenced posts while publishing them, one by one over the past ten days (Nov. 22 – Dec. 1: see post archives for November 2017 for dates).  Once published each post is then re-viewed, clarified, sometimes extending it, sometimes just correcting layout.  I’m posting more frequently now, but it’s still an intense process which ALWAYS uncovers more information to blog, OFTEN further illuminates my own understanding of some situations (typically, organizations placed in the intersection between public and private — and the board members’ ownership of, or investment in, subcontracting organizations) I may have been aware of for years, which I look forward to explaining as I can. Maintaining the anchor (mental commitment) to those already in draft, shown below, sometimes provides conflicting currents as a writer.  I write best typically while most focused on the present research in the overarching context of my own learning curve and desire to communicate clearly what I am seeing and hearing, and watching continue to evolve over the years.  //LGH, Dec. 1, 2017.


Just in case, Title Terminology:  “In the Pipeline” is a common phrase (school-to-prison pipeline, cradle-to-career-pipeline), but here’s how I use it referring instead just to posts.

Posts in the pipeline or “spin-off posts” are portions of some writing in process* with a blog “street address” but still in draft status, felt to be significant enough for more attention under their own titles. *Typically they come up as I am writing some post, and are related but I feel they may seem extraneous to a reader covering the subject matter for the first time. Other times, less often, I start them from scratch on their own post when I realize the topic should be handled before it almost writes itself on some other project I want published sooner.

Sometimes these off-ramped finds, like my  more consistently noticing the presence of independent subcontractors as  major part of some charities, are a key which puts the larger picture together, i.e., opens double-wide doors to understanding.  Examples:  Bridgespan as a subcontractor (and its relationship to “Bain”); or, further back in its  corporate existence (and in my blog’s history), NCCD (National Council on Crime & Delinquency) as an Oakland, California-based subcontractor taking government grants from around the world, or I should say, around the “Commonwealth Nations” and around the USA, on a “Children’s Rights, Inc.” charity based in New York.

There is a recent example also on these blogs, too, although it’s not as a subcontractor of some charity, but a listed partner among others in on certain website offering multi-state filings for charities.  One of the listed partners was bought out within six years of its creation, leading to my better understanding of a (different) company historically significant to the practice of corporate law in the United States (!), and as we have (already) turned the century into the digital age and the professionalization of services to and “software AS a service” companies to the philanthropic / nonprofit sector.

Typically also posts in the pipeline were nearly complete before I moved them under their own titles, with “nearly” still meaning “not yet..” in blog administrator terms.  Parallels to baking bread, or, (to borrow from my more familiar, experiential points of reference), preparing and rehearsing a musical ensemble for a concert, may help explain a sense when 90% “done” isn’t good enough. It’s not about complete perfection, it’s about having enough vital components to complete the course and “deliver the goods” for better understanding of the evolving”playing field” in which this blog became necessary.

About This Post:

This post is shorter than most.  It serves a review and blog administrative function for my use, but  I’m publishing it in the belief it will also help readers see the FamilyCourtMatters blog continuity and understand that while it may seem like widely disparate groups I’m investigating and reporting on, in fact the investigations and reports together circle around some core, basic themes.  [This thought continued below the next “Navigation” section]

Navigation:  Blog sections, by Subtitle.  It seems there are six main sections.  Any section may contain text in a variety of formats, and/or images.  I only posted one table of Forms 990 (for a change!). The longer Sections 2 and 5, especially, set up the Posts in the Pipeline as being along the same concepts but just applied to different organizations.  There is overlap of type, and (future posts will show) also overlap of entities and personnel involved — hardly surprising because I’m looking at some of the more powerful foundations around, and major causes with public policy in transition…There is also some overlap of material below between some of the sections.

I don’t want us to lose sight of what some of these influential groups have themselves lost sight of — the requirement of holding to some real ethics, reason, and at least an attempt to keep their collaborating colleagues honest, instead of just “going for the jugular” on some groups which might be in competition for the same audiences.  Which I say happened in the recent prosecution of a sham (fake) cancer charities.  Not that they weren’t sham (I read — seems like they certainly were) — but they ALSO were in competition with the tobacco mega-fund money coursing triumphantly through government and the philanthropic sectors both, and often in partnership.

That last comment will make more sense in the context of reading up on “NAAG” and “NASCO” (see Outline here):

  1. About This Post (you’re in it…)
  2. Concentric Circles of Investigation, Common Themes – To Review 
    1. WestEd (MIA financials on both old and new websites; see prior posts on this).
    2. AISR at Brown and Annenberg Foundation-Related
    3. NGA
    4. NAAG, NASCO (current project and research themes)
    5. Multi-million-dollar MIA grants (overlaps with some of the above and below groups)
    6. Multi-million-dollar Grants not MIA, but it sure seems the projects are, and don’t look remotely that classy when parts of them show up, either…
    7. NCALP at Capital University (Columbus, Ohio) (transformed into) Family & Youth Law Center / and its IPV Collaborative personally assisting David Mandel’s career path through curricula marketing.
      1. Basic conclusion to the “Concentric Circles / Review” section:  “The more you look, the more of such situations surface.  How much is acceptable? It is really something which is subject to being controlled and monitored — or not?”
  3. “The Same Basics One Year Ago, ” (brief, only one image)
  4. More Recent Discoveries (contents include BizFilings, Guidestar, short section — but Guidestar info cont’d in another section)
  5. Brief Recap of the recent Nov. 18 post and Nov. 11 page significance, and more images from “Guidestar, Inc.” (formerly “Philanthropic Research, Inc.”) and a bit on (Paul) Newman’s Own Foundation, Inc. (versions 1 & 2, based in Connecticut), also referenced as involved, or to be involved, in the MRFP and Single Portal Initiative… 
    1. Contains narrative and many images, plus a Form 990 table for GuideStar USA, Inc.
    2. Summarizes the most recent post and page, obviously.
  6. IN GENERAL (barely a section, but it is a heading)
  7. Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…)
    1. In image format (not interactive)
    2. In texts (bulleted, with titles, links and some surrounding descriptions from the context where they were first referenced).

As you can see above, the actual list of posts is on the bottom in two formats:  Images (from my WordPress Admin site showing titles of post started in November and still in draft) and, for later convenience, text & titles with active links.  And some surrounding abstracts or reminders of the context.  And it’s at the bottom of the post.  FYI there were nine ten (10) in all, not six (6).  One more showed up which hadn’t been imaged (on the historic basis of “Sovereignty” concept, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).*

*That is, after all, a big question (despite it having become a “dirty word” and negative- or positive-only values-laden descriptor for certain people with certain beliefs in the USA — the question in any form of government is “Who’s the boss?” (legally, and effectively/administratively which will often show up economically).  So, national “sovereignty” as a concept has origins in contrast to, it seems the Holy Roman Empire.  Worth thinking about in the historic sense. This post just provides some resources (links) for further reading.

An image looks like this (the example only has one title showing, though).

#3 of 3 (My Blog Posts Started Nov. 2017 in Draft, by when last modified (not originated). This one more of a study project from recent headlines on Puerto Rico debt and hurricane recovery 2017, transferable info.

A title with link looks just like what you see at the top, or will see if you scroll to the bottom of this post, below the images, to see those in the pipeline listed in bullet format, with some nearby fine-print summaries for most of them.  Why?  Because with enough memory pegs for the months or even possibly years of writing ahead (further down the FamilyCourtMatters road), I expect my head may be buried either deeper into this theme, or into a related one. I sometimes even dream about material I am currently working; it gets under one’s skin…Once it’s published, a previous multi-post project is buried less deeply in my psyche (so to speak), but is better available for mental recall when there’s enough surrounding context.  As with advertising, to a degree also with teaching (and learning): repetition helps comprehension, but better that the repetition is also tied to context.


…These concentric or overlapping circles are just getting wider and further back in time, and the drill-downs on the available financials (or searches when they are not available) deeper.  I am also considering more parts of a typical Form 990 when I do look, and more internal comparisons and looking more consistently at change over time (i.e., looking for earlier filings). So while some may wonder what “Education” or “Big Tobacco” have to do, really, with “Family Courts” or “Domestic Violence Prevention,” as a whole, they are dealing with and justified on the basis of financial matters, and involve similar vehicles and organizing tactics (networking) over time in pursuit if any national or international cause.

Developing overwhelming weight and influence (to stack the odds towards success) in pursuit of a privately chosen cause (public policy, message, results or outcomes) also regularly shows ongoing symptoms, often showing up after the fact or after the infrastructure is already entrenched with matters of control, secrecy, of sequestering of total government entity (collective) AND total corporate (collective, when it comes to the networks) size of assets and investments (income producing, whether through dividends and interest as held, or when sold) from public awareness, and on this basis, demanding more and more compliance, conformity, and personal concessions from the population as a whole.

Many aspects of this resemble tactics of batterers and coercive control when at the individual level which we might now simply call “abuse” or “domestic violence.” It’s the behavior of terrorist mentality, not of a personal subjection to law, and deep respect for others of differing economic, social, racial/ethnic, citizenship OR status.  Or of a different gender. Talk to women or, I’ll bet also men, who have been held captive to this kind of intimate or family control, coercion, and long-term intimidation, not to commonly-accepted laws, standards, or with regard to rights — but to simply what the abusers want.   The difference is just of scale and primary venue, and the bystander audiences addressed.  What I’m talking about here is when the bystander audiences are the entire country not “in on it,” and international participants, too.

Concentric Circles of Investigation, Common Themes – To Review

… … …To review, remember the “where’s your tax return?” status of certain major-cause-collaborating, well-financed (and public, private, or public-private in concert) groups I’ve blogged on? such as (just a few examples…):

  • WestEd  (I notice the website has been, it seems, completely reformatted since I reported on this.  A horizontal timeline slideshow now exists.  While this probably relates to a 50th Anniversary (since 1966), I note there are STILL no Financials (CAFRs — it being a JPA, a government, not private, entity which crosses state borders, though domiciled in California), despite posting an impressive list by type of “Our Clients and Funders” (no amounts or years, and not distinguishing “clients” from “funders.”  It’s just a single page which links to nothing else).  So are the pages within the timeline, that I saw so far.
  • AISR (The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown) + CES (Coalition of Essential Schools) network, the Ted & Nancy Sizer et al.  Plenty posted before, enough said for now!
    • Except I recall some MIA grants involving a Chicago Entity, and later CPS Schools Chief being ousted for fraud in grants administration.  (See posts in below images)
    • Nearby “Broad Institute | Academy | Center | Foundation (versions 1 versions 2) possibly related.  Had to do with training for urban school system supervisors.
    • And, one post title with active link, and all those posts (in image form with dates published dates):

My Annenberg-related posts published so far; The names speak loudly. Click image to enlarge and see. Only one has tabs (and not all shown on this image)

An Annenberg-related FamilyCourtMatters post + publication date (but no tags), title also shown with link nearby (Nov. 21, 2017 new post)

Challenging the Annenbergs’ Public Education Challenge Grants, Still Searching for AISR@Brown as a Form 990 filer, Still Scrutinizing Why We Accept that Privately Controlled, Synched, Billion-Dollar, Tax-Exempt Foundations Care about the Public as Much as About Controlling Their Collective Assets (and the Public, Lest We Start Demanding a Better Look at the Books!) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6yC”

The first several paragraphs here overlap from the originating post, before I “get into it,” scrutinizing some of the Forms 990PF and relationships between various Annenberg projects and their main foundation. *** [see below next para. and link]

As previously explained (on the last post, above), this is a large family foundation (well, at least one) whose primary wealth came from ownership of publications/media field — the sale of “Triangle Publications,” by a second-generation business success, Walter H. Annenberg.

  • The NGA (National Governors’ Association) which controls its foundation (501©3) thereby allowing direct corporate “Fellows” concentration, with privileged access, to its conferences that normal citizens cannot attend (i.e., Pay-Us-To-Play in the “major leagues,” but for which no financials are shown, that I can see (view tax returns of the supporting “NGA Center for Best Practices” for more details).  The ‘NGA” is one of the “Big Seven” associations coordinating efforts before the Congress on their own behalf.  [no reminder text or images provided here; it’s more distant blog history…]
  • …and now, more recently, I see the NAAG (National Association of Attorneys General) and NASCO (National Association of State Charity Officials), the NAAG’s “Mission Foundation” (formed in 2002? with funds from MSA Tobacco Settlement), and I haven’t yet explored in depth, but there are plenty of visuals showing a “NAGTRI” (Training and Research Institute) said to have been created in 2007 (logo below, accessible through main NAAG.org website).  Then again, it’s hard to explore what one can’t even access yet.

Read the rest of this entry »

Credentialing and Schooling Psychologists (speaking of MN and the Grazzini-Rucki case)

with one comment

[Section on Schools of Professional Psychology likely to be moved to a separate post.  It was added post-publication anyhow.. Until then, the post is about 11,000 words.  After it’s removed, closer to 8,000 words //LGH]

Fascinating (I think!) information on the matter of private, for-profit education as a major, flourishing form of investment, and the Minnesota School of Professional Psychology at Argosy University as part of this larger trend.

I have sustained an ongoing interest in the “Schools of Professional Psychology” ever since learning who was pushing for them in the late 1960s, in my state, and why.  (“Psychologists need doctorates too if they’re going to continue getting some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. — and proper income…ideally, like doctors get….” There seems to be a perpetual chip on the shoulder of too many in the field.. a professional trait…).  There seem parallels between the Argosy University situation and the Alliant International University (with California campuses, and having absorbed the California School of Professional Psychology, while also hosting a “non-entity” called “IVAT” (Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma) associated with Robert Geffner’s “FVSAI” (Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute, a small nonprofit with Texas jurisdiction & California address).

A BIT ABOUT (SOME) SCHOOLS of PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Schools of Professional Psychology tend to prepare people as marriage/family therapists and custody evaluators, among other future career paths.  This gets interesting when the schools come in different religious types.  For example, there’s the Christian/religious/theological style:

Since 1965:  Fuller Seminary: School of Psychology:

Pioneering Integration and Excellence in Teaching, Training, and Research

Since 1965, Fuller’s School of Psychology has been creating a pioneer program integrating evangelical Christian faith and psychology. By placing strong theological study in the heart of psychology, you will become clinical psychologists, marriage and family therapists, and educators who are prepared to serve with integrated professionalism and practice.

The “History” page gives the inspiration and original financial backing information:

In 1961, psychologist John G. Finch delivered a series of lectures at Fuller Seminary on the theological and psychological dimensions of humankind. The vision he articulated, one that integrated the Christian faith with the field of psychology, sparked the idea for a School of Psychology at Fuller. With generous financial support from C. Davis and Annette Weyerhaeuser, further study and planning followed and, in 1964, the opening of the Pasadena Community Counseling Center initiated the first phase of the new program
(This being the 1960s, a class photo shows next, with rows of men in suits and ONE woman):

John G. Finch in the 1980s and again in the 1990s was accused of sexual improprieties with his clients, some of them married women.  Seattle Times (4/27/1992, “Communities”) article described in detail, including some incidents that began, it was claimed, as early as 1965 — about the time he was “inspiring” Fuller to get the School of Psychology started.  (Is this how some therapists who groom patients for sex get their stables of partners established? Is it why they went into the field? With the religious element, that’s not just professional, but professional and spiritual abuse.  “Caveat emptor.”

A (married) woman claimed to have met him at a Christian camp.  Separately (not in this article), a married man was in therapy with Finch while Finch, unknown to him, was having sex with the man’s wife, which she confessed to years later, but Finch, naturally, deflected accusations of having a romantic relationship with his patient’s wife.  The man then sued as “John Doe” for malpractice and outrage…

If the goal behind raising up more Christian psychologists and marriage therapists is indeed evangelizing and transforming the world through faith, perhaps a better means might be for the flocks of sheep to to quit the passive, “see-nothing-do-nothing” sheeplike behavior and remember they are human beings — and hold leadership accountable.  For leadership, we’d rather see a sermon than hear one,  and more might be open to the sermons if they weren’t seeing this type of behavior coming from the sermonizers.  In this case, it was primarily the women who continued reporting over the years and came forward, as I recall.

A prominent Pierce County psychologist has been charged by the state with violating his code of ethics by allegedly having sex with his clients, engaging in nude therapy and violating their confidences.

It is one of the most egregious cases ever taken to the board, say officials with the state Examining Board of Psychology, where the charges were filed last month. The board continues to receive complaints about the psychologist, who has been licensed in the state since 1965.

The charges, based on claims by six patients, say Gig Harbor therapist John Finch violated his code of ethics by having sex with clients, shared their private conversations with others and fostered their dependence on him.   Sex between patients and therapists is forbidden under state ethics law but is not a criminal offense. ….

Complaints were made against Finch 10 years ago, but were dropped by the state Department of Licensing – which at the time had jurisdiction over the licensing of psychologists – because the complainants were not deemed credible. But investigators remained suspicious.

“I believe Dr. Finch practices in a questionable and controversial manner,” said Ruth Palnick, who investigated the charges for the Department of Licensing in 1982, in documents filed at the time. “John Finch bears watching, but I really don’t feel we would get far with these witnesses.”

The psychology board has received 11 complaints against Finch, beginning in 1990, six of which are included in the statement of charges. They paint a portrait of a man who promoted himself as a Christian therapist and fostered such dependence by his patients that he persuaded them to remove their clothes and engage in sex with him.

It is only today that some of the women feel strong enough to talk about their experiences with Finch.

“The hardest thing is I’ve lived with this secret for 26 years, more than half of my life,” said Ineke Rouw, who met Finch in 1964 at a Bible conference in Bellingham. Active in a Christian church, Rouw began therapy with him soon thereafter and continued until 1987. She began to see Finch because of concerns about her inability to become pregnant.  [[And quit after confiding in another therapist….  He had sex with her while billing her for therapy, totaling from $20 – $30K over the years….Other lawsuits were filed, six women (“A through F”) came forward. At the time of “nude therapy” (sometimes involving sex with clients) he was ordained Methodist minister, founder of Fuller School of Psychology (it says) and married with children…  See rest of article.]]


 A husband even sued the man as “John Doe” for malpractice and outrage.  In this case, Finch had the man in therapy, while having sex with his wife (!!), who much later, confessed to having had sex with him during those times. Here’s part of it:

Supreme Court of Washington,En Banc.  John DOE, Respondent, v. John G. FINCH and John G. Finch, Ph.D., P.S., Petitioner.  No. 64131-5.    Decided: August 21, 1997:

Doe was in therapy with Dr. Finch from 1974 to 1980.   Much of Doe’s therapy focused on Doe’s failing marriage.  In 1976, Dr. Finch began a romantic and sexual relationship with Doe’s wife that lasted until at least 1981.   Doe felt jealousy toward Dr. Finch, and it seemed to Doe that his wife had a higher opinion of Dr. Finch than of Doe. Dr. Finch assured Doe that Dr. Finch’s relationship with Doe’s wife was strictly professional.

In December 1981, Doe wrote an angry letter to Dr. Finch, blaming Dr. Finch for the failure of Doe’s marriage, and making specific allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Dr. Finch and Doe’s wife.

What amazes me is that Fuller hasn’t meanwhile removed the reference from their school.

Another Christian School of Psychology in Southern California (Malibu) would be at Pepperdine, who also has programs (Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Boone (as in “Pat Boone”) Family Center) which graduate people who then go into the family law practice:  I have posted on it before on this blog in context of marriage/fatherhood grants promotion. Pepperdine’s  combines psychology and education.  The two fields are of course closely related:

Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology…  (School of Education founded 1971, of Psychology, 1981)

Pepperdine University is a Christian university committed to the highest standards of academic excellence and Christian values, where students are strengthened for lives of purpose, service, and leadership.

Access an exceptional education at multiple campuses throughout Southern California, as well as online


Preamble    (from “Spiritual Formation and the Christian Mission” page)

The Graduate School of Education and Psychology (GSEP) at Pepperdine University fully supports the University’s Christian mission and promotes spiritual formation for the sake of serving the needs of others, and especially the needs of those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45).

In keeping with the holistic vision of faith/learning integration that Pepperdine has embraced for so many years – GSEP affirms all space as God’s space and all times as God’s time. For that reason, GSEP encourages its students, faculty, and staff to view their work as sacred work, regardless of where or when that work might be carried out. From a Christian perspective, a life of purpose inspires us to serve, and by serving, it shapes the way we lead.  [Diversity of religious views of students is emphasized; it’s hoped the time at Pepperdine will be “transformative”….]

24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90263

(Other Factoids:  Senior Admin (4), all men, all white.  Board of Directors has more variety (men and women, businesses (Northrup Grunman, Hughes Missile Group, VP of eHarmony…) and professionals (dentist, lawyer, doctor) and even a US District Judge for DC Court of Appeals).

Then, there are the Schools of Professional Psychology whose ties are definitely more humanistic or associated with “new-age” worldviews and practices (not that sexual or other abuse is necessarily any less likely to occur within their ranks…).

The Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology (for example), recently renamed “William James College,”  which I’m aware of because of AFCC former President? or Board Member, Robin Deutsch’ involvement in its Center of Excellence for Families and Children (or similarly named center) there — I also noted had ties to Saybrook University.

The Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, now (as of May, 2015) named William James College, maintains its focus on experiential learning, and continues to have one of its “Centers of Excellence” to be run by a well-known (if you pay attention to this organization) Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Board Member/President (former or present, I don’t keep close track), i.e., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D. a.k.a. “Dr. Robin Deutsch.”  Her bio reads like a smorgasbord of AFCC-promoted policies, positions (alienation, high-conflict) and professions (parenting coordination) and acknowledges the connection at the bottom of the bio blurb:

Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, ABPP is the Director of the Center of Excellence for Children, Families and the Law at William James College. Formerly an Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at Harvard Medical School, she practices as a custody evaluator, mediator, parent coordinator, therapist and consultant. Dr. Deutsch lectures widely throughout North America and Europe on Parenting Coordination, parenting and child development and complex issues related to family conflict, including parent-child contact problems, attachment, abuse and neglect and trauma.

(AFCC is international with known connections in — North America and Europe.  So, between private practice in several fields and her lecture circuit, when does she run this Center of Excellence?)

She has published extensively on issues related to attachment, alienation, co-parenting after divorce, high conflict divorce, parenting plans and parenting coordination. Dr. Deutsch has performed a wide variety of forensic evaluations and testified in juvenile, family, district and federal courts involving divorce and visitation disputes, relocation, domestic violence, adoption, alienation, abuse and neglect. She provides consultation and expert witness services on boundary violations, ethical issues, child and adolescent development, complex custody issues and custody and parenting evaluations. Dr. Deutsch was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) task force that developed Guidelines for Parenting Coordinators (2011), the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Task Force that developed Guidelines for Parenting Coordinators (2006), and the AFCC Task force that developed Guidelines for Court Involved Therapists (2010). She was the former President of the AFCC (2008-2009) and the former Chair of the APA Ethics Committee (2007).

Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law co-publishes “Family Court Review” with the AFCC.  They have, however, radically revised and simplified their main website so it’s pretty unlikely a person not already searching for that information would actually find it:

The Maurice A. Deane School of Law is part of Hofstra University and is fully accredited by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association.  I also see on the site for the School of Law that Hofstra’s Barr Pass Rates (2013, 2014) ranging from around 72 to 81%, very average overall, like — about a C+ )….

http://law.hofstra.edu/currentstudents/studentactivities/journals/familycourtreview/about/ (Click to see there’s also a direct link to ‘AFCC’ as well as to the Editorial Board of the “FCR.”  (complete words I guess are going out … acronyms in….If you know what the acronym is, or to look for it, so much the better.  If not, tough luck….)

An Interdisciplinary Journal

Sponsored by AFCC – Association of Family
and Concilition## Courts
Published in cooperation with the
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Managing Editor
Ruth C. Stern
Maurice A. Deane School of Law
Hofstra University

Former Editors
Meyer Elkin (1963-1986)
Stanley Cohen (1986-1991)
Hugh McIsaac (1991-1996)
Andrew I. Schepard (1996-2015)

FAMILY COURT REVIEW EDITORIAL BOARD

#The mis-spelling “Concilition” has been up there for a long time.  Wonder if anyone reads that website, or reports to the webmaster.  Anyhow, I’d make a note of the “Editorial Board” individuals.  Notably, no links to the individuals at their affiliated websites is offered (why not?).  Robin Deutsch has likewise been a William James College (formerly MSPP) Center of Excellence for Families, Children and the Law — for quite a while (a few years, I’d say), but her affiliation listed here is “Massachusetts General Hospital.”

Robin Deutsch Director, Children and the Law Program
Massachusetts General Hospital
Charlene E. Depner Assistant Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Judicial Council – Administrative Office of the Courts

Incidentally, another reason to keep both AFCC and Hofstra University (as a co-sponsor of its publication Family Court Review, and Hofstra also being a private university in New York State, which has a Unified Court System (partnering with the “Center for Court Innovation” — funded by the Ford Foundation originally, i.e., via “Fund for the City of New York” being the nonprofit)….

New York like California (like Texas, also I’ve notice like Illinois …. Chicago) is a large, coastal state with a huge court system — and policies are shipped cross-continentally through various centers and professionals (and the associations that go with them).  I just realized that the Chief Judge of New York State  just appointed the Hon. Gail A. Prudenti, Chief Administrative Judge (of NYS) — also maintains a relationship with Hofstra, and as of last September 2015, joined one of its Centers (those centers that you do NOT see from the Law School home page….) as chair of the NYS Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, replacing the late Hon. Judith S. Kaye (formerly Judith S. Kaye — notably AFCC program-friendly)

Hon. A. Gail Prudenti Named Chair of NY’s Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children

On Feb. 2, 2016, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore announced the appointment of the Honorable the Honorable A. Gail Prudenti as chair of the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children. Judge Prudenti succeeds the late Judith S. Kaye, New York’s longest-serving chief judge, who led the Commission with distinction from 1992 until her recent passing.

“I am both thrilled and humbled that Chief Judge DiFiore has asked me to lead this prestigious Commission, whose vital work is very close to my heart, intersecting as well as completing my objectives as executive director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law,” said Judge Prudenti. “While I can never fill Judge Kaye’s shoes, I am deeply committed to building upon her wonderful legacy and look forward to working with the distinguished members of the Commission to that end.”

Hofstra Law and the Center for Children, Families and the Law have a history of partnering with the Commission ….

About the Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children

Formed in 1988 to improve the lives and life chances of children involved with New York courts, the Commission is made up of judges, lawyers, advocates, physicians, legislators, and state and local officials. At its inception, the Commission predominantly targeted its efforts toward the youngest children before the court, including infants involved in child welfare proceedings. In 1994, the State Court of Appeals designated the Commission to implement the New York State Court Improvement Project (CIP), a federally funded project to assess and improve foster care, termination of parental rights, and adoption proceedings. Since 2006, the group has expanded its focus to include older youth involved with the courts.

Read the full official announcement (PDF).  (which mentions, in addition to a string of remarkable firsts and appointments….)

She earned her law degree from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, which also awarded her an honorary Doctorate of Laws in 2004 and an honorary appointment as Professor in the School of Law.”   [HUH?  What was her original nationality and when did she become a US Citizen?]


“Related Posts” (on this Hofstra U site announcing the appointment): 

I’ve been saying for years that AFCC (and whoever’s been backing it) is basically running the family courts of the nation, not to mention helping create them (see Meyer Elkin article, this page).  One of these days, some people will start believing me, in reporting what I am simply seeing year after year!  Start understanding this organization better (including how its memberships networks in positions of power and what those positions are, let alone what is the agenda) and you will better understand the family courts themselves, and start talking more sense about “reforming them…”  For example, it’s up-front, in-your-face ridiculous to expect this organization to let go of “parental alienation” while its membership are constantly promoting it, or to DE-frock the centralization of the profession of psychology from the courts….  And that has ramifications….

 Saybrook University Wiki.  Started as the “Humanistic Psychology Institute” at Cal State U Sonoma (in the SF Bay Area, Northern California) in 1971 by Rollo May, 600 students in 2014, ranked in the bottom quartile and 173/185 among psychology doctoral programs not long ago.  It features low-residency masters and doctoral degrees, and professional certifications:

Saybrook University is an educational institution founded in 1971. It offers postgraduate education with a focus on humanistic psychology. It features low residency, master’s and doctoral degrees and professional certification programs. The university is accredited by the Senior Colleges and Universities Commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).[2][3] As of 2014 the university served 600 students.[4]

In 1971, the American psychologist Rollo May helped to establish the Humanistic Psychology Institute at California State University, Sonoma.[4][5] Later on it was renamed the Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center.[4] Author Michael Mayer recalls that the Saybrook name derives from Saybrook, Connecticut, where during a conference in 1964 several psychologists, including May, expressed a desire “to create a school that embodied the values of the ‘human growth and potential movement’ and to educate practitioner-scholars in the methods and philosophies of human-centered psychotherapy”.[6] In 2009, the school was renamed Saybrook University.[4] The university became affiliated with the shared services organization TCS Education System in 2014 to provide administrative and financial services, so that the school could focus on teaching and research.[7][8] The same year, the school moved from San Francisco to Oakland, California.[9] 

RANKINGS:   Based on a survey of academic programs, US News & World Report ranked Saybrook’s psychology program in the bottom quartile of its 2013 ranking of graduate psychology programs. The precise rankings in this quartile are not published.[14][15] The United States National Research Council rankings (NRC) ranked Saybrook 173/174 out of 185 in its 2014 rankings of 185 psychology PhD programs.[16]

Looking up that Old (1964) Saybrook conference (there was a “Saybrook II” around 1998/1999), while realizing this should be a separate post, this does summarize involved personnel and the general ideas driving it:

The Original “Old Saybrook” ConferenceIn the preface to the second edition of Toward a Psychology of Being (1968), Abraham Maslow wrote:

“Much has happened to the world of Psychology since this book was first published (1962) …I must confess, that I have come to see this humanist trend in psychology as a revolution in the truest, oldest sense in which Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Freud and Marx made revolutions, i.e., new ways of perceiving and thinking, new images of man and society…”

Between editions of Maslow’s classic, on November 28th through 30th, 1964, the original Old Saybrook conference took place in the little New England Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. There, as David Elkins recounts it, “at the Saybrook Inn, a resort hotel and spa, the new American Association for Humanistic Psychology was holding its ‘First Invitational Conference on Humanistic Psychology’. Abe Maslow was there. So was Carl Rogers, and Rollo May, Charlotte Buhler, Clark Moustakas, Floyd Matson, James Bugental, Miles Vich, Robert Knapp, and a host of other luminaries including Henry Murray, Gordon Allport, George Kelly, Gardner Murphy, Robert White, Rene Dubos, Norma Rosenquist, Alvin Lasko, Victor Butterfield, E.J. Shoben and Roman Tratch.”

The original Old Saybrook gathering, though but one significant event, is often credited as a landmark moment in the history of humanistic psychology. The “revolution” Maslow describes had opened doors, some then newly cracked in the field, like Creativity research; others which had been systemically shut to psychology, such as consciousness and self exploration; other doors to European existential-phenomenology, and still others to Eastern philosophical traditions

New Saybrook article (from the same site): Read David Elkins’ article, Old Saybrook I and II: The Visioning and Re-Visioning of Humanistic Psychology, from the December, 1998/January, 1999 issue of the AHP Perspective. Ironically, David Elkins was teaching (a professor) at Pepperdine at the time. I wonder if he’s any relation to the AFCC-folkloric founder, Meyer Elkin… “David N. Elkins, Ph.D., is a licensed psychologist and professor in the Graduate School of Education and Psychology of Pepperdine University and is president of Division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) of APA. His book, Beyond Religion: A Personal Program for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion, was recently released by Quest Books.
NOTE: This is an abridged version of Dr. Elkins� text”

August 23, 2010 — Saybrook University announces “David Elkins named Director of Saybrook’s PsyD Program” says he actually helped Pepperdine get (chaired the committee that got)  its APA accreditation.  Interesting!

Saybrook’s Graduate College of Psychology and Humanistic Studies is pleased to announce that David Elkins has been appointed director of the PsyD program.

A licensed clinical psychologist who taught at Pepperdine University for 25 years, Elkins has worked hospital, community health, and private practice settings, and was the Director of the Humanistic Psychology Center in Tustin, California.

Elkins’ background in humanistic psychology is extensive:  he serves on the board of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology and The Humanistic Psychologist;  he has served as a board member of the Association for Humanistic Psychology;  and in 1998-1999 served as president of the APA’s Division 32, Society for Humanistic Psychology.  While at Pepperdine he designed and taught the existential-humanistic psychology track of their PsyD program.  He also chaired the committee that achieved APA accreditation for the Pepperdine PsyD.

Elkins’ most recent book is Humanistic Psychology:  A Clinical Manifesto:  A Critique of Clinical Psychology and the Need for Progressive Alternatives

I found a book review of Elkins‘ “Beyond Religion: A Personal Pathway for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion” which says he was a former minister.  Published in Wheaton, IL.:

Schouborg, Gary (2001). Paths to Spirituality: A Review Article of Beyond Religion, by David N. Elkins”. The Humanistic Psychologist, 27 n.3, 369-373.

. . .

Because Elkins views spirituality as indefinable, he approaches it from multiple angles. He characterizes it variously as a hunger for attention and care, for psychological health, for imagination, for passion and depth, for the sacred or numinous, for waking up one’s soul to the wonder of life, for “the more”. The advantage of this approach is that he increases his chances of connecting with someone for whom one phrase or another is particularly meaningful. A further advantage is that the multiple phrases express the kaleidoscopic richness of spirituality. I would be interested, however, in what he thinks might be lost by summing all of what he ascribes to spirituality in the single phrase, emotional responsiveness.

The second half of the book describes eight alternative paths to traditional religion — The Feminine, The Arts, The Body, Psychology, Mythology, Nature, Relationship, Dark Nights of the Soul — concluding with step-by-step instructions on how to walk them. All the paths share in moving us beyond our culture’s over-emphasis on masculine reason, structure, tangibility by appealing to our need for the feminine relational, intuitive, mystical. The concluding chapter is a guide to creating a four-step “Soul Journal” for oneself that helps: (1) identify what sorts of experiences nourish one’s soul; (2) design a program to engage in activities that will produce those experiences; (3) engage in those activities; (4) evaluate how well the Soul Journal is nurturing the soul. Elkins’ instructions are do-able and sensitive to the unique needs of each individual.


 

(Elkins =/= Elkin.  Meyer Elkin died in 1994 at age 1978; here’s his Los Angeles Times Obituary.  I am reminded that the mediation unit, called “Los Angeles Conciliation Court” which it says he founded, not in 1963 — but earlier; it says, in 1955, and that this was not the Los Angeles Superior Court itself, but a unit within it.  

Meyer Elkin:  Founder, Los Angeles County Conciliation Court (L.A. times, 4/15/1994)

Meyer Elkin, 78, founder of the Los Angeles County Conciliation Court. The unusual mediation unit, which he set up in 1955 as a part of Los Angeles County Superior Court, handles divorce and custody disputes and provides court-ordered counseling for the families involved. Elkin also founded and edited the professional journal Conciliation Courts Review and helped to found the Assn. of Family Conciliation Courts. After growing up in Brooklyn, N.Y., he began his career as a parole officer in Tuscon. A social worker deeply involved in community social problems, Elkin worked throughout his life to aid families and young people. After his retirement in 1977, he devoted his attention to what is now El Nido Family Centers in Los Angeles. He served on the board, as president and as an adviser to the nonprofit family counseling agency. Elkin earned the Koshland Award, California’s top accolade for achievement in social work, and the Leadership Award of the American Assn. of Marriage and Family Counselors. On March 17 in Beverly Hills of emphysema.

You can see the same missionary zeal to transform society in this summary, and determination to “keep the vision going — only more relevant to this time.” There’s a certain disdain for “reductionistic science” and elevation for “other ways of knowing” in this language. The scientific method is actually frowned upon, it seems, in some of these circles, while the “practitioners” still enjoy the professional titles, jargon (“Forensic, clinical, scientific, evaluative, ….”) which would, in fact, be more appropriate to scientists who do practice the method as part of their normal work lives:

. . . That small conference in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, helped clarify the vision and set the course of the field in America. Within a few years this movement would become a major “third force” in American psychology. It would spawn various humanistic organizations, provide a penetrating critique of reductionistic science, create an array of new approaches to counseling and psychotherapy, and articulate new research methodologies and “ways of knowing” in the search for knowledge. Maslow would become president of the American Psychological Association; Rogers would receive two of APA’s most prestigious awards – one for his contributions to science and the other for his contributions to practice.

While humanistic psychology seemed to be making inroads into the academic and professional community, the humanistic vision was moving out into the streets of America. Its values and ideals became part of the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. The human potential movement was born and spread through our society in the form of encounter groups, growth centers, body therapies, communes, alternative life styles, and new spiritualities. The humanistic voice echoed in the issues of the day women’s liberation, civil rights, the Vietnam War.

Some scholars in the movement became concerned that humanistic psychology was being preempted by the counterculture and, as a result, its message was not being heard or taken seriously in the research centers and halls of academia. Indeed, from a historical perspective it seems that mainstream american psychology, after only a brief humanistic pause in the 1960s, went merrily on its positivistic and reductionistic way.

“Positivistic and reductionistic” meaning …???

This is where Old Saybrook II comes in. First and foremost, Old Saybrook II is a scholarly endeavor to sort out the past thirty-five years of the humanistic movement in America and to rekindle the vision of psychology that was articulated in 1964. The Old Saybrook II scholars realize that the rekindled vision must reflect our times. It must address the scholarly and intellectual issues of our day, and it must have both the substance and the flavor of the twenty-first century. In short, the task of Old Saybrook II is to “re-vision” humanistic psychology for our times. As the official description of the project puts it:

The present Old Saybrook II Project is designed to ask again some of the key questions addressed at Old Saybrook in light of the great cultural transformations now upon us. In particular, it is to look again at the interface between psychology, the humanities, spirituality, and the social sciences at the beginning of what many describe as an era of postmodernity or transmodernity.

A central question is: How does the vision of psychology articulated at Old Saybrook, which boldly asserted both the plenitude and subtleties of Human Being, now reaffirm itself in an era of information and communication technology, which includes as its symptoms a globalizing economy, an acute awareness of environmental crises, managed health care, and the rampant industrialization of mental health and human services?

The Old Saybrook II Project will explore what aspects of Humanistic Psychology theory and praxis need to be deconstructed and reconstructed in the light of new social structures and cultural realities, and will ask what service a reinvigorated and reframed person-centered psychology can offer to a world the process of reinventing itself.


Here’s a profile of a Wm. James College graduate (Eric D. Willmarth) at “hypnosiscentral.com,”  active at Saybrook and in the Hypnosis fields, with two sons, one who became a psychologist and the other, already having a bachelor’s in psychology, now getting a teaching certificate.

Eric K. Willmarth, Ph.D., is a fully licensed psychologist living with his wife Carol in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has two sons, Dr. Kevin Willmarth, a psychologist in Ohio and Alex Willmarth, who has his bachelor’s degree in psychology and is now attending Oakland University seeking his teaching certificate.

Dr. Willmarth received his Bachelor’s Degree from William James College, his Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology from Eastern Michigan University, and his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Fielding Graduate University. He is a past  president of both the Michigan  Society of  Behavioral  Medicine and Biofeedback and the Michigan Society of Clinical Hypnosis. He is also the past president of the APA Division 30-Psychological Hypnosis and currently serves as President of the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.

Eric is Board Certified in Pain Management by the American Academy of Pain Management, a Fellow of the Society of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, an Approved Consultant of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, and a member of the International Society of Hypnosis. He has been an adjunct professor at the Forest School of Professional Psychology and Western Michigan University. He is currently the Director of Training for Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences where he also serves as the Director of the Integrative Mental Health Specialization.  He teaches the Advanced Hypnosis and the Advanced Biofeedback Practicum courses along with the Basic and Intermediate Hypnosis Courses at Saybrook.

Eric is the founder and president of Michigan Behavioral Consultants (www.michiganbehavioral.com), a group psychology and social work practice focused on pain management and behavioral health. The group offers multiple forms of therapy and psychological testing services at locations throughout Michigan.

A life-long musician and photographer, Eric has spent years videotaping interviews with the giants of hypnosis research and practice. “The Willmarth Interviews” will hopefully promote the appropriate use and understanding of clinical hypnosis and pay tribute to the many talented men and women who contribute to this field.

(End of post-publication insert about the Schools of Professional Psychology!  Originally, I continued as below….//LGH, 2/29/2016)



I ALSO LOOK, BELOW, AT THE A.F.C.E. (AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC EXAMINERS)

I also took a sidelong look at the credentialing college of the psychologist in the Minnesota case who was also involved with the MSPP and Argosy, which credentialing (mill) got its own separate investigation by “Pro Publica” which tells us something about the fascination with having credentialing (more letters behind the name in addition to the degrees obtained) in contrast with the behavior of the credentialing organizations themselves, and just what it takes to become a Fellow or Diplomate of the one involved.  Argosy was large enough alone, but swallowed up by something even larger, which is where it gets interesting and as a comment on the cradle-to-career pipeline, as managed by those at the corporate/investment end of the ownership of, well, that pipeline.

I wrote this post rather quickly in late January, spruced it up some here, and hope it’s if nothing else, a little entertaining – and of course, illuminating.  Not my primary focus, though, these days…


Being who I am (Ms. Look-it-up) I learned about the original investors, two men formerly investment bankers at Lazard Freres & Company, (<== read the VERY interesting history for a refresher) and their sponsorship of a disgraced (including by whistleblowers) EDMC (Education Management Corporation), and more.

Before the end of this post, we’ll get the former Governor of Tennessee, Lamar Alexander, and some Goldman-Sachs, and I even see Cincinnati, Ohio’s “KnowledgeWorks” gets in there.  I can connect that to Minneapolis’ “GenerationNext” (which I was looking at last summer, along with certain major community foundations within MN, and in California) which is modeled after “StriveTogether” which is (if one continues clicking on logos and reading fine print at the bottom of web-pages) a “subsidiary” of KnowledgeWorks.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 28, 2016 at 8:50 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Maryland’s Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…

with 3 comments

This post is PR on something I just discovered recently and, to be honest, am distressed enough about to follow up by phone with the leadership of some of the groups involved, asking they why these things should be happening statewide.  The dialogue illustrates what’s going on, but is a little complex, and unless you have an interest in monitoring the expansion and methods of expansion of the family law bureaucracy WITHIN or as an ADJUNCT to our court system, you may not want to go through it all.

I think there is some legitimacy — however widespread, commonplace, and entrenched this system currently is, and however expensive and status quo it has become — to a theory that the “Family Court Services” if not the “Family Courts” themselves (as it pertains to divorce and custody) — are illegitimate.  They are private enterprises posing as public ones, and servicing their funders, who as it happens, tend to occupy high places in (1) the Executive Branch of the United States Government (I’m talking HHS, DOJ in particular) and (2) the Corporate /tax-exempt foundation stratosphere — almost none of which is truly accessible to individuals who are coming through these courts, unless they already have prior involvement.

First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (‘move over, let us experts handle your family — give us your kid, etc.’) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones.  They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly “disaster capitalism” enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service.  I come from California, and preliminary expose on this was done courtesy one of the oldest and (not exactly being updated) sites around — but it still is up and still serves a purpose — Johnnypumphandle.com.

assn.gif (5213 bytes)  ”

Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral Practices in The Courts

… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound.

For example, why does the “Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges Association” change its name to simply “Los Angeles County Superior Court” in its IRS filings? and what are they actually doing at their special events, including sporting events, and how do they manage to have (year 2010) a net loss of $10,000, being such smart judges (only revenue — membership dues, totaling $50K that year).?

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Los Angeles Superior Court CA 2010 $120,654 990EO 10 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court CA 2009 $95,314 990EO 12 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court CA 2008 $102,801 990EO 11 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2007 $87,134 990EO 9 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2006 $90,509 990EO 9 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2005 $70,106 990EO 8 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2004 $55,818 990EO 5 95-4663773

per “Johnny”

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues {?} – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community”. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s [sic] office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.”

Copyright © Design Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Last update 01/10/2010)

Read the rest of this entry »

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011]

with one comment

This Image from Oct. 2011 AFCC Regional Training Conference (“Pdf” of full conference brochure from AFCCnet.org website~~>)Working with Violent and High-Conflict Families: A Race with No Winners” in Indianapolis added during May 2018 post update. The phrase “high conflict” (no hyphen, only) used 18 times in the brochure. For a change, the word “alienation” was used only twice…

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011] (Case-sensitive shortlink here ends “-UD”)

(Some format & minor amount of content updates (such as the image to the right and some others and post title extension starting at the ‘[” added May 14, 2018: I had occasion to reference this post on Twitter). Almost 24,000 words, but still important basic reading though originally written barely two years into this blog:

HAVE YOU HEARD THE LATEST LANGUAGE BLIP FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & CONCILIATION COURTS CULT?

From the “High Conflict Institute”

CONFLICT HAPPENS

 

No longer are DIVORCEs or FAMILIES “high-conflict” but “People” are.  In fact, the issues are not the issues either.

When someone comes up to you with an issue — he or she (<=the usual application) doesn’t really mean what s/he says and is not to be taken at face value (ask the forensic psychologists).  The REAL problem with family courts isn’t the family courts, and it isn’t even high-conflict families, or high conflict all by its rocky-mountain-high* self.  The REAL problem is high-conflict people.  Buy this book [“Splitting”] to know if you’re dealing with one:

AFCC 47th Annual (2010, Denver), Traversing the Trail of Alienation

<=**AFCC 47th Conference, Denver, CO, June 2010 (“Traversing the Trail of Alienation,” a trail with “Mile-High Conflict and Mountains of Emotions”)

[BELOW: Image link from 2011 broken, update provided 2018 from New Harbinger Publications 5/14/2018, of Mr. Eddy who I notice is also law professor at Pepperdine University (Conservative Christian, has a Pat Boone Center for the Family promoting marriage & relationship classes (the kind run through nonprofits that get HHS grants), etc….]. I also added image of the other author, “Walking on Eggshells” Randy Krieger.  Notice (it’s small print, but visible) “Splitting” as a book says it offers “the legal and psychological information you need.”  Coincidentally, AFCC composed (essentially, if judges are included under “legal”) of lawyers and psychologists/behavioral health practitioners, etc.). ]]

Promo for “Splitting” from New Harbinger Publications

Bill Eddy image from publications page, Click image to enlarge. Note his affiliations.

Randi Krieger, from publications page (for “Splitting” book out 2011)

 

 

 

Splitting
Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder

This book is advertised with others on alienation at the NCRC (more, below), as they are in the same professional circles.  In fact, it appears he’s on the payroll here (2018 comments: link was to Canadian Bar Association.  Search of “high-conflict” brought up just 3 articles, but not accessible without sign-up, which I didn’t at this point).  (or is “Senior Family Mediator”) as well as his own split-off “High conflict institute” (see last sentence at the link I just provided).

Books by William Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

Bill Eddy provides Divorce and Family Law Mediation at NCRC as well as training for family law attorneys and other professionals at the High Conflict Institute. Please visit HCI atwww.highconflictinstitute.com for more information on Mr. Eddy’s trainings. He has written numerous books on the subjects of families and high conflict personalities, listed below.
  • High Conflict People in Legal Disputes
  • Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or Narcissist
  • Understanding & Managing High Conflict Personalities (DVD Set)
  • Don’t Alienate The Kids! Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High Conflict Divorce
  1. It’s All Your Fault!

Bill sure was ahead of his AFCC time.  While others were simply developing and lobbying for more parenting coordinator rights in Florida, Texas, and wherever — he was writing this book explaining that the Issue is not the Issue, and all the conflict in the family law venue really comes from disordered personalities in the court system.

Protect Yourself from Manipulation, False Accusations, and Abuse

Divorce is difficult under the best of circumstances. When your spouse has borderline personality disorder (BPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or is manipulative, divorcing can be especially complicated. While people with these tendencies may initially appear convincing and even charming to lawyers and judges, you know better—many of these “persuasive blamers” leverage false accusations, attempt to manipulate others, launch verbal and physical attacks, and do everything they can to get their way.

Splitting is your legal and psychological guide to safely navigating a high-conflict divorce from an unpredictable spouse. Written by Bill Eddy, a family lawyer, therapist, and divorce mediator, and Randi Kreger, coauthor of the BPD classic Stop Walking on Eggshells, this book includes all of the critical information you need to work through the process of divorce in an emotionally balanced, productive way.

I find it odd that he’s working with the author of “Stop walking on Eggshells” which someone gave me about halfway through the divorce fiasco, post-restraining order.  They meant well, but like Lundy Bancroft’s “Why Does He DO That” — and regardless of some truths it may have held, neither one (conveniently) mentions the custody racket, financial incentive, fatherhood funding, welfare reform or in short anything which would give me a concise narrative of why the courts don’t take death threats followed by family suicide, or a stalking combined with previous death threats and violence, seriously — and insisted on psychologizing all terms.  

People who have lived with this (and I acknowledge it exists) don’t need guides — they need out of the relationship.

Which is precisely what people working with the organization Mr. Eddy helps market through, are not going to let happen.  Nope.  If we wish to detach from a borderline personality, abuser, or simply an ex (and birth happened in there somewhere), we WILL be forced, most likely, to deal with an AFCC-devotee somewhere along the way — or most of the way along the way.

 

I have the book “Stop Walking on Eggshells” and it didn’t take to long to recognize it was an updated rebuttal of a 1970s feminist classic, (shown in 2005 version) Women and Madness (by Phyllis Chesler, PhD)

(Link expired: but see 12/31/1972 Review by Adrienne Rich.  Reading it again now (2018) with my perspective, both experientially in the American family courts (post-battering interventions, 21st century) and having read so much anti-woman, anti-mother, values-driven (garbage) from the same sources she critiqued originally in this book, I have to basically agree. (I also FYI had this book as a young woman).

It asks:

Why are so many women in therapy, on psychiatric medication, or in mental hospitals? Who decides these women are mad? Why do therapists have the power to deem a woman mentally ill when she asserts herself sexually, economically, or intellectually? Why are women pathologized, but not treated, when they exhibit a normal human response to abuse and stress – including the lifelong stress of second-class citizenship?

Phyllis Chesler confronts questions like these and persuasively argues that double standards of mental health and illness exist and that women are often punitively labeled as a function of gender, race, class, or sexual preference. Based on in-depth interviews with patients and an analysis of women’s roles in myths and history, Women and Madness is an incomparable work.

Originally published in 1972, this classic has sold over two-and-a-half million copies. Passionate and informative, with a new introduction that examines the trauma of psychiatric labeling and envisions a psychology of liberation for the ages, this special twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Women and Madness remains frighteningly up-to-date.

By now there should also be one called “Children and Madness,” for the labeling children get when they report abuse, when they are active and assertive, and when they need to be controlled after any of the above.   That’s been documented elsewhere, and comes under

Psychotropic Drug Abuse in Foster Care Costs Government Billions  :

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 16, 2011 at 10:48 am

1996-2010: How “Ending welfare as we know it” morphed to [so far…] Statewide Marriage and Relationship Education –for Everyone

with one comment

Some of my friends scold me for showing too much and not just telling.  They’re right.    But as I like to SHOW (and then TELL, too) — posts run to triple-length size,  then I split them up with new — and long — titles.

(Those of you who know me — this is a “Conversational Public Data Dump.”  You are forewarned!)

(see also my comment — it has a major double-pasted section in it, too.  I will printout & purge the duplicates….  The value of this post is in the narrative, plus the links).

This post began as a TANF introduction to another one on a specific Healthy Marriage Grantee.

You may not think this information relevant — but, it has already landed in your back yard; it is restructuring the United States; it is a financial issue with global ramifications.  The story of HOW this happened (and through whom) will help us pay better attention in the future, and should rule out certain distractions — such as choosing which battle to fight, and which diversionary propaganda to ignore.

However, someone has to protest the incremental removal of civil liberties going along with incremental spending down of public dollars, diverted to . . .. for lack of a better word . .. Bush appointees, and Obama cronies.  And when it comes to THIS category, I don’t hear a lot of specific protests.

Want to Occupy Something?  Occupy This — your senators and representatives voted welfare infinite expansion, for private profit actually, into being through public laws.  How could that be?

Well, we have  public school systems that still (apparently) teach U.S. Mythology, not Accounting, that are places for Values & INdoctrination Wars.  Somehow, the importance of the House Ways and Means Appropriations Committee — let alone about how corporations and government actually interact, were not considered pre-requisites for graduation. Meanwhile,  people LIVE in neighborhoods where they can observe this discrepancy, know that the common explanations do not hold water, but may not have a coherent explanation of what does, of what happened (historically).

Moreover, there is a digital divide and closed-doors deliberations.   We are not [certainly anyone ever on welfare is typically not] given or pointed to the best tools to finding out how things work. The cult is of the experts — who teach the uninstructed and presumably not smart enough to “get it.”

The tools available to the unfunded public (like TAGGS) have been also tinkered with, obfuscated and otherwise screwed with, to beyond credibility (accuracy) – although they do reveal traits and patterns to a degree.  TAGGS cannot be reconciled with USASPENDING.gov (and isn’t) even when just looking up HHS grants only on the latter.  I have not made up my mind yet which is more in error, but USASPENDING.gov already has its accuracy critics –and so few people seem to ever USE TAGGS, that leaves me.

Name me ONE other blog or public website that began posting those HHS grantee & project charts before this blog did (earliest, 2009) and recommending their use.  Yet its data goes back to 1995.

Now a point has been made, by the structure AND content of this resource — well read, clearly understood — that this information is NOT reliable; moreover that it’s not reliable — or in really useable form — is no accident.

For example — a big stink since 2001 has been made about laying down the red carpet for (and building capacity for) the faith-based organizations to go help the poor hungry, under-educated slobs get some jobs and visit their sons and daughters, and be taught how to “relate” better to the other parent.

YET — TAGGS has no designation (or classification) for  Faith-based organization.  It’s been 10 years since Bush Executive Order, and the word “faith-based” is all over government (federal state, and nonprofit groups, such as CNCS), other sites — and yet no field has been added to the database to designate “Faith-based” or NOT Faith-based.    The same goes for the fine distinction between “Marriage” grantees and “Fatherhood Grantees.”  yet there is one CFDA (93086) for both — and, moreover, marriage and fatherhood activities could be in, literally, almost any category of federal domestic assistance, such as social welfare research and demonstration, which are NOT under “93086.”  Or in Head Start.  So what’s that about, eh?

Is this really about promoting responsible  “Fatherhood”?  I don’t think so.  Responsible Fathers (note:  this does not include Glenn Sacks or Nicholas Soppa!) like some accountability here and there, and deserve resources to get it, just like others do, and can come to a debate that is not predetermined, and occasionally lose a point or two (i.e. humility).  I don’t know any decent father who’d advocate stealing from the public under false pretenses, and attempting to cover one’s tracks, yet this IS what’s happening.  Or a responsible father helping set up any systems which, after about 53 failures, are still going full force, in the same manner – which many faith-based groups are.  Or which INTENTIONALLY undermines separation of church & state, OR the separation of powers in the federal government — and does so for personal sense of power, fame (or for profit).  Responsible fathers are willing to sacrifice, not specialists in sacrificing others, or what’s right.

this entire responsible fatherhood movement is, essentially (to quote Liz Richards/National Alliance for Family Court Justice, in testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations — in June 2010) – An Expensive Solution looking for a Legitimate Problem:

Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.

AN EXPENSIVE REMEDY IN SEARCH OF A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM!

The June 17th 2010 “Responsible Fatherhood” hearing testimony supporting the administration’s reauthorization request for $150,000,000 for a program which has failed to offer any verifiable data on program implementation or specific outcomes, such as the easy to verify job skill training and improved child support compliance factors. Program promoters have become defensive, or hostile, when their operations or intent is questioned. They reject complaints from protective mother advocates who describe serious systemic problems occurring with divorcing and “absent” fathers. In short – the Responsible Fatherhood program advocates have never shown any interest toward the very people who they purport to be helping- divorced or separated mothers of the fathers enrolled in their programs..

Responsible Fatherhood programs have been funded since 1996, but have yet to offer any outcome data or analysis verifying positive impact on mothers and children. Instead they rely on vague claims of involvement of domestic violence specialists to claim [their] activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

{Heck, HHS/OIG/OAS can’t even keep track of millions of undistributed child support already collected at the state level, and eschews responsibility for doing so — after all, isn’t it TANF blocks to the states, for flexible use? so long as federal incentives are met for their $2 of ours for $1 of yours, and they get some back, who’s going to rock that boat?  Yet in part it’s from child support enforcement funds that Fatherhood Promotion is done!}

Why should they be getting millions more if they won’t verify the millions already spent are producing positive results, or any other performance or outcome information? Why don’t the fatherhood promoters know anything about the protective mother movement, or show any interest in the concerns of divorcing and separated mothers?

(actually, some of these DO know about this movement and viciously attack it in print and on on-line forums — see Peter Jamison, SFWeekly earlier in 2011)

We believe their data omissions are done deliberately to cover up another agenda – which our members observe and are negatively affected by – which is recruiting dead-beat and abusive men into lucrative high-conflict litigation. I alone have over 2000 victim intake contacts from nearly all US states. NAFCJ has state leaders, in over 15 states collaborate with other protective mother leaders. I have been communicating with fathers’ rights and fatherhood leaders and activist since as early as 1992, have attended their conference and have determined the two movements are one [and] the same.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LGH Note:   Since last June 2010, I have seem more influences than just the fathers’ rights upon these grant series, but still believe it a valid factor nevertheless at the “street” and HHS etc. level)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I note that this 2010 testimony (filed on-line) also refers to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:

The US Senator who sponsored the earlier $150,000,000 Responsible Fatherhood earmark in the 2005 deficit Reduction Act has been a fathers rights supporter since he was a state legislator and has been collaborating with the fathers right leader and founder from his state from state since the start. This fathers’ right founder also has collaborated with Dr Richard Gardner on specific case litigation. Gardner’s writings included heinous remarks – such as ( in paraphrase): “mothers who complain about father’s sex abuse of children should be told to get a vibrator and become more sexually responsive to her husband so he won’t have to seek sex from his daughter.” This and other sick and deviant opinions from Gardner and other publish pro-incest men (e.g Ralph Underwager and Warren Farrell) are the reason why Responsible Fatherhood promoters conceal their relationship with the father rights people.

In order for the Responsible Fatherhood promoter to conceal their history of collaborating with the deviant fathers rights movement, they use domestic violence counselor as a “heat shield” to make themselves look pro-woman. But our movement of litigating protective mothers, many of whom have been in domestic violence shelters, have never observed any officially designated fathers representatives collaborating with domestic violence representative or producing and positive actions or outcomes for them. What we do hear from d.v. victim mothers who have gone from her home into shelter with her children – only to be arrested and put into jail a few days later for “kidnapping” the children. Most not allowed any contact with their children, because they are then deemed to be a flight risk. An ex- parte sole custody order is establish for the father is without any notification or hearing for the mother. The d.v. shelter people refuse to support them or testify for the mother and ignore her concerned about the father’s abuse of the children. Many of these falsely arrested mothers don’t see their children again for months {{or years…}} on grounds she is a flight risk. Unfortunately our movement is very dissatisfied with the d.v. movement and believe they also need reforming. However, some of their leaders are working with us to correct this part of the system failure

If I get the rest of the follow-up post out — there is a demonstration of this “heat shield” phenomena — at the “Domestic Violence Coalition” level, typically.

and she also wrote:

All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him

Then there are (I learned through the Kentucky example:  “Turning It Around”) the times fathers in arrears were, literally, extorted into participating in programs such as fatherhood classes, parenting skills, self-esteem, ABSTINENCE education (for a father?), and more — which have their promoters throughout the system, usually with a for-profit organization selling the materials behind any nonprofit group.   These are not so many or varied that they are hard to locate and recognize the presence of, any more…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OK, enough of that particular angle . . . . . . .

Personal:

My interests and activism took another “sea change” after documenting (some, at least) of the Sea Changes at for example California Healthy Marriage Coalition, which boasted on outset of its programs of THE largest HHS marriage promotion grant yet ($11 million over 5 years).

Again, at the corporate level (California Secretary of State) a search of the words ‘Healthy Marriage” (singular) produces this chart:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CHRIS GRIER
C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS

and “Healthy Relationship,” this one:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS ** RESIGNED ON 06/20/2011
C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH

Meanwhile — as far as the 990 finder (which uses IRS filings) is concerned, the Sacramento Group has indeed changed its name by 2010, and there IS no “California Healthy Marriage” nonprofit around.

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Dba Relationship Skills Center CA 2010 $64,938 990 31 13-4280316

Now, on TAGGS, this ONE EIN (13480316) pulls up a slightly smaller set of grants, but two different DUNS# — why? (I put these here for readers to click on)

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO CA 95821 SACRAMENTO 147288935 $ 2,446,593
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO CA 95821 SACRAMENTO 827612631 $ 1,148,512

  

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recipients


Searching by Principal Investigator “Curtis” (within California) we see some — not all — of the grants:

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project NON Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN CURTIS $ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project NON Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN R CURTIS $ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN R CURTIS $ 1,647,768
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Other Social Services Organization 90IJ0205 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 93009 CAROLYN CURTIS $ 50,000

and of course the last one, a new award, goes to — “CAROLYN CAROLYN” (i.e., FN FN)

Grantee Name City Recovery Act Indicator Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project SACRAMENTO NON Other Social Services Organization 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 93086 CAROLYN CAROLYN $ 798,825

SO, this $3 million plus is going to an organization in Sacramento (California State Capitol) that is not maintaining is nonprofit status with the state of California — is this affecting our budget?  Please also note that of these 5 awards, two are “Recovery” (ARRA) awards — totaling $1,647,768.  In another OMB or GAO report, we found that ARRA awards specifically have been tagged as notoriously NOT paying their still-due payroll and other taxes (even were the nonprofit legitimate):

(posted July 14, 2011 at Patton Boggs, LLP, with the alert that this is general information — and not legal advice)

Federal grant award recipients should carefully review their own federal tax compliance and use vigilance when engaging subrecipients and contractors, based on recent Senate testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

On May 24, 2011, a GAO representative testified before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that thousands of contract and grant recipients under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) owe hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid federal taxes. The testimony summarized GAO’s April 2011 report of its investigation of 15 entities that had collectively received some $35 million in ARRA funds despite federal tax delinquencies totaling roughly $40 million. GAO referred all 15 entities to the IRS for possible criminal investigation.

ARRA grant award recipients may face risks to their projects stemming from federal tax delinquencies even though, as the GAO acknowledged, federal law does not generally prohibit applicants with unpaid federal tax debts from receiving federal grant awards. With federal debt continuing to climb, and federal spending far outstripping tax revenues, Congress may at least examine changes to the law to impose new restrictions in this area. In addition, in many cases, the tax delinquencies stem from  unpaid payroll taxes, meaning that even entities exempt from federal income taxes may be affected.

The GAO accounts.  It has no teeth.  Congress has to act….  More from the GAO site indicates that groups such as these may be included, i.e., if they don’t includ amounts from groups that have not filed federal tax returns 

At least 3,700 Recovery Act contract and grant recipients–including prime recipients, subrecipients, and vendors–are estimated to owe more than $750 million in known unpaid federal taxes as of September 30, 2009, and received over $24 billion in Recovery Act funds. This represented nearly 5 percent of the approximately 80,000 contractors and grant recipients in the data from Recovery.gov as of July 2010 that we reviewed. The estimated amount of known unpaid federal taxes is likely understated because IRS databases do not include amounts owed by recipients who have not filed tax returns or understated their taxable income and for which IRS has not assessed tax amounts due. 

(Back to TAGGS and our HM grantees)

And the $15 million went to an organization incorporated by Dennis Stoica (in Leucadia) that had its corporate status suspended, as well as the OTHER two organizations he formed, around the same time.   Patty Howell’s nonprofit, who carried on the name — is still associated with the bad behavior (by association) with CHMC’s originals.

Yet the only one of the BUNCH that I can see actually filed (with California, where they are) with the OAG — as required to — was the Sacramento Healthy Marriage (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.)

The California Healthy Marriage (Stoica, Suspended) became, somehow “Healthy Relationships California” (Howell) — think Leucadia, San Diego Area.

Meanwhile, the SACRAMENTO HM group (Curtis) — not that its ‘charitable status is, er, current — at least created one with the OAG, which looks like this

(on the actual site, the headings background color would be BLUE).  I am coding it GREEN, to match the PATTY HOWELL group – and indeed, the letter on this site (From the OAG) saying’ hey whassup, is addressed to “Sacramento Healthy Marriage”

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity
1

TAGGS grant for This one, EIN# 6806790  (which I believe I’ve gone over before, at some length) shows:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 003664535 $ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 361795151 $ 7,142,080

Or, in the latest ACF announcement (just to make life a little harder for the novice in all this) as:

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

Which is it not called, any more — on the TAGGS  – – – OR, on the website itself, because Patty Howell’s  actual organization “healthy Relationships” apparently subsequently bought (or, at least claimed) the registered name “California Healthy Marrriage Coalition.”

Website — not that this group is current as a charity in California any more, but at least Ms. Howell’s nonprofit founded JUST a bit earlier than Mr. Stoica’s, saved the day and kept the name — it’s still showing up as:  California Healthy Marriages Coalition and (I see) features a “Dads & Kids” relationship education initiative, …

stating that this is funded in part by:  “Partial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FE0104. “

ward Number: 90FE0104
Award Title: HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1
OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization: OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (OFA)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

Award Abstract

Title Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1 
Project Start/End  /
Abstract Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1
PI Name/Title Howell, Patty   Vice President of Operations
Institution

There are 7 award actions (4 of which read “$0”) and the other three (discretionary) $2.3 million & $2.4 + $2.4 million from 2006, 2009 & 2010= $7,142,080.  The grant is labeled “healthy marriage” and “FE” and the use was for Dads & Kids relationship building — which just so happens to be another business Ms. Howell is in.

Quite honestly, I don’t remember now (or feel like checking) whether it was Howell, or Curtis — on both nonprofits, receiving $32K for work on the one, and $7K for work on the other.

HM/FR GRANTEE BEHAVIORS

I am now learning that their behavior is typical — not atypical– for the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grantees.  As such, I am starting to comprehend that the entire system wasn’t even nominally set up to promote marriage, but to deconstruct the lines of authority between federal and state, to divert welfare funding SPECIFICALLY from single mothers (who, even when under attack are still a force to be reckoned with) towards fathers, and change language acknowledging us as both mothers and citizens (individuals) with equal rights under the law — which, by the way, we DO have.  But not safely enforceable.

The Child Support monster is just that — and as it feeds gas in to county & state agencies, and (diversionary programs) — it has been spilling, and some of these spills turn into conflagrations where people get hurt.  Men, women and children.   Other than that, it often drains an economy — but DRIVES the bureaucratic economy.  Whatever it may have been, it is now a monster.  It recruits, it solicits — but it does not produce and does not contain viable checks and balances.

WHO VOTED THIS AGENDA IN?  AND WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE?

I am gradually understanding that it was THE United States Congressmen, and some (not many) women that voted for these laws, from TANF (1996/Clinton), through DRA (2005/Bush) through ARRA (2009/Obama) and through 2010 Claims Resolution Act (also Obama).  It took me a while to realize that these years paralleled the hell extended nightmare of a marriage, followed by what at this point, I’d call worse — because it destroys hope of an off-ramp, EVER, and has definitely altered my family line’s wellbeing — in EVERY measurable category — for the far worse, since we first met the courts.   And people who go through this marginalization tend to listen to others who have; mine is no isolated instance; it’s a systemic situation.

This is relevant history to current history, on its course.   Don’t we want to know who helped set what in motion, and how?  Particularly when history tends to run over the very families (and economy) it is pretending — or purporting — to help?

Normally, this subject matter wouldn’t be on my radar.  It only got there when I demanded a reasonable explanation for a clear double-standard based on gender in what I assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) to be courts of law, i.e., “family courts.”   Of course my opposite gender’s proponents have been saying for decades that these courts are biased against THEIR gender, and must be adjusted to compensate.  They have now (far’s I can tell) been saying this with impunity for FAR too long.

SO — in some detail, and FYI  —

PRWORA 1996, DRA  2005, ARRA 2009 and 2010 Claims Resolution Act.  Slippery slope to evolving definitions of welfare and child support enforcement – incremental tipping of the purposes of TANF from Purpose #1

(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives

towards Purpose #4 — and then expanding the application of Purpose #4 beyond anyone who might have actually needed the resources from Purpose #1.

(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. . . .

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.

The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed:

Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce
Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young people
  • Covenant marriages
  • Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
  • Making laws more “family friendly”
  • e laws
  • The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
  • Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
  • Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKCDean BlevinsOKC Music,Oklahoma City AlumniOklahoma City MediaOklahoma City RadioThe Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …

Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.1 Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways2 intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal.  (and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit
So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too, this being 1974;
So in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues.  But wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

Is sponsoring a meeting/conference with the Governor which then results in him intentionally bypassing the Legislator to get this Marriage Promotion Process going — “Christian”??

From OMI site:

  • Governor Keating was aware that his support of a marriage promotion agenda was controversial and would not be immediately popular.
  • As evidence of his serious commitment to this issue, Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  (after committing funds from HHS)  In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts advised various aspects of the Initiative. {{We showed who some of these were, including Wade Horn of National Fatherhood Initiative}} This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. 

At the legislative level, they might have faced a fight, and been forced to justify — TO OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS — the diversion of TANF emergency funds to marriage promotion!

I looked up Jerry Regier, and Voice of Freedom (albeit a gay rights publication?) says “Gov. Bush’s Appointment Of Jerry Regier For The Dept Of Children & Families Is More Than A Right-Wing Extremist; He Leaves A Record Of Increased Child Abuse & Neglect” (apparently from OK he was going — courtesy of the brother of then-President George Bush — to FL).  Look at the commentary: (color:  TEAL)

And what we found is not good for the children and families of Florida. Here is what Oklahoma Governor did not tell Jeb:

August 24, 1999: Secretary for Health and Human Services Jerry Regier is violating both the spirit and the letter of a new state law in his zeal to hasten the downsizing of Eastern State Hospital in Vinita

Sept. 20, 2000: Health and Human Services Secretary Jerry Regier is trying to dodge responsibility for recent problems

April 11, 2001: Associate Press: State Office of Juvenile Affairs charged the state and federal government $1.2 million more than it was eligible to receive during a period of 19 months. Jerry Regier, secretary of HHS, said that once a program is in place, an acceptable error rate would probably be 5 percent or less. Last fiscal year, Oklahoma County had an error rate of 59.2 percent. Tulsa County’s error rate was 26 percent

April 12, 2001: Regier Skirts Competitive Bidding Laws – A controversial political consultant was awarded more than $1.2 million in state contracts without having to compete for the business, according to state records.

(this seems to be a hallmark of certain faith-based groups; I’m thinking of the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based (whatnots) in Ohio, re:  Krista Sisterhen.  It’s all over the web; she was there 2003-2006; eliminated otherwise qualified groups to get a contract to a group (formed only in 2000 and not in-state) called “WeCare” which then screwed up.  And — had ties to Bush Administration. )

Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Fact Book 2001:
     Reveals that 2 key benchmarks tracked worsened when compared to data from a dozen years ago:

  • Child abuse & neglect
  • More than fifteen thousand (15,518) are abused or neglected
  • More than two hundred thousand (210,470) Oklahoma children live in poverty an increase since 1998 (Regier took office in 1997)
    This brief synopsis points to an administrator whose track record is not favorable for the task at hand. Although he received honors as a good administrator, the fact that child neglect and abuse increased while he was HHS Director demonstrates a lack for a sense of priorities, in this case the welfare of our children. Florida does not need more scandal; downsizing or political mismanagement in the Department of Children and Families, Regier has got to go! 

By

  • Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. {{YES — as I said, of the four purposes, it as purpose #4 only}} The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

TANF was at this time FOR low-income populations.   FOR helping children be cared for in their own households, as much as possible.  For leaders to say “well TRY to offer them to low-income populations” while targeting the entire state of Oklahoma — NOT the needy populations  (not all of who is poor, but obviously many of who have been divorcing) is OFF-purpose.   $10 million is a LOT of money to set aside, to some families.  How many mouths would’ve been fed, for sacrifice of rhetoric?

  • Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today.

More on REGIER — guess where he was in December 2006?  Sitting as “US Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201

Jerry Regier, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation” {{ASPE == a Program Office or OpDiv of HHS }}and writing a glowing recommendation of the OMI.  In this brochure (which has his name on it), it says that Jerry Regier — as Cabinet Head of HHS — prodeed the Governotr to get this started, citing specifically 1996 TANF reform.  The economic studies were secondary…. 

Nearly eight years ago, Oklahoma’s then-Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, encouraged then-Governor Frank Keating to take action to strengthen Oklahoma’s families, in response to emerging research and the increased emphasis on two- parent families in the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation.

So the REAL question is — where was Regier before this, and how did he get to be in the Cabinet Position in Oklahoma?

This Brief is a good (short read) showing that when the TANF-Reformers come to town (carrying NFI-ideas), they are going to force system change.  For example, the system change in Oklahoma was definitely focused on pushing MARRIAGE to people from ALL sectors of life — not alleviating poverty and helping poor or needy families.  Moreover, there was a connection somehow, to the Denver Crowd (who produced PREP).

The brief comes right from ACF.HHS.GOV/healthy marriage site. In the flow chart, a central square reads ” PRIORITY 2:”  BUILD DEMAND FOR SERVICES”

and from that, arrows to 3 boxes, the top one of which reads:  “TRAIN AGENCIES (like child support!) TO MAKE REFERRALS”

OK (I think I have it).  First, Jerry Regier was formerly president of the ultraconservative “Family Research Council” prior to Oklahoma

But this report (2004) from Florida — where it seems he went next — is scathing, and — in short — read it.    I can’t say it more emphatically.

  • How could Bush not have seen this mess coming? Regier was a GOP party
    hack in Oklahoma with an undistinguished track record in the family
    services bureaucracy. An ultraconservative Christian, his byline had
    turned up on two published papers that espoused spanking kids, even if
    it caused “welts and bruises.”
A scalding report by the governor’s chief inspector general has
revealed that high-ranking DCF officials handed out fat and dubious
contracts to pals and political cronies, and accepted gifts, favors
and lodging from outside contractors.

As a result, three of Regier’s top administrators have quit, and
Regier himself has been reduced to defending his own outrageous
socializing with a DCF contractor.

It’s much more than the mere “appearance of impropriety.” It is the
greedy, rotten essence of impropriety — profiteering at the expense of
Florida’s neediest and most vulnerable children.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been spent hiring
more caseworkers and investigators were instead doled out to
well-connected firms as part of Regier’s rush to “privatize”
child-welfare services.

In recent weeks, the Miami Herald’s Carol Marbin Miller has documented
the DCF gravy train in infuriating detail. A few of the lowlights:

  • A $21 million contract to fix DCF’s computer system was awarded to
  • American Management Services, although another company had been ranked
  • first after the initial screening process.
  • The lobbyist for American Management happened to be Greg Coler, a
  • former chief of the state child-welfare agency and a close friend of
  • Regier. Sitting on American Management’s board of directors was former
  • Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating — the man who recommended Regier for the
  • DCF job in Florida.

—DCF Deputy Secretary Ben Harris gave out a $500,000 no-bid contract,
split between two of his friends, for computer ‘‘kiosks’’ that
dispense food stamps.

ACTUALLY — WIKIPEDIA pretty much lays it out.  Jerry Regier worked for the elder Bush administration.  Best read in sequence:  (and I now have a 20,000 word post, too….)

Includes this section:

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

(SIGH — I looked up “Family Research Council” and found among its board members, the mother of the man tied to Blackwater, and a board member of

The Council on National Policy among other things — here it goes, a 2008 “Muckety Site” (visual diagram of relationships).  This relates to tracking down a single person influential in starting

the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (Jerry Regier), learning of his former Bush & FRC connections, and looking up FRC.  WHich just goes to show, when is it time to stop!?)

Story by Laura Bennett, Oct. 2008, posted at “Muckety” under “Erik Prince’s Mom gives $450,000 to stop same-sex marriage in California

I’m less concerned about that than the Blackwater connection, who else this woman is funding.  See Diagram:

Focus on the Family (one of the followers) figured in my life personally, exacerbating already virulent abuse, to the point that I ended up quitting a FT night job, that had been supporting our family.  I’m talking WHILE I was married.  My husband loved James Dobson, and listened to his stuff also

Speaking as a heterosexual Christian — I don’t know WHO these guys are — they do not do a resemblance of what I see in the Bible; and in person, and in influence are virtually terroristic to women.  If I’d NOT been a Christian, I’d probably have bailed out of the marriage much faster — and this might (not sure, but MIGHT) have been better for our kids.  When I hear WHO is behind some of these groups (years later) it somewhat validates the personal experiences (not mine only) that they are essentially domestic terrorists — unless one submits willingly.

Two Voices from a while back warn us on this movement:  Patricia Ireland, (NOW) and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Both are responding to the Promise Keepers’ “Stand in the Gap” rally on the Washington Mall.  Listen to them!  ”

We are talking, 1997!….(I don’t have the date of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s speech).

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the Promise Keepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging that we have done wrong, we recognize our weaknesses,confess our sins before God and the public and vow, with God’s help, to change our ways, to do better and to be better men in the future. The genuineness and validity of the religious experience for any of the participants, and any long-range good that comes from it, must be affirmed and respected.

There is nothing wrong with any of that, if that’s all there is to it.

(and he goes to accurately characterize the group):

Women now want to be priests, pastors and preach in pulpits. These demands come from a feminist and womanist theology and biblical interpretation born of experiences of denial and oppression from conservative and non-liberating Christian men.

As Christians, we all read the same Bible, but our biblical interpretations are born of our varied life experiences. It was Martin Luther’s experiences with Roman Catholicism that led to a critique (95 Theses) that began the Protestant Reformation. Similar experiences have led to modern critiques and new interpretive contributions of scripture and theology that run all the way from the birth of our nation — a theology that gave us a liberal democratic and constitutionally-based government to replace a traditional, conservative and God-based Monarchy— to a Latin American-oriented liberation theology; to an African American-originated “Black” theology; to a female-led feminist and womanist theology; to a gay and lesbian theology; all of which respect all religions, advocate for human rights and equal protection under the law for all regardless of race, national origin, sex or sexual orientation, and all of which are liberation theologies reflecting a God of the oppressed.

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally.

QUITE FRANKLY — this is where a lot of “Christian Domestic Violence” (contradiction in terms – the false term there is “Christian”) comes from — it is an outraged insistence on previously inherent male dominance.  Enforced physically and all other kinds of ways, and acknowledged by the male bonding in surrounding institutions, and well-tamed females in them also.  This is why I no longer frequent — or even darken the door of — churches, if I can help it.  Maybe for a music event — not for worship, not for socializing, and not for any form of support.  Life is too short.

That which, in the past, has been identified as “religious” and “Christian” has not always been liberating and quite often has been oppressive. In South Africa it was the Dutch Reformed Christian Church that provided the religious foundation for apartheid. In the United States’ South it was the Southern Baptists and other mainline churches that practiced and theologically justified slavery and Jim Crow. The Ku Klux Klan identifies itself as a Christian organization. It was white Christian ministers who attacked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama for fighting racism that brought forth his “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.” At our foundation, good Christian men owned slaves and defined African Americans as three-fifths human in our Constitution, they committed genocide against Native Americans and stole their land, and they denied women the right to vote. In Congress today,many who call themselves religious and Christian, vote against laws to provide food, health care, housing, jobs, education and an equalopportunity to millions of Americans. There’s an old Negro Spiritual that speaks to this point. It says, “Everybody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there.”

The Promise Keepers’ answer to that very real problem is not to look to the future with hope and confidence, confronting the changes needed and reinterpreting male identity in terms of gender equality. Instead, Promise Keepers try to give men identity and, therefore, security, by returning to a familiar past. Their preaching and teaching, mostly subliminal, though not exclusively so, was to reveal a fear of that future. The Promise Keeper answer is to retreat and recapture this biblical past.

SO NOW HERE COMES THIS REVELATION — OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (Types) and BLACKWATER.  I  can’t say I’m really surprised.

And I do believe — especially seeing the Bush/Regier/OMI/FRC (etc.) connections that when we are looking at any Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood grant, program, or initiative — even though there may be innocent and sincere participants — this is the essence of what we are seeing — which is the intent to dominate, control, force to submit, and (this being a necessary means to dominate in a country with a Bill of Rights — to force institutions to line up, removing the due process and civil rights, permanently.

(to be continued)

(ELSA PRINCE) Broekhuizen is the mother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater Worldwide, the controversial operation that provides security services to federal officials in Iraq and other countries. Her daughter, Betsy DeVos, is a former Michigan GOP chair and wife of failed gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

Broekhuizen’s first husband, Edgar, founded an auto parts company that was sold after his death for $1.4 billion. She later married her pastor, Ren Broekhuizen.

An assistant told the Grand Rapids Press that Broekhuizen gave to the campaign because the issue is “very important to her. It’s near and dear to her heart. She likes to give from her heart and not for public recognition.”

Broekhuizen heads the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which had assets of more than $42 million in 2006 (the last year for which tax returns are publicly available). The foundation and Broekhuizen personally are longtime supporters of religious organizations and conservative political groups such as the Haggai Institute, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

BURBRIDGE FOUNDATION — A CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION — helped this happen, then.  Make a note of it, because this was wrong!

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”
Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):
Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

Strata Leadership, LLC.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:
OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"
* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%
Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

 Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS [Congressional Research Service — you see their bill summaries also at Thomas.loc.gov) report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk, Social Policy Specialist):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.
The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed: 

Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young
people
Covenant marriages
Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
Making laws more "family friendly"
Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce laws 

The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKCDean BlevinsOKC Music,Oklahoma City AlumniOklahoma City MediaOklahoma City RadioThe Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.1 Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways2 intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal[ed].

(and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]”Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit”
So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too.  This being 1974; so in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues, but wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…
(Is this the same Burbridge Foundation as in Oklahoma, or that sponsored that Governor’s Leadership Conference?  Possibly.  I’m not going to stress over this today.)

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths {{REALLY?  I’d like to see that — because the  “SALT & LIGHT LEADERSHIP TRAINING” below indicates non-Christians need not apply, and the carefully balanced photo on there  (with middle-aged Caucasian an at the front of the pyramid) doesn’t even contain a single African-American woman — does Oklahoma not have any?  There is an African-American male, at the back of the triangle, too….}} and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”
Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):
Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

Strata Leadership, LLC.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:
OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"
* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%
Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

 Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

Here’s a 2010 (June 24, 2010, to be specific) Heritage Foundation article complaining about increasing entitlements Obama’s escalation of welfare roles (true) and how the “success” of TANF should be applied to other federal programs.

Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements:

Principles of Reform and the Next Steps

June 24, 2010

  • Do you know who the Heritage Foundation is?
  • Do you know who funds them? or where to find out?
  • Do you know who they fund, or where to find out?
  • Could you participate pro or con in this argument, supporting it with any facts?
  • Do you agree or not?
  • Can you put those arguments in a different context than they do?

They proclaimed:

Abstract: The growth of welfare spending is unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue. President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request would increase total welfare spending to $953 billion—a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in FY 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration. To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends and then limit future growth to the rate of inflation. Congress should also restore work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and apply them to other federal welfare programs.

They also said of TANF that it was a success.  Yet — in reality — it is the means by which expansion of the welfare state — particularly after faith-based organizations were invited in — was assured.   The track record is that MANY of these are not just incompetent — but chronically dishonest, and when caught (as I tend to stay) in one state, simply hop over to another.  I can name names and organizations and dates, sometimes States, of the “hops.”   They obtain web resources through HHS “compassion capital” or other grants, and this last season, our government just gave over $1 million GRANT to ICF International, LLC (or whatever it’s proper current name is) a group currently doing $1 BILLION business with the Feds, and with an agenda to transform communities through (basically, media domination).

Listen to this:

Reform should be based on five principles:

  1. Slowing the growth of the welfare state. Unending government deficits are pushing the United States toward bankruptcy. The U.S. simply cannot afford the massive increases in welfare spending planned by President Barack Obama. Welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.[1] Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.
  2. Promoting personal responsibility and work. Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week.  (see ## my footnote)
  3. Providing a portion of welfare assistance as loans rather than as grants. Welfare to able-bodied adults creates a potential moral hazard because providing assistance to those in need can lead to an increase in the behaviors that generate the need for aid in the first place. If welfare assistance rewards behaviors that lead to future dependence, costs can spiral out of control. A reformed welfare policy can provide temporary assistance to those in need while reducing the moral hazard associated with welfare by treating a portion of welfare aid as a loan to be repaid by able-bodied recipients rather than as an outright grant from the taxpayer.
  4. Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities. The collapse of marriage is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock; today, the figure is over 40 percent.[2] Most alarmingly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African–Americans is 72 percent. The outcomes for children raised in single, never-married homes are greatly diminished.Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated. In addition, government should provide information on the importance of marriage to individuals in poor communities who have a high risk of having children out of wedlock. Particular emphasis should be placed on the benefits to children of a married two-parent family.***
  5. Limit low-skill immigration. Around 15 percent ($100 billion per year) of total means-tested welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high school degrees or less.[3] One-third of all immigrants lack a high school degree.[4] Over the next 10 years, America will spend $1.5 trillion on welfare benefits for lower-skill immigrants. Government policy should limit future immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The legal immigration system should not encourage immigration of low-skill immigrants who would increase poverty in the nation and impose vast new costs on already overburdened taxpayers.

**Never mind that this has been done now — for years — and at statewide level.  Can we reasonably assume that no one at the Heritage Foundation knows this?

##FN2 — how about requiring recipients of diversionary programs from child support and TANF to document that THEY worked at least 30 hours a week?  And have incorporated, and that their incorporations have actually been proper, are current, and if required to, filed a 990?  I’ve seen dropped loose ends of $50K a pop (SolidSource in Van Wert, OH comes to mind) or others have found dropped loose ends of $227,000.  MOreover, we have child support privatized to outside organizations, such as MAXIMUS — themselves caught in fraud and overbilling — and THEY continue to receive government benefits from the US in the form of renewed contracts, even after paying, for example $30 million in settlement fees over these matters.

So I say, let’s put the focus on the MACRO-ECONOMIC trends — namely allowing corporations and HHS / DOJ /DOE to get in bed with them to determine whether future employees of these corporations eat, have safe drinking water, and have access to decent educations (not just skills training for globally noncompetitive jobs in the same corporations!)

POINT 4, above:

. . .encouraging marriage in low-income families.   The Collapse of Marriage is the Major Factor in Child Poverty Today.

No it’s not.  That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.

Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.

Could You? Should You?  Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?

Go to the actual laws:

THE LAWS IN QUESTION:

PRWORA link:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA,Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”.[2]

(Wikipedia note — TANF Reauthorization was contained in this);  
 The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was also contained in the bill, as was the provision for the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. Part of the TANF reauthorization reduces the threshold for passport denial for child support arrearages under 42 USC 652(k)to $2,500.
 
 

Senate bill S. 1932 passed the Senate, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice PresidentDick Cheney, and House bill H.R. 4241 passed the House 217-215. The Senate bill was signed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush on February 8, 2006.[2]

[Dispute over legal status

A dispute arose over whether both houses of Congress had approved the same bill. Those contending that the bill is not a law argue there were different versions of the same bill, neither of which was approved by both the House and the Senate. They argue that the document signed by the President would not have the force of law, on the ground that the enacting process bypassed the Bicameral Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  (For what wikipedia is worth, find this interesting….)

 

P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SECTION 1. [42 U.S.C. 1305 note]  SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”.

Has sections on TANF & Child Support.

SEC. 7101. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS FUNDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010.

(a) [None Assigned]  In General.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (adjusted, as applicable, by or under this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005[275]) shall continue through September 30, 2010, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through fiscal year 2010 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2004 (or, as applicable, at such greater level as may result from the application of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005), except that in the case of section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority only through fiscal year 2010[276] and in the case of section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, no grants shall be made for any fiscal year occurring after fiscal year 2005.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SEC. 7301. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

 (etc.)

The Deficit Reduction Act also reauthorizes welfare reform for another 5 years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, we’ve helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Now we’re building on that progress by renewing welfare reform with a billion-dollar increase in child care funding and new grants to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

One of the reasons for the success of welfare reform is a policy called charitable choice which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without changing the way they hire. Ten years ago, Congress made welfare the first Federal program to include charitable choice. The bill I sign today will extend charitable choice for another 5 years and expand it to the new healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. Appreciate the hard work of all who supported the extension

of charitable choice—including the good- hearted men and women of the faith-based community who are here today. By reauthor- izing welfare reform with charitable choice, we will help millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence and dignity and hope.

The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and respon- sible at the same time. Spending restraint de- mands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. One of our most impor- tant responsibilities is to keep this economy strong and vibrant and secure for our chil- dren and our grandchildren. We can be proud that we’re helping to meet that respon- sibility today.

Now I ask the Members of the Congress to join me as I sign the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

NOTE: The President spoke at 3:31 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. S. 1932, approved February 8, was assigned Public Law No. 109– 171.

{{He also began by distinguishing between DISCRETIONARY and MANDATORY spending:

At the same time, my budget tightens the belt on Government spending. Every American family has to set priorities and live within a budget, and the American people expect us to do the same right here in Washington, DC.

The Federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary spending and manda- tory spending. Discretionary spending is the kind of spending Congress votes on every year. Last year, Congress met my request and passed bills that cut discretionary spending not related to defense or homeland security. And this year, my budget again proposes to cut this spending. My budget also proposes again to keep the growth in overall discre- tionary spending below the rate of inflation

AND ARRA:
Wikipedia:

 (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion ofunemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

TEXT of the LAW:

(thomas.gov)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – (Sec. 5) Designates each amount in this Act as: (1) an emergency requirement, necessary to meet certain emergency needs in accordance with the FY2008-FY2009 congressional budget resolutions; and (2) an emergency for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles.

TITLE II (Commerce, Justice, ….)

Makes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) state and local law enforcement activities; (2) the Office on Violence Against Women; (3) the Office of Justice Programs; (4) state and local law enforcement assistance; and (5) community oriented policing services (COPS).

. . .

Subtitle B: Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals – (Sec. 2101) Amends part A of title IV (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (TANF) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish in the Treasury an Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs (Emergency Fund). Makes appropriations to such Fund.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make a grant from the Emergency Fund to each requesting state for any quarter of FY2009-FY2010 if the state’s average monthly assistance caseload for the quarter exceeds its average monthly assistance caseload for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year. Requires the amount of any such grant to be 80% of the excess of total state expenditures for basic assistance over total state expenditures for such assistance for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year.

. . . .

(Sec. 2102) Extends TANF supplemental grants through FY2010.

(Sec. 2103) Makes technical amendments to the authority of a state or Indian tribe to use a block grant for TANF for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation, (carry over) any benefit or service that may be provided under the program funded under the block grant, including future contingencies.

(Sec. 2104) Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to suspend for FY2008-FY2010 the prohibition against payments to states with respect to their plans for child and spousal support collection on account of amounts expended by a state from support collection performance incentive payments received from the Secretary of HHS (thus allowing such additional payments during such period).

(just pointing out, from the CRS summary, that certain parts affect TANF & Child Support, I.e., TITLE IV-A, IV-D of Social Security Act. 
 
CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010 (passed one year ago — 11/19/2010!)(you may need to re/search from Thomas.loc.gov)  111th Congress, H.R. 4783
Title VIII: General Provisions (AND YOU”LL SEE WHY FATHERHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, PLUS MARRIAGE EDUCATORS, WERE REJOICING OVER THIS ONE):

Sec. 802) Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to require an employer to report to the state Directory of New Hires, in addition to other information, the date services for remuneration were first performed by a newly hired employee.

Subtitle B: TANF – (Sec. 811) Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]) of title IV of the Social Security Act to continue grants to states for temporary assistance for needy families programs through September 30, 2011.

(WONDER WHERE WE’RE AT ON THIS NOW …..)

Requires preference for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grants to be given to entities that have previously: (1) been awarded funds; and (2) demonstrated the ability to carry out specified programs successfully.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, DO YOU THINK, THAT (2) WILL BE MONITORED?

Directs an entity seeking funding for both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood promotion to submit a combined application assuring that it will carry out such activities: (1) under separate programs; and (2) without combining funds awarded to carry out either such activities.

Revises the definition of “healthy marriage promotion activities” to include marriage education and other specified programs for individuals in addition to nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried expectant fathers.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY EXIST.  FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTHY MARRIAGE GRANTEE (I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.) was characterized in a recent AZFFC.org publication as the “Sacramento affiliate” of this fathers and families coalition — although the title then said “Healthy Marriage” and recently reads something like (last I heard) “Relationship Education Institute” or such.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) for FY2011: (1) $75 million for healthy marriage promotion activities; and (2) $75 million for promotion of responsible fatherhood activities. (Current law authorized $150 million, combined, for both programs in specified fiscal years.) Limits appropriated funds awarded to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, for activities promoting responsible fatherhood to $75 million (current law has a $50 million limit). Requires amounts awarded to fund demonstration projects testing the effectiveness of tribal governments in coordinating the provision to tribal families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare services, and other tribal programs, to be taken in equal proportion from such separate appropriations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) to the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs such sums as necessary for payment to the Fund in a total not to exceed: (1) for FY2011, such sums as are necessary for amounts obligated on or after October 1, 2010, and before enactment of the this Act; and (2) for FY2012, $612 million. (Current law reduces such appropriations by specified amounts.)

Well, I may regret hitting “PUBLISH” on this one, but here goes. . . . .

“TAGG” you’re It: CFDA 93.086 Grantees– Let Me Count The Ways (to distribute $121,077,648 on the same old theme, re-shrinkwrapped)…

with one comment

Reader Warning:

Format of these posts — I am simply researching (looking up) as I go, and posting what I find, with commentary.  There is a narrative.  If you want the list of the grants in question, scroll down to the bottom.

Topics in this post include:

  • Criticism of TAGGS database & data entry of these grants.  (misspelling of project names, in particular)
  • Simple instructions, however, on how to run basic reports from it.
  • Proof that USASpending.gov & TAGGS do not match, USASPending either omits real grants, or HHS fabricates (over-reports).   Any thorough look would require using both of them, checking the nonprofit registrations (on a nationwide databse if possible), checking state corporate & nonprofit registration, and comparing with what their websites say, particularly about the history of the company.  Lastly, who is on the board of directors (and what else have those people been up to / associations), and if you actually look at the 990, this tells where they are reporting the money flow.  In a very real sense, unless we have looked at a nonprofit’s 990 form, we really don’t know them.
  • I looked up one particular “Fatherpood” grant, and the umbrella D.C. organization that goes with it.
  • Extensive section discussing some leading personalities in the socialization of America:  Organizations  Children’s Defense Fund (Marian Wright Edelman), “Stand For Children Leadership Center” (DC nonprofit) including its leader Jonah Edelson, background of one corporation (Bright Horizons) and one or tow individuals (Jill Iscol) on the board, and Geoffrey Canada/Ron Mincy (who have worked on similar projects).
  • The background organization, really, behind HEAD START (Bank Street College of Education, basically).   This came up when looking at Jill Iscol’s background.
  • I point out, as the history shows, that if one is going to promote theories about how children learn and “early childhood education,” one needs children to test them on — this is one reason it’s so common to find a child care center near a “family studies institute” or (Cornell) “Family Development Center” — at the university level.
  • Historic figures behind this include Patty Smith Hall (unmarried, not a parent, and apparently not heterosexual); Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Harriet Johnston (I may be misspelling names  — they are below), and others characterized as a “bunch of intellectuals” out of Greenwich Village.
  • What I saw — and have been seeing for months/years in this process – is that the desire to control the training of young children, is indeed the desire to control and reform the world, and should be dealt with accordingly by people with enough humility and perspective to understand, this is not appropriate for anyone.  Particularly in the U.S..
  • What I would call some very unique, if very questionable, studies being done (now, through HHS system) on children in attempts to stop child abuse — and/or predict their “socio/emotional outcomes.”  Quite frankly, I’ve had enough of this; it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
  •  

    And finally, at the bottom, is another printout of a Grant Series.  The post is raggedy and scraggledy (with long incomplete expressive sentences, sometimes missing a predicate) — but I am going to post it anyhow.  I believe the information is interesting enough for someone of similar interests to grab part of it, and do his/her own lookups.

    Personally, I believe that untold numbers of the HHS grantees are simply front operations, that enable money laundering.  I say this because they cannot maintain a corporate name very long, have multiple people, for example, on a central (umbrella or founding) organization board — and then these people form splitoff nonprofits (sometimes also getting HHS grants) — under their names, and the various groups refer to each other (as if independence existed) to further boost their image.  That, FYI, is an AFCC pattern through and through.  One of the chief groups that led me to come right out and say this was the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (CHMC) — which hails to San Diego County, Southern California  + Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project?” – -hailing to Sacramento, Northern California.   These guys are absolutely unbelievable.  Check the street addresses and personnel.  San Diego & Sacramento (State Capitol).  Watch out!

    Over time, the chronological development of the groups — and their ever-changing rhetoric (exhibiting planning, as one phrase gets discredited, another is in the wings and in the works.  Right now, it’s “relationship skills” near the forefront, but Parenting Coordination appears to have been legislated in many states, which is bad news for good Moms, for sure.

     

    OK, HERE WE GO:

    The structure & contents of site “TAGGS” is a real window into what US policymakers think of the commoners, i.e., those who work for hourly wages with taxes deducted upfront to fund social science research — much of it “discretionary” “demonstration” and allegedly “new” grants.   Another commentary on what someone thinks of the “commoners” is how careless, incomplete, and inaccurate — that’s not including the intentionally obscure and deceptive facets also.   It is an appearance only of “transparency.”

    The 2011 Total of CFDA 93.086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) grants, per this site (run just now) is:

    CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Award theses Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
    93.086 ACF Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 164 178 $121,087,642

    I have been running searches (of all types) on this website for most of the time I’ve blogged here.  It should be telling details of how public money, allocated to the Health and Human Services Department, is being spent, and on whom.  So many of the marriage, fatherhood, AND “domestic violence prevention” organizations, when closely examined, are not even legitimate — their incorporation status is lost in one state, and they simply head off to another, networking through the usual court-related associations set up years ago.

    I believe a general overview of specific grant series  paint  a picture, even if one doesn’t study all the details (although groups local to you, I’d want to!).   For example, look at the project name of this first sample (the rest, below):

    (would display with the navy-blue header row, except I pasted, rather than “dragged” the info onto the blog.  Same source as above).

    Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0050 FATHERS COURT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 543,906 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 543,906

    WTHell is a “Fathers Court”?   Is there a Corresponding Mothers’ Court?   Should we then eliminate the concept of “Children’s Court”?   (that won’t happen — the word “children” in almost any combo is a huge grants draw….).   Can we separate  childless couples into a “Marriage Court”?   And, if so, why should all the unmarried and childless, (or they raised kids without going through family court hell, and are continuing to contribute to society, while this system allows, almost indiscriminately, group after religious or simply elitist group, to skim the profits, collected via the IRS and supplemented by large corporations or foundations (Ford, Annie E. Casey, etc.)?

    FK sounds like a new series.  For the record, here’s the nationwide total of the “FK” series a quick TAGGS run for 2011 only:  to run this (takes seconds, only) is easy:

    • Go to http:///TAGGS.hhs.gov
    • Click on the DropDown menu tab, “Search by AWARD keyword or  number.”   It should look about like this, or at least have these 3 fields:
    Fiscal Year:

    Select one or all from Fiscal Year. The current calendar year will be searched by default.

                       ALL               2012           2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006           2005           2004           2003           2002           2001           2000           1999           1998           1997           1996           1995

    Award Keyword:

    Enter a keyword in the Award Title. If left blank, all award titles will be searched. Special characters are not permitted.

    Award Number:

    Enter an Award Number. If left blank, all award numbers will be searched. Special characters and spaces are not permitted.

    • Select year – -and FYI, you can also type in a partial “Award#” — I do this all the time to get a feel what that grant series is.  In this case, I chose Award # “90FK” and year 2011, then hit “search.”  Searching by Award “keyword,” even if you typed in simply “Fatherhood” would miss  a number of $1 million+ grants, simply because (this seems an ingrained TAGGS data entry “tic” it’s so commonplace…..) the word “fatherhood” is often misspelled on this database!
    SEE?
    Recipient: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63158
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0052 FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD  1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,530,190 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,530,190
    Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0054 DC FATHERHPOOD EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,533,518 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,533,518

    Notice, both of those are $1.5 million grants, and from groups that have been around for a while.  Whoever, the 2nd one above (DC zip code) is, this is their total grants since 2006:

    Total of all award actions: $ 4,033,518


    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    They got $500K per year (2006,7,8,9,10) on a “90FR” grant, and this year, switched to receiving a “90FK,” with triple the amount and a fancier project name — misspelled.   Let’s hope that whoever is entering these names isn’t also entering information that involves a decimal point on accounts receivable or payable for our government.  More likely, someone is being pressured (too much) to help cover up the abuse & mis-use of these funds, by making them harder to track by names.  (recall that the last series of 90FM names had ALL the Principal Investigator last names omitted (the “FN” field was doubled).   Either this or there is NO proofreading or fact-checking in the Taggs submission process whatsoever — not too encouraging, considering the amount of money they are reporting on.

    I’ve done data entry (and AR/AP before) and had I messed up that many words (and obviously failed to spellcheck, or had spellcheck function consistently set to “off”), I’d lose my job.  As you can see, I haven’t been working in government.   (Disclaimer:  this blog is volunteer, and I do not spellcheck, or copyedit and have a post explaining this, and why).

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou  Washington DC 20001-4330 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 012901240 $ 1,533,518

    If I took this number over to USASPENDING.gov, no doubt we’d get a different total, even if selecting grants only & HHS only.  I do not know what result would com if (this would be another step) I went to Washington DC and checked their incorporation, or NCCSDataweb.org and looked for a nonprofit filing.  (not today…)

    Oh well — since you insisted — here’s the data:

    http://dccollaboratives.org/

    Read the description:  This is a 501(c)3 of 501(c)3’s. . .

    Our Mission

    The Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council (HFTCCC) brings together community leaders to create and sustain a District-wide network that empowers families and communities to improve their quality of life.

    Perhaps it would be wiser to figure out what “disempowered” families, including mothers, — confront it, and stop it.  As Washington, D.C. is one of the most powerful places on the planet (not including the centers of Finance…), in one of the formerly? most powerful countries in the world, one wonders how, when, and why it became filled with such disempowered families.  Apparently there was a power grab somewhere along the way.  Address that — and families will be more empowered.

    {{Judging by the HHS funding, the word “families” means “fathers” which is common usage among grantees.]]

    We are a 501(c) (3), organization that provides leadership, advocacy, resource development, technical assistance, and training to the six Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives. The six Collaboratives are independent nonprofit organizations that operate across the District of Columbia in communities facing intergenerational economic, social and safety challenges. Since the mid 1990s, the Collaboratives supported by the Collaborative Council, have joined with community members – residents and institutions alike – to re-weave the social fabric. Each community solution is tailored to the needs of the community with Collaboratives and their partners offering a range of unique services and supports to children and families.

    If they are being trained — and the purpose of most HM/FR grantees can be summarized in one word:  TRAINING — then they are not independent, but just have the appearance of it, any more than your local county child support agency is independent of the others, rather than connected also at the HHS/ACF/OCSE level and by welfare law….

    [[After describing a forum to report results, based on surveys…]]

    Attending the forum to respond to the data presented were Beatriz “BB” Otero, deputy mayor for Health and Human services; Deborah-Portia Usher, interim director,Child and Family Services Agency; HyeSook Chung, executive director, DC Action for Children; and Elizabeth Black, senior associate, Center for the Study of Social Policy.

    Deputy Mayor Otero said that city agencies and community-based organizations must do more to support at-risk families.

    The street address exactly matches the “DC Children’s Trust,” and, for example, a Parent Training center for adoptive & foster parents.  

    1112 11th Street, NW
    Suite B
    Washington, DC 20001

    The DC Children’s Trust’s mission is (per its Facebook summary).

    he mission of the D.C. Children’s Trust Fund is to foster the well-being of the District’s children and their families by leading the way toward the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The Trust serves as a catalyst for prevention efforts by leveraging private and governmental resources, providing resources and technical assistance to community-based organizations, schools, and churches to strengthen families and thereby reduce the risk of child abuse. A major objective of the Trust is to define and develop standards for primary prevention for the D.C. community at-large.

    Clearly, the standards emphasize getting promoting responsible fatherhood grants in order to teach groups how to prevent child abuse (cf.  Footloose in Tuscaloosa post).  This, FYI, is national policy, OCSE /Welfare policy and at some level, could be called HHS policy.  In order to prevent abuse of children by fathers & mothers, train fathers and get them back in the homes.  Period.  Children’s Trusts help direct funding, they are often public/private partnerships.  Under “products” ( a long list) I see “Parents Anonymous Grant,” which I recently blogged, right?  (cf.  “Circle of Parents” is basically a NFI mouthpiece; the work together).

    At the same address is:

    NOTICE — 1996 = established right after welfare reform made father-promotion grants available, block grants to the states (and presumably DC) to enable diversionary programs as a long-term solution to end poverty and child abuse.  

    History

    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, Inc. (ERFSC) was established in 1996 and is one of seven neighborhood based collaboratives in the District of Columbia participating in the Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council. This program, spearheaded by the DC Child and Family Services Agency, received its planning grant in April 1996 and its implementation grant in August 1997.

    ERFSC is also an expansion of the Child Welfare Working Group of the Rebuilding Communities Initiative (RCI) spearheaded by Marshall Heights Community Development Organization. RCI embodies a system reform agenda for which the central goal is the improved and sustained well being of children and families.

    . . . as defined by the same groups….

    ERFSC has operated as an independent stand-alone organization since October 2000. This organization evolved out of a seven (7) year old Child Welfare Initiative funded by the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency and the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1996. For the first five (5) years of its inception, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, Inc. (MHCDO) provided fiscal agency responsibilities. In October 2000, ERFSC received its 501©3 to serve as an independent non-profit agency.

    Where are the tax returns for the years 2002, 2003-4-5-6 & 7?

    Your query: ( Organization Name: east river family strengthening collaborative , State:“DC” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen ) 
    4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed) 

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2010 $572,817 990 22 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2009 $354,508 990 31 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2008 $435,198 990 25 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Inc. DC 2001 $208,439 990 14 52-2277915

    {There are many directors, and about 3 of them (per 2009 Tax Return) are working 40 hours a week — for nothing.  Only Mae H. Best is paid ($115K), so here is her bio — notice the Youngstown, OH connection:

    Contact ERFSC’s LEAD STAFF:

    Mae H. Best, LICSW (Executive Director) 

    Mae H. Best has served as the Executive Director of ERFSC since June 2001. 

    (Website says they became a separate 501(c)3 in 2000.  Looks like one of the first things that happened thereafter (or the Foundation 990 Finder is wrong) was to not file tax returns for several years.  I will check another source, and retract statement if they show such returns).

    Under her leadership the organization has grown from a budget of a little
    over $700,000 to $4,000,000 which includes contracts with city government agencies 
    as well as foundations. Mae’s previous work has included stints with Child and Family 
    Services Agency as Director of Resource Development and Director of Adoptions; 
    Director of Homes for Black Children at Family and Child Services Agency and Project 
    Coordinator with the National Council on Adoptable Children. Prior to relocating to Washington DC,
    she worked for the Mahoning County Children Services Board in Youngstown, Ohio.
    Mae received her Master’s in Social Work from the University of Illinois and her Bachelor’s
    in Social Services from North Carolina A&T State University. Mae has one son who is
    a Special Education Teacher in the District of Columbia and an R&B artist.

    This article (scroll down) has a paragraph identifying this neighborhood nonprofit as having grabbed some of the “Promise Neighborhoods” funding, which is described, and modeled ? after Geoffrey Canada’s “The Harlem Zone.”

    January 9, 2011 (published in ‘Circle of Philanthropy,’ by By Suzanne Perry)

    Against Tough Odds, a ‘Promise Neighborhood’ in D.C. Gears Up

    The Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhood is just a few miles from Capitol Hill, though it’s unlikely that many members of Congress have ever visited there.

    The neighborhood, tucked away in a far eastern corner of Washington, bears all of the hallmarks of poverty: high rates of crime, teenage pregnancy,single mothers, and unemployment—and low-performing schools.

    To be consistent, this should have been labeled “father absence” which is a cause of poverty, right.  SIngle mothers in different context might not be so poor; however when stuck in a poor enclave right next to Congressional Districts, than something ain’t right, obviously.   The only gender mentioned in association with this list of bad things is female, but I’m sure residents are both female and male….

    But community leaders have embarked on an ambitious project to turn the area around—with help from money that members of Congress approved last year.  Led by Irasema Salcido, an educator who was dismayed at the obstacles that hindered her students from learning, the project snatched one of 21 grants offered by a new federal program called Promise Neighborhoods.

    . . .

    The grants, totaling $10-million, went to communities that outlined plans for providing an array of academic, medical, and social services for children in troubled neighborhoods from “cradle to college”­—a model that was pioneered by Geoffrey Canada, founder of Harlem Children’s Zone, in New York.

    Mr. Canada’s approach has won widespread acclaim, most recently in the documentary film “Waiting for Superman,” and strong support from President Obama, who proposed the Promise Neighborhoods program while still on the campaign trail.

    This should be a separate post.  Mr. Canada — clearly an astounding person

    Geoffrey Canada (born January 13, 1952) is an African American social activist and educator. Since 1990, Canada has been president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone inHarlem, New York, an organization which states its goal is to increase high school and college graduation rates among students in Harlem.[1] He is a member of the Board of Directors of The After-School Corporation, a nonprofit organization which describes its aim as to expand educational opportunities for all students.

    His parents divorced when he was about 4, with 2 older and 1 younger sibling, and apparently didn’t support the family.  Nevertheless, being sent away to live with his Long Island grandparents in his teens, he went on to be recruited by (win an award from) the Fraternal Order of Masons, and get degrees in Psychology, Sociology, and finally Education, the last from Harvard.  Thank you Mom — I guess you did well! should be a comment, but this is not heard in the publications, is it?

    Born and raised by a divorced mother in the South Bronx, he is the third of four sons of McAlister and Mary Canada. His parents’ marriage ended in 1956, after which his father played little part in the children’s life and did not contribute financial support.[2] Canada was raised among the “abandoned houses, crime, violence and an all-encompassing sense of chaos and disorder,” and understood his life’s calling at an early age. His mother sent him to live with her parents in Freeport, Long Island, when Canada was in his mid-teens.[2] He attended Wyandanch Memorial High School, and won a scholarship from the Fraternal Order of Masons during his senior year of high school.[2] He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and sociology from Bowdoin College, where he graduated in 1974, and a Master’s degree in education  from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Canada has an honorary degree from Princeton University.[3]

    Role with the Harlem Children’s Zone

    Starting as president in 1990, Canada started working with the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Families which evolved into the Harlem Children’s Zone. Unsatisfied with the scope of Rheedlen, Canada transformed the organization’s makeup in the late 1990s into a center that would actively follow the academic careers of youths {{both genders??..}} in a 24-block area of Harlem. Due to the success of the new model, the area has grown to 97 blocks.

    (There’s a reason I took time to mention Geoffrey Canada, The Harlem Zone, which relates to another major nonprofit run by the son of Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, and which (one can see the trend here) is promoting charter schools hard, and has begun to take some serious flack in a few states by program personnel ramrodding their agenda through, over the voices of local, state-based parents and volunteer workers. ).   Like Ronald D. Mincy (also of Harvard, but in Economics) here is another prominent African-American male leader whose mother MIGHT have done something right (judging by the degrees, and their current position) — and yet their work — which is helping change society — shows an emotional obsession with the absent father, and an inability to properly credit a mother, or recognize that THEIR OWN SUCCESS comes through struggles but with a single mother.  In effect, their work — supported by major foundations which I’ll hazard a guess are not run by any minority whatsoever — (like the Ford Foundation) — has now scapegoated single mothers across the country, and made it not only almost impossible, but also socially unacceptable — and politicially incorrect — to succeed.  Children are being REMOVED from such mothers apparently by the thousands, even when after removal, disaster (death in foster care, or in a court-ordered exchange with the noncustodial parent) often happens.

    Mixing truths, but framing them according to their personal childhood experience, and buoyed up by federal funding and corporate funding — society is indeed being transformed — and what i see is the continued buoying up of the public education which has failed students according to their color, caste, and neighborhoods (which the unequal system will continue to do, although it also fails those in prosperous suburban enclaves in different ways).  We have become (not are becoming) a federally centralized country with a parallel set of government-by-administrative-agency.  This is essentially socialism and foreign to the purpose of the country and the Constitution, to which Presidents must swear an oath to uphold and defend, but don’t.   Any “Cradle to grave” solution focusing on TRAINING — is indeed socialism, and contrary to LIFE (which has more variety, and also a greater variety of personal goals), LIBERTY (consider the economic angle) and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.   People fork this over when they fail to protest, or even investigate where their own money is being spent.  I did this also — while working FT, raising children, and seeking to keep all of us alive from the imminent danger of, their father.   It took YEARS to get out (after deciding to get out) and then only to face systems putting us back in — and come to find they are based on childhood longing for the father, positioned in Harvard, MIT (see next) and other high places.

    Geoffrey Canada, father-absent resounding success & Harvard (Education) grad, created and expanded The Harlem Zone, and Ronald D. Mincy, father-absent, father-obsessed, Ph.D.’d Harvard (economics) Grad, and director of — well, Logo Below —  of whom this naturally reminded me– apparently conducted a vertical study of the Harlem Zone:

    Dr. Mincy is an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood; the National Fatherhood Leadership Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts; the Mac Arthur Network on Family and the Economy, and Governor Paterson’s Task Force on Juvenile Justice

    Dr. Mincy’s undergraduate and graduate training in economics were at Harvard and M.I.T. He and his wife, Flona Mincy, have been married for more than thirty years and live in Harlem, New York. They have two sons.  (Thank God.  Can you imagine daughters growing up around all that fatherhood policymaking?)

    “The Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being’s mission is to expand the knowledge base on the role of fathers (and father figures) in the lives of disadvantaged children and the processes by which nonresident fathers (and father figures) affect child development and family well-being.”

    Many people ask us about our logo. They wonder why we don’t portray a happy family. We would rather showcase the problem we are trying to solve.

    We wanted to show a strong mother, who believes she is capable of taking care of herself and her family. Whatever her beliefs, she often has no other option. Despite her best efforts, the literature shows that children who grow up in two-parent families are less likely than children in mother-only families to do poorly in school, engage in risky behavior, and exhibit anxiety, depression, and aggressive and withdrawn behavior problems. 

    We wanted to portray a father who is interested in his family but who is ill-prepared to help, unsure if his help is welcome, and unsure about he can be involved.** Although conventional wisdom holds that non-resident fathers are not involved in their children’s lives, the literature shows that at least half of non-resident fathers are involved with their children up to five years of age.

    Are there ways of helping these parents work together to meet their children’s needs?

    That is our question. That is our mission.”

    ** (portion in red) — was this Dr. Mincy’s father?  Is this is hope — that his Dad really wanted to be involved, but there were just too many obstacles to father-involvement?  Is all this really about certain men who ascended to (or were selected & placed, not that they didn’t earn every single degree, but are we allowed to mention the Fraternal Order of Masons (for Mr Canada), are we allowed to mention just how many foundations supported Dr. Mincy?) in VERY influential positions, as the figurehead of the successful black man, who is now — rather than confronting the system-concept which separated families to start with (FYI, it’s called slavery) — and is instead, working for the same TYPE of masters (if not some corporations that went back nearly as far) and doing the same thing to other famlies who share none of their Ph.D. characteristics, and may not even know this has been done to them, and by transforming the welfare system further and further to minimize and curtail “mother-involvement,” ensure that the child support system can be utilized by even mutli-millionaire fathers to separate children from their biological mothers, as well as diverting cash aid to single-mother households by defining success by the number of adult biologically related males in the home?

    Why are we allowing groups like Columbia School of Social Policy, or corporations & foundations — to change the forms of government to figure out HOW to produce desired social results?  This is nothing other than “Wealth-Makes-Right” and those on the top of society got their because God wanted them to, from which the position of “God” can be fulfilled through social design and planning how others will — or will not– live, bypassing the legal systems, for example, in particular, the criminal code.

    Fraternal Order of Masons – interesting…

    Freemasonry refers to the principles, institutions, and practices of the fraternal order of the Free and Accepted Masons. The largest worldwide society, Freemasonry is an organization of men based on the “fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” using builders’ tools as symbols to teach basic moral truths generally accepted by persons of good will. Their motto is “morality in which all men agree, that is, to be good men and true.” It is religious in that a belief in a Supreme Being and in the immortality of the soul are the two prime requirements for membership, but it is nonsectarian in that no religious test is used.1 The purpose of Freemasonry is to enable men to meet in harmony, to promote friendship, and to be charitable. Its basic ideals are that all persons are the children of one God, that all persons are related to each other, and that the best way to worship God is to be of service to people.  Masons have no national headquarters as such, but the largest regional is the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction (35 Southern states), which is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.

    Although only men (of at least 21 years of age) can be Masons, related organizations are available for their relatives — there is the Order of the Eastern Star for Master Masons and their wives; the Order of De Molay for boys; and the Order of Job’s Daughters and the Order of Rainbow for young girls. The Masonic Lodge has more than a hundred such fraternal organizations, including Daughters of the Nile, The Tall Cedars of Lebanon, The Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets Of The Enchanted Realm, The Knights Of The Red Cross Of Constantine, and The Blue Lodge.

    There’s more . . . .

    Many allegories and symbols are used in Masonry. The old English Constitution refers to an ancient definition of the ancient craft: “Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbol,” [Freemason’ symbols can be made to mean almost anything a person chooses to make them; Master Masons take an oath, “Ever to conceal, never to reveal.”2] It seeks to make good men better through the form of belief in “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the    immortality of the soul.”

    Masonry was originally a means by which people in the occult could practice their “craft” and still remain respectable citizens. The official publication of “The Supreme Council 33” of Scottish Rite Freemasonry is titled New Age. Some church denominations are also led by avowed Masons. For example, a 1991 survey by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board found that 14% of SBC pastors and 18% of SBC deacon board chairs were Masons; it is also estimated that SBC members comprise 37% of total U.S. lodge membership. (A 2000 updated SBC report found that over 1,000 SBC pastors are Masons.)

    Hardly surprising — we do remember, right, that former U.S. President severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention over their treatment — and view– of women.  While I may not agree with what he’s doing instead (joined a worldwide “Council of Elders” — give me a break!), this part is true:

    Jimmy Carter Severs Ties With Southern Baptist Convention: “Many Male Religious Leaders Help Subjugate Women

    Carter: Sexism exhibited by male leaders conflicts “with my belief — confirmed in the holy scriptures — that we are all equal in the eyes of God.”  Please read — because this is happening in the U.S. today.  (article concludes):

    The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

    It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices — as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

    Other commentary on the authoritarian (or you going to hell) manner of the SBC’s in re: the Carter’s decision.
    More on “The Elders,” first ref. from the article I quoted>

    • Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.

    Meet the Elders’: Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Muhammad Yunus and Many More  (Kate Snow, Johannesburg, July 18, 2007)

     Guess they’ll have to contend sooner or later with Sun Myung Moon, the True Parent, who I don’t think was on the list — probably he’s not reall good at sharing leadership .   This one was conceived by “British billionaire Richard Branson and Rock Star Peter Gabriel”  and talks about how, without such piddling matters as “political (i.e., laws), economic (i.e., costs) and geographic (national sovereignty, etc.) constraints” surely this assembly of starpower can fix the world:

    The structures we have to deal with these problems are often tied down by political, economic and geographic constraints,” Mandela said. The Elders, he argued, will face no such constraints. . . .Using their collective experience, their moral courage and their ability to rise above the parochial concerns of nations ? they can help make our planet a more peaceful, healthy and equitable place to live, ” Branson said. ” Let us call them ‘global elders,’ not because of their age but because of individual and collective wisdom.” Calling it “the most extraordinary day” of his life, Gabriel said, “The dream was there might still be a body of people in whom the world could place their trust.”

    Well, the world is fully of nutcase Messiahs, they are found amongst the homeless, and among the ultrarich.  Guess which group probably has done more harm, and been responsible for more human misery, wars, poverty, and genocides, in the long-term?

    A little more detail on Mr. Canda’s life, from “blackpast.org” an on-line encyclopedia.  His mother was a counselor.   He had no sisters…..

    Canada was born on January 13, 1952 to McAlister and Mary Canada in the South Bronx, New York City.  His mother was a substance abuse counselor and his father suffered from chronic alcoholism.  His mother raised him and his three brothers in the South Bronx after she divorced his father in 1956.

    Canada grew up in poverty yet his mother strongly instilled the value of education in him at an early age.  In his teens, Canada was sent to live with his grandparents, both ordained Baptist ministers, in Long Island, New York.  While living with his grandparents, Canada attended Wyandanch Memorial High School where he received the Fraternal Order of Masons scholarship his senior year.   {{SEE above}}

    Canada then enrolled in Bowdoin College in 1970, graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in psychology and sociology in 1974.  A year later he graduated with an M.A. in Education from Harvard Graduate School of Education.  His mother eventually earned her own Master’s degree from Harvard some years later.    

    In addition, Canada has published two books: Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun: A Personal History of Violence in America(1995) and Reaching Up for Manhood: Transforming the Lives of Boys in America (1998).In 1972, Canada married Joyce Henderson and had two children, Melina and Jerry.  They divorced and Canada married Yvonne Grant.  They also have two children, Bruce and Geoffrey, Jr.    [Contributor(s): Jackson, Joelle
    University of Washington, Seattle]
    Are the children from the first wife now fatherless and at risk?

    (VERY) BRIEFLY:  The EDELMANS & CHILDREn’s DEFENSE FUND (1992 interview with Marian Wright Edelman) speaks about her parent’s Baptist past
    ….”her childhood home in Bennettsville, S.C. That was the starting point for the self-assured black girl who would emerge from the segregated South to go to Yale University Law School, create the Children’s Defense Fund and propel herself onto the national scene as an impassioned and relentless champion of needy children and families…. It was in that spirit, to promote continuity, that Mrs. Edelman wrote a little book, a “spiritual and family dowry,” for her sons, Joshua, Jonah and Ezra. She has been married for 24 years to Peter Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University.

    The family values talk is just talk,” Mrs. Edelman said, her voice rising, her words accelerating. “People understand what is real and what is hypocritical. Family and moral values are so central to everything that I am.”

    The daughter of a Baptist minister, Mrs. Edelman writes in her book that “many of the seeds I am still struggling mightily to harvest for children and the poor were planted during my childhood.” Her father gave sermons, she said, “decrying the breakdown of family and community” and “insisting that poverty of things is no excuse for poverty of will and spirit.”

    Being a Baptist still plays an important role in her life. “If I don’t go Sunday morning, I’m not grounded for the week,” she said.

    I don’t know how much readership understands the role of the Children’s Defense Fund in policies around today, or how one of her 3 sons’ work intersects with Mr. Canada’s, at the nonprofit, charterschoolpromotion level.  I am wondering whether she would be OK with the impact of these social programs on real mothers, today:

    Mrs. Edelman met her husband in Mississippi, where she was the first black woman admitted to the bar. She was working as a civil rights lawyer, and Mr. Edelman was researching poverty and hunger for Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Mrs. Edelman and her husband, who is Jewish, raised their sons in the religious traditions of both sides of the family.

    In his introduction to his mother’s book, Jonah, who graduated from Yale last spring (1992) and is now a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, refers to himself as “a cultural mulatto . . . the sheltered bar mitzvah boy who has struggled with his blackness.” … The Edelmans’ eldest son, 23-year-old Joshua, is a Harvard University graduate who teaches history at the Milton Academy in Milton, Mass. Ezra, 18, is a freshman a Yale.

    . . .

    here have been rumors that Mrs. Edelman, who has worked for years with Hillary Clinton, the past chairwoman of the Children’s Defense Fund, might join the Cabinet if Gov. Bill Clinton becomes President. “I would not,” Mrs. Edelman said, adding that her black friends were urging her to go into Government to increase her power and influence.

    “That is not who I am,” she said. “I need to work outside Government, on my own. I love what I do, and I think I am making a difference.”

    The nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, is widely respected for its lobbying efforts. Its aim is to bring the needs of children to public attention and to encourage preventive efforts in areas like health care and teen-age pregnancy. The fund played an important role in the formulation of the child-care legislation that Congress passed in 1990

    OK — now I will link Jonah Edelman to Geoffrey Canada (finally), through Mr. Edelman’s Wikipedia — and hopefully you will see the connection with these inexorable training grants from HHS — there is an HHS connection in the family line:

    Jonah Martin Edelman (born 9 October 1970) is an Americanadvocate for public education.[1] He is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stand for Children, a national American education advocacy organization based in Portland, Oregon andWaltham, Massachusetts, with affiliates in nine states. He is the first Oregon resident to be awarded an Ashoka: Innovators for the Public fellowship.[2]

    STAND FOR CHILDREN is no ordinary nonprofit — it was set up to be nationwide from the very beginning and to force social transformation.  It is also very well endowed.  Currently, this group is facing off with teachers’ unions, (see “Illinois”) and Mr. Edelman was caught boasting about how he got these unions to give away their rights — although the cause is, “improving public schools” – — right? . . .

    Jonah Edelman is the second son of Marian Wright Edelman, former civil rights leader and aide to Martin Luther King, jr. and founder and president of the Children’s Defense Fund, and Peter Edelman, former aide to Senator Robert F. Kennedy, former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

    Edelman was born and raised in Washington, D.C, and received his B.A. in History with a concentration on African-American studies from Yale University in 1992. Edelman attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, earning his Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Politics in 1994 and 1995, respectively.

    He is, essentially, a blueblood acting like a blueblood, i.e., arrogant — taking charge — and rescuing poor people  by redesigning government policy— and insisting it be done “his way” or the highway.  When I say blueblood, we know Marian Wright Edelson’s personal background and commitment, discipline, and values.  Her husband/Jonah’s father qualifies as blueblood (See “Georgetown” and working for RFK), and former assistant Secretary to the DHHS — –    where the fatherhood programs now life — and it appears these were instrumental in some of their beginnings.  And may give a better clue to their actual purposes.

    Edelman cites tutoring a six-year-old bilingual child named Daniel Zayas in reading while volunteering at Dwight Elementary School during his first year at Yale as a turning point.[3] While still an undergraduate, he ran a teen pregnancy prevention speakers’ bureau, co-founded a mentorship program for African American middle school students, and served as an administrator of an enrichment program for children living in public housing-Leadership Education and Athletics in Partnership (LEAP).

    Stand for Children

    Edelman was a key organizer of Stand for Children Day, a June 1, 1996 rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. attended by 300,000 people.[4]   {{KEEP THE LINK…}} Among the speakers at this rally, the largest for children in U.S. history, were Geoffrey Canada, who later became Stand for Children’s first Board of Directors Chair, the editor of Parade Magazine, Walter Anderson, who came up with the name “Stand for Children Day,” and Marian Wright Edelman.

    On June 2, 1996, Edelman and Eliza Leighton founded Stand for Children as an ongoing advocacy organization to support rally participants when they returned home. Hundreds of follow up Stand for Children events and rallies took place across the country on June 1, 1997 and then June 1, 1998.

    Yes, about that rally:

    Education plus politics (about “stand for children’s” role in Denver School Board race) 

    Edelman, the son of Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, began Stand in an effort to marry child advocacy and grassroots organizing. “Stand didn’t start off working on public education at all,” he said, noting the 1996 Stand for Children rally from which it grew encompassed many issues.

    The rally, which Edelman worked on at his mother’s request, drew 300,000 people to D.C. for what was the largest rally for children in U.S. history. Stand’s first chapter was founded in Oregon in 1999.

    “It’s really evolved organizationally toward public education based on the fact public education is the most salient and fundamentally important issue of so many issues facing kids,” he said.  Stand’s grassroots approach is similar to those of two other parent groups in Denver, Padres Unidos and Metropolitan Organizations for People or MOP.  But Stand differs in that its members get directly involved in politics – something Padres and MOP, which are non-profit 501(c)3 organizations, can’t do – and it works at the local and statewide levels.

    “We don’t choose cities,” Edelman said when asked about coming to Denver, “we choose states.”

    WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE MOVEMENTS NOW GOING ON  IN HHS, where “CHILDREN & FAMILIES” precludes speech of individuals, and where leadership is to be followed, not questioned, when it comes to policy.   The intent is to transform the public schools, and if necessary, take on teacher’s unions.  I see an article boasting about how their legislators all one, and several “status quo” legislators lost.  Grassroots advocacy, organization, and funding, right?   Next, there is this one showing alliance / alignment with Mr. Canada.  As I have explained, that also = alignment with the fatherhood prominence, and getting more children into state care than Mom’s care, by combining early childhood education + public school (regular or charter) education, both federal projects, while endorsing — apparently — welfare-diversions (like the HTTC above) to transform certain communities:

    1.  Post-Election Message from Stand’s CEO, Jonah Edelman  (nov. 8, 2010)

    Friends and Colleagues:

    Tuesday’s election saw the emergence of Stand for Children as a multi-state electoral force for students.

    By reaching more than 55,000 targeted voters through grassroots volunteer outreach (five times more than in 2008) and strategically investing more than $1 million (15 times more than in 2008) in Colorado, Washington, Illinois, and Oregon, Stand helped protect an overwhelming majority of the legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, who stood tall for students earlier this year.

    And here’s something else that’s striking: while none of the legislators we backed lost because of their vote to improve educator effectiveness, Stand helped unseat several legislators who voted for the status quo.

    2.  Note from CEO, Jonah Edelman – Inpired by Geoffrey Canada

    November 24, 2010

    Last Thursday, some of you [Stand staff, Board members, Advisory Board members]  were able to join in a conference call where we received a mega-dose of inspiration from Geoffrey Canada, Stand’s first Board chair, founder and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone, and one of America’s most prominent education advocates.

    On the call, Geoff generously affirmed Stand’s incredible recent progress and he challenged us to seize this unique moment in time and work with even greater resolve, perspective, and discipline to save all of those “perfectly normal children,” as he described them, who are falling hopelessly behind in school.

    This is grassroots organizing from the top-down, not the bottom-up, and if anything, this organization is ORGANized and visionary; that also apparently runs in the family line, plus (see educations). . . . .   (did they attend local public schools, K-12?) . . . . .  Checking my Nonprofit status — and actually reading a tax return (great way to learn about a group — read their tax returns if possible) — there is a:

    • Stand for Children (oregon nonprofit)
    • Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. (Washington, D.C. nonprofit),

    and apparently (per that tax return) a 

    • Stand for Children, Inc. — for profit.

    The (2002) board of SFCLC (DC group) was:

    Stand for Children Leadership Center Board of Directors (from tax return)

    • Who We Are

      Founded in 1986, Bright Horizons Family Solutions is the world’s leading provider of employer-sponsored child care, early education, and work/life solutions. Conducting business in the United States, Europe, and Canada, we have created employer-sponsored child care and early education programs for more than 700 clients, including more than 90 of the Fortune 500.

       

    • CNN description (Money.cnn.com, 2008):  Average pay:  Directors, $54K, teachers, $25K…
    • Headquarters: Watertown, MA
      2006 revenue ($ millions): 698
      Website: www.brighthorizons.com

      Employees
      U.S. employees 14,660
      Employees outside U.S. 1,972

      This corporation (investing in its stock) helped make Tennessee Senator, Lamar Alexander, one of the Top 10 (richest) in 2007.  Below this list, I’ll show (I recognized this name.  Lamar Alexander also known because of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, private prison corporation)’s lobbying, and a move to privatize the entire state’s prisons, connected with this legislator.

    • Geoffrey Canada President, Harlem Children’s Zone
    • Sam Daley-Harris’ President, Results Educational Fund
    • Gun Denhart “s Founder & Chair, Hanna Andersson Corporation
    • MarianWright Edelman` Founder & President, Children’s Defense Fund
    • Daniel Grossman’ Founder & CEO, Wild Planet Toys
    • Jill Iscol” President , Jill Iscol & Associates  
    • Reverend/Dr. Eileen Lindner, Deputy General Secretary for Research & Planning, National Council of Churches, {{Excu UUse me???}}
    • Fred Senn Partner/GroupDirector, Fallon
    • Dorothy Stoneman Founder & President, YouthBuildUSA

    Every one of those corporations / organizations the board of directors sit on has a story, and most likely an interest in education reform.  Who are these people, and why have they taken on (with private, not public funding — on this tax return at least) organization to restructure the US Educational system according to their particular vision?   For example, because it’s simplest to illustrate, “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS” is top dog in employer-provided daycare.

    From the site:   INSIDERTRADING.PROCON.ORG

    Mr. Alexander was 10th richest, right after the 9th richest US Senator in 2007, namely, “9.  Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)  Avg. Net worth of household in 2006:   $30,691,003 — and I just love the description of her “Spouse Name and Title:”  Bill Clinton, 42nd US President.
    #10 – Lamar Alexander, Jr. Avg. Net Worth of Household in 2006:  $27,800,155.  Spouse name and title:   “Leslee “Honey” Alexander, Bord of Trustees, WETA; Member and Vice Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors,” 
    5 TOP STOCKS OWNED @ 12/31/2007– TOP STOCK:  “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTION” — $500,001 – $1,000,000.
    Senator Lamar Alexander Co-founded “Corporate Child Care Management, Inc.” (now “Bright Horizons Family Solutions).   His wife owns more than $1,000,000 stock in it. …  Committees he sits on that may present conflict of interest:  Health, Education, Labor, Pensions.
    For our leaders:  Investment income from holdings.  For those they set policy for:  Jobs, hopefully, child support – -possibly, welfare — likely at this pace — and parenting classes, and public schools.  Some design, others support (like, the workers at these various corporations) and if there is not too much civil discontent, all is well in the world. ….  While I am here, from the same site, on The (then-Senator) Obama’s household, notes a very lean portfolio, but investment in two speculative stocks he probably wouldn’t have known of except as a legislator — one dealing with mobile communications (and a satellite), i.e., SkyTerra (see also Wikipedia)– and the other AVI BioPharma.(“Advanced RNA-Based Therapeutic Platform)”    The commentary, here:   The second company has “strategic alliances” with the DoD, and includes biodefense in its projects; the first, apparently Boeing just helped put a satellite in space .
    We are in a Post-9/11 society, and throughout these TAGGS (marriage/Fatherhood) corporations, major grants involving telecommunications companies with roots in the Defense Industry keep showing up (Example:  ICF International Incorporated, LLC got a 2011 grant; it went public & international in 2006).   Here’s the “wiki” on AVI Biopharma — note they were going under til got a defense contract (during Obama presidency):

    History  (Wiki article)

    AVI BioPharma opened their own production laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, in February 2002.[2] The company made headlines in 2003 when it announced work on treatments for SARS and the West Nile Virus.[2][3] In July 2009, the company announced they would move their headquarters from Portland, Oregon, north to Bothell, Washington, near Seattle.[4] At that time the company led by president and CEO Leslie Hudson had 83 employees and quarterly revenues of $3.2 million.[4] AVI had yet to turn a profit nor developed any commercial products as of July 2009.[4] The company lost $19.7 million in the second quarter of 2009,[5] and then won a $11.5 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense‘s Defense Threat Reduction Agency in October 2009.[6] The company had completed its move to Bothell by this time, but retained their Corvallis facility.[4][6]

    SkyTerra is now “LightSquared” —
    SkyTerra - SkyTerra Communications

    “A new nationwide 4G wireless broadband network provider that will use a unique combination of satellite and terrestrial technology to revolutionize wireless communications in the United States.”  ”

    SkyTerra is North America’s leading developer and supplier of mobile satellite communications services (MSS). Since 1996 SkyTerra has been providing reliable wireless voice, two-way radio and data services for a wide range of customers across North America, northern South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Hawaii via its two existing MSAT satellites.   Satellite service is the perfect communications solution for remote locations lacking terrestrial coverage and when man made or natural disasters strike. Current customers cover a broad spectrum including public safety, security, broadcasting, natural resources, fleet management and asset tracking.   {{AND/Or SPYING….}}

    LIGHTSQUARED:  The idea behind this is providing (4G at least) “Wholesale broadband access” to the entire country.  In Nov. 2010, they launched a satellite from Kazakhstan, and the site mentions:

     ““The U.S. stimulus plan announced by President Obama has acknowledged the need for the federal government to step in to ensure that the digital divide is filled, thereby ending the denial of broadband access due to where people live… 2010 will be the year that many governments will recognize that broadband connectivity is essential for economic competitiveness, the delivery of public services, and an inclusive society, and they will step up to the plate to close the digital divide.”

    It is waiting? for FCC approval of its service; there’s claims it would jam GPS.  Fascinating reading — and here’s an article on the debate between FCC (Congressional favorite) this new one — only slightly technical.   Recommended read– it plays into the job market, digital divide.

    SkyTerra Wikipedia

    The new company has operations in both America and Canada, providing service to both countries and the Caribbean. MSV changed its name to SkyTerra in December 2008. The company was traded Over-the-Counter and was listed on the OTCBB: SKYT. SkyTerra (formerly ‘Mobile Satellite Ventures’) [4] was the first company to receive a Federal Communications Commission license to deploy Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) technology.[5]

    In 2005, SkyTerra purchased 50% of Hughes Network Solutions, a subsidiary of the News Corp.-owned DirecTV Group, for $157.4 million, which SkyTerra held under its subsidiary Hughes Communications.[6][7] In January 2006, DirecTV sold its remaining 50% share in Hughes Network Solutions to SkyTerra for $100 million.[8] Hughes Communications was spun off as a separate company in February 2006, with SkyTerra divesting its entire stake in the company to its shareholders.[9]

    TerreStar Corporation, formerly Motient Corporation, was the controlling shareholder of TerreStar Networks Inc. and TerreStar Global Ltd., and a shareholder of SkyTerra Communications.[10]

    SkyTerra was acquired by Harbinger Capital Partners in March 2010 and became part of LightSquared in July 2010.[11  

    MSV satellite telephony

    Most of current products and services are aimed at emergency services, law enforcement, and companies that specialize in transportation. However, MSV and Boeing are developing a satellite telephony network for consumers.

    The use of Boeing’s GeoMobile platform will allow for coverage of the entire United States with a single satellite. This new approach to satellite telephony has already been validated with the Thuraya network. MSV’s satellite will use an even bigger antenna than the Thuraya spacecraft (at 22 meters in diameter, it will be the largest commercial reflector dish ever used in space)[12], allowing it to communicate with phones no larger than modern cell phones thanks to the fact that the large antenna gain allows the handset to operate at a power output comparable to regular cell phones. This is now possible since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed satellite operators to create terrestrial cellular networks using spectrum previously restricted to satellite use.[13][14][15]

    The Satellite road aboard a Russian Satellite, launched last November, per the Nasa article:   !!!

    LIVE: ILS Proton-M launches with SkyTerra 1 satellite

    November 14th, 2010 by Chris BerginInternational Launch Services (ILS) have launched the SkyTerra 1 telecommunications satellite via their veteran Proton-M launch vehicle and Breeze-M upper stage on Sunday. Lift-off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was on schedule at 17:29 GMT, ahead of over nine hours of flight until the spacecraft was placed into orbit.

     . . .The 5,400 kg Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems built 702HP satellite is designed for geomobile services, which will be a “major step in LightSquared’s creation of its next-generation, nationwide network that will be among the world’s first to combine satellite and terrestrial technologies,” according to the customer.“The Light-Squared network will enable the company to offer 4G speed, value, and reliability which enables universal wireless connectivity throughout the United States.

    “The company’s next-generation satellite system allows users within the United States to use standard handsets or other devices, equipped with the LightSquared chipset, to access the satellite system with high link availability and long battery lifetimes, with devices that have the same form-factor and functionality as conventional handsets and devices.

    “Further, the combination of the LightSquared satellite system and the LightSquared 4G terrestrial network provides an unprecedented level of coverage throughout the United States.”

    Proton Launch:

    (Somehow this isn’t as comforting as it is probably supposed to be….)

    The Iscol Family (apparently husband made his money in mobile communications…)

    <>STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP, JILL ISCOL

    It’s hard to know where, on the web, to start.  Cornell, Yale, New York City?  The portion of Cornell University this husband/wife pair is currently funding / running?    Their connections with Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Well, while we’re on the topic, how about article from “CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY.”

    Jill Iscol

    In this summary (it’s the entire web page) you can see the policy-making influence with Gores, Family Strengthening projects, and the ability to somehow raise incredible finances for whatever project her heart desires.  This is what Yale Graduates do, and the Columbia background also includes a penchant the teaching.  Does this look like someone who would be taking input from the lower ranks of society, or dishing it out, according to the personal vision determined with the social & political set she runs in, and they do?    Or taking feedback on the impact of these programs on the working class, (or, welfare recipients) which might be at odds from program purposes?

    President, IF Hummingbird Foundation

    Jill W Iscol, Ed.D, is a social activist, an educator, and a philanthropist.

    She serves on the Board of Advisors of City Year New York of which she was a Founding Co-Chair (2002-2009).  She is a Trustee of Vital Voices Global Partnership and is currently chairing its newly launched New York Leadership Council. She is on the Board of the Acumen Fund, a global philanthropic organization. She was recently appointed to the New York State Commission on National and Community Service, is a Trustee of Horizons National, and on the Advisory Board of the Center for New American Security in Washington, DC.

    She serves on the President’s Council of Teachers College (from 1974-1977, she was Co-Director of its Preservice Program in Childhood Education), and on the Advisory Boards of the Iscol Family Program for Leadership Development  {{that’s Cornell, and link tells more about Jill & Ken, after profusely thanking them for generous funding…}} and the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University. Until 2009 she served on the Boards of Facing History and Ourselves, and Bank Street College of Education (where she was a faculty member from 1973-1974).

    Sorry — I have to point this out  Bank Street College of Education began with a single person’s idea in 1916, and a humanist (as oppose to, say, Deist) idea to study children and figure out what produces the best results, according to humanist definitions and in the process of creating a better world.  This intense obsession — and it IS an obsession — with getting children away from their natural parents (while preaching marriage and family throughout) — didn’t start yesterday.   Particularly one sees the institutes throughout the country wishing to “study” children in order to do a better job than previous generations.  This is reflected to date in Obama Administration’s expansion of Head Start, Early Head Start, and push to get mothers out of the home and back to work, and kids into daycare centers where HHS will pay for “Child Development Scholars” to take notes, etc. etc.     Consider — this was before women got the vote!

    • Bank Street: A Brief History

    In 1916, educator Lucy Sprague Mitchell and her colleagues, influenced by revolutionary educator John Dewey and other humanists, concluded that building a new kind of educational system was essential to building a better, more rational, humane world.

    Beginnings: The Bureau Years

    1916: The Bureau of Educational Experiments (BEE) is founded in New York City by Lucy Sprague Mitchell, together with her husband Wesley Mitchell and colleague Harriet Johnson. Their purpose is to combine expanding psychological awareness with democratic conceptions of education. With a staff of researchers and teachers, the Bureau sets out to study children–to find out what kind of environment is best suited to their learning and growth, to create that environment, and to train adults to maintain it.

    1919: The Bureau of Educational Experiments establishes a Nursery School.

    (The next three bullets, quotes from a “Harvard Educational Review” very laborious review of a book on the development of Preschool in America)

    • Patty Smith Hill, progressive kindergartner of Louisville, Kentucky, studied the works of John Dewey and Francis W. Parker and then challenged the strict kindergarten pedagogy based on Froebel’s theories.  {{German, childless??, Pedagogue, 1782-1852!}} Hill taught at Columbia Teachers College and co-founded the Institute of Child Welfare Research there in 1924.5 Caroline Pratt, who founded the innovative Play School in Greenwich Village, and her life partner, Helen Marot, were a part of a Greenwich Village group of intellectuals.6 Pratt collaborated with Lucy Sprague Mitchell and Harriet Johnson in New York City in the 1910s, “where they developed a radical preschool pedagogy designed to counteract what they saw as the psychologically and politically oppressive environment of the private family” (p. 135). “
    •  A stark contrast to kindergartners’ encouragement of parental involvement is the practice of early-twentieth-century progressive educator Caroline Pratt, who “saw parents as obstacles to their children’s education, not as partners (p. 139). Though Pratt may have been an anomaly among early childhood educators, her stance represents one of the many ways parents were treated and perceived by educators who often were not parents themselves.
    • Her history is a chronicle of preschool-aged children’s access to education in the United States since the early nineteenth century, starting with the advent of infant schools, schools designed for lower-class children whose parents were considered unfit to teach them at home.

    Your basic “Children as lab rats” concept, but of course for a noble purpose.  A Tulane University “Child Development Center” history page describes the Patty Smith Hill Influence, in fact, mentioning the 1969 Chicago University “Lab School.”:

    Newcomb Children’s Center originally started as a nursery school for Tulane faculty and staff when Edith Rosenwald Stern, a young parent and community activist, spearheaded a group of six mothers in the endeavor to establish the preschool in 1926, a time when these were not commonplace in the United States. She was the daughter of Julius Rosenwald, founder of Sears Roebuck and Company, and had attended the University of Chicago Lab School, where a preschool had been initiated in 1916.  (daughter of successful businessman….)

    Stern became acquainted with Patty Smith Hill, a leader of the American Kindergarten and Nursery School Movement, during a visit to Columbia University’s Institute for Child Welfare in New York.  This relationship led to a broad scope of beneficial effects on Stern in terms of its philosophy and methods of teaching.  From its inception, the School has encouraged hands-on learning by the children with guidance from a caring staff of teachers and active parents.

    newcombstrip

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell (from a 2006 “Education Update” site), in short, another blueblood (Radcliffe, UCBerkeley Dean of Women) gets together with others to change the world, starting with studying how to produce a better child:

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell came of age at a time of great changes in the United States. The country was becoming increasingly industrialized and urbanized; waves of immigrants were arriving, and poverty—especially urban poverty—was on the rise. These changing conditions inspired an intense period of social and educational reform between 1890 and 1920, led by pioneers, many of them women, who believed that the world could be changed. An age of often appalling social conditions was also an age of great optimism for people who wanted to remake the society America had built.

    A graduate of Radcliffe, and the first Dean of Women at the University of California at Berkeley, Lucy Sprague Mitchell knew that she wanted to be a force for change, and shared the optimism of the reformers that change was possible. She herself saw in education the best possibility for a more just and humane world.

    With several like-minded women, she established the Bureau of Educational Experiments to determine how children grow and learn by carefully studying and recording their behavior, their language, and their interactions with each other and with their environment.

    (I continued looking — got that “childlike curiosity” still, I guess) — this person who never had a formal education til she was 16, was into early education for the purposes of studying how children learn . . .  she had a domineering father . . . . this Bureau of Educational Systems was subsidized by a cousin’s inheritance . . . and the methods included:

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell’s impact on the educational system in America is all the more surprising considering that she herself did not receive a formal education at school until she was sixteen years old. Lucy’s progressive-some might even say radical-approach to reforming education might be less surprising. Although she grew up with a domineering father in a repressive atmosphere, she also benefited greatly from her father’s own interest in education reform. As a result, young Lucy was not only exposed to the reformist ideas of such philosophical heavyweights as John Dewey and Jane Addams, she actually met them! . . .

    . . .what was radical then is now thought “essential to knowing how to teach” children. The interdisciplinary approach to classroom management, the study of student behavior, psychological profiles recorded and updated, family background and environment checks: all of these were incorporated by Sprague Mitchell into how educating children was conducted at the Bureau.

    Wikipedia on Bank Street College of Education directly ties this group to Head Start.  (Bank Street was simply the Greenwich Village location of the Bureau of Educational Experiments when it started):

    Bank Street was founded in 1916 by Lucy Sprague Mitchell as the “Bureau of Educational Experiments”. (Mitchell was the first Dean of Women at the University of California, Berkeley). Its original focus was the study of child development and education, but, after two years, it was clear that actual living subjects, i.e. children, were needed, so in 1918 a nursery school was opened. This nursery school is the direct predecessor of today’s School for Children. It wasn’t until the 1930s that Bank Street began to formally train teachers, the start of today’s Bank Street College of Education.

    The little kids are brought in to test theory on, but the place started with theory.  Of course, little kids in nursery schools is something of a controlled situation, and in fact, studying a young child in isolation from its parents makes next to no sense to me.  See my post “monkeying with mothers.”  Same mentality!

    In 1965, Bank Street developed the “Bank Street Readers” line of books, which were unique due to their featuring of racial diversity and urban people of contemporary culture. Also in the 1960s, the Bank Street faculty played an important role in the creation of the federal Head Start program.

    Some things never change.  I found a grant (from another organization currently, I think, associated with a group attempting to eradicate no-fault divorce in Ohio, National Council of Family Relations, in cooperation with Utah State University.  Or, at least in the same grant series.  Some ideas just refuse to die, including that the best people to change society are those at the top — although typically it’s those who are starting wars, and sending the masses of lower class youth to go die in them, not to mention locking them up the disproportionately to the white-collar criminals…. and then (Lamar Alexander) getting rich by buying stock in the private prisons that oppress them — which they do, resulting in lawsuits for sexual assault and more. (CCA).

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2011 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT 90YR0035 DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS LORI ROGGMAN $ 0

     

    Notice the nature of this grant, that it’s at a University, and that it’s funded under “Head Start.”   This year, 2011, there were 26 “90YR” projects — ALL at Universities, across the country — and $4.78 million worth — testing, measuring, responding, and attempting to predict human behavior according to certain variables.  I really should post them.   For example, UCLA Board of Regents wants to get better at predicting children’s behavior (good luck with that one!):

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, BOARD OF REGENTS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90095

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90YR0062 PREDICTING INFANT/TODDLER SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL OUTCOMES FROM INTRAPERSONAL CAREGIVER CHARACTERISTICS AND CHILD CARE PROCESS 1 93.600 ACF 09-13-2011   $ 25,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 25,000

     

    And Utah State has its

    Early Intervention Research Institute

    And Ms. Roggman’s Background:

    Lori Roggman

    Picture of Lori RoggmanLori Roggman
    Staff Biography  Education

    Ph.D., 1988, University of Texas (Developmental Psychology)
    M.S., 1981, Utah State University (Family & Human Development)
    B.S., 1972, Utah State University (Psychology) 
    Teaching
    Undergraduate: Parenting/ChildGuidance, Infancy/Early Childhood
    Graduate: Human Development Theories (6060), Frontiers of Human Development (7060), Topical Seminars on Language Development, Attachment, Play, Fathers.

    – – – – Ah Well  . . . . .

    Since its creation in 1989, Ms. Iscol has been President of IF Hummingbird Foundation, a family foundation which supports efforts to strengthen democracy and to reduce the social injustice, economic and educational inequities that would threaten it.

    From 1997-2001, Jill served as the Chairperson of the Annual Family Re-Union Conference, moderated by then-Vice President Gore and Mrs. Gore, for which she planned and coordinated three annual conferences and raised significant funding for ongoing policy development process aimed at formulating better ways to strengthen family life.

    Jill planned and participated in the White House Conference on Partnerships and Philanthropy in 2000. She was Co-Chair for Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate’s New York Finance Committee, which raised a record 29 million dollars.  She was Vice-Chair of Senator Clinton’s New York and National Finance Committees in 2006 and a National Vice-Chair of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President’s 2008 Finance Committee.

    Ms. Iscol received a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from University of Pittsburgh (1967), a doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University (1976), and a Master of Philosophy in Sociology from Yale (1990).

    This is part of the “FAMILY LIFE DEVELOPMENT CENTER” at Cornell….  (NOTE:  the “HTTC” far above — the DC-based Collaborative I found on the TAGGS list — has a curious link to “Family Development Institute” and is taking personal information for anyone wanting to get credentialed as one:   Guess you can learn how to raise (“develop”) a family, if you get credentialed for it here; wonder who pays how much for the training.   SAME CONCEPT AT CORNELL — in fact overall, this is the concept.  I call it “Designer Families,” although what often seems to result is family breakup, for a better, state-approved “design,” from my experience (and I’m well networked with similar cases….)  (I also did a search on ‘Fatherhood” then “motherhood” at the School of Human Ecology with the usual results: fatherhood 15 to motherhood 8.  Several of the faculty appear to have come from Fragile Families studies, and some prior HHS connection.  The last reference to “fatherhood” was an article by (AFCC professional?) Robert E. Emery, and discussing Custody Evaluations.  Others of course discussed child support….)

    Welcome

    Since 2001, the College of Human Ecology {{at Cornell…}} has been very pleased to be the home of the Iscol Family Program for Leadership Development in Public Service. Established with the generosity and foresight of Jill and Ken Iscol, this program is intended to give undergraduate students inspiration and direction in translating their knowledge, idealism, and optimism into concrete action to build better communities for families and children.

    . . .The Iscol Family Program serves the entire university and for the last 3 years has collaborated with the Entrepreneurship at Cornell program.

    THIS is now, East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Executive Director, as quoted in the “promising neighborhoods” article at “Circle of Philanthropy”

    When we get the little ones in pre-kindergarten, they come to us not even knowing how to hold a pencil or pen.”

    And even when the children are getting the proper instruction in school, the neighborhood’s poverty affects their ability to learn, says Mae H. Best, executive director of the East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, a social-services group in the neighborhood that is participating in the Promise Neighborhood project. Poverty steals children’s attention from the classroom, she says. They may not be eating at home, they may be worried that they are going to be evicted, they may hear their parents complaining about lack of work. * * *

    **omitted — they may hear or witness their parents fighting, or one being assaulted….

    “Everything is generally related to financial resources­—the lack thereof,” she says.

    {Annie E. Casey Foundation is one of the major funders of fatherhood studies; I have been studying this for over 2 eyars.  They show up EVERYwhere, including in groups allegedly preventing family violence, and providing “resource centers,” (Websites, and the paid-for studies that can be downloaded there, and training opportunities), such as “Family Violence Prevention Fund.”  Excuse me, I forgot their recent federally-assisted web facelift, physical move (to the SF Praesidio) AND name change.  How, instead of the grandiose promise of preventing Family VIolence (which I see no evidence they are), they are expanding the scope:  “Futures Without Violence.”  AS I recall (you can check), Annie E. Casey funds this, and probably the “fragile families” study as well.

    I like that they state their timeline and incorporation history.  That’s good.  Notice the “letter to the community” starts with “father absence.”

    Letter to The Community

    Help Us Make Ward 7 Stronger.

    Dear Friend of ERFSC:Imagine a family situation where the father is absent, the mother is unemployed and the children are barely making it in school due to lack of attention and necessary resources. Now consider the stress and embarrassment of not having the “right clothes” to wear to school, a healthy lunch to edify the children’s minds, and a single parent who is so busy trying to make ends meet, that she involuntarily neglects her children. Surely you can see how a family situation like this can negatively affect the mother’s mental health and the children’s self esteem and impact their ability to learn. Surely you can envision how this situation can get worse and result in children who fall into the juvenile system or worse!

    I imagine there is not a single person on this board, or among the families served, who is completely and totally unaware that:

    • Some fathers are absent because of domestic violence, and might have done some jail time for this.
    • African-Americans are over-represented in the jail populations across the U.S., and probably here, too.  

    To rephrase Daddy’s in jail as putting him back with his family (without addressing the “why” of incarceration, which could range from violent criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to drug-related criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to racism, to the fact that there’s a huge corporate lobbying industry behind expanding the prison system (search CCA on my site, “Corrections Corporation of America” – -to possibly even child support arrearages, if combined with other things . . .at what point is it NOT good to reunite that family, and instead allow the female-headed household to be strengthened without letting an abuser back in?

    “With your generous donation, we can open up many windows of opportunity and give our residents a life beyond their limited boundaries along with the tools, the hope and the desire to strive for empowerment. By making a donation, you will not only be contributing directly to the success of these families, but will also be playing an active role in the overall sustainability of ERFSC.

    You may donate right here on our Web site or send your donation check to our office”

    Look who is funding the individual agency, and the umbrella agency here — and below, it’s clear the money (a) comes from welfare that might otherwise actually REACH the household in question, instead of being DIVERTED to fund non-taxpaying entities which set up  slick and donations-collecting websites so they can take credit for any social services provided. . . .   Moreover, between TAGGS & HHS — it’s clear one is under-reporting or the other is OVER-reporting.  Think about that before you donate, because this is common practice in the field:

    USASPENDING has reported (per this DUNS# — which is not always specific only to one organization, i understand — but at least an identifier) only 3 of the 6 grants, or about half of their total.  No data pre-dating 2009 exists.   We can also see that this money is most DEFINITELy coming out of TANF, or “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families”

    I.e., someone’s food and cash aid.   It is more important to have healthy, stable marriages — or try to — than for children to eat and be clothed if not living with their biological Daddies. . . ..

    • Total Dollars:$2,533,518
    • Transactions:1 – 3 of 3


    Transaction Number # 1

    Federal Award ID: 90FK0054: 00 (Grants)
    Date Signed:
    September 28 , 2011 

    Obligation Amount: 
    $1,533,518

    to search D.C. corporations, apparently you have to create a user account.  I don’t want to do this, so let’s check out just the umbrella nonprofit, and this one:

    HTTC:  Unlike most households, their assets are steadily increasing.  View a tax return, and subtract $500K per year (minimum) from the “government grants” and see if it is a well-run organization that could stand on its own, and note the ration of grants to program service income, and the executive pay, etc.  That’s what I do when viewing tax returns.   Notice — they got $500K in 2006.  Where is the 2006 tax return?

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2007 $972,730 990 23 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2010 $634,384 990 23 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2009 $830,758 990 21 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2008 $1,209,182 990 23 52-2250839

    TOTAL of “90FK” awards for 2011:

    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 51,125,462
    Total of 55 Award Actions for 55 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 54,151,962

      

    TOTAL of “90FM” awards for 2011:

     

    Why Think when you can Hyperlink?

    The heart of the “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” grantee system is an attempt to get the entire nation (at its expense) in front of trainers and facilitators to — for the sake of our country — submit to indoctrination in what, and how, to speak (i.e., think) about themselves, their children, their neighbors, poverty, work, and their place in this world.

    The “CIRCLE OF IDEAS” circulating through this system is getting smaller and smaller, while the ripples from having thrown this stone into the pond of plurality are still spreading. Ig pushed in t is intentional domination and restriction of a nation’s vocabulary — for profit — to subdue and restrict its thinking about cause & effect, particularly so as NOT to connect this type of corruption with incidents of murder/suicide, kidnapping, child molestation, threats, stalking, or ongoing, chronic stress and work attrition — even when the connection is open, upfront, and obviously in the custody context.

    In Liberia, women of different faiths united (risking their lives) to “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” and changed the course of the country’s history.  They did not want any more excuses for terrorism and attempted genocide.  I do believe that in the USA we are going to have to do this too, ladies and men of conscience.  Not through Occupying Wall Street — but through sitting one’s behind down on some paperwork (or accounting) of this travesty — and THEN boycott something that is profiting from this enterprise at our children’s futures’ expense.

    Recent events in California include:  a little girl not returned on visitation;  Daddy kills herself and himself.  This mother had her child at age approximately 44?  (Samaan/Fay).   8 people killed in Seal Beach, California hair salon, one man in the salon, and one outside it, who was sitting in a car — the rest were women.  And recently in Richmond, California, a brawl broke out in City Hall, surrounding the “Office of Neighborhood Safety.”  Gang members were being paid to attend classes.

    I have not blogged this yet, but as I am networked with “Parents” (mothers and grandmothers) across the country who are tired of THIS war, I became aware of an incident in Trumbull County Ohio which totally baffles the mind — until one explores the funding stream, and the organizaing element of “Fatherhood” at the state level.  Yes, you danged well bet there is a connection!   And I am tired of this propaganda, and excuse-making.  I am tired of, when the closer I look, the more questions come up — WHERE is this entity incorporated?  Why, when the web page is so fancy, and obviously well-funded — can one so many times not find the nonprofit’s EIN# and tax return — and why when those ARE found, they tend to fall into two categories:

    1.   The organization would not exist without HHS (and/or DOJ) funding, and is being propped up by them.

    2.   The organization disappeared (took the money and ran) and no one has caught up with it after an initial, small grant.

    3.   The organization is itself a FOR-PROFIT and HHS has chosen its (fatherhood promoting, family-strengthening) curriculum as one of about a dozen favored solutions to produce world peace (stop abuse, elmiinate poverty, or make irresponsible men responsible through bribes, or a system of bribes/extortion, etc. — i.e., “training” — and the HHS has helped this organization get all set up, create its private market niche or brand, and then certify or license “train the trainer” seminars (tax deductible) to spread it all over the place. . . . .  And is doing this through the already present systems of social welfare, such as TANF, Child Support, Child Abuse Prevention, you name it.  For example “Boot Camp for New Dads” is pushed to hospitals where children are being born.  And the PR firm “Public Strategies, Inc.” in Oklahoma – which as basically “made” by the Healthy Marriage Initiative (it seems to have almost no other clients) actually got another GRANT?

    This, friends, is not what government is for — this is a “Metastasized” government which is eating away the substance of the people that are sustaining it in money, in time, and in labor — and by consuming products it declares we need, when we don’t.  Has anyone ever calculated the huge profits made simply to detox people from chronic stress, and the illnesses that that state produces in a human body?

    Those who buy into this program will likely have income, including potential retirement income; those who do not will be subjected to it, with the exception of those who designed the curricula, who are probably laughing their way between an offshore bank to the next product idea, or (like ICF International Inc., LLC) buying out lesser companies and figuring out how to expand from their Billion-$$ Business with the US Government, one of the largest spenders (and debtors) in the world.

    HERE IS THE SYSTEM:

    Middle class pays for it, and if entangled in it, pays (for example, in the courts).  Many of the middle class have jobs working in the institutions that market these trainings and are used to SELL curricula to fix poverty (etc — create utopia, basically).

    People who have slipped out of or were never out of the lower economic sector — who cannot directly pay for classes — will be forced to take them anyhow, and the implicit “bargain” with the middle classes (from policymakers) is that by forcing the poor rabble into them (through extortion) they will be therefore off the streets and not on YOUR doorstep, so continue to produce wages and taxes that will be distributed to the fatherhood and marriage promoters nationwide, i.e., those who step to our tune.

    The HHS GRANTS PROVIDES THE HYPERLINK ADVANTAGE, AND PRE-FAB ASSOCIATIONS:

    Most resource centers, examined, are primarily on-line database storage.

    The Hyperlink advantage — Federal Help to set up Resources, Visually Engaging Websites, with Official-sounding LInks to the “upline,” and cute new Acronyms for the latest way to market the same material, for example, “FRIENDS” (see last post or so) with the radical concept that Parents might actually know something about their own families.  This fact sheet from a Florida group cites Fatherhood grantees “Circle of Parents”(tr) and “Parents Anonymous(tr)” and declares that we are all in this together, and those who have taken control of our families, and are paid to do so, now wish to “collaborate” and “Share leadership” with the actual parents.  This being a totally foreign concept to social workers and social scientists in general, SOMEONE had to copyright the concept and run trainings on how to let parents back into the decisionmaking process about their kids and their lives.  Get this, from “Factsheet #13” (address to whom?)

    Principles of Shared Leadership

    ␣ Parents and staff members are equal partners

    ␣ No one person has all of the solutions; it depends on how people act together to make sense of the situations that face them

    ␣ Mutual respect, trust and open-mindedness ␣ Collectiveactionbaseduponsharedvision,ownership

    and accountability ␣ Consensus building instead of a democratic process

    Or, here is a “PARENT LEADERSHIP AMBASSADOR FACILITATOR GUIDE” by Circle of Parents & “Friends” — actually by YOU (i.e, USA working citizens), as it cites an HHS grant.  Or names a month after its copyrighted concept self:   Did you know that

    February was designated as National Parent Leadership Month® by Parents Anonymous®, Inc.”

    (which I found out on a site from an organization that my colleagues, family, and friends’ taxes paid to set up and propagate, also trademarked:  “Circle of Parents(tr)”  Get the picture yet?  Here’s the portion of what was taken away from Parents which this proclamation (modeled after the Declaration of Independence, but entirely foreign to it in purpose and process):

    Preamble:

    National Parent Leadership Month® – 2011

    Parents across the nation are working in partnership with practitioners and policymakers to create positive changes in their lives, the lives of their children and the lives of other families. They are doing this quietly and effectively and it is important to honor these parents.

    How sweet — PPP — Parents, Practitioners and Policymakers.  Maybe you can register the trademark “P3” (get a triangle, to imply that we are somehow equal participants, and this is not, instead a basic pyramid scheme run with IRS help….).   No thank you — give me back the wasted HHS funds, and keep your gold stars; we are not in gradeschool any more.    

    I notice, despite all the “fatherhood” words flying around (although not in this PR piece), there’s still no mention of “mother” on it.  And as I believe I HAVE established, “Circle of Parents” has been bought out by HHS/NFI-elements, and is walking, talking, and publicizing like them:

    About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

    FATHERHOOD.GOV
    Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
    Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
    August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

    In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert.

    Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

    Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.

    PACT I believe stands for PARENTS (meaning Dads) & CHILDREN TOGETHER — PACT.  I could be wrong, but check this out:

    (this link leads right to the Hawai’i DHS)
    Hawai‘i State Commission on Fatherhood
    (etc., etc.)

    The last several posts, I attempted to correlate the ACF announcement with actual grantees, and find out WTF (the “W” standing for ‘WHO’) they were. As it turned out, most of the grants were the “90FM” series.  I found that most of the top half of the ACF Press Release correlated to the 90FM grant series.  That “find” was the result of familiarity with the TAGGS database combined with hunch.  Then I compared my printout with the ACF press release.  The printout was alpha by grantee institution and the ACF Press Release alpha by state.  Complicating it was the name changes of the grantee institutions, but I did check them off, one by one.

    There are, however, in 2011 (as of today) $121,077,648 of distributions on the TAGGS database, under a single “CFDA” — 93.086.

    There’s been major talk between HHS and, say, the Fathers and Families Coalition of America, or even in the recent 2010 law, about making things more fair to fathers (i.e., pleasing the FR movement leadership) by altering the “FATHER”-related portion of money stolen from TANF & OCSE from one-third to one-half.  Accordingly, the HHS/ACF Press announcement of october 3 makes it look well balanced between two themes:  Top half, MARRIAGE ($59-odd million) and bottom half, FATHERHOOD ($59-odd million).

    In practice, the top half having gone primarily to “FM” which sure looks like faith-based groups, is in effect giving it to fatherhood-propagation anyhow; that’s pretty much what faith-based groups do.  IF they weren’t so inclined, they would be just secular social service groups, and as such deal with their difficulties with feminism, women having the vote, women controlling reproduction or contraception, married women having a say in household finances, married women actually reporting what their (likewise married, obviously) spouses were doing to them, or their children in the home, and in general opting out of marriage because of that.  They also would line up with the rest of the United States that is NOT “faith-based” or practicing a private cult that disagrees with basic laws (such as cultlike beliefs as, you cannot–really- divorce, or beating up someone to dominate the relationship is normal behavior if it’s done to preserve the “father-leader/mother-breeder” status quo).

    Yet this next printout shows an increasing variety of grant streams:  FM, FR, FK, FN, & FO are among the new ones. FE (Fatherhood Education) is getting “old,” obviously. From what I can tell, FN is for Native American; FK seems to deal with incarcerated populations, and I haven’t figured out FO yet. Notice not a single of these begins with the word “M” for “Marriage.”  Perhaps that letter might be mistakenly associated with “MOTHERS” about which this movement has little to do, except in making sure they are not going to be sole physical custodians, and certainly not sole physical and legal ones, for long, if HHS has anything to do with it.

    In this listing, you will also see a number of organizations with grants listed as $0, which I gather means either they’re not getting one this year, or they haven’t yet.  CIRCLE OF PARENTS, that I landed pretty hard on last post (today’s revision) is among the $0 ones.

    THESE CHARTS ARE FOR SCROLLING, BUT THE LINKS ARE ACTIVE — CLICK TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANY GROUP OR GRANT.  TAKE A LOOK AT THE TITLES — of the PROJECTS and of the GRANTEES.  Compare with the $$.  Ask:  WTF are they doing? and perhaps look locally, and demand some explanation, or trace the funding in your area.

    AGAIN — for comparison — here’s the official announcement:

    Administration for Children and Families

    Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood 2011 Grantees = $59,997,077 + $59,396,652 = $119,393,729.

    As of October 22, 2011 evening, I searched the code “93.086” which represents this category of grants — and got $121,077,648.

    A difference of $1,643,919 in just a few weeks (could be legit) — but take a look.

    At the bottom I talk some about a Community Action Group in Ohio (WSOS).  Research is incomplete on this, and I may not have all the facts straight, but readers can fact-check themselves as well.  I am trying to answer the larger question about the relationship between “Community Action Programs” in this state and their fundings.

    In general, perhaps without my narrative of any guidance, readers might get a general idea of what titles programs are getting how much money, and where.  This listing is not by state, but alpha by Grantee — which gets interesting as we already know Grantees have creative name-changing habits already, plus TAGGS has opted some creative spellings of existing names.  I figure this is just part of the game.  Here we go:

    This report ran “AWARD SEARCH” “YEAR 2011″ CFDA 93086” from dropdown list and comes out in 4 segments:   50 entries per page, plus the last few:

    Showing: 1 – 50 of 178 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »



    Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0050 FATHERS COURT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 543,906 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 543,906

    Recipient: ADVOCAP, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54936-1108

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0056 FATHER AND FAMILY STABILITY PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 776,994 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 776,994

    Recipient: AL ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36104

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0042 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD ALABAMA 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (ONAP)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99559-0219

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0011 TANF HEALTHY FAMILIES PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36849

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0006 ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,489,548 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,489,548

    Recipient: AVANCE, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77092

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0041 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
    Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0018 ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,514,359 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,514,359

    Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services
    Recipient ZIP Code: 81147

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0046 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD IN ARCHULETA COUNTY, COLORADO 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 442,291 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 442,291

    Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
    Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0030 BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 634,536 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 634,536

    Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0029 BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0011 BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,996 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,996

    Recipient: Brighter Beginnings
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94601

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0099 PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM 3 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0099 PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM 4 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0034 MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 570,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 570,000

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

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0042 PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,445,587 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,445,587

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES INC ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD
    Recipient ZIP Code: 06105-1901

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0044 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 800,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 800,000

    Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
    Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0016 EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 555,300 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 555,300

    Recipient: CENTERFORCE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94901-5516

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0004 HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CHAUTAUQUA OPPORTUNITIES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 14048-2754

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0024 CHAUTAUQUA RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 618,031 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 618,031

    Recipient: CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60604

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 175,000 
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 68,402 
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 117,496 
    Award Actions Count: 3 Award Actions Subtotal: $- 360,898

    Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 02903-4011

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0008 DADS MAKING A DIFFERENCE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 735,527 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 735,527

    Recipient: CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES-SCH OF PHYSICAL THER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90027

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0034 RESPONSIBLE YOUNG FATHERS PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 784,521 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 784,521

    Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0118 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 8 
    2011 90FM0003 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 354,714 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 354,722

    Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90005

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0028 PROJECT FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    2011 90FR0076 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 4 93.086 ACF 12-01-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 59521

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0013 CHIPPEWA CREE TANF AND CHILD WELFARE COORDINATION INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60611-3777

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0098 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM 5 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 80203

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0085 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM 4 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: COEUR DALENE TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 83851-0408

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0014 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATION OF TRIBAL TANF AND CHILD WELFARE SERVICES TO TRIBAL FAMILIES AT RISK OF CHILD ABU 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0044 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 787,665 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 787,665

    Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 59855-0278

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0003 PASSAGES FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,440,131 
    2011 90FN0015 CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES FAMILIES FIRST PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    2011 90FR0006 PASSAGES 5 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 3 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,590,131

    Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97380

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0016 SILETZ ADVOCATES FOR HEALING PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99503

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0006 FATHER’S JOURNEY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 800,000 
    2011 90FN0017 LUQU KENU – EVERYONE IS FAMILY 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 175,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 975,000

    Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40204-1743

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0009 JEFFERSON COUNTY REENTRY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 549,673 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 06-23-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 4 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 549,673

    Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 85004

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0021 TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 359,796 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 359,796

    Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0104 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 4 93.086 ACF 11-22-2010   $ 0 
    2011 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 53211

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0043 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,779,393 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,779,393

    Recipient: Child family Services of Eastern Virginia
    Recipient ZIP Code: 23517

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0039 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 471,156 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 471,156

    Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0005 SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 30,667,231
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    NEXT!  – PAGE 2 of 4

    Recipient: Connections To Success
    Recipient ZIP Code: 633012634

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0015 PROVIDE RESPONSIBLE PARENTING, HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY TO LOW-INCOME ADULTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 702,553 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 702,553

    Recipient: County of Montrose
    Recipient ZIP Code: 81401

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0030 MONTROSE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES–RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 574,524 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 574,524

    Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20032

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0087 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: DOUGLAS CHEROKEE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37816-1218

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0004 JOBS FOR DADS: PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD FOR LOW-INCOME FATHERS IN RURAL SOUTHEASTERN APPALACHIA 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 416,063 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 416,063

    Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90022-5147

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0056 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 222 
    2011 90FK0019 FUTURO NOW FAMILY STRENGTHENING INITIATIVE: FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 800,221

    Recipient: EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CENTER OF LONG ISLAND, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 11550

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0031 PARENTS FIRST IS A PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY, HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING ON LONG ISLAND, NY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 533,040 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 533,040

    Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 79930

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0045 HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,945 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,945

    Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45405

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0046 MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster
    Recipient ZIP Code: 18503

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0018 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, MARKETED IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA AS “EOTC’S HEALTHY FATHERS AND FAMILIES INITIATIVE.” 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 379,755 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 379,755

    Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 74120-4429

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0007 F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0007 F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98122

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0032 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0032 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0048 CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,070,834 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,070,834

    Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54520-0396

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0018 THE FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY’S COORDINATION OF FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER WITH TRIBAL TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10031-7116

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0021 FORTUNE SOCIETY PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 725,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

    Recipient: FRESNO COUNTY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 93721

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0027 PROVING OUR PARENTING SKILLS PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 782,002 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 782,002

    Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0047 TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,163,684 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,163,684

    Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 725,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

    Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77006

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0017 HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 698,102 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 698,102

    Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
    Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0027 STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,780,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,780,000

    Recipient: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63158

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0052 FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,530,190 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,530,190

    Recipient: Friends Outside in Los Angeles County, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 91101-1632

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0053 “DADS BACK!” IS A COMPREHENSIVE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM WHICH WILL SERVICE THE REENTRY POPULATION AND THEIR FAMILIES THROUGH CO-LOCATED SERVICES AT 3 FAMIL 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 518,067 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 518,067

    Recipient: Future Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0013 REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,000

    Recipient: GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 41472

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0014 GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 55104-1708

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0016 G/ESM FATHER PROJECT’S PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 1,772,546 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,772,546

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AUSTIN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78703

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0005 THE FATHERHOOD WORKS PROGRAM OFFERS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 623,965 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 623,965

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 15203-2102

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0011 THE AFFECT PROJECT (ADVANCING FATHERS AND FAMILY ENRICHMENT COLLABORATIVE) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,952 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,952

    Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 22182

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0024 FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,599 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,599

    Recipient: HAYMARKET CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60607

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0041 MCDERMOTT CENTER DBA HAYMARKET CENTER RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 796,393 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 796,393

    Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95546

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0019 PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SUCCESS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0054 DC FATHERHPOOD EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,533,518 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,533,518

    Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0020 JUST THE FACTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 681,956 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 681,956

    Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0049 STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 535,082 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 535,082

    Recipient: Horizon Outreach
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77386

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0045 THE HORIZON EAGLE PROGRAM PROVIDES MALE COMBAT VETERAN FATHERS SUFFERING FROM PTSD WITH STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF PTSD ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, PARENTING ABILITIES AND EMPLOYABILITY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 480,732 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 480,732

    Recipient: I C F, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 22031-6050

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FH0002 NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,500,000

    Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97220

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0015 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 492,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 492,000

    Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0001 PROJECT PADRES 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 798,928 
    2011 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,597,928

    Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 72761

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0023 HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 724,428 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 724,428

    Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
    Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0057 HEALTHY FATHERS/HEALTHY FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,984 
    2011 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,993 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,599,977

    Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 96819

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0012 KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,752 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,752

    Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 25064-1433

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0029 WEST VIRGINIA PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,351,675 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,351,675

    Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0050 KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45206-1780

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0005 LIGHTHOUSE SKILLS FOR YOUNG FATHERS PROGRAM 5 93.086 ACF 11-16-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    Recipient ZIP Code: 57105-6048

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0002 FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,229,141 
    2011 90FR0097 FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES: INSIDE & OUT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,229,141

    Recipient: Lexington Leadership Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40504-3154

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0017 FAYETTE COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 449,113 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 449,113
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 37,025,735
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    NEXT! — PAGE 3 of 4

    Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0004 THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,380 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,380

    Recipient: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 21201

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0091 STRONG FATHERS STRONG FAMILIES PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0092 WINNING FATHERS PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: MEMPHIS & SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 38105-5041

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0037 PROJECT MOTIVATED OFFENDERS SUCCEEDING TOMORROW (MOST) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 797,809 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 797,809

    Recipient: MID-IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 50158

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0022 MICA’S STRONG PARENTS – STRONG CHILDREN PROJECT WILL SERVE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, PRIMARILY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS IN THE COUNTIES OF MARSHALL, POWESHIEK, AND TAMA IN CENTRAL IOWA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 765,433 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 765,433

    Recipient: MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 53226

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0049 MILWAUKEE COUNTY PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,806,892 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,806,892

    Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40066

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0036 MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 344,904 
    Award Actions Count: 1