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 ‘Fragile Families

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

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

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

Pick one: Social Science (pushing Fatherhood & Marriage) or Civil Rights. . .

with one comment

By the way, I found the previous post (with blue, pink & green color coding) simply looking up who were the main speakers (“Witnesses”) for the House Ways and Means Committee’s hearing to authorize more HR 2979, Fatherhood Funding (“Innovative” of course).

Just a bit of housekeeping  here:  (from a pingback, someone co-opted the content).

~ ~ ~ ~HEY !! ~ ~ ~

Pick one: Social Science (pushing Fatherhood & Marriage) or Civil …

http://healthcarebillfacts.com/author/tyler/

“Tyler Evans —

take your NAME off “AUTHOR”  on the banner & LINK on your blog (above) citing and linking MY Post.”

PUT “LET’SGETHONEST” ON IT, AND DO SO

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SOCIAL SCIENCE – 1: U.S. GOVERNMENT:

H.R.2979
Title: Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] (introduced 6/19/2009) Cosponsors (39)
Related Bills: S.1309
Latest Major Action: 6/18/2010 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.


A – House of Reps H.R. 2979

Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009

I had complained that we (noncustodial or embattled in the courts mothers) hadn’t received much warning about it. OPEN CONGRESS also mentions, it wasn’t exactly in the news:

Recent News Coverage

Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number (for example, “H.R. 3200”) or title (for example, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”). As soon as that changes, our daily automated search across the Web will catch it and include it here. If this bill is of interest to you, you can write a letter to the editor referring to this bill by name, and if your letter is published on the Web, a link back your letter will appear here within about one day. Or, if you know of a news article about this bill to display here, email us the web address of this page and the web address of your suggested news article: // writeus@opencongress.org Our editorial team will post relevant links as quickly as possible. Thanks for helping to build public knowledge about Congress.

You can go there for the complete bill text.

A little extra boost with a Resolution from SEN. EVAN BAYH (INDIANA) & SEN. BURRIS (ILLINOIS), well-timed: (Source: http://THOMAS.LOC.GOV

59. S.RES.560 : A resolution recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.
Sponsor: Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] (introduced 6/17/2010) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/21/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.


60. S.RES.572

WOW — this one goes GLOBAL, seems to me that back in 1998 & 1999, they’d limited it to the U.S. ALSO, if it’s IMMEASURABLE, can we scale back on some of the multi-million$$ studies??

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 17, 2010

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURRIS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CASEY, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

June 21, 2010

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to


RESOLUTION

Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.

Whereas responsible fatherhood is a priority for the United States;

Whereas the most important factor in the upbringing of a child is whether the child is brought up in a healthy and supportive environment;

Whereas father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children;

Whereas research shows that men are more likely to live healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives when they are involved in the lives of their children and participate in caregiving;

Whereas programs to encourage responsible fatherhood should promote and provide support services for–

(1) fostering loving and healthy relationships between parents and children; and

(2) increasing the responsibility of noncustodial parents for the long-term care and financial well-being of their children;

Whereas research shows that working with men and boys to change attitudes towards women can have a profound impact on reducing violence against women;

Whereas research shows that women are significantly more satisfied in relationships when responsible fathers participate in the daily care of children;

Whereas children around the world do better in school and are less delinquent when fathers participate closely in their lives;

Whereas responsible fatherhood is an important component of successful development policies and programs in countries throughout the world;

Whereas the United States Agency for International Development recognizes the importance of caregiving fathers for more stable and effective development efforts; and

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate–
    • (1) recognizes June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day;
    • (2) honors the men in the United States and around the world who are active in the lives of their children, which in turn, has a significant impact on their children, their families, and their communities;
    • (3) underscores the need for increased public awareness and activities regarding responsible fatherhood and healthy families; and
    • (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting and encouraging global fatherhood initiatives that significantly benefit international development efforts.

B – SENATE

(well, you can look it up. I think we get the general idea!)

SOCIAL SCIENCE – 2 COLUMBIA UNIV.

The “Center for Fathers, Children, and Family Well-Being” has two highly-educated principal investigators: this is Dr. Ronald Mincy (who was a Witness from Panel 2) on H.R. 2979, which explains how I found the article surveying the effect of Father closeness on Young Adult Daughter etcetera….

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ssw/faculty/profiles/mincy.html

Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice

A.B., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT.

He is wellpublished and highly qualified for the social science work, as listed here:

Dr. Ronald Mincy joined the School of Social Work faculty in 2001; he teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy, Program Evaluation, and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis. He came to the University from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

He is a member of the MacArthur Network on the Family and the Economy, Chicago, IL. He is also an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center, University of Michigan; Technical Work Group for the Building Strong Families and Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood, Cornell University; the National Fatherhood Leaders Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; and The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts.

Dr. Mincy is also a former member of the Council, National Institute of Child and Human Development and the Policy Council, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, co-chair of the Grantmakers Income Security Taskforce, a Board Member of the Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families.

Dr. Mincy is a co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a faculty member of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC), and the director of the School of Social Work’s Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.

Other staff come from Smith, Barnard, Harvard Graduate School of Education, NYU, and Kenyon.

SOCIAL SCIENCE 3: ADD PRINCETON, and then some..

The other co-principal investigator of Fragile Families. But THEY add work from PRINCETON, and a $17 million grant from Eunice Shriver Foundation. and plenty more, including government agencies. The word “Fragile” means UNMARRIED

Sara McLanahan

Ph.D. 1979 University of Texas, Sociology. Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University; Faculty Associate of the Office of Population Research; founder and Director of the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Interests: Child development, child wellbeing, parenting, education, poverty, and family and community influences on the development of young children. PI on the “Fragile Families Study.

A list of other research associates makes one feel that the field to be in is CERTAINLY Sociology or Psychology these days….

FRAGILE FAMILIEs INFO

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 (roughly three-quarters of whom were born to unmarried parents). We refer to unmarried parents and their children as “fragile families” to underscore that they are families and that they are at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty than more traditional
families.

The core FF Study was designed to primarily address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers: (1) What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?; (2) What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?; (3) How do children born into these families fare?; and (4) How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The Study consists of interviews with both mothers and fathers at birth and again when children are ages one, three and five, plus in-home assessments of children and their home environments at ages thr

ee and five. The parent interviews collect information on attitudes, relationships, parenting behavior, demographic characteristics, health (mental and physical), economic and employment status, neighborhood characteristics, and program participation. The in-home interview collects information on children’s cognitive and emotional development, health, and home environment.

Wasn’t one of John Taylor Gatto’s Seven Lesson Schoolteacher points “You Can’t Hide?

But of course it’s about the children, and NOT about Social Engineering with a view towards eventual Slavery (excuse me, Socialism)

Several collaborative studies provide additional information on parents’ medical, employment and incarceration histories, religion, child care and early childhood education. The first four waves of data are available on the web at http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/public.asp. Research findings based on data from the Fragile Families Study are available in the Fragile Families Working Paper series.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study recently received a $17 million grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) to field a nine-year follow-up. This project combines the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and will continue through 2010.

The Study contributes to the teaching/training mission of CRCW by hosting bi-monthly workshops and courses for faculty and students at Princeton and Columbia University. The Study has also sponsored several summer workshops at Columbia University. Finally, Princeton undergraduates use these data for their senior theses, under the guidance of CRCW faculty.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study contributes to the policy mission of CRCW by publishing research briefs that translate working papers into information that is useful to policy makers and practitioners. The Study also provides useful information to foundations, government agencies and NGOs working to improve the conditions of children in New Jersey: see Children’s Futures and Fragile Families in Urban Essex .

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is a joint effort by Princeton University’s Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Center for Health and Wellbeing, the Columbia Population Research Center and The National Center for Children and Families (NCCF) at Columbia University.

The Principal Investigators of the Fragile Families Study are Sara McLanahan and Christina Paxson at Princeton University and Irwin Garfinkel, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ron Mincy, and Jane Waldfogel at Columbia University.


POPULATION RESEARCH, FUNDED BY FEDRAL $$ and private foundations

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE. FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT’S GOOD. FOR OTHERS, IT’S DEADLY.

THE QUESTION IS, WHEN, HOW, AND WHY DID OUR GOVERNMENT START PLAYING SOCIAL SCIENTIST (OR PSYCHOLOGIST) WITH ITS CITIZENS. IT’S A NO-BRAINER TO ME THAT THERE ARE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH FEDERAL FUNDS THAN COMPROMISE DUE PROCESS TO GET AN “OUT-COME BASED” LEGAL PROCESS, THEREBY DESTROYING THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL PROCESS TO START WITH.

I GOOGLED “OCSE” (THE CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY) and “HEALTHY MARRIAGE” AND CAME UP WITH QUITE A FEW SITES THAT ARE CONCERNED WITH THESE POLICIES, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR OUTCOMES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE PROCESSES INVOLVED.
The Guttmacher Report on Public PolicyGuttmacher Institute

February 2005, Volume 8, Number 1
Issues and Implications

Reproductive Health Advocates and Marriage Promotion: Asserting a Stake in the Debate

By Cynthia Dailard (See below — she passed away 12/24/2006)

“Marriage promotion” represents a cornerstone of social conservatives’ domestic policy agenda, and proposals designed to promote and strengthen marriage are gaining currency at all levels of government. Since taking office, President Bush has promised to invest in marriage promotion on an unprecedented scale through his proposal to reauthorize the nation’s welfare reform law, and legislation pending before Congress would allocate substantial funding toward that end. Yet even as the president waits for Congress to act, his administration is finding ways to devote significant funding to marriage promotion activities through existing programs and funding streams.

The very question of government involvement in this area provokes strong reactions among players representing a wide range of interests and ideologies. The sexual and reproductive health community potentially has much to contribute to debates over policies and programs designed to promote or maintain the formation of intimate relationships that are healthy and stable—whether married or otherwise. To date, however, sexual and reproductive health advocates and practitioners largely have sat on the sidelines of this important social policy debate.

The Politics of Marriage

The federal government first began promoting marriage as a matter of public policy through the 1996 welfare reform law. Based on the argument that the existing welfare system provided a disincentive to marriage and undermined the traditional family structure by encouraging out-of-wedlock births among poor women, three of the four purposes of the 1996 law were designed to promote marriage. Notably, however, these marriage promotion goals permitted the states to spend their welfare block grant funds on marriage promotion activities targeting not only welfare recipients but all Americans.

Although conservatives applauded the 1996 law’s success in promoting “work over welfare,” many felt that it had failed to live up to its promise to promote marriage. Accordingly, President Bush, shortly after taking office, pledged to devote unprecedented attention and resources to marriage promotion activities. Since then, the House of Representatives twice passed welfare reauthorization proposals that would make good on the president’s promise, but the more moderate Senate’s attempts to move similar legislation fell apart over issues unrelated to marriage. Following the 2004 election, which broadened the conservative margin in Congress, both the House and Senate Republican leadership announced in January that Congress now would move swiftly to enact welfare legislation that would devote $200 million per year for “healthy marriage promotion grants” as well as $100 million per year for marriage-related research and demonstration projects.

The Bush administration, however, has not been idly awaiting congressional action on this front. According to various estimates, the administration during its first term tapped existing programs and funding streams to spend $90–200 million for dedicated marriage promotion activities and related research. Meanwhile, according to an April 2004 report by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a growing number of states have begun to sponsor marriage promotion activities, such as premarital counseling, school-based marriage education, and education and support services to married couples; seven states already commit a significant portion of their federal welfare block grant funding to such types of activities.

Ideology, Research & Reactions

For many social conservatives, promoting heterosexual marriage goes hand in hand with fierce opposition to the formal sanctioning of homosexual unions, in the name of “protecting” marriage. It also falls under the umbrella of a larger ideological and religiously motivated policy agenda that includes teaching young people that remaining abstinent outside of marriage is the expected standard of behavior and that supports channeling substantial funding to faith-based organizations to achieve these related policy goals.

For these social conservatives, little further justification for governmental marriage promotion may be necessary. The fact is, however, that they also can point to an established and growing body of research showing that marriage is good for individuals, particularly children. Married people are healthier, live longer and have higher earnings than single people. Children raised in married, two-parent families, moreover, are five times less likely to be poor than those raised by a single parent; they are also less likely to drop out of school or become a teen parent. Moreover, it would appear that it is not just the presence of two parents in the home that matters—children raised by their married, biological parents have better developmental outcomes than children who grow up with stepparents, and often with unmarried, cohabiting parents. (It is also worth noting, however, that high-conflict {{or VIOLENT…}} marriages, and the stress and loss of parental income associated with divorce, can adversely affect both children and adults.)

At the same time, an array of progressive constituencies either express concern about the potential form that government efforts to promote marriage may take, or question the notion of governmental involvement in this area entirely. Common concerns include that such policies have the potential to denigrate women by reinforcing outdated gender roles; may harm victims of domestic violence by encouraging them to remain in abusive relationships; and may push teens and young adults prematurely into marriages that tend to be unstable and leave them at increased risk of poverty and reduced educational attainment when those relationships dissolve. For some, marriage promotion policies simply place government in the inappropriate position of promoting a particular moral or religious viewpoint—one that sanctions some forms of intimate relationships while denigrating others.,

CYNTHIA DAILARD:

WordPress site in her memory

Her obit — she was only 38!

Before joining Guttmacher, Mrs. Dailard was associate director for domestic policy for President Bill Clinton, legislative assistant and counsel for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and a fellow at the National Women’s Law Center.

She was a board member of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Mrs. Dailard was critical of a national movement to encourage abstinence-only pledges by teenagers without more comprehensive instruction in sexual health. She said those teenagers who vow chastity are less likely to use contraception when they have sex.

“It’s hard to keep a condom in your pocket when you’ve promised not to have sex,” she said.

Cynthia Boles was a native of Syosset, N.Y., and a 1990 graduate of Harvard University. She was a 1994 graduate of the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. She lived in Washington.

Survivors include her husband of 14 years, Scott Dailard, and their two daughters, Miranda Dailard and Julia Dailard, all of Washington; her mother, Ellen Boles of Syosset; a sister, Sandra Boles of Potomac; and a grandmother.”

And from ENCYCLOPEDIA.COM

The Guttmacher Policy Review and its readers recently suffered a tremendous blow. On December 24, 2006, at the age of 38, one of our most prolific and accomplished authors, Cynthia Dailard, died suddenly. Trained as a lawyer and seasoned through her work on Capitol Hill and in the White House, Cynthia, who joined the Guttmacher Institute’s policy staff in 1998, was a disciplined, rigorous analyst and a compelling communicator. She seamlessly blended an authoritative knowledge of research–and an inherent feel for the power it can have in policy formulation–with an insider’s …

(NO THANK YOU….)

WHO WILL TAKE HER PLACE?

%d bloggers like this: