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 ‘Futures Without Violence 2014 $1.6M subgrantees (table)

My June 4, 2011, Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI), a 2016 Intro (Pt 1 of 2)

leave a comment »

Two excerpts from the post.  Fair warning, I may still revise after publishing it today, 3/28/2016. Also, some of its many tags actually refer to the one I just published yesterday, which also has some (minor) revisions, relating to list of YE 2014 sub-grantees from Futures without Violence, towards the bottom of the post…I took that post from the middle of this one, in order to keep this one shorter, and linked with the “Part 2” for which it is “Part 1.”

ABOUT THIS POST

This “Part 1” INTRO commentary introduces occasioned by a re-post of my 6/4/2011 “Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real  Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?“by Dede Evavold on Red Herring Alert  3/15/2016 under the title “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs,” In “Part 2,” I simply block-copied the text (but not comments on original post) of my June 4, 2011 post to clean up the html (formatting of quote and tables) for easier reading, and possibly updated broken links or some of its information. 

and:

  • Many of us may know about the 1994ff “VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which brought funding (grants, presumably also contracts) through the USDOJ along certain lines.
  • However, there was an earlier 1984 “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention Services Act) passed by Congress, from which some of these resource centers apparently date.  HHS itself only dates to 1980 (before, there was HEW, Dept. of “Health, Education and Welfare).

As you can see from the excerpts, I’m (a) responding to a recent re-post from 2011, and, as ever (b) have certain topics I wish to continue talking about.   As I learn, so I also teach.    This post then concludes with some information about the Colorado-based NACC (National Association of Counsel for Children), as it came up in a Huffington Post article quoted by the re-blog and a reference to NCJFCJ’s “Project One.”   For “Project One,” …”One World Order,” despite all the talk of desired outcomes protecting human rights, women, children, reducing poverty, increasing justice and equity, etc., this One World Order (Government) seems to be the overall agenda — total control of major aspects of life and commerce (including of domestic human livestock — which is a “resource” of a different kind — breeding and training).


Despite how “special” we in the USA may wish to believe our country is, and that in many respects, no question it IS quite special, a lot of this type of programming can be traced back — which I can say because I have been tracking several programs and operations back to originators and designers —  to two countries, both of which attempted to and to a degree established empires: England (Great Britain), and Germany.   Both tried this in Africa as we know (along with others) AFTER the USA fought England in a war for independence in the late 1700s.   Include some Freud et al., for the 1900s, maybe a few more countries could be referenced.

What I would like to call attention to is the use of private corporations as a method, in addition to the combination of tax / tax-exemption to sway the outcomes AGAINST the individual rights and against individuals, in the name of services provided and problems solved.  All I’m saying is, the “solutions” seem to trend in a certain expansion of scope and shrinking of accountability to taxpayers, which continues to turn up the heat on the public at large.   It’s not good enough to provide even some very decent services while progressively compromising justice and fiscal accountability.  Fiscal accountability is EVERYTHING when it comes to administering justice!!


My most recent post (published March 27, 2016 — yes, on Easter Day) fills in some background on the networked organizations involved in the HHS-funded “DVRN” (Domestic Violence Resource Network) as set up, I learned, under the “FVPSA.”    In 2011, obviously, I didn’t know all this.  It’s important information to know, however…    In expanding such “resource centers” which then receive — and, to a degree, sometimes redistribute — public and private money both — the trail of public “ROI” (Return on Investment) of tax revenues continues to expand, become more complex, and become less carefully watched.
Read the rest of this entry »

Most have heard of the VAWA (passed 1994) But what about the earlier (passed 1984) FVPSA? Or, the “DVRN”?

leave a comment »

It seems to me that the national response to wife-beating and/or child abuse may have already been put on a sort of auto-pilot, knee-jerk response decades ago, and is simply being refined, fine-tuned, and turf-and-territory-protected ever since.  The more I learn about HHS programs inspired or validated by Acts of Congress focused on stopping abuse or preventing family violence, reducing juvenile delinquency (etc. — remember my two “About NCJJ” recent posts showing the privatization conflict of interest covered up by “NCJFCJ” which is also benefitting from the FVPSA-inspired funding as a “Special Issue Resource Center” ???) the more aware I become of what was set in motion, a lot of which I would take issue with, but probably “too late and too bad,” as it happens.

Nevertheless, it’s still important to be aware of these things and come to some opinion on them.

But, let’s Look at the FVPSA-inspired, HHS-funded and facilitated “DVRN.”  Like that “National” “Responsible” “Fatherhood” “Clearinghouse,” what the heck it is, or is doing, is less than clear from the official sources, such as HHS websites talking about the network, its member agencies, and its “special issue resource centers.”

I’m tempted to personal comments here, but they are stowed at the bottom of this post, for now.

File this under federalizing, evaluating and quality control (?) of  EVERYTHING that relates to anyone under 21 — and their caretakers, which is almost everyone else..

The DVRN is multi-jurisdictional, subject-matter defined, and its presentation seems designed to confuse the readers and discourage identifying just how FEW organizations have been given control of policy, or operations designed to influence policy from the Executive Branch of government and so to speak “from the sidelines..”  This post follows logically from my attempt to explain “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (in connection with a recent reblog of my 6/4/2011 post on this) as one of “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” — when the HHS report of those same Special Issue Resource Centers (numbering, actually 5, not 4) doesn’t even mention that organization’s name.  In fact, it downplays actual names of recipient organizations in their description.

I trust this will be an interesting and illuminating post to why certain things seem so much the same from state to state when we (parents) go to court.


 

The “DVRN” – Domestic Violence Resource Network

(Described @ http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/fv-centers)

Family Violence Prevention & Services Resource Centers Listen

The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN) is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to inform and strengthen domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts at the individual, community and societal levels.

It’s promoting awareness and policy through digital dissemination, with help from certain organizations…..

The DVRN works collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice not just a priority, but also a reality.

Note the grammar — the “DVRN” is being given anthropomorphic qualities, as if it was a single living entity — or, in the case of “corporate persons” (our system in the USA), a single business entity.  BUT, it’s not.  It’s by definition networks synched along certain policies and practices, and also as to some of their sources of funding.  But the network elements span different states.
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: