Posts Tagged ‘FVPF becomes Futures without Violence’
Psst! “PSI” (Policy Studies Inc.) in its own words…. plus ….
Blogger note, 2015 — Policy Studies, Inc. now redirects to “Maximus” another well-known (if not universally respected) child support and other government services contractor. “Global Expertise at the Local Level.”
Actually, Maximus’ home page has its services split into:
- Health
- Federal
- Child Support
- Education
- Workforce
- Consulting
- Business and Tax Credit
Recent meeting, seminar, or webinar Sept. 14, 2015:
Maximus, despite is size, scope, purpose and some stains in the past (which it earned enough to at least pay settlements on, and continue receiving contracts — it’s nice to be “too big to fail,” eh?”), is a good “Corporate Citizen” too and wants readers to know that this (and not reducing corporate tax rates) was why in 2000 it set up a Foundation:
MAXIMUS Foundation
At MAXIMUS, we hold a strong sense of corporate citizenship and responsibility. We recognize the importance of giving back to the communities in which we live and work. In response, the MAXIMUS Board of Directors created the MAXIMUS Foundation in 2000.
The MAXIMUS Foundation is committed to supporting organizations and programs that promote personal growth and self-sufficiency through improved health, augmented child and family development, and community development. We provide financial support for non-profit organizations and charities that share our commitment in helping disadvantaged populations and underserved communities.
The MAXIMUS Foundation is funded by charitable gifts from the employees of MAXIMUS and supplemented by grants from the Company. It is a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is exempt from tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…
View a list of organizations that received financial support in our most recent grant cycle. (by state, doesn’t show, however amounts, or for previous years. For that, you have to actually go to their tax return declarations, at least).
I see a Spring 2015 grantee for NY is a major (and not in need of grants, either) foundation involved in transforming the NYS justice system (and others, internationally) through a cooperative project with the Courts. The cooperative project is “the Center” but the actual 501(c)3 is “Fund for the City of New York,” started in 1968 by Ford Foundation, as its tax return says:
Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities THE FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEWYORK WAS CREATED BY THE FORD FOUNDATION IN 1968 WITH THE MANDATE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS, THE FUND WORKS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT INNOVATIONS IN POLICY, PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY TO ADVANCE THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
They’re just trying to systems-change, continually, for a better world…. better particularly for nonprofits (what about taxpayers who don’t organize themselves into nonprofits, or working for them or government — what about that sector?). Well, this organization (the Ford-founded Fund for the City of New York), oddly, is licensed to solicit in mostly East Coast states — and California. It also runs two other nonprofits (Schedule-R/”Related Tax-Exempt Organizations”):
(1) NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC to “FACILITATE FCNY’S MISSION TO OTHER CITIES IN THE U S” and
(2) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INC for “IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERMENT AND NONPROFIT ORG WORLDWIDE”
“CT, NY, NJ, FL, CA, MA” (tax return below next quote, see Schedule G, Part I)
New York
Abraham House
CASES
Center for Court Innovation/Fund for the City of New York
Coalition for the Homeless, Inc.
Common Ground Communities, Inc. d/b/a Community Solutions**
Community-Word Project, Inc.
Harlem Educational Activities Fund, Inc.
Move This World
New York Common Pantry
Odyssey House Inc.
The Children’s Village, Inc.
The New York Foundling Hospital
Women’s Prison Association
Fund for the City of New York is clearly doing “poorly” and Maximus — a lot of whose business comes before, and relates to business being handled by the NYS Unified Court System with which this Fund works, influentially — clearly ought to step in the funding gap. After all, it’s not even within range of a billion dollar assets yet, although it did increase by about $25M in the past two years:
ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fund for the City of New York | NY | 2013 | 990 | 105 | $86,222,421.00 | 13-2612524 |
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. | NY | 2012 | 990 | 51 | $71,729,914.00 | 13-2612524 |
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. | NY | 2011 | 990 | 90 | $60,361,290.00 | 13-2612524 |
I don’t know that I’d make such a big fuss about this foundation — it’s not that large. It’s also registered as a “PF” (Private Foundation), not public charity, although both are 501(c)3s…
ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MAXIMUS Foundation, Inc. | VA | 2013 | 990PF | 34 | $285,511.00 | 54-1993677 |
MAXIMUS Foundation | VA | 2012 | 990PF | 31 | $218,121.00 | 54-1993677 |
MAXIMUS Foundation | VA | 2011 | 990PF | 22 | $167,190.00 | 54-1993677 |
MAXIMUS Foundation | VA | 2011 | 990PR | 6 | $0.00 | 54-1993677 |
(Click on Org. name to view return). For example — Year “2013” above — the form says, it RECEIVED contributions of $665,818 (of this, $562,181 from Maximus itself) and CONTRIBUTED $682,930 to others, which are listed in very fine print at the back. These are mostly in small amounts, from $250 — $500 – $1,000 – $1,500 and $2,000, with just a few organizations getting more. In that year (note: Tax return 2015 not viewable yet — so it’s easy to tell about grants which the public can’t, yet, fact-check on a tax return..) “Community-Word Project, Inc.” got $1,500. “The Fund for Public Schools” (NY) got $50K, an American Red Cross in the National Capital Area $40K, One Fund Boston, Inc. (whoever they are), $25K.
One Fund Boston, Inc. was formed in 2013 for Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings “and related events.” It has a board of 3 people, 1 employees, 25 volunteers, and the first year shown here, received $76M of private (non-government) donations. Of these it gave out $58+M in the US, and $2.195M overseas (East Asia/Pacific) — and not to organizations, but to individuals.
ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | FORM | PAGES | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One Fund Boston | MA | 2013 | 990 | 32 | $18,727,756.00 | 46-2547157 |
(Code, )(Expenses$ 60,607,308. includinggrantsof$ 60,504,000 )(Revenue$ DISTRIBUTION OF CASH GIFTS TO VICTIMS OF THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS AND RELATED EVENTS OF 4/18/13 AND 4/19/13 TO HELP MEET THE SIGNIFICANT ONGOING NEEDS OF THE SURVIVOR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO THE PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES NOTED ABOVE, THE ORGANIZATION ALSO INCURRED $895,960 OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM-RELATED EXPENSES, ALL OF WHICH REPRESENTS SERVICES THAT WERE GRACIOUSLY DONATED BY MANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS.
|
While it’s commendable to donate a nice chunk ($0.025 Million) out of the $76million that came in, I should also note that the likelihood of the funds being traceable as actually received and distributed by One Fund Boston, when its recipients are individuals, not organizations, is minimal.
Common Ground Communities dba “Community Solutions” has this EIN# 27-3523909, and this website (in addition to a blog):
Web URL: | www.cmtysolutions.org |
Blog URL: | cmtysolutions.org/blog |
Guidestar says that in 2011 its main funding was from HUD and a certain foundation:
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – $450,000
- The Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation – $400,000
The name “Common Ground” is so “common” around town, at first I thought that the above, more recent nonprofit might be unrelated to the series of HFDC (housing development fund corporations) found below — but I think they are the same, based on this description of the 2011ff group:
Rosanne Haggerty is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Solutions. She is an internationally recognized leader in developing innovative strategies to end homelessness and strengthen communities.
I have recently been studying HUD programming in more detail. It came up in the context of other blogging, although I’ve been aware of it since about 2012 in connection with writings by someone formerly near the top of FHA who quipped that HUD was being run like a sewer (criminal operation) and explained how some of that went. Her times of working there, late 1980s; contracting with it, mid-1990s, and after she was almost put out of business for her software (LLC?) having exposed that the federal government was — deliberately — investing with a negative ROI into communities, when it didn’t have to (i.e., fees for RE developer friends took precedence over revamping useable single-family homes in the same areas, and which were already on the books, i.e. FHA books), she was just about ruined and essentially driven out of the USA. (Catherine Austin Fitts). I knew less about real estate than about HHS grants, which I could also see were being run, well, “crooked” at least in significant PRWORA (1996ff) categories, namely promoting marriage and fatherhood. Some of the HHS grantees were already involved in real estate development and community financing actions dating from the “CDBG” (Community Development Block Grant) era. Hard to explain in one paragraph, but…
The HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (a public law) encouraged the strengthening of CDOs (Community Development Organizations) and CDHOs (Community Development Housing Organizations) nationwide. FIVE and ONLY FIVE “intermediary” agencies were receiving HUD funds under this program — currently those five are:
- Living Cities
- Local Initiative Support Corporation
- Enterprise Community Partners (For this, see also The Rouse Company [<=a very interesting history, taken ca. 2004/2006]/ James W. Rouse, planned communities, shopping malls, “ending poverty” — the real estate/community development way:
- In the 1960s, he focused on the development of Columbia, the planned community in Maryland. In the 1970s, The Rouse Company developed the festival marketplace concept and opened Faneuil Hall in Boston. Jim retired as CEO of The Rouse Company in 1979 and in 1982 he and wife Patty launched The Enterprise Foundation, now known as Enterprise.He was a member of President Eisenhower’s Task Force on Housing in 1953 and of President Reagan’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives in 1982. …
Note — he’d already formed Enterprise Community Partners (originally, “Foundation”) in 1982...
The Rouse Company (from Encyclopedia.com, date is ca. 2006. Note, in 2004, I learned, another group, Growth General Partners” (an even larger shopping mall developer/owner nationwide) bought the Rouse Company. However, in 2009, it filed for bankruptcy — not nice for shareholders, but nice for those who got some of the assets for lower price — including the former subsidiary company, Howard Research Development (?) as in Howard Hughes, Jr. heirs.
Public Company
Incorporated: 1954 as James W. Rouse & Company, Inc.
Employees: 3,169
Sales: $1.17 billion (2003)
Stock Exchanges:New York
Ticker Symbol: RSE
NAIC: 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (Except Miniwarehouses); 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property; 721110 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels (pt)One of the largest publicly held real estate development and management firms in the United States, The Rouse Company has a reputation for innovation. Under the direction of founder and “industry prophet” James W. Rouse, the company was in the vanguard of suburban enclosed-mall construction in the 1950s, the planned community movement in the 1960s, and the proliferation of urban “festival marketplaces” in the 1970s and early 1980s. The saturation of the retail development market in the early 1990s led the company into the construction and management of more office and mixed-use projects. By the early 21st century, The Rouse Company—now operating as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)—owned and/or operated more than 150 retail, residential, and office properties nationwide.
Timeline — James W. Rouse died in 1996, his (second, but long-term) wife Pattie, in, I think, 2012. See also the Wikipedia article for more details.
{{PLANNED COMMUNITIES — Columbia, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., first}}
Rouse assembled a coterie of planners, sociologists, educators, religious groups, and cultural and medical institutions to advise and support the creation of the new city. When it was launched in 1967, Columbia featured 11,000 residences (including low-cost housing jointly sponsored by the three primary religious denominations); schools within walking distance of elementary and junior high students; Howard County’s first hospital; public transportation; and a shopping center. By 1975, when the city boasted 38,000 residents, it had become “suburban Baltimore,” and within a decade it would be, according to Financial World (1986), “one of the hottest developing territories in the country.”
Rouse’s stock soared from $2 per share in the early 1960s to $30 by 1972. But during the 1974–75 real estate slowdown, the company lost Housing and Urban Development funding for a major low-income housing project. This, in turn, effected a $7 million loss and compelled Rouse to pull out of two engineered communities in Tennessee and Maryland, resulting in additional losses of $4.2 million. Connecticut General {{Life Insurance}} even had to purchase most of Rouse’s share of the Columbia project during this difficult time. Short-term debt stood at $80 million, while equity was at $6 million. From 1974 to 1976, the company retrenched by selling 50 percent stakes in 7 of 24 retail centers, reaping a total of $24 million cash. It also eliminated half the headquarters staff and wrote off $30 million in bad investments.
Thus we see for all the development, it was heavily underwritten by HUD, which public funds are “underwritten,” so to speak, by people who pay tax revenues, a.k.a., work jobs. On given year, the primary government revenues, per a pie chart at FMS.Treasury.gov (and posted on my blog — see table of contents post, at the top of the website; you can find this one), of all federal receipts. On the 6/29/2014 post “My Challenge: Talk Sense or become an OxyMORON (And Someone Else’s Dinner“) there’s a section titled, with a somewhat frustrated commentary right underneath it:
HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
(FOR EXAMPLE, ITS BALANCE SHEET)
If across the US, our independent, and species-survival alertness and thinking has been either disabled, or is being culled [and by personality types, sorted and sifted] for use in the administrative population control professions (the “behavioral change modification” professions which are funded from “on high” (corporations, universities, the US government), and/or the science and technology for yet BETTER population control (and, when it comes to military, systematic decimation of other countries’ populations, while increasing the incarceration rates of our own by the various wars), then I will forget the consciousness-raising herein, and just look for a better place (and that means country) to inhabit.
…and then links to Federal Receipts piechart (for 2013). Look at the two largest sectors in the piechart, and remember, it ain’t corporate taxes (which were only 10%)! Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts (that must include for federal employees also, I think) — 35%. Individual Income Taxes — 46%, with some commentary right after the link:
“Total receipts [YEAR 2013] increased by $324.9 billion, totaling $2,774.0 billion in fiscal 2013. The graph below shows receipts by source. “Translation of “$2,774.0 billion,” other than “a lot” is: $2,774,000,000,000. Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, and another way of putting this would be $2.774 Trillion — that is, for 2013 only, and that’s the federal government of the US, only. Anyhow click to see what the largest piece of the pie, and the second-largest, is.”
Government tends to get reorganized, regularly, in small or large ways, so the former link now reads tells us that, if you were looking for those “Consolidated Statements of Receipts, Outlays and Balances,” the Treasury Department’s “Fiscal Management Services” (FMS) and Bureau of the Public Debt have been consolidated:
The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
Current Report Page Has MovedThe Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) have consolidated into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. You will now be redirected to the The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Web site. If you are not redirected in 15 seconds, you can continue to this site by visiting
Current Report.Please remember to update your bookmarks.
These are not yet available to view (haven’t been uploaded — obviously, I’m typing in Fall 2015 (on a much older post, 2011, true…) but the headings are there to view. This is what to expect — but look under the last heading to see just how many “Departments of” are listed — those are Executive Branch of the US Government departments. You can see that “Legislative” is a single link, as is “Judiciary” — but when it comes to “Department of Justice” — that’s an Executive Department. Notice also there’s an “Executive Office of the President” on the list. See also (sidebar) the two articles about social sciencification of America, and abolishment of representative government by executive orders. Think it’s not still going on ??? I wonder how far we are in the process of making Congress (and laws) all but vestigial organs kept there for show, or simply basic operations, while decisions are simply made elsewhere… as there is always SOME crisis, SOME emergency, SOME global problems and of course a shortage of funds for all of the above.
We’ll post files on this page as they become available.
Note: Text Files will be available in Portable Document Format (PDF), and data files will be available in PDF and Excel 3.0. Excel files do not contain footnotes or Table 1.Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four
- Commissioner’s Letter
- Preface
- Description of Accounts Relating to Cash Operations
- Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures
- Part One Fiscal Year 2015 Summary
- Financial Highlights
- Receipts by Source <= <= <= (would have another pie chart, I’m sure).
- Outlays by Function
- United States Summary General Ledger Balances
- Part Two Fiscal Year 2015 Details of Receipts
- Table A – Receipts by Source Categories
- Part Three Fiscal Year 2015 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances <=<=<(View long List of Departments under here.)
THAT LIST: Legislative Branch, The Judiciary, [[and then all these other:]] Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense-Military, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services [= Largest grantmaking agency], Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD, HOUSING; pretty influential, would you say?], Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, , Department of Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Other Defense-Civil, Environmental Protection Agency, Executive Office of the President,*** General Services Administration, International Assistance Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Independent Agencies
During the company’s difficult years, Rouse invented his own method of accounting. He pioneered a new accounting figure dubbed “current value.”
-
- …In 1987, he became chairman of the National Housing Task Force, which made proposals to Congress in March 1988 for a new housing program. The report formed the basis for comprehensive housing legislation signed into law by President Bush in November 1990. Jim was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, by President Clinton in September 1995. He passed away at the age of 81 at his home in Columbia, Md. – See more at: http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/about/history/about-our-founders#sthash.6FBLOQ3P.dpuf
-
- Habitat for Humanity
- YouthBuild USA
Here a link at Thomas.gov to H.R. 2517, which later became that Act; see the CRS Summary. The timing is, early 1990s, beginning of Clinton Administration. Keep in mind that with the passage of 1996 Personal Right to Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA”), which has also been phrased as “privatizing government” and with its “Block grants to States” for TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) instead of the help actually being directed to only needy families, we then go the “Family Values Factor” an open door into proselytizing about marrying and staying married. In the 1990s, I WAS married — and being battered in front of my children; which “might” have been why the passage of 1996 and its future impact on mothers dealing with domestic violence and abuse in the decades (1980s, 1990s at least) where single mothers were being alternately scapegoated or patronized, but still subject to media campaigns at how our children were — by virtue of being “fatherless” households — at risk for juvenile delinquency, a life of crime, promiscuity, failure, and ending up on welfare or in foster care, etc. etc….
So Title IV-A and Title IV-D of this Social Security Act were already priming the pump to continue causing, actually, more trouble for working single mothers, by encouraging lawsuits for sole legal and physical custody from their former abusers, where abuse had been a factor, or where child support arrears had been run up, and would be compromised if these custody battles –which FOR THE RECORD, tend to interfere with sustainable work, increase poverty, and drive finances and resources (including TIME) which might otherwise go to the next generation — to the problem-solving courts and their professionals, para-professionals, and proselytes/acolytes and hangers-on. {{for further information, follow “AFCC” “CRC’ and friends, including their nice, “don’t ask, adn we won’t tell (about marriage/fatherhood funding or access/visitation funding) friends in the DV industry…)
Oops.. Got a little expressive there…
Here’s that HUD Demonstration act of 1993, summarized. Try to pick up on the details:
H.R.2517
Latest Title: HUD Demonstration Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Gonzalez, Henry B. [TX-20] (introduced 6/24/1993) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 10/27/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-120.
SUMMARY AS OF:
9/23/1993–Passed Senate amended. (There are 2 other summaries)HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 – Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary) to carry out an innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program through FY 1994. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.
(Sec. 3) Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to increase funding for the moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to the National Community Development Initiative** for grants to local community development organizations for: (1) training and capacity building; (2) technical assistance; and (3) community development and housing assistance. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.
**The other name for this nonprofit is “Living Cities.” It was initiated by “Rockefeller” and several private foundations and currently has a member list of 22 significant (wealth) tax-exempt foundations in combination with bank / financial institutions.
(Sec. 5) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to increase the authorization of appropriations for community housing partnership activities.
(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program through FY 1998 to attract pension fund investment in affordable housing through the use of project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Requires that at least half of appropriated funds be used in the disposition of multifamily properties. Requires a General Accounting Office program evaluation report. Authorizes FY 1994 program appropriations.
(Sec. 7) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to extend: (1) the termination date for the National Commission on Manufactured Housing; (2) the deadline for the Commission’s final report (after an interim report); and (3) authorization of appropriations for the Commission.
(Sec. 8) Amends the Housing Act of 1949 to: (1) extend authority for Federal agency housing subdivision approval reciprocity; (2) increase Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage authority; and (3) increase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantee authority.
(Sec. 11) Sets forth an administrative fee formula for the section 8 certificate and voucher programs. Directs the Secretary to assess public housing agency costs in administering such programs.
(Sec. 12) Amends Federal law to: (1) extend the commencement deadline for a specified Massachusetts housing project; and (2) permit rental units in a specified Texas project to be project-based.
In 1990, Rosanne founded Common Ground Community, a pioneer in the development of supportive housing and research-based practices that end homelessness. To have greater impact, Ms. Haggerty and her senior team launched Community Solutions in 2011 to help communities solve the problems that create and sustain homelessness. Ms. Haggerty is a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, Ashoka Senior Fellow and Hunt Alternative Fund Prime Mover. In 2012, she was awarded the Jane Jacobs medal for New Ideas and Activism from the Rockefeller Foundation. She serves on the boards of the Alliance for Veterans, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America. She is a Life Trustee of Amherst College.
-
**This Delaware Corporation only registered in NY 4/29/2012 as a Foreign Not For Profit. This one shows no “d/b/a” however on its NYS registration (click to see, or repeat the search, google “NYS Corporation Search” or for the charitable registrations, charitiesnys.com
COMMON GROUND COMMUNITIES, INC. By street address search, I see from NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy) its purpose is:
Common Ground CommunityHOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Email: info@commonground.org 14 East, 28th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 471-0815 Fax: (212) 471-0825
Common Ground Community is a non-profit housing and community development organization whose mission is to solve homelessness. Common Ground provides comprehensive support services, including access to medical and mental health care and job training and placement, designed to help people regain lives of stability and independence
It will be taking then, probably grants from both HUD and HHS as well as probably private sources. As the site “commonground.org” says:
Our buildings combine affordable housing with on-site social services.
The money is project-based. There are nonprofits with the words “Common Ground” in them throughout the country (NY, TX, LA, OH, CA, etc.), but as we can see the HDFC (Housing Development Fund Corp) ones in New York come “I, II, III and IV” and of varying sizes. A change in EIN# means a change in Entity — however, they are probably, if one looks through individual returns for “Schedule R – Related organizations” — with overlapping board members, or otherwise related: common in real estate development…
Plus: “Preventing Violence by Promoting Fatherhood (Discretionary Grants)”
A lot of posts, I don’t think were my best. Yesterday’s, however, I felt was a good one. There is information on it that is GOOD to be aware of.
Imagine what vision, some strategic planning, good target market (the U.S. Government, one of largest purchasers in the world, I heard) and TECHNOLOGY can do.
This report from 2004? comes from “Encyclopedia.com”
Policy Studies, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado 90202
U.S.A.
Telephone: (303) 863-0900
Toll Free: (800) 217-5004
Fax: (303) 295-0244
Web site: http://www.policy-studies.comPrivate Company
Incorporated: 1984
Employees: 1,030
Sales: $128 million (2002)
NAIC: 541611 Administration Management and General Management Consulting ServicesPolicy Studies, Inc. (PSI) provides administration outsourcing, research, and consulting services to local, state and federal agencies in the areas of child support enforcement, health benefits administration, and judicial systems organization. The bulk of the company’s business involves consulting and administration of child support enforcement, including payment collection and redisbursement, voluntary paternity establishment, backlog collections, review and adjustment, and other aspects of case management. In addition to providing research and consultation for specific aspects of case management for government agencies in all 50 states and administration outsourcing for specific programs in 21 states, PSI provides full-service child support enforcement administration for counties in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Trade names (i.e., I gather Fictitious Business names)– at least those registered in Colorado under this corporate name include:
# ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment 1 19951078593 19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM 2 19961012292 19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM 3 19961012293 19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM 4 20001166186 20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM 5 20001209751 20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM 6 20001209752 20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM 7 20011022445 20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM 8 20011022446 20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM 9 20021117260 20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM 10 20021159702 20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM And just because I feel like it, I”m also posting one (of many) projects another corporation, “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” worked on, via Grants from the HHS. Basically this is what anyone in the “domestic violence prevention” field AND the “marriage fatherhood” field (the major grantees) really like to do:
Set up a “resource center” and train someone (via the web, in great part)…
From Taggs.hhs.gov (This post published 6/22/2011)
AWARD INFORMATION
Award Number: 90EV0375 Award Title: FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF) Organization: FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU (FYSB) Award Class: DISCRETIONARY Award Abstract
Title Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance Project Start/End / Abstract Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance PI Name/Title Denise Gamache Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project Institution Department NONE Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions
FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 5 0 ACF 09-15-2010 $ 1,178,812 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 1,178,812 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 4 0 ACF 08-27-2009 $ 1,178,812 2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 4 1 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 50,000 Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 1,228,812 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2008 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 3 0 ACF 07-22-2008 $ 1,178,811 Fiscal Year 2008 Total: $ 1,178,811 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2007 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,810 Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,178,810 FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2006 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 1 0 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,811 Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 1,178,811 Total of all award actions: $ 5,944,056 Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions
The “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has been working alongside the wonderful “AFCC” to Explicate what Domestic Violence is (gee, I didn’t have a clue!) and what is going on when it comes to custody decisions. The head of this project is working with BWJP: Denise Gamache Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project
The award 90EV0377 was taken by Family Violence Prevention Fund (ExCU u u u se me, “Futures Without Violence” is its new name – at least on some links). Please notice the similar $$ amounts — $1,178,811 or 812:
Recipient: FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND
Recipient ZIP Code: 94103-5177FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 93.592 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 08-28-2009 $ 1,178,812 2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 175,000 2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 07-28-2008 $ 1,178,812 2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 09-27-2008 $ 145,000 2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 08-13-2007 $ 1,178,812 2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 01-26-2007 $ 32,940 2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 09-20-2007 $ 182,375 2006 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 09-19-2006 $ 1,145,872 Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 6,396,435 Page Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 6,396,435 Total of 10 Award Actions for 1 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 6,396,435 Total FVPF funding from HHS (this doesn’t count additional funding from the DOJ, or contracts, vs. grants):
Total of all award actions: $ 19,368,114 Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions
SO….. MPDI got HHS Award #90EV0375, and FVPF got #90EV0377;
Gee, who got award # 90FE0376? Another special issue resource center, probably — right?
Recipient: CANGLESKA, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 57752-0638FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2010 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 5 93.592 ACF 09-09-2010 $ 1,178,812 2009 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.592 ACF 09-02-2009 $ 1,178,812 2008 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.592 ACF 08-01-2008 $ 1,178,812 2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.592 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,812 2006 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.592 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,812 Award Actions Count: 5 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 5,894,060 Whoever CANGLESKA, INC. is (actually, I do have an idea, have read before) . . . . . Always click on the name and see what other goodies they got:
Total HHS awards: $15,650,167.
Total of all award actions: $ 15,650,167 Which includes (go figure) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood”:
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2007 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 2006 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 0 ACF 09-25-2006 110316478 $ 400,000 (DUNS# 110316478 will also work on USASPending.gov. Now, there are obviously some discrepancies — because TAGGS, which reports grants only (not contracts — work for pay) is about twice as large as what USASpending.gov — which is to report both grants and contracts — comes up with. One would think that the USASpending.gov# would always be larger for any group that got both contracts and grants. However, it comes up with instead (for Cangleska, all of the work in South Dakota, per the map):
- Total Dollars:$7,822,150
- Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
- This includes several from the Justice, VAW and/or Agriculture Depts ,not just HHS. (Whassup with that?)
Transaction Number # 8
Federal Award ID: 90FR0074: 0 (Grants)Recipient: CANGLESKA
P.O. BOX 638 , KYLEReason for Modification: Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families CFDA Program : 93.086 : Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants Description: PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOODDate Signed:
September 21 , 2007Obligation Amount:
$400,000PROMOTING FATHERHOOD = PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE???
Yes, the way to prevent family violence is to promote fatherhood. This is although the fatherhood movement originated in great part as a complaint against feminism. I’m so glad that the federally -funded groups have got their act together and just take funding from both sides of the same question, and do webinars, trainings, etc. (to both target clientele):
2007 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 110316478 $ 1,178,812 Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,578,812 (The grants are “discretionary” anyhow….)
Meanwhile PSI cleans up on the technological end…..
Here’s another big-bucks resource center group:
Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image 2009 362486896 National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges NV 1975 03 13,620,813 2,742,133 990
Our government is still offering grants to make more and more resources available to explicate and analyze (rather than, say, STOP) Violence Against Women (now called “Family Violence”) for purposes of research. Very Discretionary, I imagine. here are some:The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) announces the solicitation of applications for one cooperative agreement under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants program to support a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV). The NRCDV will maintain a clearinghouse library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and disseminate information and statistics related to the incidence, intervention, and prevention of family violence, domestic violence and dating violence; and the provision of shelter, supportive services, and prevention services to adult and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence which includes services to prevent repeated incidents of violence. The NRC is part of a network of National and Special Issue Resource Centers providing leadership and support to the existing programs serving victims of domestic violence and their children.
The will do the same thing on the fatherhood end, just as large. What good is all this research doing when it comes to the next custody decision?
Re: THE Battered Women’s Justice Project and MPDI grants, I searched only on the principle investigator last name, and in MN, to come up with 15 years of grants. if you’re IN, I guess you’re IN. So — how do these activities tie to reduced homicides, femicides, infanticides, battery, molestation, rape or any other forms of violence (or having the family law system ignore these when making a custody decision)? Or is that even required?
Results 1 to 20 of 20 matches.Page 1 of 11 Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812 Technical assistance is one thing — it set ups a infrastructure and enables conferences. now, what, precisely else does it do? ESPECIALLY because at this point restraining orders aren’t even legally enforceable. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — and hush, don’t tell the people getting those RO’s and justifying more funding to violence prevention trainings…and supervised visitation expansions….I gotta run. Just some food for thought…
Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?
The Nonprofit Preventing Family Violence and Dispensing Family Justice world can be a very friendly set of associates. In getting to know these individuals, besides hearing what they say & write (including positively about each other), I think it’s also helpful to look at who is paying how much for the time and the talents.
Getting to know each other …
On a recent post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.
(Telling amy’s story comes out of Pennsylvania, and I’m starting to wonder who paid for that one, too. The Amy in question ended up being shot by her stalker/abuser and probably just fortune/luck/God (etc.) that her parents and her child wasn’t also shot — as all were foolish enough to drive her back to the house for some diapers (etc.) RIGHT after a strong confrontation with the man. Amy now being dead, others, heads of domestic violence prevention groups, are telling her story — and they are telling HALF her story. They didn’t even notice that it wasn’t too bright to lose one’s life over some nonfoods that could be purchased cheap at a local store.) But doesn’t it look official and appropriate — “Telling amy’s story.” )
Personally, what inspired me much more (while in or shortly after leaving the abusive relationship) was stories of women who were NOT shot to death, and how they recovered, went on to succeed in their new lives, and these stories were told in their own words — which could happen because they lived. They did not die!)
Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:
Background
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A.(in ???_______) She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 (?? see bottom of my pos) and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.
(incidentally, St. Scholastica ain’t your average private liberal arts college. See the 27-member Board of Trustees, for one. Catholic/ Benedictine Order influence)
Here (for the new to this) are some of the “Power and Control” Wheels circulated through The Duluth Model. I’ve linked it to a young woman’s memorial fund who was trying to break out of this cycle while murdered. Her relatives hope that publicizing this may help others… (does it?) They formed a nonprofit to commemorate here and use the wheel with the permission of:
Used with permission of the
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT
202 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781
www.duluth-model.org
Not knowing the “Lindsay Anne Burke” case from Rhode Island, I find out that she was girlfriend to a man who’d previously fathered two children, and had had their mothers get restraining orders out on him. Moreover, she started dating him around the time his second child had been born!
A law was named after her dramatic case (PROJO — R.I. paper — describes, 2005)(2007, warning!: graphic account of trial & testimony). QUESTION: If these groups have been educating and warning women about the dangers of stalkers, controlling personalities and in general domestic violence issues since the 1980s, how come this still happens in the 2000s ? Sadly, we see the Burke memorial fund suggesting people contribute to the local Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Yet this horrible murder was clearly preceded by not one, but two domestic violence restraining orders in the context of custody battles — children born in 1998 & 2003 — and the officers are saying they had no record?
The COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY RESPONSE (CCR) TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
You can see readily how the collaborative response from Duluth might have things in common with the San Diego-based Family Justice Collaboration model, including focusing on training, and credibility when it comes to a great grants stream. One difference is that Pence did not come from public employment in law enforcement or a LEGAL or ENFORCEMENT background, but a SOCIOLOGICAL perspective. I don’t believe this can be said of Casey Gwinn’s background. However, it’s clear they have common ground.
In 1979, there was already an existing domestic violence prevention group around. From what I can tell this group (associated with a university) got basically outclassed and, if I may, “out-gunned” (financially and as to web presence), although it’s still around, it’s hard to find through Google Search, and its current “history” page is blank. It is based in Minneapolis, not Duluth and is associated with (Dr.) Jeffrey Edleson. I reports income of of about $1.6 million (per Guidestar) and is in this tax-exempt
Category (NTEE):Crime, Legal Related / (Protection Against and Prevention of Neglect, Abuse, Exploitation)
Year Founded:1979 Ruling Year:1979 (EIN# 411356278).
It shows 15 board members, 53 employees and 35 volunteers and receives a lot of grants in support. It has not tried, from what I can tell, to change the entire world or justice system, or franchise itself. It does not appear to be drawing from HHS funds, perhaps that’s why it’s a measly $1 million and not a bustling $3 million or $4 million per year, as others… But the question that comes up, why form a group only a year later that is hellbent on transforming the distribution of justice through training projects?
About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:
Given the economy, perhaps you should attempt to get a job in one of these places, get on the conference circuit and establish your reputation, and then you can run things AND perhaps have a retirement, and a mobile lifestyle (at least periodically) as well. How is it that justice can’t be achieved and violence prevented by the process of equal enforcement (whether towards men or towards women or towards children) of the existing state laws against assault & battery, against felony child-stealing, against rape, against molestation of minors, against abuse in general? Why is it necessary to form nonprofit after nonprofit (staff them, sometimes set up buildings, or lease buildings), build curricula, train & retrain judges, and everyone else, and sell “risk assessment kits” to family law professionals?
What are people so angry about, that they have to keep assaulting and trafficking each other, and where did they learn this habit of treating people like animals, including selling them? . . . Hardly the answer for a single post (or lifetime), but did you ever consider why — given that these things seem to be part of human nature, if not the history of our species — it is now suddenly thought that an institution or resource center could somehow change human nature and stop this, bringing in world utopia, starting with organizations that — by this point in time (say, starting in the 1980s) are actually run by people already involved in running the major institutions of our states and local communities?
Then these organizations, with leadership by public employees or former employees, already whose salaries were paid by the public, drawing on FEDERAL support pooled from the IRS, and distributed largely according to decisions that many local populations are unaware of — meaning from a database of wage-earners in and out of state.
If you can’t grasp the concept — let me illustrate. Have you ever heard of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.?” (pause to allow search).
I have — but only because I research the grants system. Better known is its subsidiary (?), “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project,” and the well-known (among domestic violence circles, and many victims have received some literature on “the Duluth Model.” This is from a facebook page based on a Wikipedia Article which is clearly not written by someone involved with the DAIP. (Contributors). I came here after attempting to find Minnesota Program Development Inc. on the Minnesota AG’s list of charities. So far, it doesn’t exist. Until recently, I’d thought it was some sort of workforce development organization, similar to MDRC a group that kept cropping up as fulfilling contracts with the government, and/or evaluating them. The kind of contracts & grants I’ve been looking at here, i.e., fatherhood promotion and the legal rights dilution process.
FOR COMPARISON, WHO IS MDRC?
“MDRC: Manpower Development Research Development, “What IS MDRC?“
Too often, public policies that profoundly affect the lives of low-income families are shaped by hunches, anecdotes, and untested assumptions. Ineffective policies waste precious resources and feed public cynicism about government. Most important, such policies may hinder the very people they are designed to help. MDRC was created to learn what works in social policy — and to make sure that the evidence we produce informs the design and implementation of policies and programs.
Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.
A Foundation/Federal Agency blend has significant power and influence. Its apparently top 3 Board of Directors are from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, you DO know who they are, right?), the JFK School of Government at Harvard, and The Urban Institute. Reading below the line, I notice the first one (the list is alphabetical) is Ron Haskins, well known (nay, infamous!) for having pushed through the Access and Visitation Grants section of the 1996 Welfare Reform, and from his work at HHS. Translation: Fatherhood promoter. The last one, Isabel V. Sawhill (both of Brookings Institute) and both known as collaborators and researchers on fatherhood and family issues, along with such as Sara McLanahan, Ron Mincy, and others.
Inbetween, we have people from Harvard [Economics], Harvard [Education and Economics], Harvard [Education], Princeton, @ Univ. of Chicago [School of Social Service Administration], UNC (North Carolina), a bank (Citigroup) the president of a foundation, and “Chair, Steering Committee Association of Corporate Counsel Value Challenge.” Counsel, as in lawyers — corporate lawyers’ association.
Clearly, this is an influential group of some very high-ranking people influencing and possibly directing policy of masses — like THE masses (see K-12 education influence) of population, with an emphasis on the poor. Their (2009) budget being over $80 MILLION (66% from gov’t, 28% from private foundations, 1% from Universities, and a small sliver from others) takes a few pie charts to even visualize. I’ve dragged it here — or see link:
With an annual budget of more than $80 million, MDRC derives its revenues from a wide variety of sources. About 67 percent of MDRC’s funding comes from federal, state, and international government contracts. The rest comes from foundations, corporations, universities, individuals, and other sources. MDRC uses these funds to support the work of its five research policy areas: K-12 education, youth and postsecondary education, families and children, low-wage workers and communities, and health and barriers to employment.
We are all citizens, but some citizens have more influence than others, and those running foundations, perhaps as much as government. Moreover, foundations are historically close to the running of the U.S., however much we struggle to view ourselves as individually sovereign citizens with individual rights, and seek to uphold the law without respect to, say, connections or wealth. BUT our society is a jobs-focused, Public-education-grounded (for most children), earn wages and consume products and services (including products and services we probably don’t need most of), while the leaders and innovators work on consolidating their wealth to organize new technologies, explore outer space and deep oceans (great projects), build bridges and highways and so forth. It bears a humble reminder from time to time how relative & subjective the word “freedom” is.
What we sometimes forget (and it’s certainly not mainstream media headlines) is that a lot of this “technology” is in management of humans, and measuring how well that management has been working. We may think in terms of civil rights and due process, but there are groups like MDRC (and with the foundation influence) thinking in quite different terms…. And that nonprofits, corporations (including those that fulfil government purposes, for profit), and foundations define themselves, in the U.S., in relationship to the IRS, the strong-arm-collection agency of the taxes that support every governmental function and institution.
OK, CONSIDER THE INCOME TAX . . .
(1) From “infoplease” article:
The US Tax system has a dubious history, obviously. Originally, early (1791, this source says), it internally taxed certain [sales of] goods, including slaves. A quick review from this “infoplease.com” page does indeed relate to business at hand today — why some people can have laws to protect them enforced, and others can’t — and why more of us should pay more and more organizations to figure out why…
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation’s first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.
The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
Hmm. . . . .Seizure of property and prosecution….
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
So, a good part of what we may call government included from the start raising money by selling slaves (not to mention that those who governed OWNED slaves), and then a nice income tax to help wage the civil war to free slaves (and prevent the South from seceding, etc.). Now, presidents seem to rise (or fall) on what they do with taxes, and as we see above, groups like MDRC who know how to qualify to be wealthy and pay less taxes, and do business with government, decide without our real input, what to do with the population of the United States who do NOT know how to do these things, or run government. While this isn’t technically buying and selling slaves, by controlling/influencing JOBS, FAMILIES & EDUCATION, it sure is great people management. I imagine this is real heady work, helping influence a country of this size and wealth. But the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller, etc. were always pretty good at these activities…..
So, in 1981, Congress enacts the largest tax cut, and (see below), in MINNESOTA, MPDI, a NONPROFIT AGENCY (what’s THAT corporate structure, as far as the IRS goes?) WAS FORMED, MAIN PROJECT “THE DULUTH MODEL” WHICH FILTERS ITS POLICIES THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT, AND PUTS MILLION$$ GRANTS IN THE HANDS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS (THE HHS TERM) WHICH THEN SET POLICY — IN EFFECT — APART FROM OPEN DISCUSSION BY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT IT.
On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan. . . . On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton, In 1997, Clinton,…President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001…. [[OK, that’s enough!]]
Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.comhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1OKM4FlHq
(the ground was ripe for 1996 PRWORA act, which then allocated $10 million a year to run social science demonstration projects on people, through various agencies, and at the bequest/behest of the “secretary of Health and Human Services.” It’s understandable, in this context, while policies voted in to do something — anything (or allegedly do something, or anything) about welfare, or child support enforcement – might be popular. This is the world we inhabit, whether or not we are conscious of it…..)
Or, say
(2) from MISES institute article: “The Income Tax: Root of All Evil“*
“The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913,” wrote Frank Chodorov. Indeed, a man’s home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.
Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.
How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?
OK, if you are a woman or descended from people who needed a special amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to VOTE, not exactly in the 1700s, (or, if you, now more enlightened, see what they’re missing) — they still have a point. The American people ARE no longer the master nor does the government appear to think of itself in private and in practice, at least, as the “servant.” However, public proclamations justifying more and more expenditures to solve problems created by the same governental system to start with — will generally use the word “SERVE” as in, “Health and Human Services” or “Family Court Services” or “Child Support Services” or, for that matter, “Child Protection Services.” And this site is probably a good read, whatever we (or you) think about (particularly any women adn children who have been captive in an abuser’s “castle” while knowing that others outside were cautious to invade or infringe upon it by, say, getting inbetween a man (or woman) assaulting, imprisoning, exploiting, or mentally torturing for years, a wife (or husband, or offspring).
Possibly because the word “SERVE” and ‘SERVICES’ has been so overused (or, like CPS, have developed really bad public reputations), the tendency now is to go for “Centers” especially “RESOURCE CENTERS” and coalitions, of course are also popular, plus partnerships. Anything almost, but rule of law, plain and simple, and fairly practiced.
*an obvious misquote of “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice, that the person who wrote this (apostle Paul) spoke of something in the heart, loving the wrong thing — but this is speaking an institution set up to collect and pool it, then dispense favor at will to those who qualified. The system does bear questioning..
WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:
(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention. From HHS):
(HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.
Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC | DULUTH | MN | 55802-2152 | ST. LOUIS | 193187069 | $ 18,027,387 |
Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients
(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).
Recipient: | MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC |
Address: | 202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET DULUTH, MN 55802-2152 |
Country Name: | United States of America |
County Name: | ST. LOUIS |
HHS Region: | 5 |
Type: | Other Social Services Organization |
Class: | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations |
This organization obviously has a budget, and must have a payroll. Though pretty hard to find by a Google search, and it being a private nonprofit (registered in MN?) NGO, it has to process these funds somehow. A woman lists it in her resume, as an accountant on LinkedIn. The question I have is, would it exist without federal funds?
Staff Accountant
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Nonprofit Organization Management industry
June 1996 – December 2000 (4 years 7 months)
Accomplishments – Financial Leadership
– Developed annual budgets ($5 million) and financial statements presenting them to management and Board of Directors.
– Partnered with Management Team, defined/executed software conversion, created new chart of accounts, and streamlined individual funding, program and organizational reporting processes.
– Managed annual fiscal audit and all audits by State and Federal regulatory agencies.
– Integrated in-house payroll system, processed payroll in multiple states, and eliminated outsourcing costs.
– Recruited, hired, trained, and mentored staff accountants and support staff.
– Wrote, produced, and disseminated organization-wide policy and procedural handbook and administered employee benefits program.
– Managed all employee benefit plans.
Some non-profit!
MPDI is still training (seems to be the emphasis, and disseminating information) (notice Who they are training)
Found at the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women (also a grants recipients but nowhere so large as this one):
A Multidisciplinary Response To Domestic Violence
Date and Time:05/05/2011 – 8:00am –A Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence Part 1 (Part 1 of a 2 Part Series)
The Kandiyohi County Domestic Violence Coordinating CouncilThursday, May 5, 2011 – 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. – Kandiyohi County LEC Emergency Operations Center – 2201 NE 23rd St., Suite 101, Willmar, Minnesota.
Part 1 of this 2 Part Series focuses on the foundational level principles in providing a meaningful response to domestic violence. The target audience for this training includes law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, corrections/probation agents, social workers, and any professionals who respond to domestic violence. Featuring Scott Jenkins from The National Training Project of Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Part 2 of this series will be offered in 2012.
BEFORE I GO ON: Here is a reference to who created the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, and when:
Welcome to Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs offers domestic violence training and resources based on The Duluth Model to help community activists, domestic violence workers, practitioners in the criminal and civil justice systems, human service providers, and community leaders make a direct impact on domestic violence.
The Duluth Model is recognized nationally and internationally as the leading tool to help communities eliminate violence in the lives of women and children. The model seeks to eliminate domestic violence through written procedures, policies, and protocols governing intervention and prosecution of criminal domestic assault cases.*** The Duluth Model was the first to outline multi-disciplinary procedures to protect and advocate for victims.
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs was founded in 1980 by Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
** as we see, it makes no mention of domestic violence that comes up through or is “handled” through the Family Law system (in which criminal activity gets reclassified as domestic disputes, and downgraded to a family, or civil, matter). Don’t be fooled easily though, recently a subsidiary of DAIP (see site), called “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has collaborated with the (in)famous AFCC on Explicating what is (and, more to the point, is NOT) domestic violence in custody venue. More on that another time…
Who IS Minnesota Program Development, Inc., then? I mean, what is their organizational status — who owns them, who runs them, if they are a nonprofit, where are their annual tax fillings, etc.? What do they DO?
AWARD ACTIONS
Showing: 1 – 22 of 22 Award Actions
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 5 | 0 | ACF | 09-15-2010 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,812 |
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: | $ 1,178,812 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2009 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 4 | 0 | ACF | 08-27-2009 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,812 |
2009 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 4 | 1 | ACF | 09-17-2009 | 193187069 | $ 50,000 |
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: | $ 1,228,812 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2008 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 3 | 0 | ACF | 07-22-2008 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,811 |
Fiscal Year 2008 Total: | $ 1,178,811 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 2 | 0 | ACF | 08-27-2007 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,810 |
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: | $ 1,178,810 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2006 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-21-2006 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,811 |
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: | $ 1,178,811 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 5 | 0 | ACF | 08-29-2005 | 193187069 | $ 1,343,183 |
2005 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 4 | 1 | ACF | 03-11-2005 | 193187069 | $ 0 |
Fiscal Year 2005 Total: | $ 1,343,183 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 4 | 0 | ACF | 07-27-2004 | 193187069 | $ 1,343,183 |
Fiscal Year 2004 Total: | $ 1,343,183 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2003 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 3 | 0 | ACF | 09-06-2003 | 193187069 | $ 1,350,730 |
2003 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 2 | 1 | ACF | 09-06-2003 | 193187069 | $ 0 |
Fiscal Year 2003 Total: | $ 1,350,730 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 2 | 0 | ACF | 09-14-2002 | 193187069 | $ 1,331,291 |
Fiscal Year 2002 Total: | $ 1,331,291 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-14-2001 | 193187069 | $ 1,275,852 |
Fiscal Year 2001 Total: | $ 1,275,852 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 5 | 0 | ACF | 08-10-2000 | 193187069 | $ 1,121,852 |
Fiscal Year 2000 Total: | $ 1,121,852 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 4 | 0 | ACF | 08-19-1999 | 193187069 | $ 1,016,010 |
1999 | CCU511327 | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 05 | 0 | CDC | 09-24-1998 | 193187069 | $ 268,831 |
Fiscal Year 1999 Total: | $ 1,284,841 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1998 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 3 | 0 | ACF | 09-19-1998 | 193187069 | $ 988,119 |
1998 | CCU511327 | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 05 | 0 | CDC | 09-24-1998 | 193187069 | $ 268,831 |
Fiscal Year 1998 Total: | $ 1,256,950 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1997 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 2 | 0 | ACF | 07-17-1997 | 193187069 | $ 800,000 |
Fiscal Year 1997 Total: | $ 800,000 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1996 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 01 | 000 | ACF | 09-23-1996 | 193187069 | $ 589,908 |
Fiscal Year 1996 Total: | $ 589,908 |
FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1995 | 90EV0011 | P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC | 03 | 000 | ACF | 09-13-1995 | 193187069 | $ 385,541 |
1995 | 90EV0011 | P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC | 03 | 001 | ACF | 04-19-1996 | 193187069 | $ 0 |
Fiscal Year 1995 Total: | $ 385,541 |
Total of all award actions: | $ 18,027,387 |
Until recently, I figured, then that this Minnesota Program Development, Inc. — which I knew to be receiving millions (larger than average grants, at least outside the healthy marriage movement) from the Department of HHS, so I figured that probably they were some workforce development group. Particularly as it showed up looking for staff; they were hiring. However, now I am not so sure.
Many of MPDI’s sub-programs were there, and their annual statements and EINs. But this organization based at 202 Superior Street Duluth, MN, was not.
It is NON-PROFIT (but has no EIN#?) PRIVATE and NON-GOVERNMENT, and its chief purpose is SOCIAL SERVICES (not law enforcement, etc.). The difficulty I have with this is, through this type of collaboration (however noble the cause), it is taking the policy-setting procedures further and further from public awareness unless they run across its programs, long after they are established. Given the Technical Assistance / Resource Center grants (not that these are bad ideas), they are always going to be a few jumps ahead of individuals, including people that are the target clientele to be served. Who works at MPDI? Where are its financial statements, and how can the public access them? Who audits its work? Why should the public be funding this is we have no evidence of its effects, even though it’s clearly an ongoing resource?
The Four Resource Centers I seem to have identified not because (as a member of the public) it was ever explained or publicized AS “four resource centers” but because I have been searching TAGGS grants, and noticed that these were some big recipients in the field of violence Prevention.
This chart (better if you search the categories on-line yourself, I searched ONLY on the person’s last name, that I happened to know from prior searches):
Shows that these are EV grants (Education on Violence, presumably), they pull from 3 program codes: 93671, 93592 and 93591. ALL are “social services” and ALL are “discretionary.” The projects are visible, and no abstract description (other than the project title) is yet on the database:
1
Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
Has it been proved that “Information & Technical Assistance” saves lives, yet? I’d like to know.
I searched on “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” and came up with (this time) only grants with principal investigator, Ms. Gamache, and all headed up by MPDI.
FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS? What constitutes a “Special” issue as opposed to a normal issue, or a legal issue? (I linked to the HHS definition and listings. Some are by topic, some are by population as you can see.
However these heavily HHS- funded four resource centers, to my knowledge exist in other states. One is the Texas DV Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE). Another is, I believe, the Nevada NCFCJ, which is a family law group. Another, in San Francisco, CA (with office in Washington, DC, as I recall?) is the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” with website “http://www.endabuse.org.” Another is probably in Pennyslvania (PCADV), and another was (last I heard) in SD, focused on Indian Tribes, and called Cangleska, Inc. These were identifiably by the amounts of their grants. Cangleska, Inc., had some financial irregularities and I ran across some press where the tribal elders had fired the people running it (a husband/wife couple) for this reason.
Thanks to our wonderful internet, cross-referencing and on-line organizations (with no real “brick and mortar” site) can indeed exist. Something could be a “resource center” but have no actual front door, I suppose. Names also change, for example on the HHS listing, I see:
Health Resource Center on
Domestic Violence
888-792-2873
www.endabuse.org
Well, “endabuse.org” is basically “FVPF,” as it says:
The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence
The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence (HRC), a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), works to improve health care and public health responses to victims of family violence. The HRC works closely with the American Medical Association and other professional health associations to produce practice and policy guidelines for health care professionals responding to domestic violence. The HRC provides technical assistance, training, public policy recommendations, and materials and responds to over 7,000 requests for technical assistance annually. A number of the resources developed for health professionals and the domestic violence advocates who work with them are available on the FVPF web site, www.endabuse.org
Not mentioned here is that, for example, the same organization also attempts to reduce domestic violence through “fatherhood” based institutes, as I have mocked before on-line at this blog (in 2011)…
National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence
Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children. […]
But I’m a little slow, because the “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND” has changed its name — again. Click on “endabuse.org” and you are now redirected to “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE“(.org) and the announcement, and an entire website makeover, with a Green color scheme, not vivid red, as before. Not only do they have a new website (and obviously some good HTML help), they also have a new physical residence, high-profile for the SF area. FIRST, the family (through fathers) — NOW, the WORLD. COme visit their Global Leadership Center at the Praesidio, and know that if you’re an American taxpayer, you helped build it:
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP, ACTION & TRIBUTE
The Futures Without Violence Center at the Presidio is a global center for action and thought leadership, where individuals and allied organizations from around the world will gather to realize the potential of a world without violence.
The June 1st move to our new headquarters represents years of focused vision, support and hard work from many supporters and our dedicated staff. Housed in a historic military location on the Main Post of the Presidio National Park in San Francisco, this international center will serve as a global town square to promote the safety and wellbeing of all through education, advocacy, and leadership programs, giving voice to women and girls, men and boys everywhere.
Copyright © 2011 Futures Without Violence. All rights reserved.
(The DUNS# lookup shows the title has also been changed, but not yet the address. DUNS# are for US Govt contractors and grantees)
Lord help us, we have been sponsoring people who think they can stop war (often over economics) and that the public should support this concept. They forgot the origins of the income tax, which was to wage it, and beyond that — the intent to change human nature (without its informed consent) is going to have a little competition from, say, the Catholic Church and conservative Protestantism who — rather than consolidation efforts, are still endlessly splitting ranks over ordaining women, or gay / lesbian pastors. San Francisco, as a global town hall forum for this group (and its many supporters) will teach ’em a thing or two! Not to mention, what would Islam say — in some international circles, it hasn’t reconciled itself to letting women drive, let alone vote!
Guess this goes to show why it’s important to look at IRS-based indentifiers (EIN, DUNS) and organizational origins & funding. For example, I doubt a search on “Futures without Violence” would pull up this:
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5177 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 19,368,114 Family Violence Prevention Fund SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5178 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 31,000 (note: single change in zip code, last digit)
Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recip
Futures without Violence has a powerpacked Board of Directors (US House of Rep, a Judge or two, Pres. of Business Operations of Univ of Calif., you should really take a look), however it’s Chaired by Dr Jacquelyn Campbell, She is also well-known for her Danger Assessment for Domestic Violence Victims and the focus is from the medical/nursing/health perspective. The Honorable Ronald B. Adrinne of Ohio, his blurb acknowledges that this group is funded by the U.S. DOJ: “He chairs the faculty of the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, a joint initiative of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Futures Without Violence (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund), financed by the U.S. Department of Justice. ”
Keeping track of the names, the “NJI” (Nat’l Judicial INSTITUTE on DV) is a NCFCJ & Futures (aka, formerly FVPF) joint initiative financed by the DOJ.
So why is it we need more Family Justice Centers, then, with all this clout already on the scene preventing violence and crafting futures without it? (Even if the world became vegetarian — unlikely — there’d still be local, tribal, and international wars over land and over controlling the food supply, in the bottom line, money….., don’t you think? And why do we need in addition a continuing Minnesota Program Development, Inc. person coordinating Four (only) of the “Special Issue Resource Centers?”
The “NCFCJ” is already one of the Four Special Issue Resource Centers. Bolstered by ongoing grants, drawing from fund-pooling enabled by the 1913 passage of a certain amendment to the constitution, resulting in the enforcement arm aka IRS — in a time of economic job losses, the former FVPF is another. Clearly we are moving away from government in local or even county or even state courts, to policy being set in distant places, without public awareness (unless they dedicate their miserable — or joyful — lives to following this stuff) (I wouldn’t say a joyful life would consist of running around after shape-shifting and name-changing governmentally sponsored hybrid organizations to see if you can protect yourself, or offspring, from their next well-intentioned (presumably) plans for — you and your offspring.
Now let’s look at this DUNS 618375687 that just renamed itself “Futures Without Violence” and got a nice new building — 2010 Activity only:
Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions (I copied only 2010, obviously)
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 0 ACF 07-01-2010 618375687 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 2 ACF 12-22-2009 618375687 $ 0 2010 90EV0401 CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 618375687 $ 250,000 2010 ASTWH090016 FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 618375687 $ 1,500,000 2010 CCEWH101001 FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 00 DHHS/OS 09-14-2010 618375687 $ 1,600,000 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812
We can see that it’s drawing from three TYPES of grant series, in the FIRST year (see “year of grant) column: The well known (to me at least) 90EV series, the CCEWH, the ASTWH (though they have similar descriptions, one is labeled FY09, and FY10 gets a new series of labeling.)
FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE IS AN EXPANSION OF PRE-EXISTING FVPF “Special Resource Center”
The sleeper here, a baby by comparison, is Futures Without Violence, at only a $250K bite of the $3.350 million of funding. WATCH OUT (trust me….) this is just seed money:
2010 | 90EV0401 | CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-24-2010 | 618375687 | $250,000 |
“Futures without Violence” is a household move, a rename, and a facelift of the same old concept that constantly training and educating others, or running risk assessments, is somehow going to change a District Attorney’s, a police officer’s or a family law judge’s, or for that matter, a father’s opinion about crimes perpetrated against women & children. It is a continuation of promising (but — delivering???) increased chances of survival and becoming free from abuse, including economic abuse, to distressed women and children, and it also by simply existing, has provoked antagonism from fathers-rights groups who take funding FROM THE SAME DEPARTMENT, HHS!
(searched on USASPENDING.GOV) recognizing that this group draws from both HHS and OVW sources, here a May, 2011 contract from OVW:
Transaction Number # 4
|
Do you think ANY of this is going to build, staff, or support shelters? (I doubt it, but one can always call them and ask, I suppose…)
In public, – they pretend to be the squabbling couple — DV vs. FR. But in practice, they get along quite fine, and know what to do with the respective federal grant streams, wouldn’t you say? The real gap is Practitioners and Hotshots versus the Practiced Upon (which justify funds for “servicing” them).
Futures without violence is a cooperative agreement with the Family and Youth Services Bureau. I suggest writing your local legislator and asking what the point is; the US is already the world’s largest per capita jailor, and its jails are clearly racists, judging by who’s in them, compared to what % of the population a certain minority is in the UA. These overcrowded jails are possibly a product of one of the worst public educational systems in the “developed” industrial world, and that’s not because of how much money is spent on it, either.
Click on these funds, and notice some detail. You’ll find, typically over $1 million of “discretionary” expenditures:
”
ward Number: | CCEWH101001 |
Award Title: | FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM |
OPDIV: | DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DHHS/OS) |
Organization: | OFFICE ON WOMEN’S HEALTH (ASH/OWH) |
Award Class: | DISCRETIONARY |
Obviously, the real money is in Technical Assistance and Training /// Education. The sky’s the limit. It’s “discretionary.” Relocate. Revamp the website — or start a new one. Hire staff. Get topnotch, hotshot boards of directors in some of the cities known for the highest homicide rates around and whose urban areas still have all kinds of domestic violence homicides/familicide, and wipeouts (while the conferences continue) and no one reports much at all on the family law system’s role in this, or child support’s. Talk about the problems created by a crumbling infrastructure, while building your web – and conference-based own. Become a trainer! Until the country finishes going bankrupt, or getting bought up by overseas interests — and becoming a defunct through mismanagement nation — you can have a real, paying job and go purchase food, housing, rent, transportation and a college education for your kids.
I SEARCHED THE FVPF “Futures without Violence” DUNS # on “USASPENDING.GOV” (for what it’s worth) and under “Advanced Search,” scrolled down (ignoring basically ALL the categories) to put it in under “Parent DUNS Number : 618375687*.” Found 15 contracts, some performed (per the map) in Georgia?
FVPF draws from a variety of sources: HHS is not the top source. Totals that this (2011, today) search drew show:
Filters:
- Search Term: “Family Violenc.. (FVPF)
- Total Dollars:$38,512,886
- Number of Transactions:89
Top 5 Contracting Agencies
1. Office of Justice Programs $21,134,457 (55%) 2. Immediate Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services $11,207,290 (29%) 3. Administration for Children and Families $5,500,562 (14%) 4. Health Resources and Services Administration $272,394 (1%) 5. Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code) $218,997
Here is a “timeline” chart reflecting funding (this also, I believe, includes contracts to FVPF, not just grants). The interactive database allows a Map, Timeline ,and Advanced search options. The “TIMELINE” bar chart shows clearly that the year 2005 (Reauthorization of VAWA) showed a huge jump in number (it was 22) of awards (grant or contract) for FVPF, but the highest total amount of awards, year to date was 2009, when they got $7.825 million of awards I’m sure this would allow expanded infrastructure capacity. The question is — what are they doing with it? Does training really induce honesty, accountability, or greater ethics?
Or does it breed — more & more training entitites with increasingly global aspirations? And as so many US jobs are being outsourced, and US land being bought up by foreign entities, perhaps we should ask some of them — how about some Arab countries for starters — to start contributing to the public monies supporting VAWA-style sensitivity and arrest accountability trainings, even though “endabuse.org — excuse me “futureswithoutviolence.org originally called itself the”Family” Violence Prevention Fund. Looking at these charts, I feel that the operative word is the last word, “FUND.”
(SEE THE PATTERN YET?)
The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence. The Duluth model was developed by Minnesota Program Development, Inc., a nonprofit agency in Duluth, Minnesota. The program was mostly founded by social activist Ellen Pence. The Duluth Model is featured in the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America.
Origin and theory
The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project was the first multi-disciplinary program designed to address the issue of domestic violence. This experimental program, conducted in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981, coordinated the actions of a variety of agencies dealing with domestic conflict. The program has become a model for programs in other jurisdictions seeking to deal more effectively with domestic violence.
MPDI, as I search it on “USASPENDING.GOV” shows itself not to be as big a “player” as FVPF although it’s been around as long. See?
- Total Dollars:$27,989,388
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 41
If you do this search (and you should), and sort by date, or dollar — it’ll show that on the JUSTICE side, the grants are category 16.526, Office of Violence Against Women Technical Assistance Initiative, or “16.588, VAW Formula Grants (Technical Assistance Program), or 16.589, (etc.)
16.588 : Violence Against Women Formula Grants | |
Description: |
FY 03 OFFICE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
|
Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs | |
CFDA Program : | 16.589 : Rural Domestic Violence Dating Violence Sexual Assault and Stalking Assistance Program |
CFDA Program : | 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants |
- Total Dollars:$57,032
- Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
Organizational Type Number of Employees 80 Annual Revenue $3,710,570
Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?
Is it a shelter, battered women’s or homeless? Hell, no:
Domestic Shelter | N: Other than Domestic Shelter |
---|
In the entire list, the only category MPDI checked “Y” on is “nonprofit.” And its revenue exceeds $3.750 million (that’s per year) and it employed 80 people (do the math, subtract expenses and operating revenue). Go figure . . . . ..
It trains everyone in authority how to change the world so that shelters become obsolescent and to save others. It’s a multiple, cross-disciplined collaborative model of how to do this, it sets up and supervises (I guess) special- issue (see above populations for a sample) resource center builder, paid for by all of the above who are still working.
(The product in the particular 2006 one I just quoted from reads:Product or Service Information (Award) (Contract was for $22,800and place of performance, Duluth, Purchaser, Dept. of Homeland Security — so I’m guessing they flew some people up to Duluth to get trained….)
Major Product or Service Code | 69: Training aids and devices |
---|---|
Product or Service Code | 6910: Training Aids |
Contract Description | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VIDEO |
---|
Charities that provide few services. In other cases, nonprofit organizations may solicit donations for a charitable purpose, when little of the donated funds are actually used for that purpose. People may be asked to give money, donate their car, or purchase a product from an organization that promises to help support worthwhile causes. Upon closer review, however, most of the funds may actually be used to pay for high fundraising costs or executive compensation. These organizations may be nonprofits with tax-exempt status. This means that donors must take time to research all unfamiliar organizations before donating to find out how much of your money is actually going to worthwhile programs.
Follow these tips to be sure your money is spent as you intended:
- Is the organization registered with the State? Charities must register with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office before they may solicit donations in Minnesota if they have raised or expect to raise more than $25,000 or have paid staff. Before you give money, research whether the organization is registered by visiting the Attorney General’s website at www.ag.state.mn.us or calling (651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787. It should be a big red flag if an organization calls you for a donation and is not registered with the Attorney General’s Office.
- How does the organization spend money? Take time to research how the organization has spent money in the past. Charities that are registered with the State must file an annual financial statement showing how much money they have raised and how they have spent it. The financial statement is called a Form 990. You may obtain copies of the Form 990 from the Attorney General’s Office. You may also obtain from the office copies of contracts between charities and their professional fund-raisers so you can determine what percentage of your donation is going to charity.
- Is the organization tax-exempt? Find out if the organization has been granted tax-exempt status by calling the IRS tax-exempt hotline at 1-877-829-5500 or searching Publication 78 on its website atwww.irs.gov. It should be a red flag if an organization asks you for a donation for a supposed charitable purpose but does not have tax-exempt status from the IRS. and:
- Don’t be pressured by emotional appeals. Take time to do your homework before you give. Some disreputable organizations may pressure you to give money immediately, in some cases making you feel like you are letting down a good cause if you don’t. Don’t be pressured— any reputable charity will appreciate your donation just as much if you take the time to research the donation first.
NOTE: It has come to our attention that some of the information on this site may be compromised. We have removed the information in question while we look into the matter.
Cumulative List of 501(c)(3) Organizations, IRS Publication 78
Find a searchable listing of 501(c) (3) charitable organizations, or download the complete Publication 78 in compressed text format, or an expanded version of Publication 78 with EINs ** in compressed text format, or view the Documentation of the Publication 78 file.
(**I’m downloading this one — it’s going to come in handy)
Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.
(YEAH, OK, we get it. Changing the world. And who isn’t??)
Supervised Visitation & Safe ExchangeBeginning in 2002, Praxis worked in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women to provide technical assistance to the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Demonstration Initiative, and to provide training and technical assistance to grantees in the Supervised Visitation Program. While this project ended as of April 1, 2010, we continue to support visitation programs and their community partners via the resources developed during that partnership and found on these pages.
Background
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT | 202 W 2ND ST, DULUTH, MN | ![]() |
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Also Traded as DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT, THE |
202 E SUPERIOR ST, DULUTH, MN |



Duluth Family Visitation Center
A safe place for children and parents. Our mission is to provide a place that is safe and free from violence where children can build and maintain positive relationships with the parents **Visitation Center
202 East Superior Streeet
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781 Ext. 204
www.TheDuluthModel.org
Effective Practice Description The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) began in 1980 as the first project of its kind to coordinate every criminal justice agency in one city in an effort to deliver justice for battered women. This project served as a model nationally and internationally. The DAIP collaborates with the area shelter for battered women to provide advocacy for battered women while they work through the legal system.
Results / Accomplishments Due to DAIP’s success, in 1991 the Minnesota Legislature mandated that each of the 38 Legislative Assignment Districts establish an intervention project coordinated by a battered women’s advocacy group. As of 1997, there were 44 intervention projects in Minnesota.
The Executive Director of this organization, “Linda Riddle” fled an abusive marriage in 1987 and is very active in homeless coalitions, and much more. Speaker Bio:
Linda Riddle brings more than 20 years of involvement in the battered women’s movement to the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. First, as a battered mother with small children, a woman who received helping services – she became an active board member of the Women’s Resource Center of Winona, MN in 1987, and then became the executive director of Houston County Women’s Resources (HCWR) – a position she held from 1992 through 2006. At HCWR she developed and implemented progressive new programming in her rural community, including both resident and scattered site transitional housing for homeless victims of violence and a flexible supervised visitation and exchange program. Ms. Riddle has a deep love for political and social action, and works through the MN Coalition for Battered Women and the MN Coalition for the Homeless to help shape legislation and funding for Minnesota organizations and the people they serve. Now beginning a fourth year in Duluth as the executive director of DAIP, Ms. Riddle is moving the Duluth Model forward into a new era of social change to end violence against women and children.
Social change is fine. But $29 MILLION of funding over a period of years is a lot, with over $30 million from the “ENDABUSE” new group in its new location (and website facelift, “Futures without Violence” (still one of the “Special Issue Resource Centers.”
Meanwhile, I could show you a very small organization (staff, 7 people) with probably just as modest a physical presence, in Denver, that has (parallel to this) helped totally transform the family law and child support system. Its location is HERE, just 2 miles (or a 10 minute drive) away from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Don’t tell me these groups don’t know about each other… in a MidWestern town with clean streets and a bit of office space (plus internet, plus political connections) it is indeed possible to change the world.
Now, we need more “justice centers”? ?? At what point does a person get to say STOP? Where’s the justice, and why hasn’t domestic violence — or family violence — stopped by now, with all that intervention going on? Are we chasing the virtual Holy Grail here, or what?
(Sorry about the laborious length of this post, which started when I saw several DAIP-type programs at a Family Justice Center ALLIANCE Conference in San Diego.)
While “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” is not of the size and funding of “MDRC” — I feel it’s in the same business, with slightly different staffing and origins. It is in the Development of PROGRAMS based on personal visions of the founders — and being spread with Technical Assistance and capacity building public funded help like a fast growing tree nurtured by the IRS and the dual prongs of HHS and DOJ (all EXECUTIVE BRANCH of USA) grants.
Kind of reminds me of the transplant of Eucalyptus Trees to California. Starting to crowd out the native vegetation and now an accepted part of the landscape, even though they don’t produce the lumber behind the original idea.
I understand that people want to respond to PROBLEMS and then start and continue PROGRAMS to solve them. But now the PROLIFERATION OF PROGRAMS has really become a major PROBLEM itself. These programs have tremendous leverage because of their existing structures, and relationships. Too much of the public remains clueless that half of them even exist.
And — people “served” doesn’t mean people — or even lives! — “saved.” Nor do judges (etc.) trained necessarily increase judicial ethics or “domestic violence awareness.” I see the grants, I see the people, I see the programs described, and you can’t beat those website — but where is the data that any of this is actually helping?
Instead, the Supervised Visitation Network is being used AGAINST the mothers and children it supposedly is to protect.
How Much Mileage Can DV Advocates get out of the press on San Francisco’s Ross Mirkarimi/Eliana Lopez case?
with one comment
This has been headline news for how long? It definitely brings up mixed feelings on my part — knowing how many women are receiving far more severe battery, false imprisonment, endangering children and intimidating witnesses throughout the Bay Area, and have been for years — many years. While each time there is some press, someone from one of the organizations gets quoted.
March 31, 2012, last Saturday, Section “C,”* an article laid out at top of the page, full width, and by Columnist C.W. Nevius), reads:
(*Bay Area section of the SF Chronicle)
**not sure this is the same “Myrna Melgar, just included the LinkedIn profile which shows her professional/civic leadership in the area. It probably is)
This is the Bay Guardian article, and it seems well written enough. I’m glad someone filled in a few of these details, including a factor that until 5 Mr. Mirkarimi was raised in a bi-cultural family (Russian Jewish mother/ Iranian Muslim father), and then was separated from his father. There seems to be a sense of father-absence here:
(The bulk of my post is addressing topics raised in this article, particularly a certain reference to a Canadian sociologist for insight into this Californian incident).
Whirlwind romance, charmer? Another article (reporting on this one) adds:
Heather Knight Thursday, March 29, 2012
(He got his girlfriend knocked up in the course of leisure? or business? Not mentioned — were they married at the time?
(Michael Macor/The Chronicle)
Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, speaks to the news media about the three misdemeanor charges against her husband, on Friday Jan. 13, 2012, in San Francisco, Ca
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/28/BAS31NRKL3.DTL#ixzz1qv1dHpDm
Bay Guardian Op-Ed, cont’d.:
Now, about prosecuting the low-level domestic violence against the wife’s wishes:
I don’t know Ms. Melgar’s life story (or whether she’s currently married — sounds like not). However, there are TWO ways the District Attorney’s Office can disempower women — if this is correct, prosecuting against the woman’s wishes when it’s supposedly a “minor” event. Or (and this was my situation and MANY other women’s) NOT prosecuting them despite severe domestic violence, when prosecuting them might save a life, or save ongoing destruction of life. See
And in this politically charged event — MADE TO ORDER for anyone who didn’t want Mirkarimi’s Progressive Politics disrupting the city (notice — nothing to do with domestic violence in that phrase) — because the events had some validity.
INTERJECTION — information from Purpleberets.org — and the topic is well-covered at the Sonoma County (Northern CA, not too far from SF) “Women’s Justice Center.” This is talking about much, MUCH more severe cases where DA refused to prosecute. (And if you know my blog, the case underlying it — and which eventually led to my blogging habit — was when district attorneys in TWO Counties refused to stop a child-stealing in action, or to prosecute it — ever. The general practice over a number of years (by law enforcement, specifically — I’m talking police in a number of cities, county sheriffs in more than one, and the district attorney’s office. As it turns out later, the person in charge of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (a hybrid creation by DA’s office and others modeled on San Diego’s one which came out of the City Attorneys’ Office — I’ve blogged this plenty elsewhere), Ms. Nadia Lockyer, then went on to win the position of County Supervisor (with help of a $1 million campaign funding and very, very, very well connected spouse 30 years her senior) — had a substance abuse problem, started an affair with someone (closer to her age) she met in rehab — himself getting off ‘meth’ — and had an incident requiring 911 assistance in a Newark (California) motel early a.m. This is the Bay Area leadership . . . . . it’s typically about politics and careers — and NOT about preventing violence against women and services to them. In the larger scope.
So, re: the immense power of the District Attorney’s Office: Written, I believe, around the year 2000:
California Passes Tough New Domestic Violence Laws — by Maria DeSantis, director Women’s Justice Center
Back to Myrna Melgar’s article, minimizing the incident:
It seems Myrna is oblivious to the fact that, through the family court, if Eliana did decide (later) to go to Venezuela without her husband’s assent, he could — in a moment, and don’t think such a person is unaware of this — charge her (or find someone to charge her) with parental kidnapping, put an arrest warrant out for her, and in the meantime get practically ANY family law judge in San Francisco — unless they had a personal grudge or other political reason to not do this — to switch sole custody to him, demand some sort or extradition, and/or have her thrown in jail if she came back to work things out. And don’t think that this isn’t a possibility. Maybe they would’ve worked it out — or maybe not. But one thing’s for sure — I read a LOT of material put out by domestic violence groups, and have networked with hundreds, literally, of mothers over the years, and most of them were completely ambushed by the concept that appealing to domestic violence laws to protect themselves and kids, even if they were IN a battered womens’ shelter — was no shield at all for later transfer of their children to their abusers. This is literally a third line of advocacy, now — “protective parents.” So, while it did not NOW rise to that abusive level, it certainly could’ve later.
In contradiction to the concept of “no-fault” divorce law…
**Jargon translation: wife-beating is no reason to restrict a child who witnessed this having access to their biological father. Let us do supervised visitation, etc. — hence (in the US) HHS “Access/Visitation” funding, with help from the (also international) Children’s Rights Council, which developed the term “access” to replace the term “visitation.” This model will be ADMINSTRATIVELY or PRACTICALLY begun (or has been already) and then other highly placed individuals (state by state in the US) will suggest — hey, why not make it a law? (Example: PA: Commission on Justice Initiatives: Changing the Culture of Custody).
PRAXIS means “practices.” Who is practiced upon? (Sorry, this wasn’t brought before our voters — except it went through the US Reps House Appropriations Committee, I guess. . . ..
Not before endorsing and propagating a system of educational institutions — taking public funding — based on social theory, and which have attracted a host of inappropriate misappropriations of public employees times, and which set up a built-in HIERARCHY — the exact OPPOSITE of what women, particularly mothers, leaving abuse need. This hierarchy is a lose/lose situation for any person imagining he/she has enforceable, legal rights in the USA — as an INDIVIDUAL. It sets up the hierarchy of the TEACHERS (for hire // mercenaries) versus the “TAUGHT.”
The social science THEORY that one can educate or train men out of violence is just taht — a theory. It is also contrary to the american (USA) form of government, which is to expect people to keep an identifiable law, and maintain a fair process of assigning punishments for those who choose not to. This means all people can be informed of WHAT their laws are — and leaves no room for speculations on the social impact of father-absence, single-parenthood, or even violence against women — and then millions of $$ which the public (and private interests) fund to tinker with the demonstration projects each time they get it wrong.
Back to the C.W.Nevius article (top of post), which continues:
FYI, I do not live in San Francisco (some may wonder), but have lived in the area for over two decades, and worked frequently in the city and in surrounding counties — both during and after my “domestic violence” marriage. I notice that whenver there’s a high-profile event, here is this SF DVConsortium and Beverly Upton being consulted for help. I never got any help from them, nor did I get ANY help from the Family Violence Prevention Fund, although, they do throw a great conference, and how validating to know that domestic violence is a health risk (like, I didn’t know that?). It did NOTHING to address the ongoing violence enabled by the family law system to any and all mothers who, after doing the right thing, but having for some reasons, very persistent Exes — are thereafter psychologically, economically, legally and in other ways tortured (if not extorted) — in the custody realm.
This group apparently could care less, so long as they get their funds and keep up the reputation for protecting women from violence – without addressing the land mines ahead of them. SEE MY BLOG! no one gave me a federal fund to publicize this, and apparently the more other groups immunize themselves from DV rhetoric, the better it is for BOTH pro and con grantseekers. So, here — for a quick update — this “Consortium” consorts in getting public grants to continue their agenda. I gather this is a progressive agenda because it’s under the umbrella of the (very large) TIDES Foundation, which also sponsored the nonprofit “Stop Family Violence” — which appears (best I can tell) to consist of a website, and one or two professionals who got to fly around to conferences nationwide (Irene Weiser, i forget who the other person was) and now is perhaps inactive, although the website is still up there.
Members of this agency
Obviously this is important work — HOWEVER — notice the collective grants-obtaining clout they have? That must be HOW there has been such coordinated and collective silence on the fathers’ rights grants and movement I report, and so have other UNsponsored INDIVIDUALS. Do they teach women about to file a kickout order about the upcoming Access/Visitation grants (in place, $10 million a year since 1996), how the Federal Incentives to the Child SUpport Enforcement system include running demonstration grants on how to increase noncustodial (father) time with the children, and how if they go on welfare, they are quite likely to be ex-parte consolidated into a divorce action, and thrown to the family court wolves, whose funding is MUCH larger?
NO — not last I heard.
Do they say anything about the organization AFCC, which practically runs the local Family Courts, let alone the Family Court Facilitators’ offices where people NOT as well-off financially (probably) than Ms. Lopez will end up seeking remedies? AFCC publishes most of the brochures available there — and (I checked in recent years) the coverage of domestic violence issues is highly diminished. So, what does that say about women’s right to know and make an INFormeD decision about whether to confront their batterer (sometimes with a civil protective order — not even mentioned in these dialogues), or call the police and hope a criminal one is instated?
LASTLY (and that’s enough for today!), I wanted to also show the Mayor Ed Lee catering to the FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE organization, which currently owns prime real estate (or owns the organization that owns the real estate) in the SF Praesidio. Futures without Violence, indeed. The antidote to tyranny in our country (whether by domestic individuals within their family walls, or outside them by public officials) is a balance of powers between (1) the government and (2) the people, and fair enforcement of crimes against the state which jeopardize the safety of the public — which domestic violence DOES, and there’s plenty of evidence in the form of innocent bystanders shot, businesses disrupted, as well as responding police officers. We live in one of the more violent countries in the world, in many levels, and despite decades of advocacy by DV groups, their inherent demand for public funds to “coordinate services” and educate — the world, essentially — they are not open to criticism from the street level about this agenda.
TOO BAD – it’s here, it’s coming and I’m not going to stop, if I can help, this outrage. I have one-third of my adult life thrown down this rabbit hole ,and the concept of betrayal is absolutely high. MSM is owned, and is never going to tell the whole story. More bloggers are needed — bloggers that cite their sources where possible, and make sure that this situation is no longer covered up, or specially framed when it comes time to renew the funding for the VAWA act and the counterintuitive simultaneous funding of the next round of fatherhood/marriage etc. grants. No wonder this keeps going on, perhaps — our society is so stressed and compartmentalized, and has been already pre-trained to have their income taxes garnished, so garnishing wages for child support is a short step away. No privacy, no safety, and no justice. Just more debt!
My parting shot, I think: The Mayor that wants Mirkarimi out references Futures without Violence. Label this: “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours!”
Ed Lee addresses domestic violence conference
Rachel Gordon
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qux42sTZ
(STATE CHARITABLE RETURN FOR 2009) FORM RRF-I INFORMATION REGARDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING STATEMENT 14 ART B, LINE 6
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
April 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids
Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Alameda County Family Justice Center, Child Support, custody, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Esta Soler, family law, fatherhood, Feminists, Futures Without Violence (FVPF) 2010 return $11mil revenues $36mil assets rejected-Sched B omits names&addresses of contributors, FVPF becomes Futures without Violence, Intimate partner violence, Laureen Snider (Toronto), men's rights, Myrna Melgar, Nicholas Bala (Toronto), Nonprofits investing in Real Estate, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..