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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘FVPSA (1984ff) and what it funds

Understand Statewide “CADV” Funding (CFDAs 93591, 93592, 93671, and 93136 grants to Statewide Orgs) But Also Check Out “Family and Community Violence Prevention” (93910) in all its Male/Minority-focused Wealth — Over $99M to One Recipient under ONE Principal Investigator, Spanning 10 years — and Glory.

leave a comment »

That title, again, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-62M”:

Understand Statewide “CADV” Funding (CFDAs 93591, 93592, 93671, and 93136 grants to Statewide Orgs) But Also Check Out “Family and Community Violence Prevention” (93910) in all its Male/Minority-focused Wealth — Over $99M to One Recipient under ONE Principal Investigator, Spanning 10 years — and Glory   This post reviews them, and who’s been getting them.

(First published @ about 10,500 words March 6, 2017, ca. 7:30pm;

4 several images and some text making it 11,300 12,000 words added the next day)

What program offices (respectively) over at HHS these come through also gets interesting….

POST NAVIGATION: My “Title Disclaimer” (fine-print, white-background, maroon-bordered) section, with several “divisions” within it, may help the rest of the post go smoother by defining some terms.  In that section I’m also “CMA,” Covering My [Posterior], for calling several different CFDA’s “CADV” funding in case of readers who would be glad to find any nit they can pick (errors) in this presentation which overall does not give the network a  passing grade of A, B or even C in terms of the stated program purposes.  (Only one of those CFDAs specifies “statewide coalition against domestic violence” [CADV] or very similar phrase matching ONE of the several categories regarding “family violence, domestic violence and dating violence” specified under the authorizing legislation. The CFDA#s mirror the authorizing legislation (by section) language).

[That section is below the first set of images]

In terms of what the macro-system (interaction between policy-setters, public law, existing organizations, funding, HHS officials receiving or rejecting grant applicants and distributing the financial aid to the same, all the subcontractors which may be engaged at any point to operate or evaluate or disseminate “best practices” and so forth) seems to have been designed to do (that is, to control the victims, dominate the field, and set up some, support other existing related professions* through jockeying for position to legislate, authorize, appropriate, spend (including to staff, train, consult, technically advise and coordinate within systems and across systems — at the professional level) who gets the most funding** and systematically, year after year after yearwithhold from the victims AND the public strategically important information about the field, leaving the public to “figure it out” if they dare (or not figure it out) — the overall situation passes with flying colors.  BUT — those would be two different agendas:  One, appearances (for political positives) and Two, the functional reality at the receiving end, individual parents, citizens, and litigants. (** I decided to add images for “*” so the second comment to this paragraph, the “**”, is considerably below, after those images.)

*Examples of set-up (or at least established/expanded via the grants) professions:  domestic violence advocates; batterers intervention providers, supervised visitation providers (although some of this existed previously to DV becoming a household term, under different auspices — child welfare, dependency situations, I think), and technical assistance providers and trainers re: the same.  People working long enough in those fields (including some with pre-existing or acquired-since degrees — Ph.D., Psy.D., LCSW, Ed.D. and of course J.D. ) if persistent and successful in the career path, will be also publishing in professional journals (including some that may set up FOR the created professions) or books, or working for universities in the capacity of experts on the created professions.  One publication that came to my attention writing this post from the DV advocate field is published by “West®” West® used to be owned by Thomson-Reuters, but no longer is, as of somewhere around 2008-2009 (I DNR exact details, but was looking into this a month or so ago).  Here’s one (national publication) example only; however three images regarding it (#3 is re: its editor Andrew R. Klein Ph.D. and his work with a career-path DV advocate/attorney/author/trainer etc., Barbara J. Hart)

<==NBDVP_flyer showing AndrewRKlein (AHP) edits the monthly journal, and BJHart contributes monthly. WEST® publishes (Subscriptn – $444 annually) (This is separate, but most links to read full-sized annotated images, or images, in this post will be found as a link in their captions UNDER the related image).

Thomson Reuters “The ANSWER COMPANY” self-description showing its Westlaw® system, “Legal Solutions|USA” and a bit of its size and international scope. Being published here is both prestigious and (for those who want access) often expensive. How would battered women with minor children (or men!!) have access to such bulletins, and at what point are/were we ever informed of them at the local levels?


Nat’l Bulletin on Domestic Violence PREVENTION flyer (annotated).. The annotations express some of my concerns, and I admit have a sarcastic tone. I do, however, have some awareness (experience and investigation both, as well as through networking with others, their experiences also, over MANY years).

CLICK TO READ. I looked up an entity affiliated with someone who’d published with Barbara J. Hart, J.D. (from the USouthern Maine bio profile). The career paths of DV Advocates (especially those who got in on this earlier: 1970s, 1980s and helped create the field, literally) is diverging more and more from the survivors. Currently, I know women who have become homeless, thrown out of their homes by the court, bankrupted and their assets poured into court-connected “therapeutic jurisprudence” activities — including but not limited to supervised visitation. Some have been jailed over family court matters regarding not only their own, but (see Grazzini-Rucki case in Twin-Cities area, Minnesota) even others’ children, and then more court- or probation-connected programs and fees loaded onto them, as well as their future income jeopardized through the record and (I learned recently) programs insisting they pay for their own incarceration, pay for reunification services for OTHERs’ children (with their father, not mother) and so forth… I will post more on this soon (half-written posts abound on this blog)…

This is simply part of a 1986 articles of incorporation filing for the short for-profit corporation in Sudbury MA called “Advocates for Human Potential, Inc.” which contracts heavily (and has a GSA/”MOBIS” arrangement to do so) federal, state, and probably local government entities. It is privately run, was started with only $3,000 of stock (300K shares at $0.01 each) and currently is still privately controlled with only 15,000 shares (of which 10 are outstanding). Only 3 officers (all men) are listed at the Commonwealth of Mass. Business Search database, which of course, I checked for this image. Obviously they set the entity up to get those contracts…

** “funding” 42 U.S. Code Chapter 110 – FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES (this version current through 2010 and referring to years 2011-2015.  I believe it’s the most recent, but see disclaimers on that site, or check elsewhere for a more current version.  I did not find any for 2016…)

All of this is a lot of information to process!  I’ve split the topic into different posts, and it’s still a lot even after all my years of processing this type of information, to narrate and show. I’ll do my best!  One thing that this post may seem to emphasize (and it seems to be true) — the statewide domestic violence coalitions (“CADVs”) are NOT at the top of the heap even of the funds authorized under FVPSA — and those are not the only “Family Violence and Injury Prevention” funds around either.

 

Title Disclaimer:  In this white-background, maroon-bordered section “Title Disclaimer” I’m explaining and referencing some terms, organizations and situations, some of which are not covered in this post, but which have been (extensively) in this blog.  If I included all the links, I’d never get THIS post published. So this section is “take it on faith” (or keep reading for where I have linked, etc.)  Where something’s an unfamiliar acronym, or concept, feel free to search it on this blog, search it on the Internet yourself, put it on the back burner for later, and keep reading (!!), or whatever else you wish.

Read the rest of this entry »

Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.

leave a comment »

ABOVE: New, Improved HHS Grants Database “TAGGS” image accompanying the label “DECISIONMAKING.” (?!!). I understand the trend towards “actuarial-based data-analytics” justifying (or, replacing personal accountability for) human decision-making, but it’s still weird… See also (on this blog or separately) NCCD (Oakland, CA nonprofit) and its’ various trademarked decision-making software for use in public institutions worldwide….

Much of my reporting on this blog comes from tracking HHS grants and grantees via http://TAGGS.HHS.gov.  After all, Marriage/Fatherhood funding (<== almost one billion dollars?) through HHS grants was $150M in theory — annually — since 1996.   So, that database just got a “facelift” and this image characterizes the “new, improved” ==>

“Since its launch in 1995, TAGGS has supported 
Federal financial transparency initiatives by providing 
reliable  and consistent grant award data to the public.”


KEY ASSERTION:

Evidence is practically slapping us in the face that the domestic violence field, while organizations named after stopping or being against domestic violence still involve plenty of women and what may looks like some truly feminist ones, has still been co-opted by, in fact, groups favorable to fathers’ and mens’ rights & programming FIRST, and “if we can get some safety added on to it — through technical assistance and training the judges, law enforcement, professionals– =so much the better for the PR,” despite all the rhetoric, as an afterthought.

POST SUMMARY & “GUIDE to CONTENTS”

This post is over 16,000 words, a “two-for-one.”  I decided to keep the dense-verbiage section near the top because of relevance, even though it moved the more colorful, visually fun and “higher curb appeal” logos of various organizations (see sampler here) lower down on the post.

 


 

 

 

I also, regrettably, felt it necessary to separate a discussion of key responsible fatherhood timeline events which anyone concerned about domestic violence ought to, by now, know by heart — but I doubt most do.


RE:  “SHOW and TELL.”  I tell first, but then near top of the post, show a certain California judge promoting Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils, plus some background on the Administrative Office of the Courts and its timing to increasing federal involvement in state-level family court jurisdiction and subject matter … THROUGH the Child Support sector (access & visitation public laws) of the 1980s and 1990s.

Further down, after showing more of the DV Networks (colorful logos of key some key groups, echoes a recent post on them) and another on “Strong Field Project” representing one health-foundation-funded Statewide DV network..and some of the PRIVATE-sector DV Industry collaborations (networking).

…you’ll see a logo for the MCBW —

and below that, discussions of the “TREATMENT AGENDA” response to domestic violence, as well as evidence of a Minnesota-based “DV Coordinating Council.” In looking at one of the Supervised Visitation Providers involved (?) with this one, I also noted form the tax returns that they are keeping $290K of assets with a certain “community foundation.”  I couldn’t find that Community Foundation as a separate business, but did run into the larger one it’s under.

It’s a general reminder to  continue to pay attention to COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS as FUNDING POWERHOUSES which attract and can incubate programs without clear awareness by the public of these programs’ funding.

 I also show that one of the key people at MCBW, who is also a lawyer, has strong connections to both the Battered Women’s Justice Project (which is to say, “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, “DAIP” and with this connection, again, a focus on treatment/supervised visitation/trainings, etc.) and AFCC. 

In fact, here’s that quote (but to link to a person’s name, read the post!):

____has served as faculty for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, the Center for Court Innovation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and the Minnesota Judicial Branch.


Same individual, being interviewed as faculty over at the “Center for Court Innovation” shows her BWJP/AFCC value systems — use kids as bait for ordering behavioral modification services for batterers because, after all, the “Coordinated Community Response” (courts + service providers in loco parentis) really, if trained by the right groups (=”us.”), will be wise and powerful enough to protect the children and persuade the children — and the primary care-taking parent attempting to limit the influence of abusive role models on growing children s/he is supposed to raise into upstanding citizens and participants in a law-abiding society — into accepting what’s best for themselves (link provided lower in the post):

[MCBW Interviewee]: Some judges, some court practitioners do see that perpetrators will be motivated by their kids, and access to their kids. So family court judges and family courts have this opportunity, and the proper motivation, to get perpetrators into services and into programs, to keep an eye on that perpetrator—to be like a mentor, to be a coach, to be a motivator to keep that perpetrator from using coercive and controlling violence, and they can order graduated visitation, graduated parenting time.

[CCI Interviewer]:  So the judges can use this leverage—access to the children, basically: “You can get thus and such visitation under these conditions if you receive these services, if you engage in this particular program?”

Kids as Bait for Violent (the focus being on primarily male) Offenders. What a “great” idea for kids and the nonviolent parent too. Great or not, it’s an idea that the DV Cartel has “bred into” the response to domestic violence.

[MCBW Interviewee]Yes, and it’s not only that it is an effective motivator for change, but its also completely logically tied to what is best for the children. We do want children to be able to have healthy relationships with both parents and it’s in the children’s best interest if we are able to figure out how to work with the perpetrator over time and help them develop their [[“his or her”] parenting capacity.

The steady money, moral “prestige,” and social/professional connections in the “working with the perps” fields, not to mention the conference circuits, must just be coincidental.


Finally, or close to finally, I show the MCBW discussion at a New York-based influential organization, “Center for Court Innovation,” how highly she values batterers intervention and co-parenting (despite the presence of domestic violence individual families) as best for all involved.


 I spent a few days attempting to make this one SHORT post of 8,000 words, but some of this information belongs in one place.  Dedicate some reading time, be prepared to bookmark some of the links for future reference, and you will not be disappointed.  Here goes….

What are the footprints, the TELLs

of the coordinated DV Industry Cartel?

TELL:  I use the word “tell” in its poker sense to make my point.  There are many gambling idioms in common speech.  Click here to see some.

I don’t play poker, but in case the term isn’t familiar, check here: Do you know what is more powerful than a poker tell? Understanding the difference between poker tells and behavioral information can have a profound impact on your game.” … [they describe the need for an accurate language to describe the tells]

Let’s define a “poker tell.”

A poker tell is a behavior that is correlated with a specific piece of information. This information can pertain to the quality of a player’s hand, the emotions a player tends to experience during a particular action, or even the coping mechanism a player uses to hide his behavior.

…This is a perfect example of how the way we describe behavior can significantly alter our reads  Without using the proper descriptive language we lose a lot of vital information.

…What we just described is a practical way of expressing tells at the table and is something every single player can do by approaching the identification of tells in a systematic and ordered fashion.

It’s my belief that every single player has a some sort of tell, some tells just take longer than others to identify. Tells can be found in many places on the human body, it’s just a matter of time before you hone in on the right place to look.

Key phrases for this context being “identifying in a systematic and ordered fashion” and “honing in on the right place to look.”  If you are forced into a high-stakes poker match where the outcome is life or death, how well would you focus?   Would you want to “hone in” on indicators of which way the outcome might go?

Meanwhile I am “telling” readers (in the common usage of that word) that there appears to be a “cartel” of corporations and individuals working with and for them, organized around this field to restrict outside participation or confrontation of the protected turf.  I am identifying the turf and the tells that I have become aware of  through long-term exposure (not participation!) as systematically as possible.


 DV:  DV obviously is short for “domestic violence.”

The DV cartel (my term) can be identified by key players and organizations, their networking, and their shared jargon, i.e., “tells.”   I’ll show these three, below:

  • Insisting on the Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence  
  • Coordinating the Community (of professionals, anyhow) Response [“CCR”]
  • Coaching others to form local “Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils* organized at the County level.

*DV Coordinating Councils as a Concept:  Pushed since 1992 by an AFCC/ NCJFCJ well-known Judge: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Domestic_VIolence_Council.pdf  “REDUCING FAMILY VIOLENCE:  THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL” by Judge Leonard P. Edwards (Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 1992). A brief resume shows that in 2002-2003 he was also President of NCJFCJ.   (In fact that resume was posted at NCJFCJ, and gives the link for his fuller one).

RESUME OF JUDGE LEONARD P.EDWARDS (ret)

Judge Leonard Edwards is a retired Superior Court Judge now working as a consultant and teacher. In his work he provides technical assistance to the courts of California and courts across the country, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge. He also served for six years as Judge-in- Residence with the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, a division of the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

The “CFCC” appears to have come into existence around 2000? underneath the AOC.  The AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) is the staff of the Judicial Council.  The AOC came under fire for being over-bloated and many other things. Strategic Evaluation was commissioned and a May 25, 2012 Evaluation Report written.  This lengthy report, also featured in some of my later 2014 posts and some “sticky” ones, gives some of the history of centralization and “moving up” the responsibility for the state’s courts to the state level.  It also describes delegation of functions.

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

An Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

  • READER ALERT:  I’m interrupting the quote from the report to emphasize events of 1984, 1988 and 1997, quoting other sources.  I will continue in the next yellow-highlit box below those quotes.  This is relevant and “deep” information that shows the timing of the A/V increasing activities, which should be laid alongside whether OR NOT the domestic violence agencies saw fit to inform mothers about them.  There’s no question that, overall, the leadership of the key organizations were reasonably aware of the same…BEFORE passage of the 1994 VAWA (!!!)
  • Larger context, about a key AFCC,NCJFCJ (two private 501©3/nonprofit judicial (and for AFCC, other court-connected professionals) membership associations), and AOC/CFCCconnected & (Santa Clara) county judge pushing certain kinds of programming, including but not limited to Domestic (“Family”) Violence Coordinating Councils…  FYI, In California at least now, judges are state, not county, employees…

Also (federal level) in 1984, the “Access and Visitation” program was enacted. As I went looking for a Congressional Research Service report on this, I found it posted at “Fearless Fathers” who’d picked it up on one of my posts — dated 12/5/2009 (!!).  This has a few other links on the topic.  Note — I’d only discovered what happened in 1984, as posted (summarized) in 2000, in the year 2009….

 You want to know why family courts are harassing you to pay child support (whether or not your job situation has changed) – or unreimbursed medical expenses (that your ex-wife asks family court to recover for her while she is not using your health insurance that covers your kids) and does not give the first dam of your visitation rights? Search not any more. That’s all in Carmen D. Solomon-Fears’s report 97-590 this report titled “Child Support Enforcement and Visitation: Should There Be a Federal Connection?” posted in Let’sGetHonestBlog. And this is to cry.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

leave a comment »

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

ABOUT THIS POST

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

and:

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

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


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

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


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

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

leave a comment »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

The “DVRN” – Domestic Violence Resource Network

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

Family Violence Prevention & Services Resource Centers Listen

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

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

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

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

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: